After my strode/stridden thread turned into a proved/proven thread, I discovered something which struck me as very odd, so I thought I'd start a new post about it.
In a Web survey for the past participle of disprove, the results were:

24% disproven
76% disproved
Although 'disproved' is still the majority form, 'disproven' isn't uncommon. In view of the current popularity of 'proven', that's not surprising. I would have expected that if something can be proven or unproven, it can be disproven.
However ...
It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, although it's in the OED and the NSOED and the references show that it was used in the 19th century. A OneLook search produced only one dictionary mentioning 'disproven' as the past participle! No mention either in the current version of the Concise Oxford (although it was in the 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?
 2 3 4 5 6 7 » 28
After my strode/stridden thread turned into a proved/proven thread, I discovered something which struck me as very odd, so I ... version of the Concise Oxford (although it was in the 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?

In Scottish Law there's a possible verdict 'not proven'... DC
It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, although it's in the OED and the NSOED and the references show that it was used in the 19th century.

If you were to check the MWCD11, you would find that a search on words beginning with "disprove" includes "disproven." The entry to which it points does not have the literal term "disproven" in it, however. What's happening, you might ask. The answer is simple. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that "disprove" is a regular formation from "dis-" and "prove." The MWCD11 entry for "prove" does have "proven." In the same way, COD10 offers no principal parts for "disprove" but does for "prove." Dictionary editors must assume some level of literacy for their readers; their assumed level seems to be a bit high for DP.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, although it's in the OED and the NSOED and the ... version of the Concise Oxford (although it was in the 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?

Yep: the poor sods on no-way-generous-compared-with-plumbers hourly rates have to draw lines somewhere. Don't underestimate the economics of the thing: I'd very much like those who do the dictionaries to be a kind of dedicated priesthood or Government Department, but I'm here to tell you they aren't. 'Disproven' is a quirky usage in educated modern English (though, by God's wounds, if was good enough for Jowett it's plenty good enough for me), so just sympathize if they shoved the felt-tip through it instead of through something else.

Even with the present trend to make "small" dictionaries bigger than their commercial competitors to give an illusion (and it is an illusion) of value for money, there are length limits. I'd agree with you on some omissions and some inclusions; but you'd very likely think me totally unreasonable on others, so we're back down to the editor's time-pressed judgement.
I don't like it a bit, but dictionary-making is a business, just as it was for Dr Johnson. "...the patron, and the jail."

Mike.
It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, although it's in the OED and the NSOED and the ... version of the Concise Oxford (although it was in the 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?

Yep: the poor sods on no-way-generous-compared-with-plumbers hourly rates have to draw lines somewhere. Don't underestimate the economics of the thing: I'd very much like those who do the dictionaries to be a kind of dedicated priesthood or Government Department, but I'm here to tell you they aren't. 'Disproven' is a quirky usage in educated modern English (though, by God's wounds, if was good enough for Jowett it's plenty good enough for me), so just sympathize if they shoved the felt-tip through it instead of through something else.

Even with the present trend to make "small" dictionaries bigger than their commercial competitors to give an illusion (and it is an illusion) of value for money, there are length limits. I'd agree with you on some omissions and some inclusions; but you'd very likely think me totally unreasonable on others, so we're back down to the editor's time-pressed judgement.
I don't like it a bit, but dictionary-making is a business, just as it was for Dr Johnson. "...the patron, and the jail."

Mike.
After my strode/stridden thread turned into a proved/proven thread, I discovered something which struck me as very odd, so I thought I'd start a new post about it. In a Web survey for the past participle of disprove, the results were: 24% disproven 76% disproved

It's comparable to "proved" v "proven". IMO, "proven" sounds more natural a la "gotten", "written", "eaten", etc. Even Alicia Keys uses the word "loven" to constrast with "fallen". It works! ALL these are different from the simple past tense form. However, the damn frog-eating Brits decided that they were gonna be ever gayer (NOT more gay) than usual and change "proven" to "proved", "gotten" to "got", "fallen" to "falled", "loven" to "loved", etc, etc. "Have you gotten the gift yet?" sounds INCREDIBLY antiquated to the Brits, but to us normal Americans it sounds better than the Ebonic-sounding "have you got it yet?". I'd use "disproven" more often than "proven". The survey results are screwed because the damn Brits, Australians, Africans, Hindus, and Afghans who speak English have butchered our mother tongue. "Disproved" is alright, but "disproven" is more correct.
Although 'disproved' is still the majority form, 'disproven' isn't uncommon. In view of the current popularity of 'proven', that's not surprising. I would have expected that if something can be proven or unproven, it can be disproven.

Also, misproven, biproven, and antiproven.
However ... It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, although it's in the OED and the NSOED ... version of the Concise Oxford (although it was in the 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?

The Brits suck my mom's balls!
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
After my strode/stridden thread turned into a proved/proven thread, I ... participle of disprove, the results were: 24% disproven 76% disproved

It's comparable to "proved" v "proven". IMO, "proven" sounds more natural a la "gotten", "written", "eaten", etc. Even Alicia Keys ... Africans, Hindus, and Afghans who speak English have butchered our mother tongue. "Disproved" is alright, but "disproven" is more correct.

I say, jolly good letter old chap, but we haven't changed 'fallen' to 'falled' and as far as I know we're not even working on it.
Brian

mailto:(Email Removed) Norsk Hydro Research Centre phone +47 55 99 68 74 ((( Postboks 7190 fax +47 55 99 69 70 2oooS N-5020 Bergen home +47 55 13 78 49 HYDRO Norway
It's a challenge to find 'disproven' in any normal-sized dictionary, ... references show that it was used in the 19th century.

If you were to check the MWCD11, you would find that a search on words beginning with "disprove" includes "disproven." ... for "prove" does have "proven." In the same way, COD10 offers no principal parts for "disprove" but does for "prove."

No - I disagree. Many dictionaries, including COD10, give all the forms explicitly for all irregular verbs, even when they are formed by prepending a prefix. It's obvious that 'undergo' and 'underlie' should be conjugated like 'go' and 'lie', but the forms are given anyway. For example, COD10 has:
undergo: (past -went, past part -gone)
underlie: (past -lay, past part -lying)
overpay: (past and past part -paid)
overtake: (past -took, past part -taken)
but not
disprove (past part -proved or -proven)
New Fowler's Modern English Usage confirms my interpretation of the 'dictionary view': it's a 'mild curiosity that disproven no longer alternates with disproved as past participle', but it did so until the end of the 19th century.
After my strode/stridden thread turned into a proved/proven thread, I ... 1946 edition). Does anyone have an explanation for the omission?

In Scottish Law there's a possible verdict 'not proven'... DC

Maybe that's the view of the dictionary compilers. They're all waiting to see if 'disproven' catches on to the same extent as 'proven', and consider that the jury is still out at this stage. As soon as one dictionary breaks ranks and passes a "not guilty" verdict, the rest will follow!
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more