This sounds so inane but referencing the above: is it past tense: dragged, present tense: drag and future tense 'drag?'..a friend says 'I drug the stuff home' and they are saying that is the correct use..I KNOW it isn't but they need to say it in writing??????

I hear my husband use the following sentence: I left him do it...instead of I let him do it...he says the words mean the same thing...I think that isn't so...they are not the same. Has anyone else heard this before (besides people from Pittsburgh?)???

1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
The past participle of drag is dragged. "Drug" is informal or non-standard English, whereas dragged is formal or standard English. Some words can have two acceptable past participles: I dived or I dove; I lit the candle or I lighted the candle, usually pertaining to the differences in British or American English.

Left and let, again, differ due to dialect(regional speech). Let = allowed; left-in the example you used is used as a verb (and is more of a dialect or idiom[a word or phrase that cannot be translated easily into another language due to its peculiar use], and the phrase "do it" replaces allowed him (let him).

Harold Terrell
English Instructor
Northwest Mississippi Community College
A great bunch of examples, except "I've had this family." That should be "I've had it with this family."
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
From grammarErrors.com:

(missing image) drug/dragged

Drug is often used as the past tense of drag, as in the following example:
Example: I drug myself out of bed this morning.
The past tense of drag is actually dragged, not drug. This error is particularly common in speech. Even Bill Clinton once made this blunder on national television, returning to bad habits he developed as a youth growing up in Arkansas.

Remember that the word drug should never be associated with any kind of pulling action. It should only be used when referring to some type of medicinal substance.

For the second question; could he be saying "I left him to it"? That would mean about the same thing. Or the wording I suggested could have been misinterpreted somewhere along the way, hence your husband's sentence.
I've totally heard it. I'm from Northeastern PA, and my family is from the coal region. People from there use "left" in that context all the time, and you're right -- it's not correct. Left is the past tense of the verb "to leave," which means "to exit." For example, "I left the party in a bad mood after Penn State lost the game on Saturday." By saying "I left him do it," your husband is saying that he exited whomever "him" is, implying that he was somehow inside of that person, which is just silly. To let is to allow, and since you wouldn't say "I let the pary in a bad mood after Penn State lost the game," they're clearly not interchangeable. Hope this helps! Emotion: smile
There's not one good thing about using drug as the past tense of drag.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I used to say "drug" for past tense of 'drag' also. I think it was a family practice. But it's not correct. "Dragged" is correct for past tense of drag. If you look it up make sure you look up the verb 'drag' and not the noun. Now, do you say I dreamt? I used to do that too.
On the contrary. Original proper English that "American" English derived from and was taught to us during middle school, states that the past tense of drag is drug. There is actually no such original word as dragged-that was made up....kind of like now the dictionary has such words as BOOTYLICIOUS AND BLING BLING. Amazing.
Being from the south we say drug instead of dragged all the time. Such as the example earlier "The horse drug me behind it." I asked someone and they said that was just my accent coming out. Unfortunately that happens a lot. I think you can say dreamt though...."Last night I dreamt I was on an island made of candy"...I don't know about in island of candy it was just something I thought would be crazy to dream about.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Most people I know use drag - drug - drug.

Drag - dragged - dragged sounds really odd to me, but I drag - drug - dragged seems ok.

There are many verbs that either were originally irregular or were originally regular and have moved in the opposite direction over the years.

What's "correct" in this sort of situation really comes down to the opinion of whomever is writing the dictionary entry for that particular dictionary. The information cited above is a word for word from Wiktionary which is a user-written and edited dictionary. It cites "Oxford" but I'm guessing that is referring to one of the simple Oxford dictionaries and not the OED. I found this entry in a forum dedicated to word forms:



Originally Posted by Yôn

Anyone else come across these as meaning the same thing.

I dragged the dresser across the floor.
I drug the dresser across the floor.

Drug is used all the time where I live; in fact it sounds funny the other way. However, my dictionary makes little mention of it. Is this some archaic thing? I found some mention after googling... but there wasn't anything on its origin.

Does anyone know where this tense comes from?


For the information of the Brits, who have abandoned many strong verbs and simply added the weak endings to the infinitive, not only is "drug" a correct simple past of "drag", but dialectically, the verb: to drug (meaning to drag) actually exists. Consult your OEDs!

That the verb "drag" was in fact (and in some places still is) strong can easily be seen by comparing the German: tragen, TRUG, hat getragen. Now it happens that when English dropped the y- which preceded the past participle for strong verbs (Summer is y-comen in, Loude sing cuckoo!) the simple past form was adoped for the past participle where the dropping of the y- would have caused confusion with the present tense. So, drag, drug, drug (I have drug in three sacks of oats already).

Jon, here is a little review:
English has two ways of making the simple past tense and the past participle.

One is an ancient Indo-European method, called the Umlaut row. You change the vowel within the verb to indicate the simple past and the past participle. Many now call these verbs: irregular. This is a Gallicism. They are not "irregular" they are what are called in all other Germanic languages "strong." They are not "irregular" because they can all be placed in seven Umlaut rows, although, since they constitute many of the most used verbs of the language, no one bothers, because one learns them from the cradle. This method of forming the past is, however, not unique to Germanic languages. It exists in Latin as well and, although they do not recognize it as such, it still exists in French: lire (je lis), je lus (I read - simple past), lu (past participle).

The other way of making the simple past and the past participle is to add -ed to the verb stem (the infinitive or the first person present tense): walk, walked, walked. These are called "regular" by English grammars, weak by other Germanic grammars.

Over a period of years, many speakers of English (particularly Brits) have abandoned the strong forms for verbs which are not used too often and have substituted weak endings. This has also happened, though to a lesser degree, in the U.S.

But here are some pairs, explained by this same phenomenon:

I dived into the water.
I dove into the water. (Most U.S. speakers would not hesitate to say this, although most, but not all, have substituted the weak past participle for the strong. Where I grew up, however, people did not hesitate to say: After I had diven into the water, I found they had not followed me. Diven is correct. The OE forms are: diwan, daf, ydiwen, in the same Umlaut row as: drive, drove, driven, which, as far as I know, almost all English speakers still say

They have smited them all with hard blows.
They have smitten them all with hard blows.
Both are, of course, correct. The latter, however, is the older English form of the verb: smite, smote, smitten. I believe our British cousins preserve the strong past participle in sentences such as: He was very smitten with her.

Hope this explanation helps. Adopting "regular" (weak) endings is convenient, of course, and is generally not wrong, as long as usage approves it, it does, however, make reading Shakespeare, the King James Version of the Bible, and most authors through the end of the 17th century more difficult.


I haven't researched this fully, but I would tend to agree with the poster on that forum that 'drug' is likely the original 'correct' form because while it's common to find people making regular verbs look like similar irregular verbs and vice versa, there aren't enough verbs similar 'drag - drug' to justify such a process here. Also, American English and in particular that of the Southern US tends to be the most preserved form in active use today. This means that most often, when there is a feature in Southern US speech that is standard but not standard for the majority of English speakers that the Southern speakers have actually retained the 'proper' form while it has been lost in other dialects.

Whichever approach you take, if you just went for saying that the dictionary entry is correct or that the original is the only correct one, when they differ, about 10% of American verb forms would be wrong, and about 90% of British verb forms would be wrong.

That said, as long as everyone involved understand what is meant by the various forms isn't it all ok?
Show more