# Snuck/ Sneaked [past tense sneak]



## Alxmrphi

> *sneak *(verb)
> 
> 
> Its origins are shrouded in mystery ... From the beginning, and still in standard British English, the past tense and past participle forms are *sneaked*. Just as mysteriously, in a little more than a century, a new past tense form, *snuck*, has crept and then rushed out of dialectal use in America, first into the areas of use that lexicographers label jocular or uneducated, and more recently, has reached the point where it is a virtual rival of sneaked in many parts of the English-speaking world. *But not in Britain, where it is unmistakably taken to be a jocular or non-standard form.*



After thinking about this for a few mins I can't even remember which one I think is more normal, however, for me "snuck" is certainly not jocular or a non-standard form.

I'm curious as to what other _*BE speakers *_make of this quote and if they agree with it or not.


----------



## The Scrivener

Alex_Murphy said:


> After thinking about this for a few mins I can't even remember which one I think is more normal, however, for me "snuck" is certainly not jocular or a non-standard form.
> 
> I'm curious as to what other _*BE speakers *_make of this quote and if they agree with it or not.


 
I always use "snuck" - well. on the rare occasions when I do use it.  I would say, "He snuck up behind me", not "he sneaked up behind me."

I agree with you that it is not jocular or a non-standard form.


----------



## LouisaB

Hi, Alex,

I agree with the quotation. I certainly wouldn't personally consider 'snuck' as 'standard' BE. To be honest, I don't actually hear it a great deal, except perhaps in the phrase 'it just snuck up on me', which is (I suppose) jocular. 

I'm used to it in AE, of course, especially through television, but I don't think that's what you're asking.

Louisa


----------



## The Scrivener

I found this in Dictionary.com



> Snuck is the only spoken past tense and past participle for many younger and middle-aged persons of all educational levels in the U. S. and Canada. Snuck has occasionally been considered nonstandard, but it is so widely used by professional writers and educated speakers that it can no longer be so regarded.


----------



## Matching Mole

I think "snuck" has sneaked up on some British speakers unawares! It is certainly not BE in origin. As OED says it is chiefly N. American and informal. We have been hearing "snuck" on American TV and movies for a long time, some have started to use it, others including me, certainly have not.

I rarely hear it used in BE and I am of the same opinion as the writer of the article quoted on the OP.

"Dove" as the pp of to dive is a similar one.


----------



## cuchuflete

> _Sneaked_ has long been the regular past tense and past participle of _sneak,_ but today _snuck_ also occurs frequently in Standard English, though it is still sometimes limited in the most Formal Edited English.


The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993.


----------



## curly

I find the reverse to be true, I thought that sneaked was the less natural sounding of the two. That said I'd use either of them without thinking much of it. Although I do wonder if I count as a BE speaker.


----------



## panjandrum

Snuck gets a good mention in
*Dragged & Drug*
- post #12 onwards.

I wonder is there an Irish influence at work here?
Or possibly it's another example of the AE usage arriving first in Ireland.
OED describes snuck as:   chiefly U.S. pa. tense and pple. of SNEAK v.


http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/cross...single=1&sort_type=alpha&xrefword=sneak&ps=v.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

My experience is in line with Louisa's.  Interesting that one or two of the vigorous past forms have emerged in recent decades.  I thought we'd lost more than we'd gained.  For instance Wordsworth in the Prelude says *we clomb* for *we climbed *and Milton uses it in PL.


----------



## Arrius

As a former Londoner I have never heard *snuck* except in films and even then mainly those involving cowboys or hillbillies. If I ever use this form instead of *sneaked,* it is for comic effect. In fact I think that those of the Home Counties, at least, (but not apparently Devonshire) use, "He *crept *up on me" instead possibly because, although correct, _sneaked_ is not a very euphonic word.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Arrius said:


> I think that those of the Home Counties...



Sorry Arrius but I don't know what you mean by "home counties" ?


----------



## The Scrivener

I would hardly call Devonshire one of the home counties, Alex Murphy.  I have always understood them to be the counties close to London, such as Surrey, Essex, Hertfordshire and Hampshire.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah, so that's why I haven't heard of them


----------



## Arrius

Alex_Murphy said:


> Sorry Arrius but I don't know what you mean by "home counties" ?


 
The Home Counties are those English counties contiguous or near to Greater London i.e. Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and, sometimes, Hertfordshire and Sussex.
Ciao, A.
PS to the _Scrivener_. I never said that Devon was a Home County: I could have said instead "but not in Outer Mongolia" ( which obviously isn't one).


----------



## lian.alon22

Would this sentence be correct?

"They snuck carefully to the back of the school."

