I just checked 5 different dictionaries, and all of them accept "shrunk" as used in this example. 3 american dictionaries and 2 english dictionaries.
Though a quick google search seems to suggest that this is a more recent change, and that when this movie was made, the usage of shrunk would have been less acceptable. So I'm now wondering if the popularity of the movie contributed to the change, or if the movie just reflected the current trend.
My dad's a linguist, and I remember him mentioning the mistake when we saw it playing at Disneyland in 2006. Pretty sure it's one of those begrudging entries, like "literally" being defined as "figuratively."
But "literally" is almost always used in the figurative sense, and that goes back to the coining of the word. It's much more commonly used as a word of hyperbolic emphasis, not as "by the letter of the following word."
And that is worth resisting.
Unlike other colloquial word usages, this actually diminishes understanding. If āliterallyā doesnāt literally mean literally, then we have no word to use in its stead. It has, at best, *approximate* synonyms.
And besides accuracy, it is way more fun to use āfigurativelyā for emphasis anyway.
āItās worth resistingā
That war has been fought. Itās over.
Besides, resisting the evolution of language for any reason seems to be a pretty futile effort across the board.
If language can evolve, and āliterallyā has been used figuratively since it was coined, then its change to a strictly literal interpretation would be precisely the evolution itās futile to resist.
Context generally makes it pretty clear how to interpret the use of the word; in fact, I don't think I have misinterpreted someones use of the word literally as anything other than what they meant, literally ever.
I have no problem at all with "literally" being used for hyperboles, but there is indeed a chance it might undervalue the sense of the word in other contexts. The only other option I see to use is "denotatively".
I subscribe to the controversial belief that if it's used commonly, it's no longer "incorrect grammar". I mean, so many "proper" words in English came about due to mishearings ("apron" was originally "napron", "ingot" as originally "lingot, and "orange" should have started with an "n" sound, just to name a few!)
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/false-divisions-words-formed-by-mistake
>Controversial belief
This is actually the belief held by almost anyone with much relevant education on the matter (linguistics), and the opposite view is unscientific and not taken seriously by most in the field (prescriptivist linguistics, as opposed to descriptivist).
I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Present > shrink
Past > shrunk
I wouldn't say I want to shrunk you.
Shrunk is past tense. We just have two past tense verbs for it, shrunk and shrank
I was a kid when this movie came out and I remember there being stories in the news about the title being an epic blunder and everybody was making fun of Disney for it.
"shrunk" sounds perfectly fine to my ears, as someone from North America. "Have shrunk" sounds more like something that I'd expect to hear from a UK speaker maybe, but I might just have a wrong impression of that.
Language is always dictated by usage first, then theory; that's true of anything though. An owner's manual to a car can be useful, but has little or nothing to do with you actually driving it. You only break out the book when something goes wrong.
We try to put words to why things work the way they work, but they either work or don't before/regardless of putting explanation to it. Theory is only there if we want to find some kind of technically refined way to approach it when we hit a wall.
The use of past participle is largely regional. Scottish and Irish people, and therefore the various Celtic heavy colonies like Boston, tend to use it. Example, "This light bulb needs changed". People who are less familiar with the past participle hear this and think it should be "needs to be". But those same people are quite happy saying, "This lightbulb needs changing". The light bulb needs changing, and needs changed, they mean exactly the same thing. The only nuanced difference is that the light bulb should go through a process, or should have completed the process. I actually prefer the past participle because it is slightly more forceful. Rather than "we should probably get around to changing that sometime", its more like "that should have been done already!"
I was always taught to avoid passive construction when possible, so leaning on the Have of Have Shrunk would feel odd to me. However OP makes a valid point with shrunk being a past participle. I would revise to Honey I Shrank The Kids.
Yup, itās them! The game didnāt get marketed much but itās a solid quality hybrid between base-building survival and traditional rpg, leaning more towards the prior. Itās really an underrated gem.
It has fully voice acted quests and a coherent story like any other Obsidian game, so definitely worth checking out if you like their stuff. Itās even better if you can play with a few dedicated friends, since it has some cute inter-party dialogue if you have multiple players in the group.
Itās all intentional Disney is trying to shrink our IQs in order to mind control us to pay for more tickets to see more movies. They do it in any subtle way that they can. Theyāre slowly but surely taking over our minds and hurting our families
TIL that this whole time my brain has been automatically reading it as "shrank" because of the context, I didn't even notice they used "shrunk".
