Past vs. Passed

[MikeL]

A lot of writers seem to be using the words "past" and "passed" interchangeably. They are two very different words with very different meanings. It's likely that the use of phonetics in the teaching of English has wrought confusion here as it has so often before.

 

"Passed" is the past tense of "pass". Hmmm...note that "past" was used to help define "passed". What a grand language English is.

 

"Pass" and "passed", as verbs, imply movement (from one place to another, one state of being to another, etc.). "Pass the salt and pepper, please." "He passed his math exam."

 

"Pass" may also be a noun, but as such, still implies a form of movement. See pass for examples.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Past" may be a noun, adjective, adverb, or preposition. As a noun or adjective, it always refers to a period of time that has already occurred, the past as contrasted with the present or future.

 

As an adverb, "past" always implies direction. "I watched him walk past."

 

As a preposition, "past" always refers to something that is beyond in terms of place, quantity, or time. "His room is the one past mine." "He can't count past twenty." "It's half past nine."

-------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, we can all leave phonetics in the past when we've passed our English test with flying colors.

 

Your comments, including any disagreement, are welcome.

[Tipdin]

Thank you!

 

We used to teach English to our young people in school but it doesn't seem to be as important anymore. ...sadly.

 

The mistakes I see and hear today sometimes make my eyes and ears bleed. I can't imagine how some people got through school without being able to speak or write English correctly.

[Former Member]

Also, I think it is important to realize that though someone may be writing in English here, or writing a story in English, their mother tongue or language they grew up speaking was not English, even if they may happen to live in the USA or an English speaking country to Europe. I make that specific point because I do editing for other people in English language and certainly can immediately focus on and correct such a misused word, but in writing myself, when I am letting my own mind run free....there and their, passed and past, your and you're, can sometimes escape me because when I am "reading" or speaking in my own head, even in English....it just pops up a way, and sometimes it's wrong and you type it down.

 

Yes, your post and responses might be referencing a different angle on the word and I agree with the prognosis on the level of correct usage, and I don't say whatever you've read is applicable to my example, but it is helpful to remember even if someone is using English, it may not be their native language, and the idiosyncrasies of English which produce such same sounding words can be overlooked. Sure, it needs to be corrected though.

[MikeL]

...someone may be writing in English here, or writing a story in English, their mother tongue or language they grew up speaking was not English...

 

... even if someone is using English, it may not be their native language...

 

English must be an exceptionally difficult language for a non-native speaker to master. As writers or editors, we should always strive to use the language correctly. I do agree with you that we should be understanding of the writer's situation as one who uses English as a second language. Phonetic pronunciation in speech doesn't present the same challenge as phonetics presents in the written word.

Edited July 14, 2010 by MikeL

[Hylas]

Never had problems with past and passed. More peeved when I come across it. Same with Loose for Lose and Should of/Would of for Should've/Would've (both mistakes I commonly find among native English speakers).

 

The only comparable confusion for me was ironically for Spelled and Spelt, which turned out to be both correct. Just the usual regional variations.

[John Doe]

English must be an exceptionally difficult language for a non-native speaker to master.

 

Believe it or not but English it actually the hardest language to learn. The subtle rules and regulations are countless and many. The lanuage has changed frequently over the span of it's life, more so than other languages in the world. Native english speakers don't realize this because they are grown and raised in the language (anyone who grew up around english, knowing it is a native speaker... I'm not talking about skin color here)... so they / we intuitively know rules and regulation, but when approached with or made to explain why something is pronounced or placed where it is many native neglish speakers fail.

 

My lingustics professsor taught us this and he was right... The first day of class he forced everyone outloud and one by one to explain the plural rules in our own words. Every single one of us could not explain the rules in simple terms as to why there are varients in plurals as why you put just "s" in some, and "es" in others and "ies" in others... while others didn't have any changes... (that's the way it is or the way we were taught is not a valid excuse or reason as there is a specific rule governing it.... the first person he asked used this and was quickly shot down... haha I'm laughing just remembering it) but we all knew when and where to place each specified plural grammar intuitively but couldn't offer a reason to save ourselves. When he explained why, it made sense but we all couldn't give the proper answer in the first place.

[Menorain]

That was helpful. Also, your punch line was too much XD

[phana14]

Never had problems with past and passed. More peeved when I come across it. Same with Loose for Lose and Should of/Would of for Should've/Would've (both mistakes I commonly find among native English speakers).

 

The only comparable confusion for me was ironically for Spelled and Spelt, which turned out to be both correct. Just the usual regional variations.

Unless my memories of HS English are failing, I believe the above should read: Should have/Would have. If I'm wrong, stop me now, please.

I personally would have loved to have seen this topic come up a LONG time ago. It doesn't bother me nearly as much in posts, but when authors do it I cringe. Read as *shudder*!

And to at least one of you above who lamented that the English language is hard to (insert word used) my own opinion is you're coming close to copping out because perhaps you encountered some difficulty with certain words.

Not the first one of us live in a perfect world. That just ain't gonna happen! *smirks*

Just keep writing and posting and speaking and giving me the 'finger'. As long as I can UNDERSTAND what you are telling me we're cool.

[MikeL]

Never had problems with past and passed. More peeved when I come across it. Same with Loose for Lose and Should of/Would of for Should've/Would've (both mistakes I commonly find among native English speakers).

