"Mi novio nunca ha bebido cerveza."
Translation:My boyfriend has never drunk beer.
I find that English speakers use the wrong words frequently when forming the "perfect" tenses. "Have went" (wrong) instead of "have gone" (right), "have ran" (wrong) instead of "have run" (right), "have took" (wrong) instead of "have taken" (right), and many more examples. Probably one of the most frequent errors I hear.
Yep, right up there with using "good" instead of "well" and "real" instead of "really".
If people frequently use these words, and others understand what is intended with no confusion, then isn't it the rule that's wrong, not the words?
Language does change, but thankfully it changes more slowly than common usage, and more restrictively than regional usage. There are cases verbs changing over time. We no longer say clomb or clumb but instead say climbed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climb).
There may come a time when 'have drunk' becomes archaic. It has not yet. So the rule is not wrong. It's the rule and the usage is clear.
Just because unambiguous communication occurs does not make it correct. I could use the word 'aint' and you would understand me. Communication occurs, but it's not 'proper'. This is a site about language, and 'proper' usage is important.
Agreed. I get that the reason most users want to use this site is so they can learn to speak/read/write passably well in another language. For that sake alone, drank and drunk may as well be interchangeable. But the site has another goal as well: translation, and for the sake of translation its important to do it correctly.
For sure there are going to be some texts out there where the source language includes improper words like ain't... and so an equivalent colloquialism would be the best translation, but it takes a pretty high level of expertise to know when its the right time to do so. For most people here, I'd say just stick with whats correct.
While I agree that this is proper, I would also say that for the purposes of what we're doing here, comprehension far more important than proper usage. If I'm learning a language and there are expressions that are commonly used, I better know them whether they are proper or not. In that light, someone learning English should learn to say or write "have drunk," but they also need to understand that huge numbers of native speakers will say "have drank." As Spanish learners, we should also assume that not everyone speaking Spanish is in total compliance with the RAE.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think it is best that line is drawn at what is correct / standard English. Should they allow every common / slang usage from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Jamaica, ...?
Fair go mate, if I started chuckin Aussie slang around like a dunny budgie in bottle, you Yanks would think I'd gone troppo, and I'd cop a right earbashing.
You can even go from place to place within the US and sometimes wonder what language people are speaking. Sadly, most of us here don't know anything more about Aussie lingo than what we learned watching Crocodile Dundee. Maybe someone here should start an incubator for Aussie for English speakers. :)
Well, I'm not talking about what Duo allows, but what we should know and understand. If I was a native Spanish speaker and was traveling to Australia, I'd hope to be able to understand what people are saying to me even if they are chuckin' Aussie slang.
Yes, we should definitely be learning what's proper, but we also need to understand real people speaking in everyday language.
I had to laugh. I just crack up and say, "Clammered!" But, I rock climb so my friends just giggle!
Drank, on the other hand, has gained a level of acceptance in spoken use. drank as a past participle showed up during the 17th century, and it seems to have been commonly used in writing throughout the 19th century. Writers of early 20th-century handbooks, striving to make irregular verb inflection uniform in English, thought differently about drunk and prescribed it as only a past participle of drinkthat should be criticized when used for past tense. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-drank-vs-drunk
i've never said drunk in my life unless it pertains to me being "drunk" off alcohol. I'm missing these questions bc of improper english
That proper english would not be you swingophelia unless maybe England which we are not
"Has drank" is incorrect and "has drunk" is correct.
In spoken English, I have heard many people (including native speakers) use "has drunk" or "has drink". If I turn into grammar police and fix that every time I heard it then the conversations would not go anywhere.
On written English, however, "has drank" is simply wrong.
Drunk=bebido, es participio. I have drunk= he bebido
Drank es el pretérito perfecto I drank=yo bebí
Wow. I understand it better now that it was explained in Spanish, and English is my first language.
I would think drank should be acceptable as well. They're both pretty flexibly used in the English language, and that's really what the point of this is, right?
Pretty sure no one is going to correct my usage of drank instead of drunk.
"Drank" is wrong - it's really that simple. It's the wrong tense in English, and if you don't understand that, how can you expect to learn the right tense in a completely different language?
It's how many(most?) English speakers talk. I'd include all possibilities because no matter if you say 'drunk' or 'drank' you know what the Spanish is saying.
