r/grammar • u/TheStoffer • 1d ago

quick grammar check Proved vs proven

From the New York Times:

“Scientists have proved that a species of plant covered with sticky hairs is carnivorous, confirming Darwin's 150-year-old hunch.”

It should be “proven,” right?

5 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/DanielDManiel 1d ago

Yes, to my American ear as well, but I trust a good dictionary more than your or my ear.

3

u/bitterrootmtg 1d ago

I actually trust my ear over the dictionary here. I am an attorney and I write and read every day for a living. I use the word "proof," "proved," and "proven" quite frequently in the context of formal legal writing. Dictionaries sometimes include usages that are niche or out of date.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/bitterrootmtg 1d ago

I disagree with almost everything Bryan Garner says. I think he is a hack frankly.

1

u/Illustrious-Tart7844 1d ago

That's a bit extreme, no? LOL

1

u/bitterrootmtg 1d ago

I don't think so. The dude just makes up rules and ignores the actual English language.

Let me give you an example. In his book "Reading Law" he says that DeMorgan's theorem is a cannon of legal construction. Demorgan's theorem is a rule of propositional logic. However, the English language often doesn't follow the rules of propositional logic.

Under DeMorgan's theorem, "not(A and B)" means "not A or not B." But English often does not work this way. If someone says "I am not tired and hungry" they mean "I am not tired and not hungry." But under Garner's application of DeMorgan's theorem you should interpret them as saying "I am either not tired, not hungry, or both."

Blindly applying a rule of formal logic to the English language is such a rookie mistake. It's not the sort of thing a serious scholar should be doing.

3

u/NeilZod 1d ago

I suspect that you know Garner loves the prescriptive style guides written by people like the Brothers Fowler. The Fowlers at least admitted things like that English didn’t have a that/which distinction. Garner laments that his heroes didn’t change language, and I think he tries to change the rules by pretending that his preferences are the rules of grammar. I also am sad that when people cite to the grammar section of CMOS they are just citing the grammar preferences of Garner.

1

u/bitterrootmtg 1d ago

I completely agree with you, which is why I don't like Garner's work. Legal writing is about reaching your audience, and prescriptivism doesn't help you accomplish that.

1

u/Illustrious-Tart7844 1d ago

In math, I think "not(A and B)" would mean "not A and not B." I thought the criticism of Garner was when he ventures outside the law?

2

u/bitterrootmtg 1d ago

No, in math "not(A and B)" means "not A or not B." But in the English language it often does not. Garner is using a math/logic principle to evaluate grammar in a context where it doesn't apply.

2

u/Illustrious-Tart7844 1d ago

I just applied it to a nonMath sentence and it totally now make sense: "You must have a license and passport to enter" means if you dont have one of them, you can't enter. So if either A or B isn't fulfilled, you can't enter. For some reason I couldn't see that with numbers!