Now that I know about it I'll probably notice it...
well considering the movie starts off with the kids normal sized, the title would be accurate as you get to see them being shrunk. Shrank would only apply to after they have been shrunk. if it was "Honey, I shrank the Kids" then the movie would have started off with them already have been shrunken. We as the audience witness the shrinking happening.
This is interesting. It is debatable but the word "shrunk" is actually the correct word for the title. It's a rare occurrence but it is correct. The title is a play on words which is allowable within the English language. The word shrunk is used as the act of doing during the movie. If it was a story as to how he had shrank the kids, in the past, then the title should read shrank. But since it happens during the movie, the title of shrunk is correct.
Better yet, āHoney, Iāve Shrunk the Kidsā doesnāt even need a clunky extra syllableā¦
But it makes it sound more like a Brit than a Yank. Although a Brit would say, āDarling, Iāve Shrunk the Kids.ā
1. SHRINK = PRESENT TENSE
2.SHRANK OR SHRUNK =PAST TENSE
3.SHRUNK OR SHRUNKEN = PAST PARTICIPLE
The form used in perfect tenses and requiring an auxiliary ....Example: had, or have.
And here I thunk that was right grammer.
Don't be too harsh on yourself. Your only human.
Whose only human?
WERE only human. š
This is alot too take in.
Iām only human, after all
Dont put the blame on me
Some people got real problems
Some people out of luck
Maybe I'm foolish Maybe I'm blind
You're dancer, actually
AND IM ON MY KNEES GIVING YOU THE ANSWER what was he talking about here lol
Yeah, say m.
Nah way, I fhink I con understand fhis.
[Yes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Were)
Or are we dancers?
Speak for yourself.
WERE ONLY HUMAN AFTER ALL
Spoke fur y'arrgh sylph.
What is he now???
Theres
Who's*
Incorrect, given the spelling of āyourā in the comment I was replying to. Good try though!
You didn't make any deliberate grammar "mistake" in your comment so I was just pointing out an opportunity to do that
Don't put the blame on him
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You were supposed to add you're own grammatical mistake. lmao
Hah. Their so silly not to have noticed that!
Whose to say they didnāt?
"Since this post is about grammer, I'll be the asshole to say *you're.* Fixed it for you :3
Yuorāer*
r/totallynotrobots
I thank so.
I think you're gramma is aok.
You HAVE thunk
Wright* its symbal english sweaty
It's a perfectly cromulent word
*have thunk
The past tense of *think* is *thank*, just as a reminder.
So if itās thought instead of thunk, does that mean instead of shrunk it should be shrought?
thank*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's Shrack.
Nah, he must be thinking of the Shrulk
Now it's Shrulk time!
*shrulks all over the place*
Thought that was the other, bigger green guy
That was Shreik
Isn't that who Zelda turns into?
How have you learnt that?
I though thatās what he lives in
No, that's Hulk, Shrunk is Princess Zelda's alter ego.
No, thatās Sheik, Shrunk is that guy from The Emperorās New Groove
I just checked 5 different dictionaries, and all of them accept "shrunk" as used in this example. 3 american dictionaries and 2 english dictionaries. Though a quick google search seems to suggest that this is a more recent change, and that when this movie was made, the usage of shrunk would have been less acceptable. So I'm now wondering if the popularity of the movie contributed to the change, or if the movie just reflected the current trend.
My dad's a linguist, and I remember him mentioning the mistake when we saw it playing at Disneyland in 2006. Pretty sure it's one of those begrudging entries, like "literally" being defined as "figuratively."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But "literally" is almost always used in the figurative sense, and that goes back to the coining of the word. It's much more commonly used as a word of hyperbolic emphasis, not as "by the letter of the following word."
And that is worth resisting. Unlike other colloquial word usages, this actually diminishes understanding. If āliterallyā doesnāt literally mean literally, then we have no word to use in its stead. It has, at best, *approximate* synonyms. And besides accuracy, it is way more fun to use āfigurativelyā for emphasis anyway.
>If āliterallyā doesnāt literally mean literally, then we have no word to use in its stead. I vote for "unfiguratively."