Ring rang rung, sing sang sung, spring sprang sprung, sink sank sunk, drink drunk drunk? Who's idea was it for drunk to be highly irregular?
Drink drank drunk, not drink drunk drunk. I have never drunk beer. The past participle is used with have, and as an adjective and often as a noun. I drank a lot of beer. The past tense is used without have
The problem here is that your usage suggests, in Spanish, that at a specific time, you did not drink beer whereas the other tense is more general. I.e. I drank beer vs. I have drunk beer.
Totally agree. Only an English teacher would know which one is actually correct. We're not here to learn English.
There are also Spanish speakers here who are seeking to learn proper English. Applying your logic, it is therefore also important to use proper English in these lessons.
As to your own motivations, be that as it may. Personally I enjoy the idea of we native speakers of English getting a brush-up on proper grammar.
I hereby make a motion that the drink/drank/drunk discussion thread is over. Do I hear a second?
What would be the spanish equivalent of -> "My boyfriend never drinks beer", like if someone asks you at a party. He has drank before, but is currently not(get it?)
Just like in English, present tense. "Mi novio nunca bebe cerveza" => "My boyfriend never drinks beer"
i guess i concur... i don't have enougn grasp of fine points of grammar to distinguish between "drank" and "drunk".... never have used "drunk" unless inebriated :-) but I guess I'll have to start (using the word drunk, not getting drunk,, ha)
Novio can be a number of different words depending on the region. http://spanishskulduggery.tumblr.com/post/92338860162/something-funny-that-happens-in-spanish-is-that-el For example in Chile, boyfriend/girlfriend is pololo/polola, fiance is prometido/prometida, groom/bride is novio/novia, and husband/wife is marido (or esposo)/mujer (or esposa).
I don't think "drunken" can be used as a past participle, only an adjective - as in the old song "What shall we do with the drunken sailor". Can you provide a reference that shows it as a past participle?
Word Origin and History for drunken adj. full form of the past participle of drunk. Meaning "inebriated" was in Old English druncena ; adjectival meaning "habitually intoxicated" is from 1540s. Related: Drunkenly. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper (ie dictionary.com)
Origin Old English, archaic past participle of drink. Oxford Dictionaries website
1 Thessalonians 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. KJV amongst others
Interestingly I found "drucken, drunken" being mentioned as the past participle in Scots. The area I come from in NZ was settled by the Scots so this may explain the persistence of this form.
If you are saying "have drank," then you are in error. The past participle of drink is drunk, and you use the past participle with have/had constructions. Saying "I drank a soda" is fine because you're using the preterit tense of drink, which is drank. Clearly nobody is going to misunderstand you if you say "have drank," and a great many people do say it, but it is technically incorrect.
Just a passing comment, something similar, I was reading THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD (Dicken's last novel) In the first chapter is a man saying He has took it, (or something similar) and being corrected to Has taken it. So this controversy has been around for a while. Unfortunately, while many people use the past tense of irregular verbs instead of the past participle, it is one of those things that can get in your way when trying to be upwardly mobile.
Interesting discussion. I'd suggest checking usage dictionaries as well as grammar books when determining correct (i.e, standard colloquial) usage. They generally will discuss all common usages, and come to a conclusion as to whether or not a usage is acceptable in written and/or standard colloquial English. Might get bees out of a lot of bonnets. (I vote for not allowing have drank). I think the problem with this is that we'd usually say "My boyfriend has never had a drink of beer", so the sentence just sounds odd and we're trying to figure out why.
And here we see prescriptivists and descriptivists arguing.
I guess "drunk" is the proper past participle, if we're being super picky and descriptivist, but at least in my LongIslandese dialect, "drunk" is pretty much only used when you've had too much alcohol. It's a borderline case as to whether drank should be regarded as correct.
And in any case, this is part of the fun of learning another language! You get to learn something about your own, and what the "proper" usage really is.
I agree with you here, though I believe you meant that "drunk" is the proper past participle if we're being picky and prescriptivist. If we were being descriptivist, we'd generally regard what most people actually use as the correct form.
Yup, haha. Honest mistake, I promise I wasn't "drunk" here. Just kinda tired...
When you think you've covered the complicated stuff but then this section appears...
The ha part is very faint. I thought she was saying nunca bebido. Is this usually the case when native speakers talk?