For some reason "snuck" feels wrong, would "sneaked" be better? I just think that that feels even more awkward! Does anyone have a suggestion?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## NickJunior

lian.alon22 said:


> Would this sentence be correct?
> 
> "They snuck carefully to the back of the school."
> 
> For some reason "snuck" feels wrong, would "sneaked" be better? I just think that that feels even more awkward! Does anyone have a suggestion?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 

Lian, I think the sentence is grammatically correct.  I don't know how it sounds naturally though.  The past tense of sneak can be spelled as "sneaked" or "snuck".  I did check it in the dictionary.

Hope this helps.


----------



## paul_vicmar

I do not have a problem with "snuck", perhaps a little infantile, for kids stories etc. If you do not like it you could use "crept"


----------



## lian.alon22

Oh, I like that, thank you paul! Thanks to everyone else, too.


----------



## ewie

*NEWSFLASH, a day late:* It's official ~ _snuck_ is now Queen's English. Well, maybe not _Queen's_ English as such, but *BBC English*.
Mr.Andrew Harding (correspondent, as British as it's possible to be) reporting on the BBC's _Ten O'Clock News_ last night, 21st July 2008 _[N.B. the BBC are banned from entering Zimbabwe]_:
*We were in Zimbabwe just yesterday ~ we snuck in [blah blah blah]*

I'm pleased to report that Civilization did not collapse when this utterance was (erm) uttered.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Good spot!


----------



## Loob

Ah, but, ewiño, could it not be that said journalist has been spending rather a lot of time with Our American Cousins?

That "just yesterday" seems suspiciously AmE to me....


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Just I as I never use 'dove' as a past participle of dive (I used 'dived'), I never use 'snuck' and always use sneaked.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

ewie said:


> *NEWSFLASH, a day late:* It's official ~ _snuck_ is now Queen's English. Well, maybe not _Queen's_ English as such, but *BBC English*.
> Mr.Andrew Harding (correspondent, as British as it's possible to be) reporting on the BBC's _Ten O'Clock News_ last night, 22nd July 2008 _[N.B. the BBC are banned from entering Zimbabwe]_:
> *We were in Zimbabwe just yesterday ~ we snuck in [blah blah blah]*
> 
> I'm pleased to report that Civilization did not collapse when this utterance was (erm) uttered.



Official? Nothing like mate 

With respect, that may prove that Mr Harding lapses into using 'snuck' - but it in no way indicates that it is _sanctioned_ "BBC English".

The BBC used to have an entire department dedicated to advising/instructing all its reporters, journalists and broadcasters (TV & radio) on the correct pronunciations of words from all over the world (not just English); alas the department no longer exists; as Mr Harding's slip would indicate.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Loob said:


> Ah, but, ewiño, could it not be that said journalist has been spending rather a lot of time with Our American Cousins?
> 
> That "just yesterday" seems suspiciously AmE to me....


 
Do you really think so, I think it sounds normal, by the way what is your view on the "sneaked/snuck" issue Loob?


----------



## branchsnapper

A journalist talking about his escapades is not at his most formal. I think most (not all) British speakers would avoid it in formal written English. (I'm East Anglian).


----------



## gasman

I only remember "snuck" as a term used by very small children, who would be repeatedly told it was a non-word.


----------



## Loob

Alex_Murphy said:


> Do you really think so, I think it sounds normal, by the way what is your view on the "sneaked/snuck" issue Loob?


_Moi personnellement, _I think snuck is not yet BrE.

Give us another 5 years, and we'll be corrupted converted.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hmm, I think it sounds fine, maybe it's just cos I've grown up with it (since it is apparently new) and I haven't known it to just appear and sound a bit odd.


----------



## estefanos

I just stumbled upon this interesting thread.  I realize it's focus is BE usage, but feel compelled to respond to this comment:



Matching Mole said:


> As OED says it is chiefly N. American and informal...."Dove" as the pp of to dive is a similar one.



_Snuck_ and _dove_ may well be AE, but I think it's a stretch to say they're informal.   From an AE perspective, I think the dictionary.com quote (post #4) has it right.  _Sneak_, and _dive_, are considered irregular verbs in AE, and are taught as such in schools.  Hardly informal.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Are we sure that "snuck" is AE though?


----------



## estefanos

It's the normal AE usage, but I don't know anything about it's origin.  The question never before occurred to me.  I surely didn't mean to imply that it's exclusively AE; I simply don't know.


----------



## MarcB

I just want to add that sneaked is a regional AE usage and snuck is the majority usage.


----------



## branchsnapper

Which region?


----------



## ewie

I wasn't saying _[in post #15]_ that this word had received the 'official sanction' of the BBC ~ that we'll never more hear _sneaked_ from their mouths.