 

Unless my memories of HS English are failing, I believe the above should read: Should have/Would have. If I'm wrong, stop me now, please.

 

I think you are both saying the same thing. Should have and would have are the correct words. In speech, many people say "should of" or "would of" and it sounds to our ears much the same as the correct words would. Unfortunately, some authors write the words based on phonetics and never realize their error.

 

I hasten to point out that, when editing or proofreading a story, I draw a distinction between narrative and dialogue. Dialogue should appear as the character would speak. If he would say "should of" in his usual speech or accent, then the author would properly spell it that way. The narrative should use proper English and spelling and read "should have". There is an exception to consider on the narrative. If the story is in the first person, a character is the narrator and the narration appropriately could be in that character's normal manner of speaking.

 

English is fun! (Maybe not.)

[phana14]

I think you are both saying the same thing. Should have and would have are the correct words. In speech, many people say "should of" or "would of" and it sounds to our ears much the same as the correct words would. Unfortunately, some authors write the words based on phonetics and never realize their error.

 

I hasten to point out that, when editing or proofreading a story, I draw a distinction between narrative and dialogue. Dialogue should appear as the character would speak. If he would say "should of" in his usual speech or accent, then the author would properly spell it that way. The narrative should use proper English and spelling and read "should have". There is an exception to consider on the narrative. If the story is in the first person, a character is the narrator and the narration appropriately could be in that character's normal manner of speaking.

 

English is fun! (Maybe not.)

And I thank you MikeL.

I would actually like to see MORE of this kind of interaction going on.

[Hylas]

Er, they are the same?

 

Contracting Should have and Would have itself into Should've/Would've in written english is very rare but it is in fact grammatically correct. Saying it isn't is like saying I've or We've or Shan't are also wrong (which they are obviously not).

 

I believe the confusion itself arises from the fact that Should have and Would have are already contracted colloquially into Should've/Would've. When people write or seem to say Should of they are actually saying Should've a spoken contraction of Should have. It's pretty obvious that Should have and Should've sound very different from each other. The latter being closer to Should of with the vowel of the second word (have) becoming a schwa sound [ə], while in the former the vowel is clearly enunciated as an a [ă] or an o [ŏ] sound (depending on the dialect/accent).

 

As I've said, this error is something I only seem to find among native speakers. Because they actually speak it that way. In contrast, a foreigner who reads/writes English as a second language would be more likely to misspell it as Should Hab or Should 'Av or something like that, being less familiar with how it's actually spoken.

[Tipdin]

Er, they are the same?

 

Contracting Should have and Would have itself into Should've/Would've in written english is very rare but it is in fact grammatically correct. Saying it isn't is like saying I've or We've or Shan't are also wrong (which they are obviously not).

 

I believe the confusion itself arises from the fact that Should have and Would have are already contracted colloquially into Should've/Would've. When people write or seem to say Should of they are actually saying Should've a spoken contraction of Should have. It's pretty obvious that Should have and Should've sound very different from each other. The latter being closer to Should of with the vowel of the second word (have) becoming a schwa sound [ə], while in the former the vowel is clearly enunciated as an a [ă] or an o [ŏ] sound (depending on the dialect/accent).

 

As I've said, this error is something I only seem to find among native speakers. Because they actually speak it that way. In contrast, a foreigner who reads/writes English as a second language would be more likely to misspell it as Should Hab or Should 'Av or something like that, being less familiar with how it's actually spoken.

 

Here, in the Midwest of the USA, people often (off-ten, with a T) say 'shoulda' and 'woulda' and 'coulda' rather than pronouncing ANY of them correctly.

 

Even though I have lived here my entire life, some of these local customs drive me CRAZY!

[phana14]

Er, they are the same?

 

Contracting Should have and Would have itself into Should've/Would've in written english is very rare but it is in fact grammatically correct. Saying it isn't is like saying I've or We've or Shan't are also wrong (which they are obviously not).

 

I believe the confusion itself arises from the fact that Should have and Would have are already contracted colloquially into Should've/Would've. When people write or seem to say Should of they are actually saying Should've a spoken contraction of Should have. It's pretty obvious that Should have and Should've sound very different from each other. The latter being closer to Should of with the vowel of the second word (have) becoming a schwa sound [ə], while in the former the vowel is clearly enunciated as an a [ă] or an o [ŏ] sound (depending on the dialect/accent).

 

As I've said, this error is something I only seem to find among native speakers. Because they actually speak it that way. In contrast, a foreigner who reads/writes English as a second language would be more likely to misspell it as Should Hab or Should 'Av or something like that, being less familiar with how it's actually spoken.

whateva

[Hylas]

You whateva-ed me!

 

Meanie.

[phana14]

You whateva-ed me!

 

Meanie.

Hylas,

I so happy that you see the humour innit!

Seriously, I think you are a very intelligent person. Your posts show me that! And I have NO intention of dragging you down, kicking and screaming, to my level.

[Hylas]

But I want to live in your basement. And aw shucks. Thanks

 

@Tipdin : I actually prefer reading shoulda, woulda, and coulda than should of/would of/could of. The former are colloquialisms and are perfectly acceptable (though not in formal writing), while the latter are actually a kind of malapropism in which the wrong words which sound similar are used.