It's VERY common for Spanish speakers to run words together when they end/start with the same sound. In fact in many cases a double "a" sound (like in this example), will become just a slightly longer "a".
This is normal. I would even say that in this example she separates the two words MORE than a native speaker normally would.
When translating you therefore need to take this into account, but once you get the hang of it you'll realise that the sentence makes no sense without the "ha" there. You cannot say "Mi novio nunca bebido cerveza." It is not grammatically correct.
"I have drunk beer." You know that feeling you get when words like "ball" suddenly lose its meaning. Funny that so many had a reaction to this sentence. What else? Have drunken?
Wow, I can't believe there's so much debate about the "proper" English form here. From a linguistic perspective, both 'drunk' and 'drank' should be considered acceptable. Of course, 'have/has drunk' is historically the correct form, and it's definitely not obsolete (it's what I use), but, from my observations, the majority of native speakers around my age use 'have/has drank', and I'm willing to bet that by the end of the century, it will be considered standard usage.
Languages change, at different rates, and in different places. It's that simple. It's why we have differences between the dialects spoken in different countries. It's why we don't speak like Shakespeare or Chaucer, or like the language of Beowulf. Hell, it's the reason we're all learning Spanish right now and not Latin or some other ancestral language. You don't have to like language change, but you do have to accept it, because it's going to happen no matter what. I wonder if people are still having debates about 'who' vs. 'whom'...
I came here to say what jeffaust basically said. Have/has drunk is the only correct version by English grammar. No grammar book in the world suggests using have/has drank
Many people using a phrase doesn't make it correct. It makes it colloquial. They're not the same thing. Also, we're giving Duolingo a service (they're "payment" to us is teaching us a foreign language) where it translates things professionally meaning things need to be grammatically correct in both languages.
Since when does a grammar book determine how the language is used? It's the other way around. Grammar books would have that rule because that is how the majority of native speakers speak (or once spoke).
Many people using a phrase/structure/pronunciation/etc. can in fact eventually make it correct. Would you consider something incorrect if 80% or even 90% of speakers said it that way, but some outdated grammar book said otherwise?
I agree that we should translate it to "has drunk" when using Duolingo, because there is such a thing as a standard written form of English, as well as other languages. Just don't mix up the written language with the colloquial language. The latter should be taken as the standard when speaking. In fact, I see no problem with accepting both forms on Duolingo, since what we're learning here is close or perhaps identical to the spoken Spanish language, and not necessarily the literary language, so we should be able to translate into colloquial English.
By the way, most of the nearly 7000 languages in the world have no written form, and probably a majority have not had a grammar book written for them. Do speakers inherently speak their language wrong? I don't think so. If a grammar book were to be written, it would be based on the language of the majority of native speakers.
Just because a hundred people are doing something wrong doesn't make it right. It just means that a hundred people are doing something wrong. If a hundred internet users started writing, "How r u?" instead of "How are you?" that doesn't mean that the former is going to become a correct spelling and suddenly English teachers will accept it in term papers.
As I have pointed out before, we are providing a service for Duolingo. You may not speak English or any other language according to a textbook, but Duolingo tends to go by rules that are grammatically correct. Maybe not all language have rules, but English does or they wouldn't teach it as a class in schools, which they do in just about every English speaking country.
I don't care whether you speak grammatically correct or colloquial English or any other language for that matter. Just don't expect a language course that relies on by-the-book grammar to accept your mistakes just because they're common.
I'm not talking about just a hundred people. I'd be willing to say that probably millions of people (if not way more) use the form in question (sure, one would have to conduct a representative survey across the English-speaking world to get the real numbers). While I can't directly prove that (nor can you directly prove that "have/has drunk" is still in the majority), I can say that it's in the majority in the area where I grew up for speakers under the age of 35 or so, and perhaps for a higher age range, too, having heard it from people as old as my parents.
Also, your analogy isn't very good, since the standards of the spoken language and the written language change in very different ways and different rates. I already mentioned that I agree that for the purpose of translation, we should more or less adhere to the standards of "proper" written English, and indeed, when teaching a language, one should focus on one form, but that's not to say that there's only one correct form and everything else is completely wrong, or that what was or has been considered the only correct form will forever continue to remain the one and only correct form. I'd just like to remind you that languages change no matter what. Not accepting that fact is like seeing a new species of rabbit, but denying to recognize it as a species because it's not as cute as what you're used to seeing.