*BUT.*

_This was not a live piece-to-camera: it was a pre-recorded report with voice-over.  Someone at BBC news had (presumably) already seen it and allowed the usage of _snuck_ to stand._


----------



## Arrius

I think, in any case, the British tend to use_ creep_ instead of _sneak,_ as in the well-known alliterative sentence:
"The cat crept into the crypt, cr****d and crept out again".  We certainly do say "snuck" sometimes, but only for comic effect, though I cannot speak for the youth..


----------



## liliput

It's interesting to note that the examples provided for the use of snuck are both phrasal verbs - "snuck up" and "snuck in". I'm familiar with "snuck" in these cases; it doesn't sound odd and I might even use it, but I think it would be informal spoken English. On the other hand, for me, "I sneaked a look at his homework" sounds better and more idiomatic than "I snuck a look at his homework".

There are several other examples of verbs with two past participles which seem to co-exist reasonably peacefully: showed/shown, dreamed/dreamt, learned/learnt...


----------



## banalstory

panjandrum said:


> Snuck gets a good mention in
> *Dragged & Drug*
> - post #12 onwards.
> 
> I wonder is there an Irish influence at work here?
> Or possibly it's another example of the AE usage arriving first in Ireland.
> OED describes snuck as:   chiefly U.S. pa. tense and pple. of SNEAK v.



If I may, I would actually suggest that as far as its origins in the US, "snuck," and such is a Germanic influence of strong/weak verb changes...possibly transliterated from the many German immigrant populations who came to the United States (settling especially in the Mid-West, where, personally, I've grown up with "snuck") . 

Not incredibly scientific, but a hunch


----------



## katie_here

Matching Mole said:


> I think "snuck" has sneaked up on some British speakers unawares! It is certainly not BE in origin. As OED says it is chiefly N. American and informal. We have been hearing "snuck" on American TV and movies for a long time, some have started to use it, others including me, certainly have not.
> 
> I rarely hear it used in BE and I am of the same opinion as the writer of the article quoted on the OP.
> 
> "Dove" as the pp of to dive is a similar one.


 
I agree wholeheartedly with this post.  

I think the programme "Friends" has a lot to answer for for non standard words getting into the BE vocabulary,  especially the statement "It's* so* not fair or it *so* isn't...  but that's a subject for another thread.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

ewie said:


> I wasn't saying _[in post #15]_ that this word had received the 'official sanction' of the BBC ~ that we'll never more hear _sneaked_ from their mouths.
> 
> *BUT.*
> 
> *This was not a live piece-to-camera: it was a pre-recorded report with voice-over.  Someone at BBC news had (presumably) already seen it and allowed the usage of snuck*_* to stand*._



'Allowed' possibly - although more probably _ignored_, and put through on-the-nod by a producer who is a member of the current crop of  _illiterati_ running the BBC and who should have known better. One wonders whether the same producer might have ignored the same reportage had the presenter used 'drug' for draggged?


----------



## Jagtig

If you're not proud of what you did, then you say "snuck." 

If you're proud of what you did, then you use the the participle, "sneaked."

"I snuck up on the guy, and let him have it in the back."

"We were thrown out by a creepy doorman. However, we just sneaked right back in, found the manager, complained and the doorman, who was really a pimp, lost his job."


----------



## Æsop

The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1985), lists "snuck" as "_Nonstandard._  A past tense and past participle of *sneak*."  It's heard and used, but it's informal, slang, or just uneducated or illiterate.  AHD did not have enough doubt about this to refer it to Usage Panel of writers, linguists, and other language commentators that it consults in questionable cases.


----------



## Æsop

OK, it might be "chiefly US" but it is chiefly _substandard_ US--in England, even dummies don't use it, but in America, they do (and we certainly have a lot of them, don't we?).

Unless it is an old form that survived in pockets such as Appalachia or other rural communities and has recently re-emerged--and that does not seem to be the case--I can't imagine where this came from.  Uneducated people (or incompletely educated ones, such as children) sometimes assume nonstandard patterns by analogy.  "Dove" has been mentioned and it presumably developed by analogy to drive/drove; but although I've heard (and probably used) "dove," I don't think I've ever encountered "has diven."  The uneducated/childish pattern bring/brang/brung, by analogy to ring/rang/rung and the other -i-/-a-/-u- strong English verbs (sing, swim, sink, stink, etc.) is another example.  But I can't think of anything that "sneak/snuck/snuck" could be patterned after, either by spelling or sound:
speak/spoke/spoken --> *sneak/snoke/snoken
seek/sought/sought --> *sneak/snought/snought
creep/crept/crept, sleep/slept/slept, deal/delt/delt, leave/left/left (weak, not strong, verbs) --> *sneak/snekt/snekt
Other "-ee-" verbs (however the "long e" sound is now spelled) have always or long used the --/-ed/-ed pattern:  peek, reek, shriek, leak.   

The only -k/-uck/? pattern that I can think of is stick/stuck/stuck.

Any information, ideas, or speculation?


