4

It has been drawn to my attention that I may not be using the verb 'awake'correctly in the active and passive. Please could someone confirm that I have now got this right.

In their simple present tenses they are: Active, 'I awake each morning at 6.00am'; and passive, 'I am awaken each morning by an alarm clock'.

Past tenses therefore are: Active, 'I awoke this morning at 5.00am'; and Passive, 'I was awaken by the sound of thunder'.

Perfect: Active, 'I have awoken early all my life'; and passive, 'I have often been awakened by a passing train'

Pluperfect: Active,'I had awoken by the time the phone rang'; and passive, ' I had been awakened by noises downstairs'.

Which other verbs behave in this way?

tchrist
  • 134,759
WS2
  • 64,657
  • There are *two* different verbs here, awake and awaken. You are using one in the active and the other in the passive. Why does English have two different verbs which mean essentially the same thing? Probably for the same reason it has lie and lay: the two verbs diverged in pronunciation historically, and acquired different uses. With awake and awaken, the two different uses may be unique to you (although I'd guess most likely not). – Peter Shor Jan 29 '14 at 20:25
  • I have never heard someone say they "awake each morning". It may be correct, but it sounds awkward. Generally, it's "wake-up". – Elliott Frisch Jan 29 '14 at 20:28
  • I am awakened each morning . . . is a form I have never seen. I thought the past participle of awaken was awakened. – Babs Jan 29 '14 at 20:35
  • @Babs, it is. Is there a typo in your comment? You appear to be saying that you have never seen the form that you thought to be the correct form (?). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 29 '14 at 20:37
  • @Janus. Darn. It's a typo. Lost my credibility on that one. I have never seen I am awaken. – Babs Jan 29 '14 at 20:47
  • @Peter Shor So what is the passive of 'awake', and the active of 'awaken'? I suppose the former has no passive, and the latter could be 'My grandson awakens the dead when he plays his drums'. Is that right? Lie and lay are quite different. One is about being horizontal, the other about eggs. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:01
  • The passive for "awake" is "I am awoken". The passive for "awaken" is "I am awakened". But since that "ed" is barely pronounced, "I am awaken" sounds nearly the same, and I assume you learned these verbs in spoken form. So I guess the question is: are there other people who use "awake" only in the active voice and "awaken" only in the passive voice. – Peter Shor Jan 29 '14 at 21:08
  • Of course it has a passive. _I was awoken by the nurse. – Babs Jan 29 '14 at 21:10
  • @Peter Shor I've read your comment again, and think you may be saying that one can interchange 'awake' and 'awaken'. So one can say 'I awaken each day at 7.00am'. All this started when Janus BJ objected to my saying 'I was awoken' maintaining it should be 'I was awakened'. I also now see your point about lie/lay. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:11
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Are you reading these comments? Others are now saying that 'I was awoken' is perfectly possible. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:13
  • For lie/lay, it looks like they were different verbs back in proto-Germanic, but they were leugan and lagjanan, so as a wild guess, I would bet they're etymologically related. – Peter Shor Jan 29 '14 at 21:14
  • Ngrams shows that "I was awoken" is used, but rare, and much rarer in AmE than in BrE. – Peter Shor Jan 29 '14 at 21:17
  • @Peter, they are certainly related. ‘Lay’ is a bog-standard Germanic causative (with the causative suffix *-ja-) to ‘lie’. Unfortunately, ‘lie’ in itself forms its regular present with a different, but identical, suffix *-ja- used to form presents—so the two end up looking quite similar. If you go further back, to PIE, they are more regular: both are from the root *legʰ-, and ‘lie’ is from *légʰ-i̯e-ti (‘he lies’, with a normal *-i̯e- present), whereas ‘lay’ is from *logʰ-éi̯e-ti (‘he lays’, a typical causative with root o-grade and the causative suffix *-ei̯e-). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 29 '14 at 21:23
  • @PeterShor Perhaps because I began life with a strong regional dialect's influence my inclination is to say 'I was awoken by the telephone'. My Chinese wife, who has spoken English as a first language since age 5, and whose standard constructions are more reliable than mine, inclines to 'I was awakened by the telephone'. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:36
  • That passive "I am awaken each morning" doesn't sound at all good to me. I probably wouldn't use the *a-* prefixed version anyway, but if I did, it would be either "I am awoken* each morning"* or more likely "I am awakened* each morning"*. – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '14 at 22:55
  • @FumbleFingers We have now come full circle for it was JBJ's suggestion that 'I am awoken' was incorrect which began this. My OP here was based on my acceptance of that view. But he has now accepted 'I am awoken' and I was awoken', though he finds the latter 'a bit off'. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 23:27
  • @WS2: Janus is wise in the ways of words, as I'm sure we all agree. But sometimes a bit too prescriptivist for me. I think if people know what you mean, and only few of them think your usage is ignorant/incorrect, whatever form you use is okay. But you can't really go wrong with I am/was awakened, so if you're worried about being called out, just stick with that. – FumbleFingers Jan 30 '14 at 00:10
  • @FumbleFingers He doesn't know what 'D'yar fa ki a dikker, bor' means, and I doubt you do either! – WS2 Jan 30 '14 at 08:42
  • Related: http://english.stackexchange.com/q/91114 http://english.stackexchange.com/q/171832 http://english.stackexchange.com/q/221905 – tchrist Apr 05 '15 at 00:07