And by the way, you must be confused: I'm not one of the people that uses "have/has drank", I'm just defending people's right to speak their native language the way that they learned it.
"most of the nearly 7000 languages in the world have no written form, and probably a majority have not had a grammar book written for them." - Source, please.
Thanks for your curiosity. There's no definitive source on either the number of the world's living languages (Ethnologue lists 7,105) nor the percentage of them that use a writing system, but many linguists with knowledge in this area have made estimates. Of course, I learned this mostly from my professors, but here are the best sources I could find online:
http://www.lrc.salemstate.edu/aske/lgsworld.htm (the whole article is a good read, and relevant to the rest of this discussion)
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/languages.htm (naturally this website doesn't contain a comprehensive list of all the languages in the world that have a writing system, but many that it doesn't list are probably underdeveloped)
Sorry that I couldn't provide better sources, but you can try to seek the answer on your own (by the way, it was just my guess that a majority of the world's languages had probably not had a grammar book written for them, so I might be wrong). Naturally, many estimates differ a lot from one another, but my point was that, even if it's not the majority of languages, it makes no sense to say that people who speak the many languages without a writing system or grammar book inherently speak their native languages wrong. There are so many languages spoken by minority or indigenous peoples around the world that, while they may have some sort of writing system developed by linguists or missionaries, are still not standardized or used by most speakers. Examples off the top of my head would be Sinitic languages like Hakka or Southern Min, where most native speakers can't read or write in their native language (and often not even the national language), and at best, appropriate Chinese characters (quite non-systematically) that approximate the sounds to write certain words and phrases, but almost never have fully typed conversations using these approximations. Most sign languages are not written either, and even if they have a writing system (which can be very complex and difficult to learn), native users almost never use them. Anyway, my point is that you don't have to be literate to correctly speak your native language.
Thank you for the reply.
My question, of course, was purely academic. But in some of your other responses, I feel you may be misinterpreting the intentions of those of us who don't agree with you on the "I drink, I drank, I have drunk" question.
Here's why I'm not going to yield.
I think that even if I'm not on Duolingo to learn English, as a native English speaker, I owe it to the people here who aren't to teach them English in such a way that they sound intelligent.
I believe they want to sound educated for the same reasons I want to learn to speak Spanish the way most successful people in the business, professional or academic communities would speak it.
I hope the native Spanish speakers here are helping me to achieve that. To repay the favor, I want to perform the same kindness for the people here that aren't native English speakers.
Sure, compromises have to be made in some areas. For instance, Duolingo teaches Spanish the way Latin Americans speak it, and I would need to brush up on my second person plurals (vosotros/vosotras) if I were heading to Spain.
Despite watching every episode of "Downton Abbey," I'm still only ready to claim that I can help the non-native speakers learn to speak English like a typical American college graduate.
But if they're heading my way, that standard works whether they intend to get a job with a major bank or they're ordering food at a small-town barbecue joint.
So, by teaching the non-native English speakers learn how most educated and successful Americans speak, I feel I'm helping them in the best way I can.
One of the most successful people I know - the father of a close friend - was rescued as a boy from the Holocaust. He ended up a refugee in the U.K. where he grew up and married an English woman, then came the U.S. to finish his education. In his career and private life, his circle included Ivy Leaguers and high school dropouts from the rural South, but all of them understood him when he spoke. He never lost his original thick accent, but he always sounded intelligent. His career ended at the CEO level.
I can't guarantee a future boardroom for the people who are learning English here. I'm nowhere close myself. However, I can help them sound educated and intelligent. I think learning to use common verbs the way an educated person would is a wise choice for them.
In response to mreaderclt's latest message: I actually agree with you completely here. For the purpose of teaching, we should naturally stick with the most widely accepted standard variant. My proposal for a compromise would be to allow both to be recognized when translating from Spanish to English for learners of Spanish, but flag the "have/has drank" form as incorrect (or perhaps as a typo) for learners of English. I feel like it'd be very easy to program.
From a linguistic perspective, only 'have/has drunk' is correct. Coloquially, anything goes, but that's not what we're studying. There is no gray area here. The grammar rules are clear.