----------



## KHS

I will simply say that I grew up in the American MidWest, and had earned my BA in American literature with a minor in languages and done my graduate work in linguistics when I discovered, while teaching an ESL grammar class (because of the textbook), that "snuck" was not considered the *only* form of simple past for sneak.

By the way, the thread that bibliolept mentions is very useful.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

_Snuck_ is commonly used as the past tense of _sneak_, but be aware that unpleasant persons of a prescriptive bent (of whom I am definitely one) consider it to be ugly-sounding, ignorant, and barbarous, and on the same level as using "brung" as the past tense of "bring".


----------



## Alxmrphi

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> _Snuck_ is commonly used as the past tense of _sneak_, but be aware that unpleasant persons of a prescriptive bent (of whom I am definitely one) consider it to be ugly-sounding, ignorant, and barbarous, and on the same level as using "brung" as the past tense of "bring".



We are not alone!!!

Though in some phrases I wouldn't question it, but would think weirdly about 'sneaked' (I know!!  what backup can I be)...

But I started this thread in 2007, and almost 2 years later I'm glad to see it's still alive...

Well he went and sneaked up on her while she was talking
Well he went and snuck up on *vomits*

Couldn't even continue typing that, it felt so wrong...

But.... 'the deadline just snuck up on me'... sounds so so SO much_* less*_ correct than 'the deadline just sneaked up on me'...

I don't have ANY explanations, hopefully someone less absolutely sloshed can explain it tomorrow!


----------



## mplsray

Æsop said:


> The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1985), lists "snuck" as "_Nonstandard._ A past tense and past participle of *sneak*." It's heard and used, but it's informal, slang, or just uneducated or illiterate. AHD did not have enough doubt about this to refer it to Usage Panel of writers, linguists, and other language commentators that it consults in questionable cases.


 
Your information is old. A more current consideration of _snuck_ by the AHD can be found here:


http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/S0508900.html


----------



## Æsop

It's not a major shift; three years later (but 20 years ago) they finally asked their usage panel, which was 2-1 against it.  The latest discussion acknowledges its use by educated American *speakers* and use by some well-regarded writers but is clearly uneasy about it or finds it distasteful.  AHD is a more conservative and prescriptive dictionary than the "if anyone actually uses it that way, it is correct, there are no standards" type.  It might be widely used in speech but still be avoided by most careful writers.


----------



## mplsray

Æsop said:


> It's not a major shift; three years later (but 20 years ago) they finally asked their usage panel, which was 2-1 against it. The latest discussion acknowledges its use by educated American *speakers* and use by some well-regarded writers but is clearly uneasy about it or finds it distasteful. AHD is a more conservative and prescriptive dictionary than the "if anyone actually uses it that way, it is correct, there are no standards" type. It might be widely used in speech but still be avoided by most careful writers.


 
If they actually considered it nonstandard, I have no doubt that they would label it "nonstandard," as they do, for example, with _ain't_ and _irregardless._ As for the AHD being particularly prescriptive, that was intended when it was first published--it was, in fact, created as a direct reaction to Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary--but it certainly isn't true anymore. Its editors views on usage are quite close to those of the editors of the Collegiate dictionaries at Merriam-Webster. (To give just one example of this, the AHD presents _miniscule_ as a variant of _minuscule_ without comment.)


----------



## ewie

Æsop said:


> It's heard and used, but it's informal, slang, or just uneducated or illiterate.


I'm sure all your fellow countrymen who routinely use _snuck_ (including the ones who have answered in this thread) will be just _thrilled_ to see themselves branded 'uneducated or illiterate', Æsop


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I couldn't find any use of 'snuck' in serious literature in English prior to about 1940, except in the works of Ring Lardner, a name new to me.


----------



## Nunty

Æsop said:


> [...] It's heard and used, but it's informal, slang, or just uneducated or illiterate.  AHD did not have enough doubt about this to refer it to Usage Panel of writers, linguists, and other language commentators that it consults in questionable cases.





ewie said:


> I'm sure all your fellow countrymen who routinely use _snuck_ (including the ones who have answered in this thread) will be just _thrilled_ to see themselves branded 'uneducated or illiterate', Æsop



<intrepidly raising my hand>

I use _snuck_ in casual speech without feeling self-conscious or lowering the register. It would be odd for anyone to consider me uneducated, let alone illiterate. 

I suggest that the difference between "informal, slang" and "uneducated, illiterate" is great enough that the four terms shouldn't be used together to describe one usage.


----------



## ewie

Nun-Translator said:


> I suggest that the difference between "informal, slang" and "uneducated, illiterate" is great enough that the four terms shouldn't be used together to describe one usage.