2 Answers2

5

This is part of quite a complex group of verbs that are, and have been throughout the history of the English language, frequently (con)fused in various ways.

The OED’s entrance on awake has a very thorough etymological description, which I quote here with some edits (removing extraneous details that obscure more than they clarify and highlighting a few things):

In this, as in the simple wake, two early verbs are mixed up; the form-history being complicated with that of awaken, as the sense-history is with that of awecche (q.v.).

For the intransitive verb, Old English has awæcnan, awōc, awacen, compound of wæcnan, wōc, wacen, the present stem having a formative -n-: wak-n-. This present began already in Old English to be treated as a weak verb, with past tense awæcnede; whence modern English awaken, awakened. Late Old English had also a weak verb awacian, awacode, in form a compound of wacian, wacode ‘to watch, keep awake’, but in sense identical with awæcnan, and perhaps originating in a confusion of the two. This gave Middle and modern English awake, awaked.

After the weak form awakened came into common use (as past tense of awaken), the original relation of awoke and its past participle to that verb became obscured; and later instinct, in accordance with the general analogies of the language, has referred them to awake, treating them as strong equivalents of awaked.

Of all these forms the sense was in Old English only intransitive ‘to arise or come out of sleep,’ the transitive (causal) sense of ‘rouse from sleep’ being expressed by the derivative awęcc(e)an, Middle English awecche (cf. German erwecken); but soon after 1100, awake began to be used in this sense also, and at length superseded awecche, which is not found after 1300.

There has been some tendency, especially in later times, to restrict the strong past tense (awoke) and past participle (awaken) to the original intransitive sense; and the weak inflection (awakened) to the transitive sense, but this has never been fully carried out.

The strong past participle awaken was already in 13th cent. reduced to awake, and at length became merely an adjective (mostly predicative), after which a new form from the past tense, awoken was substituted; but the weak form awaked is also in common use. (Shakespeare used only the weak inflections.)

Add to this what they have to say about awaken:

Old English awæcnan ‘to waken’. In Old English awæcnan was a strong verb with past tense and participle awōc, awacen. But sometimes the present stem (being irregular) was mistaken for a weak verb, whence already in 9th cent. the past awæcnede, modern awakened, which is now treated as the proper past tense, while awoke and its accompanying past participle are referred to the originally weak awake. Like awake, this was also at first strictly intransitive; the transitive use is of comparatively recent appearance, but now the most frequent.

– and we get a very muddled picture indeed. Especially when there is also the uncompounded verbs wake and waken to consider (they’re as convoluted).

My personal feeling, which corresponds quite well with the OED’s examples and description, is that both awake and awaken have the possibility to be used both transitively and intransitively, but that by far the most common usage is that awake is intransitive while awaken is transitive.

Moreover, awake is strong (awake, awoke, have awoken) while awaken is weak (awaken, awakened, have awakened).

In other words, I would say, intransitively:

I awake at six o’clock every morning.
I awoke at six o’clock yesterday morning.
I had already awoken when the alarm went off at six o’clock this morning.

– but transitively:

I awaken him at six o’clock every morning.
I awakened him at six o’clock yesterday morning.
I had already awakened him when the alarm went off at six o’clock this morning.

(However I say it, of course, it’s a big fat lie—there’s no way I’m awake at six in the morning. But that’s incidental.)

The opposite usages are historically well-founded, but (as mentioned in the highlighted paragraph in the etymology above) there has been a tendency to move away from them over recent centuries, and they often sound downright jarring to me, though not always. For example, “I awake him at six every morning” sounds quite ungrammatical to my ear, whereas “I was awoken at six this morning” sounds only somewhat ‘off’, and the Enya song I May Not Awaken sounds perfectly fine. (This is where the comments on the question that spurred this question become relevant: the usage there is transitive, as in “I awake him at six every morning”, and sounds downright ungrammatical to my ear.)