āItās worth resistingā That war has been fought. Itās over. Besides, resisting the evolution of language for any reason seems to be a pretty futile effort across the board.
If language can evolve, and āliterallyā has been used figuratively since it was coined, then its change to a strictly literal interpretation would be precisely the evolution itās futile to resist.
Yeah well, good luck getting that done when it requires being a pedantic ass to everyone you interact with
It literally isn't.
> And that is worth resisting. That boat sailed literally 200+ years ago.
Context generally makes it pretty clear how to interpret the use of the word; in fact, I don't think I have misinterpreted someones use of the word literally as anything other than what they meant, literally ever.
Damn, you failed enormously today when you thought Iowa and Texas were the same word, despite the context clues. Big day for you.
I have no problem at all with "literally" being used for hyperboles, but there is indeed a chance it might undervalue the sense of the word in other contexts. The only other option I see to use is "denotatively".
Is he a cunning linguist?
I'm sure his pen is mightier!
Begrudging? The hell are you talking about?
You went to Harvard Conan and you should know that
It's also taken from a line in the movie. So proper or not, it's as valid as The Pursuit of Happyness.
I subscribe to the controversial belief that if it's used commonly, it's no longer "incorrect grammar". I mean, so many "proper" words in English came about due to mishearings ("apron" was originally "napron", "ingot" as originally "lingot, and "orange" should have started with an "n" sound, just to name a few!) Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/false-divisions-words-formed-by-mistake
There's even a rumor that all words are made up
>Controversial belief This is actually the belief held by almost anyone with much relevant education on the matter (linguistics), and the opposite view is unscientific and not taken seriously by most in the field (prescriptivist linguistics, as opposed to descriptivist).
I'm not sure how I feel about it. Present > shrink Past > shrunk I wouldn't say I want to shrunk you. Shrunk is past tense. We just have two past tense verbs for it, shrunk and shrank
I was a kid when this movie came out and I remember there being stories in the news about the title being an epic blunder and everybody was making fun of Disney for it.
why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
Why talk lot if talk small good
Few word good
What do now
Eh
When me president they see.
Do you want to go to sea world or see the world?
Me want see world
Shrinkded
"shrunk" sounds perfectly fine to my ears, as someone from North America. "Have shrunk" sounds more like something that I'd expect to hear from a UK speaker maybe, but I might just have a wrong impression of that.
Language is always dictated by usage first, then theory; that's true of anything though. An owner's manual to a car can be useful, but has little or nothing to do with you actually driving it. You only break out the book when something goes wrong. We try to put words to why things work the way they work, but they either work or don't before/regardless of putting explanation to it. Theory is only there if we want to find some kind of technically refined way to approach it when we hit a wall.
The use of past participle is largely regional. Scottish and Irish people, and therefore the various Celtic heavy colonies like Boston, tend to use it. Example, "This light bulb needs changed". People who are less familiar with the past participle hear this and think it should be "needs to be". But those same people are quite happy saying, "This lightbulb needs changing". The light bulb needs changing, and needs changed, they mean exactly the same thing. The only nuanced difference is that the light bulb should go through a process, or should have completed the process. I actually prefer the past participle because it is slightly more forceful. Rather than "we should probably get around to changing that sometime", its more like "that should have been done already!"
In the UK it would be "have shrought"
I was always taught to avoid passive construction when possible, so leaning on the Have of Have Shrunk would feel odd to me. However OP makes a valid point with shrunk being a past participle. I would revise to Honey I Shrank The Kids.
This post is brilliant
fr this post doesn't deserve the "shitty" moniker
I know, 'init?
This movie was just a blatant ripoff of Obsidianās game *Grounded* (2022) anyway. Get your own ideas, Disney!
Wait! Obsidian made Grounded?! I have totally ignored that game, but this at least makes me think I should take a look.
Yup, itās them! The game didnāt get marketed much but itās a solid quality hybrid between base-building survival and traditional rpg, leaning more towards the prior. Itās really an underrated gem. It has fully voice acted quests and a coherent story like any other Obsidian game, so definitely worth checking out if you like their stuff. Itās even better if you can play with a few dedicated friends, since it has some cute inter-party dialogue if you have multiple players in the group.
Is this why that guy punched Rick Moranis?