----------



## KHS

The COCA, 385 million words going through the present:
627 instances of 'snuck'
763 instances of 'sneaked'

There is a problem with the subcorpus of the BNC I access through Brigham Young University in that it only goes through 1993. As sources show that the use of 'snuck' increases with each generation, it is unlikely that instances found there reflect modern-day usage as well for BE as the COCA does for AmE. However, its 100 million words show:
11 instances of snuck
132 instances of sneaked

EDIT to show the sources for the COCA:
The corpus contains more than 385 million words of text, including 20 million words each year from 1990-2008, and it is equally divided among spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, and academic texts. (The most recent texts are from late 2008). The corpus will also be updated every six to nine months from this point on, and will therefore serve as a unique record of linguistic changes in American English.


----------



## Æsop

ewie said:


> I'm sure all your fellow countrymen who routinely use _snuck_ (including the ones who have answered in this thread) will be just _thrilled_ to see themselves branded 'uneducated or illiterate', Æsop


 
I don't want to start a flame war over this and I hereby vow not to contribute any further to this thread.  I might have used it inadvertently myself in speech, just as I might have said "It's me."  But if I were being careful, I would not use _snuck_ any more than I would use _brang, have went, _or_ between he and I.  _It sounds illiterate and uneducated *to me,* and *I* would not expect much erudition, or even much careful language usage, from someone that I heard saying it, unless I knew that they were deliberately imitating lower-class usage.  I don't encounter it often enough in careful, formal writing to associate it with elevated or formal usage.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Barack Obama uses "snuck" in his book, _Dreams from My Father_. I would argue that he's not "uneducated", "illiterate", or prone to imitate "lower class", "substandard", "ignorant", and "barbarous" usage.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Barack Obama uses "snuck" in his book, _Dreams from My Father_. I would argue that he's not "uneducated", "illiterate", or prone to imitate "lower class", "substandard", "ignorant", and "barbarous" usage.


No, but he may have been wooing the blue-collar vote.


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, but he may have been wooing the blue-collar vote.


In his _book_, TT? Surely the blue-collar voters can't even _read_.

Just kidding, Æsop


----------



## jimreilly

Nun-Translator said:


> <intrepidly raising my hand>
> 
> I suggest that the difference between "informal, slang" and "uneducated, illiterate" is great enough that the four terms shouldn't be used together to describe one usage.


 
Well this seems to me to fit the situation very well. 

And if there is a "process" going one here (i.e. "sneaked" being gradually replaced by "snuck", first in AE and later in BE, or wherever) it seems to be happening despite (or because of?) the various class/education/literacy associations some people have with the word "snuck". The interesting questions are why is it happening, how fast is it happening, and how far will it go: will "snuck" ever become the form most commonly used by a majority of people? And then what will happen?

Maybe there's something about "snuck" (having to do with class/education associations) that fits the action of sneaking in--i.e. going around the rules, entering by some route other than the one that requires money, education, or privilege? Why not use a "non-standard" verb form for a "non-standard" action? There's some literary appropriateness, perhaps, that the aforementioned Ring Lardner was on to.

Perhaps the people who use "sneaked" are less likely to have done it.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Barack Obama uses "snuck" in his book, _Dreams from My Father_. I would argue that he's not "uneducated", "illiterate", or prone to imitate "lower class", "substandard", "ignorant", and "barbarous" usage.


  He may not be prone to such usages, but that hardly makes him immune to them, and other exaples of errors in his speech can easily be found.  It therefore is not a good argument to say "Barack Obama said this, so then it *must *be right!!!"


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

ewie said:


> In his _book_, TT? Surely the blue-collar voters can't even _read_.


 
We are speaking of _American_ blue-collar voters, ewie, not Labour.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> He may not be prone to such usages, but that hardly makes him immune to them, and other exaples of errors in his speech can easily be found. It therefore is not a good argument to say "Barack Obama said this, so then it *must *be right!!!"


 
Oh, I don't wish to imply that Obama's use of "snuck" makes the word either right or wrong. However, if educated people regularly use the word in writing (Obama was the first author I checked, so we can assume that many more use it as well), and if editors tend not to replace it with "sneaked", then I have a hard time accepting that "snuck" is still an example of illiterate, uneducated, or substandard use, at least in AmE.


----------



## panjandrum

Æsop said:


> [...] I don't encounter it often enough in careful, formal writing to associate it with elevated or formal usage.


I wonder how often any of us encounter sneaked in elevated or formal usage?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Oh, I don't wish to imply that Obama's use of "snuck" makes the word either right or wrong. However, if educated people regularly use the word in writing (Obama was the first author I checked, so we can assume that many more use it as well), and if editors tend not to replace it with "sneaked", then I have a hard time accepting that "snuck" is still an example of illiterate, uneducated, or substandard use, at least in AmE.


