" to shod " !!

[Baker, John]

        There are other cases where the past tense has taken over.
Consider "hoist," formerly the past tense of "hoise" but now the present
tense of the word (with the past tense now "hoisted"), and "wrought,"
formerly the past tense of "work" (which now takes the past tense
"worked"), but now a separate word in its own right.  For me, at least,
"shod" and "trod" aren't there yet.


John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jesse Sheidlower
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:24 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: " to shod " !!

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:17:40PM -0400, Laurence Horn wrote:
> At 2:09 PM -0400 9/2/09, Laurence Horn wrote:
>> At 1:55 PM -0400 9/2/09, Wilson Gray wrote:
>>> It means "To runners who are shod, ... " = "To runners who have
shoes
>>> on, ... " right? What's wrong with that? That's *nothing* like
>>>
>>> "As he quietly and carefully _trodded_ the almost-unseen trail, he
was
>>> alert to the possibility of booby-traps."
>>>
>>
>> I agree that Alison's example involves a participial adjective
>> modifying "runners", and that "to shod" is not a constituent there.
>> But it's not hard to google up examples where it is:
>
> oops.  I meant to include some "to shod" examples verifying this
claim.
>
> How much does it cost to shod a horse?

[etc.]

For what it's worth, I became aware some years ago that I
internally thought of the verb _trod_ as being present tense;
that is, although I don't think I ever said it aloud, I'd
always think of statements like "I'm going to trod on that
can."

I don't know why my mind did this.

Jesse Sheidlower
OED

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org