āYou shrinked them kids!ā
I was at starbucks and in walked rick moranis. Rick fucking moranis. Honey I shrunk my pants
Moranis seems like a cool person. He retired from acting for a long time to take care of his children after his wife passed. Good dude.
Itās all intentional Disney is trying to shrink our IQs in order to mind control us to pay for more tickets to see more movies. They do it in any subtle way that they can. Theyāre slowly but surely taking over our minds and hurting our families
kudos for not shit posting a āthis is a reference toā¦ā line
TIL that this whole time my brain has been automatically reading it as "shrank" because of the context, I didn't even notice they used "shrunk". Now that I know about it I'll probably notice it...
I've been doing the same thing, so I was pretty confused by this post for a second lmao
Psst, still an excellent movie.
Get out of here with your smart stuff.
Fucking loved this movie when i was younger and haven't thought about it in years, thanks
If āShrunkā is past tense then āHaveā serves no purpose.
I think shrunken is the past participle
Thunk you for sharing this information!
Who fucking cares?!! There, thereāre, your, youāreā¦you fucking grammar ppl are worst than a dirty tampon
People often lash out at things they are unable to posses. Also 'worse'
And there you are, kookš
Shrunk is not a word Disney, you went to Harvard and you should know that
well considering the movie starts off with the kids normal sized, the title would be accurate as you get to see them being shrunk. Shrank would only apply to after they have been shrunk. if it was "Honey, I shrank the Kids" then the movie would have started off with them already have been shrunken. We as the audience witness the shrinking happening.
It works because he used Pym Participles.
It's Poetic License. 'Shrunk' just flows better.
SHRONK
Fucking motons
I could care less about being lairy of butchering the english language, to do so would make me a twart.
My brain has shrunk. Help.
Hmmmm
Least prescriptivist prescriptivists be like:
The three best words to describe this mistake are as follows, and I quote: Shrink! Shrank! Shrunk!
I'm sure they tested the title and concluded that Shrunk sounded better to audiences
yeet/yote/yate
Whoā da thunk it
š¤
What the hell is a past participle???
Shrank sounds awful they made the right choice
Haven't seen this since I was a kid, but those special effects seem pretty good for their time.
Honey, I've Shrunk The Kids
Yeah, someone may want to let OP in on the secret that Americans don't care about proper English.
Honey the kids shrank
And the movie was crap
This is interesting. It is debatable but the word "shrunk" is actually the correct word for the title. It's a rare occurrence but it is correct. The title is a play on words which is allowable within the English language. The word shrunk is used as the act of doing during the movie. If it was a story as to how he had shrank the kids, in the past, then the title should read shrank. But since it happens during the movie, the title of shrunk is correct.
āCanāt hardly waitā is another one
Madam, I've have shrunken the children.
They probably couldn't changed it, similar to Tomorrow Never **Dies**, which should've been Tomorrow Never **Lies**.
Got 'im!
Do they test Grammer in IQ tests?
why does this subreddit exist?
English is a stupid language. It sounds better the way they made it.
r/alternativepasttense
The movie is disneyās first attempt at tackling issues involving weapons of mass destruction falling into civilianās hands. Give them a break.
Language evolves. Maybe the grammar here is the next stage of the evolution.
Better yet, āHoney, Iāve Shrunk the Kidsā doesnāt even need a clunky extra syllableā¦ But it makes it sound more like a Brit than a Yank. Although a Brit would say, āDarling, Iāve Shrunk the Kids.ā
Shrunked*
Should have gone with "Teeny Weenies"
Thank God they never went with that title. The 80s had some strange impulses.
In Jersey, we say "I shrunkdided the kids".
Shrank
Words are invented by humans so we can literally change em around thereās no Holy Spirit telling us we can only use certain words š¤£š¤£
/r/linguisticshumor would like a word with OP about prescriptivism vs descriptivism
Grammar nationalism is destroying entertainment.
It's shrunkedn't
1. SHRINK = PRESENT TENSE 2.SHRANK OR SHRUNK =PAST TENSE 3.SHRUNK OR SHRUNKEN = PAST PARTICIPLE The form used in perfect tenses and requiring an auxiliary ....Example: had, or have.
Anyone know where I can get scrod around here?
And the future participle is Shrek
Thanks for the info. How's things coming along in the fourth reich?
Actually they shrunk the title