 
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, I am just as entitled to mine, and I do not retract a word of it. Mr. Obama is an educated man; he has degrees from Columbia College and Harvard Law School. For all that, though, one might note, for example, the occasion he referred to Rev. Jeremiah Wright as "somebody who had married Michelle and I", which is an error a high-school student should recognize. I will also point out to you that if one wants to consider the education of public figures, President George W. Bush went to Yale College and Harvard Business School. Both Mr. Obama and President Bush have graduate degrees from their respective schools at the same University. But will you argue that because President Bush has an education that is similar to (and on paper, in many respects better than) that of Mr. Obama, we cannot consider many of President Bush's locutions to be ignorant or barbarous?


----------



## panjandrum

Moderator Note.
As a matter of courtesy to the named people, and as a matter of what is relevant to these forums, the conversation about who said what and how illiterate or not it may seem ought to stop now.
The personalities debate is entirely irrelevant to the question.


----------



## jimreilly

[partial quote=jimreilly;6191229]

And if there is a "process" going one here (i.e. "sneaked" being gradually replaced by "snuck", first in AE and later in BE, or wherever) ...the interesting questions are why is it happening, how fast is it happening, and how far will it go: will "snuck" ever become the form most commonly used by a majority of people? And then what will happen?

Maybe there's something about "snuck" (having to do with class/education associations) that fits the action of sneaking in--i.e. going around the rules, entering by some route other than the one that requires money, education, or privilege? Why not use a "non-standard" verb form for a "non-standard" action? There's some literary appropriateness, perhaps, that the aforementioned Ring Lardner was on to.

Perhaps the people who use "sneaked" are less likely to have done it.[/quote]

Now that the mod has called us back to order (thanks, mod) is there anyone who cares to respond to my questions quoted above?


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, I am just as entitled to mine, and I do not retract a word of it. Mr. Obama is an educated man; he has degrees from Columbia College and Harvard Law School. For all that, though, one might note, for example, the occasion he referred to Rev. Jeremiah Wright as "somebody who had married Michelle and I", which is an error a high-school student should recognize. I will also point out to you that if one wants to consider the education of public figures, President George W. Bush went to Yale College and Harvard Business School. Both Mr. Obama and President Bush have graduate degrees from their respective schools at the same University. But will you argue that because President Bush has an education that is similar to (and on paper, in many respects better than) that of Mr. Obama, we cannot consider many of President Bush's locutions to be ignorant or barbarous?


 
At no time did I refer to Obama's statements or speeches. It's obvious that even educated people can make major grammatical mistakes in everyday speech. I was referring specifically to Obama's book, which was published by a major publishing company and presumably underwent a thorough copyediting process.

But this isn't about Obama or his book. I just went to Amazon.com and conducted a search inside the first book listed on the site's NYT Bestseller list. It contained several mentions of the word "snuck". When I returned to the page, a different bestseller was listed on the top. I conducted my search again; the second book contained two instances of "snuck" (one was in dialog, so it doesn't really count, but the other one was in narration).

I understand that you do not like "snuck", but all the evidence, including the corpora mentioned earlier in this thread, indicates that it's a standard form in AmE, and that it isn't limited to uneducated speech.


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure we have established that there is a process going on whereby "sneaked" is being replaced by "snuck".

This may well be happening. But I have the feeling that it's not happening very _fast_.

That said, BrE often follows AmE. So if it's happening in AmE, it will probably happen here...


----------



## ewie

To JimReilly:
*Why is it happening?* ~ Don't know. English verbs seem to 'fluctuate' like this: regular ones become irregular; vice versa. Yesterday's _builded_ is today's _built_; today's _sneaked_ is tomorrow's _snuck_.
*How fast is it happening and how far will it go?* ~ I suppose we'll just have to keep checking back to the corporas: if there ever comes a day where there are no instances of _sneaked_, only _snucks_, then it will have changed totally from one form to another.
*And then what will happen?* ~ Well, nothing, I suppose. We'll just have a new and universally-used past tense for the verb _sneak_. I don't _suppose_ this will be accompanied by plagues of locusts or anything


----------



## panjandrum

As this thread persists in leaving snuck behind and wandering into other territory I have closed it.
Perhaps in time it will be appropriate to have another round of snuck discussion, at which time someone keen enough should petition the moderators of the day for a re-opening.


----------



## DW

<< Moderator's note: This thread has been added to an existing one. Please read from the top. >>

First off, the thread is created with an eye to generally putting the question on the ground of AmE. Lately I've paid a bit of attention to the usage of two existing, different past forms of the verb "(to) sneak". Well, it seems to me like _snuck_ is actually sneaking up on _sneaked_ while sneaking into more and more widespread use.  It used to be considered as nonstandard by some and meet with sort of unease among many writers and editors particularly having its nonstandard origins recalled; but in view on the fact it's so widely used now by authorities it no longer does. Now, how about your environment, guys? Which of the two forms is more widely used by your environment or your part of the country at all, if you fell as you are able to speak for that many people in general. Which form do you fell more comfortable with? Thanks in advance for some exchange of opinions.