Of course, in actual, practical usage, I’m much more likely to use wake up (which is indifferent to transitivity) in both cases; but that’s irrelevant to the discussion about these particular verbs.

  • I was going to give the etymology with mine, but gave up, they were so entangled and originally separated by less that 100 years. – anongoodnurse Jan 29 '14 at 21:12
  • @Susan, that’s why you got your answer in quicker than I did mine. ;-) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 29 '14 at 21:13
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet Thank you for this prodigious reply. It seems I do less than justice by awarding you the 'correct' answer and many thanks to Susan too. However, I still have a question. You originally took me to task for saying 'I was awoken'. Are you now saying that is possible or not? I'm not sure. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:26
  • @WS2, I would say that “I was awoken” is possible, but to my ear, it sounds a bit ‘off’. Not quite ungrammatical, but ‘off’. The version that sounded quite wrong to me was, “I hope I have awoken your interest”, where we are dealing not with a passive, but a true transitive usage. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 29 '14 at 21:29
  • @Peter, I think that’s actually a very astute remark: with all the different forms and paradigms this cluster of verbs possesses, it’s only natural that something should be done, and suppletion is a very plausible solution. I am probably quite a bit ‘behind the times’ on this suppletion, as I awake and I have awoken sound much more natural to me as intransitives than I awaken and I have awakened do—but I would not be surprised at all if the trend were towards a single, suppletive paradigm. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 29 '14 at 21:32
  • @Janus I deleted my comment above so as to edit it, but you replied to it first. Here it is: Looking at Google Ngrams, one would deduce that the current usage is as a single verb with the conjugation "I awaken", "I am awakening", "I awoke", "I have awakened". All of these forms are much more common than their competitors. This may be a case of suppletion caught in the act. – Peter Shor Jan 29 '14 at 21:33
  • @JanusBahsJacquet If ever you find yourself in Norwich, and listen to the Norfolk accent, you may well discover plenty that is 'a bit off'. Let me assure you 'I was awoken' is one of the more urbane offerings. Normally I am aware of my Norfolkisms,but on this occasion you have drawn another of them to my attention. (I cannot precisely hit some of the Standard RP vowel sounds, even when I try. Though I have not lived in Norfolk since 1966 !) – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:54
  • 1
    @WS2: fwiw, the figures in Google books are was awaken to:378, was awoken to:1270, was awakened to:309,000. I wouldn't even bother with the history or grammatical correctness issues - just go with the vast majority on that one and ignore any criticism. Safety in numbers! – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '14 at 23:03
  • @FumbleFingers Not sure I understand those. Do you mean 'was awakened' won by 309,000 to 1,270, against 'was awoken'. If so it runs counter to my instinct. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 23:32
  • I've still got the search windows open - was awaken to:378 hits, was awoken to:1270, was awakened to:309,000 hits. I think your instinct must be wrong. I chose to include *to* to reduce the number of false positive collocations, but I didn't look past the first few results in each search to check if it worked properly. – FumbleFingers Jan 30 '14 at 00:16
  • As a result of @tchrist's housekeeping edits I have revisited this site and re-read JBJ's opus on the matter. In my OP I used awake in the active and awaken in the passive, whilst JBJ's preference was for awake intransitively and awaken transitively. I never at any point referred to what I might use transitively. But my inclination is to say I wake him each morning at 7, I woke him at 8 on Thursday, and I have woken him at 7 since he was a child. In other words for transitive use I simply miss off the first a. – WS2 Apr 05 '15 at 07:19
1

The words awake and awaken are two words that mean pretty much same thing. As

awake: To rouse from sleep, waken; to become alert.

The simple present is I awake

Infinitive: to awake
Participle: awaked; awoken; awoke
Gerund: awaking present passive: I am awaked/awoken/awoke.
simple past is: I awaked/awoke

awaken - To awake; waken; cause to become awake or conscious

Infinitive: to awaken
Participle: awakened
Gerund: awakening
present passive: I am awakened.
simple past is: I awakened

note the difference is awaken does not take the '-woke' form

The passive voice isn't really a tense. The essential components of the English passive voice are a form of the auxiliary verb be (or sometimes get), and the past participle of the main verb denoting the action.

anongoodnurse
  • 55,278
  • Thanks for this contribution. But I cannot say I have ever heard anyone say 'I am awaked' nor 'I am awoke'. However it was JBJ's objection to my use of 'I was awoken' which began all this. – WS2 Jan 29 '14 at 21:40
  • @WS2 - I must agree with you there. I can imagine its use 2-500 years ago, though. But I can't say I ever heard it. – anongoodnurse Jan 29 '14 at 21:43