Grammar mavens like to complain. One complained recently that the narrator of a history program used an incorrect past tense for the word to shine. The narrator used shined when, as the argument goes, he should have said shone. Of all of the nuanced usage distinctions that mavens sometimes get themselves all worked up over, this is arguably one of the weakest and most useless. The fact that the verb to shine has two past tense forms is an example of unnecessary redundancy in our language.
So what is causing this hullabaloo over the past tense of to shine? Simply put, it’s a matter of whether the verb is used in its transitive or intransitive forms. However, it gets a bit more complicated than that.
The transitive form occurs when the verb has an object and takes the past tense shined. For example:
Mark shined his shoes before going to the dance.
The intransitive form occurs when the verb does not have an object and takes the irregular past tense shone. For example:
The sun shone all day last Saturday.
At this point the distinction is easy enough. True, two past tenses for the same verb is excessive and superfluous, but it’s not difficult to keep straight. But it doesn’t end there.
When the verb is transitive but less active, there is a disagreement over whether the use of shone or shined is appropriate. Consider the following sentences, both of which are considered correct by some but incorrect by others.
The sun shined on the clear blue lake.
The sun shone on the clear blue lake.
Compound the needless distinction of dual past tenses with disagreements over how the distinction is best applied and you have a grammar rule that’s ripe for the garbage bin. In fact, the American Heritage Dictionary, which normally provides an explanation of contentious usage that has been submitted to a usage panel, doesn’t even mention the issue of “less active” transitive usage. In fact, it has the intransitive form taking shone or shined. More prescriptive than other dictionaries, if the American Heritage Dictionary reports that shone versus shined is optional, then I think it’s safe to say that the distinction is close to disappearing.
Shined will eventually reign. Remember that the rule for forming regular past tenses only requires adding the suffix –ed to the root. The exception to this rule occurs when separate (irregular) past tenses can be provided by memory. In the case of the verb to shine, there is an overlap that does not follow the rule. Given that we tend to obey word forming regularity as we learn our language, a child learning English will default to the regular ending unless some other input (parents, teachers, etc.) introduces the irregular form and its contexts. But this requires that the distinction is held strongly enough that most fluent speakers remember it as well. And as we have seen, the unnamed narrator didn’t remember it, and there is disagreement over whether it is necessary or optional. In this case, I predict that the loser will be irregular shone. And the grammar sticklers risk appearing even more lugubrious than normal by insisting upon keeping it.
*norma loquendi: a lexicographic principle, started by Samuel Johnson, stating that the standards of word meaning and usage are established by the usage customs of the speaker community. In other words, the principle is to report how speakers use language, not dictate how the speakers ought to use the language.
© 2012 Jay P Laughlin