"shined"? Most of the time that ought to be "shone" as I was taught.

[halfeye]

I am seeing a lot of use of the word "shined" where in my opinion the word used ought to be "shone". There are cases where "shined" would be correct, but "shone" should be used for a large majority of the current uses. Of course, I was taught quite a while ago now.

I could understand if the authors in question were clearly eschewing long or complicated words to make things easier for the semi-literate, but mostly they clearly aren't, and they still use "shined", which I find odd.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, both are past tense verbs involving light and shininess, but they have a very different context. "The boy shined his boots, after which they shone like the sun."

[Peelee]

Yeah, both are past tense verbs involving light and shininess, but they have a very different context. "The boy shined his boots, after which they shone like the sun."

Aye. Shone when alone. That is, "shined" has an object and "shone" doesn't.

[halfeye]

Aye. Shone when alone. That is, "shined" has an object and "shone" doesn't.

The whole sentence is kind of peculiar, but:

Lamps of warm yellow light shined on ...

Maybe this case was "I really should be asleep" writing, but I do notice "shined" when I think it ought to be "shone", and I don't remember seeing "shone" at all, but maybe I didn't notice because it was correct?

[Peelee]

The whole sentence is kind of peculiar, but:



Maybe this case was "I really should be asleep" writing, but I do notice "shined" when I think it ought to be "shone", and I don't remember seeing "shone" at all, but maybe I didn't notice because it was correct?

Imean, I'm the last person you want to ask about absolutely keeping to linguistic rules, but if someone asks what the rule is I can usually answer.


Strictly speaking, the lamp shone on, but as far as I care it shined and shined and left the rules behind.

[Khedrac]

The whole sentence is kind of peculiar, but:



Maybe this case was "I really should be asleep" writing, but I do notice "shined" when I think it ought to be "shone", and I don't remember seeing "shone" at all, but maybe I didn't notice because it was correct?

One problem is that we are so used to people getting things "wrong" we automatically mentally correct things. It is one of the main problems with proof-reading - you read what you expect to see so don't spot the errors.

All that said, we should remember that most of the 'rules' in English are more like 'strong guidelines' - they are there to be broken, but you should only break them if you know what you are doing and why.
On the other hand the 'shined' v.' 'shone' argument is one of changing the meaning of a word, but that happens in English all the time, though usually quite slowly.

Anoher point is that somethimes there is more than one 'correct' option with the same meaning (e.g. the plural of 'fish' can be 'fish' or 'fishes', though 'fish' is the main plural) and then it becomes the editor's job to clarify how to use which version (and not the author even if they are a technical expert - if the meanings are identical they can discuss with the editor which way to write a piece but it is the editor's call). Many years ago I came across a classic example of how to get this wrong - a double-page spread in the local area newspaper (Western Daily Press in this case) about the fish in the local rivers. The article had two different uses of the plural of 'fish' - the number of individual fishes in a river and the number of different species of fishes - but it used 'fishes' as the plural throughout for both usages. As a result the artilce was very hard. This would have been a good time to use 'fish' for one plural and 'fishes' for the other to clarify which was being referenced at any time, but for some reason the editor let a good article be printed in a form that was painful to read.

I get the impression that another major problem is that people trust the computer to do the spelling and grammar checking, and whilst automated systems are a useful guide, they are not always correct; and even worse when they suggest replacements for errors they do not always suggest the right word - that that is what I think might have happened in your example.

[Rynjin]

Speaking from experience, there is absolutely no substitute for having a real, competent, human editor look at your work.

As for the specific sentence, I'd need to see the whole thing to judge. It really is entirely context dependent which form feels correct.

[Melayl]

While my grammar isn't always perfect, I do expect grammatical perfection from my authors. The shined/shone error is one of many that I find in (mostly self-published) books. Such errors really break my immersion in the story and, frankly, make me disappointed in otherwise good (or great) stories.

[DavidSh]

I think "shined" is reserved for usage with a direct object, with the sense of "made shiny", while "shone" is with an indirect object, or without an object. So:
"I shined my shoes two years ago."
"The sun shone upon the shoes."
"The shoes shone back."

[Peelee]

I think "shined" is reserved for usage with a direct object, with the sense of "made shiny", while "shone" is with an indirect object, or without an object. So:
"I shined my shoes two years ago."
"The sun shone upon the shoes."
"The shoes shone back."

Aye. Or, if you want to say it in a pithy rhyme, "shine when alone".

[Rodin]

Shone on, you crazy diamonds.

[halfeye]

Shone on, you crazy diamonds.

"Shine" is usually used correctly, it's "shined" that seems to be changing.

[Wintermoot]

While my grammar isn't always perfect, I do expect grammatical perfection from my authors. The shined/shone error is one of many that I find in (mostly self-published) books. Such errors really break my immersion in the story and, frankly, make me disappointed in otherwise good (or great) stories.

It's not an error. Both are legitimately acceptable grammar choices.

"The celestial light shone down through the stained glass windows."
"The celestial light shined down through the stained glass windows."

Although the first is, perhaps, more traditional, both are legitimate usages.

[Aedilred]

It's not an error. Both are legitimately acceptable grammar choices.

"The celestial light shone down through the stained glass windows."
"The celestial light shined down through the stained glass windows."

Although the first is, perhaps, more traditional, both are legitimate usages.

I'm willing to bet that "shined" in that sense is more of a neologism though (given that the rule that produces "shone" is one of the oldest in the English language and has long since stopped being productive, whereas "shined" is fully regular). I'd be interested to know its first use (as an intransitive verb), although I doubt that's easy to find.

Which then just leads into a question about prescriptivism vs descriptivism and what is "legitimate" grammar, etc.

[Peelee]

I'm willing to bet that "shined" in that sense is more of a neologism though (given that the rule that produces "shone" is one of the oldest in the English language and has long since stopped being productive, whereas "shined" is fully regular). I'd be interested to know its first use (as an intransitive verb), although I doubt that's easy to find.

Which then just leads into a question about prescriptivism vs descriptivism and what is "legitimate" grammar, etc.

I vote that I be the ultimate arbiter of what is "legitimate" English grammar and what is not. I shall dub my reign the "Rule of Peelee", which will double as the title for any and all such rulings.