I meant from the perspective of linguists, i.e. those involved in the field of linguistics. If you know anything about linguistics, you'd know that the vast majority of linguists are descriptivists, and simply describe how language is used, rather than prescribing how it should be used. Also it's not true that "anything goes" colloquially. There are things that 0% of native speakers would judge as correct. Does that mean that there's no gray area? Of course not. Language is a gray area. English, as well as pretty much any language, is on a dialect continuum. There is no clear divide even between major dialects, such as "British English" and "American English", much less between any sub-dialects of those. People speak differently from country to country, region to region, city to city, or even between different districts or social classes within a city (not to mention that people also speak differently as time goes on). Just look at all the dialects and accents in London.
The form "have/has drunk" is probably the most widely accepted, and is considered "standard", especially in any literary work, but I wouldn't say it's the only correct form. It's correct for some speakers, acceptable for others among another form, and incorrect for others for which only another form is correct. I feel that's it's a bit arrogant to tell a native speaker that they're not using their native language correctly.
This isn't a linguistic anthropology course where we discuss the relativistic merits of various dialects of the language. This is a language learning course where students wish to learn to use the language correctly.
My opinion: just because they "have drank a beer" on Duck Dynasty doesn't mean have drank is a correct usage. It's wrong. And this whole argument, by the way, is absurd. I'm a native speaker of English. And jefffaust is a native speaker of English. We aren't being arrogant here when we say "have/has drunk" is the only correct usage.
Please insert your condescending reply below :)
"it's a bit arrogant to tell a native speaker that they're not using their native language correctly"...
Maybe so. Maybe they should have had a teacher do that at some point during their education. Sadly they didn't. Luckily, learning is a lifelong experience.
I know that I still make mistakes in English. When someone points one out, I check some sources and adjust accordingly.
True arrogance is the failure to change when the fault has been explained.
I agree that it's possible to make mistakes in your native language, but it's probably mostly misusing vocabulary (though mostly vocabulary that you don't actively use in your speech), and there are some things that shouldn't be considered mistakes, except if you're trying to write something formal that adheres to the standard literary language. After all, the languages we speak natively are mostly a mix of what we heard our parents speak and what we heard from our peers or in our surrounding community. There are many people who speak much differently at home than they would at work or school. These people can be considered to correctly speak two variants of the same language, where perhaps only one is considered standard.
It should be "drank beer" in the translation as "drunk beer" is grammatically incorrect
The conjugation below is taken from an on-line dictionary. The sentence is a Perfect tense (in this case, Present perfect) sentence. Have/has drunk is correct. have/has drank is incorrect. Drank is past tense, drunk is past participle which is the form used in past perfect/present perfect sentences, as well as an adjective, as in I was drunk, and drunken is also an adjective, as in drunken sailor.
Present Past Future
I drink drank will drink
you drink drank will drink
he/she drinks drank will drink
we drink drank will drink
you drink drank will drink
they drink drank will drink
Present Past Future
I have drunk had drunk will have drunk
you have drunk had drunk will have drunk
he/she has drunk had drunk will have drunk
we have drunk had drunk will have drunk
you have drunk had drunk will have drunk
they have drunk had drunk will have drunk
As a native English speaker, I translated this as "My boyfriend has never drinken beer." Using drank or drunk are both also correct. Now the grammar books are going to tell you that 'drinken' isn't correct, that it isn't even a word, but as a native speaker, in colloquial language it's perfectly valid (from a linguistic descriptivism standpoint...i.e. how people actually speak).
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
"Drinken" is not even an English word.
I've never heard anyone use it. It's not "how people actually speak."
If you say "my boyfriend has never drinken beer" everyone will think you've been drinkin' way too much.
Interesting. May I ask where you grew up? I've heard 'drinken' only once before, and the speaker was an American from Dallas/Fort Worth. While we're on the subject of colloquial variants, I've also heard 'dranken' from a speaker who grew up in a certain area in Washington State.
I grew up in the Southeast Michigan area. It's possible that using 'drinken' is just a feature of my idiolect, rather than what people around here would say in general. It's hard to tell off the top of my head. To me it seems like it's one of those words where there's not a very well-established word, and so people use a lot of different options (drinken, drank, drunk, dranken, etc), and people pretty much understand all of them.