----------



## Loob

I don't have any first-hand experience to offer you, DW, but Google Ngram seems to indicate that "sneaked" is still in the lead, though "snuck" is catching up: click.

(To the best of my recollection, I still haven't seen "snuck" in a BrE context - but it's only a matter of time.)


----------



## MuttQuad

My AHD4 offers the following note:

_Usage Note: Snuck is an Americanism first introduced in the 19th century as a nonstandard regional variant of sneaked. Widespread use of snuck has become more common with every generation. It is now used by educated speakers in all regions. _


----------



## Cagey

A useful note.   

What is _AHD4,_ MuttQuad?


----------



## MuttQuad

Cagey said:


> A useful note.
> 
> What is _AHD4,_ MuttQuad?



Sorry; I thought it was widely known. Should have said American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition. It's my dictionary of first reference, although I often consult others as well.


----------



## owlman5

I don't like it, DW, but I hear "snuck" far more than "sneaked" in the speech of US speakers.  Though I use it myself, I rarely hear others use "sneaked" in my part of the world.


----------



## RM1(SS)

I find it difficult to imagine myself ever saying "sneaked"....


----------



## mplsray

In _The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, _Kenneth G. Wilson has the following to say about _snuck_:



> sneak _(v.)_
> _Sneaked_ has long been the regular past tense and past participle of _sneak, _but today _snuck_ also occurs frequently in Standard English, though it is still sometimes limited in the most Formal Edited English.



(_Formal Edited English_ is capitalized here because it receives a precise definition elsewhere in Wilson's work.)


----------



## Parla

I say _sneaked_, myself.


----------



## MarcB

I grew up hearing and saying both.It wasn't until I took grammar in school that snuck was discouraged.


----------



## hoodnotwood

<< Moderator's note: This new question has been added to previous thread. >>

What is the past form of sneek? I sneeked out of the hotel or is it an irregular form?
Just another question I have: It is An Irregular form right? Not A Irregular form?


----------



## Florentia52

Either "sneaked" or "snuck" is correct. (See the WR dictionary.) The present tense is "sneak."


----------



## Parla

The spelling is _sne*a*k_, not "sneek". The past tense is *sneaked*.

"Snuck" as an alternative past tense is an Americanism that is now acceptable in speech but not in formal writing.


----------



## Cagey

hoodnotwood said:


> [....]
> Just another question I have: It is An Irregular form right? Not A Irregular form?


This new question should be a new thread, but just this once: Yes, 'an' is correct.


----------



## srk

Loob 22 July 2008 said:
			
		

> _Moi personnellement, _ I think snuck is not yet BrE.
> 
> Give us another 5 years, and we'll be corrupted converted.



Will it take another 5, Loob?


----------



## owlman5

I'm sorry that "snuck" is sneaking into the U.K.

Using "snuck" as the past tense of "sneak" is no better than using "luck" as the past tense of "leak".  There are certainly more important things to worry about, but I think the British would do well to resist "snuck". "Snuck" is nothing more than an aberration that managed to take root over here.


----------



## PaulQ

Alxmrphi said:


> After thinking about this for a few mins I can't even remember which one I think is more normal, however, for me "snuck" is certainly not jocular or a non-standard form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *snuck*, [...] has reached the point where it is a  virtual rival of sneaked in many parts of the English-speaking world. *But not in Britain, where it is unmistakably taken to be a jocular or non-standard form.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what other _*BE speakers *_make of this quote and if they agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

I recall a friend in the late '60s saying, with intentional humour, _"We done bin got snuck into the chem. lab and..."_. Since then, I have never been able to hear 'snuck' other than as in agreement with "*But not in Britain, where it is unmistakably taken to be a jocular or non-standard form."* For me, the attributes are "light-hearted yet nefarious."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't know if this, to me, interesting post on the subject has been linked yet in this thread.

It's quite a well-informed piece as these things go, but as these things go, it went.

This sort of thing is helpful: _Many writers and editors have a lingering unease about the form,  particularly if they recall its nonstandard origins. And 67 percent of  the Usage Panel disapproved of snuck in our 1988 survey. Nevertheless, an examination of recent sources shows that snuck is sneaking up on sneaked. Snuck was almost 20 percent more common in newspaper articles published in 1995 than it was in 1985. Snuck also appears in the work of many respected columnists and authors._


----------



## owlman5

Thanks for the link, TT.  I also found it interesting.

I think this passage does a good job of telling us why "snuck" is so odd: Burchfield points out that no other English verb with an -_eek _or -_eak _ending makes a past tense -_uck_; he lists _creak_, _freak_, _leak_, _peak_, _peek_, _reek_, _seek_, _squeak_, _streak_, _wreak_, and _shriek_.


----------



## ewie

Ah no _but_, Mr O, some of those verbs ending _-eek/-eak_ are irregular (_seek, speak, wreak_): I think that's the reason for _snuck_ ~ people think it ought to be irregular, but just happen to have come up with a crap analogy.  The past tense should obviously be _snoke_ or _snought_


----------



## owlman5

This is a good point, Mr E. I've snoken out of the house many times. 

"Speak", "seek" and "sneak" sure do seem more useful than most of the other verbs in that list.  I've noticed that many of our most common verbs are irregular, so "sneak" may have become common enough that an irregular conjugation like "snuck" is likely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ewie said:


> Ah no _but_, Mr O, some of those verbs ending _-eek/-eak_ are irregular (_seek, speak, wreak_): I think that's the reason for _snuck_ ~ people think it ought to be irregular, but just happen to have come up with a crap analogy.  The past tense should obviously be _snoke_ or _snought_


And the past of _leak_ should be _luck_.  Good thing there's no verb _to feak_.


----------



## sound shift

Loob said:


> _Moi personnellement, _I think snuck is not yet BrE.
> 
> Give us another 5 years, and we'll be corrupted converted.


The five years are up, and I for one am far from converted. I don't use "snuck" and I don't hear it around me (but then I am a long way from London, that great port of entry for AmE-isms).


----------



## Loob

Well, here are some recent Google News hits from UK sources, ss:

*This is the change to disability benefits that the Government snuck in ...*
The Independent-27 Feb 2017
When the eyes of the country were on Copeland and Stoke, the Conservative Government snuck out a proposed change to the social security ...​
*Rangers 6-0 Hamilton*
Rangers Football Club-22 hours ago
The angle was tight but his shot across goal snuck in at the far post. He then rounded off his and Rangers afternoon with a sixth and his third.​
*Man 'snuck into caravan and lifted woman's duvet to see her naked ...*
Mirror.co.uk-16 Feb 2017
A man has been accused of sneaking into a caravan and lifting a woman's duvet to see her naked as she slept. Neil Terry has denied claims ...​
I don't think I've ever used "snuck" - but I suspect I don't often use "sneaked" either....


----------



## KHS

Here's a link to an NGram using Google books (all English), showing steady progress in usage for "snuck" since 1980:
Google Ngram Viewer
In the Corpus of Contemporary English (started in 1990), instances of "snuck" (1054) outnumber instances of "sneaked" (948), even though usage in Google books, according to the N-gram, shows "snuck" considerably less than "sneaked" in AmE.

Compare this to my 2008 look at COCA (in this same thread), which reported:
627 instances of 'snuck'
763 instances of 'sneaked'


----------



## DonnyB

I see the Oxford Dictionaries definition labels "snuck" _[past and past participle of sneak]_ as _North American informal.
_
I've used it for many years myself amongst friends and while I've always regarded it as semi-slang (although not especially American), I have, like Loob (post #93) come across it increasingly being used in 'ordinary' BE.


----------



## JulianStuart

The Ngrams suffer from apparent mis-assignment of some fraction of works into the "wrong" AE and BE category.  A BE work that spells colour as color?    I often use this to try to assess the extent to which something might be misleading in such comparisons between AE and BE.  .  This Ngram shows a significant rise in "snuck" in "BE" books, that resembles the "rise" for "color" in BE books.


----------



## KHS

I checked the BNC (which was a relatively small corpus, 100 million words, since it only went up to the early 1990s).  It had 112 instances of "color" and 10 instances of "snuck" ("sneaked" - 125 instances).  Not many of either, relatively speaking, but still enough to show that both "color" and "snuck" existed in British texts that early.


----------



## JulianStuart

KHS said:


> I checked the BNC (which was a relatively small corpus, 100 million words, since it only went up to the early 1990s).  It had 112 instances of "color" and 10 instances of "snuck" ("sneaked" - 125 instances).  Not many of either, relatively speaking, but still enough to show that both "color" and "snuck" existed in British texts that early.


It's not their existence but their frequency that I was referring to - do you know how many _colour_ instances there were for the 112 of _color_ in that corpus? (Aside from wondering how many of the "color" in the BNC were instances illustrating AE/BE differences)


----------



## natkretep

Loob said:


> _Moi personnellement, _I think snuck is not yet BrE.
> 
> Give us another 5 years, and we'll be corrupted converted.


Well, it's in the _Independent_, where the assistant chief officer was quoted, and speaking in all seriousness. Well and truly Britishised then.


> ACO Davies added: “Barry thought the snake may have travelled from China – which is where the kettle was made – but I suspect she snuck into the box at a storage warehouse somewhere in the UK...”


Man finds live snake in Argos kettle

Still not a 'snuck' user myself.


----------

