5

As a non-native English speaker, I always have to double-check when the y in say becomes i, when using says and said - I always confuse them.

I suppose there is a grammar rule that leads to this spelling and I hope that knowing it would prevent me from further mixing them up...

Ioanna
  • 159

2 Answers2

2

From @FumbleFingers' comments to the question:

  • I don't think it's meaningful to suggest there's a "grammar rule" that led to the past tense of say being written as said rather than sayed, because we don't apply any such principle with, for example, bay, slay, pray etc. But I think it's interesting to note that when the verb “pay” means to slacken something like a line or rope, allowing it to run out a little at a time, the "regular verb" spelling may be validly used: He payed out the rope to give it some slack. - FumbleFingers

  • ...you might find this discussion useful. I haven't read it in detail, but it appears to be saying that since there wasn't a time in the past where sayed was considered a natural choice, maybe it's not helpful to deconstruct the past tense as a version of say + -ed in the first place. - FumbleFingers

From the discussion in the second quote:

Our word sum analysis gives us evidence that <say> and <said> do NOT share a base, but the etymological evidence shows that they derived from the same Old English root secgan. - Pete, Real Spellers

Pete notes that saith predates says. He also distinguishes between a root and a base, and that while says and said share a root (secgan), they don't share a base (such as say, for example).

So the conclusion seems to be that said comes from saith while says comes from say.

herisson
  • 81,803
Lawrence
  • 38,640
1

The Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is perfectly adequate to demonstrate that the Old English ancestor of the Modern English verb to say was a rather "strong verb" Wikipedia

Even if to say appears in Modern English to be a regular (weak) verb, it is not.

say, says, and said

There are different vowel sounds in say and said, making to say a strong verb.
While one might question the use of "i" and "y" to represent different sounds, there can be no question that say and said should be spelt with different vowels.
Much of Modern English spelling is a result of historic attempts to represent sounds . With printing and dictionaries, spelling became "fossilized" even while the sounds the spelling represented were still changing.

There are some spelling issues that general rules will not resolve.

J. Taylor
  • 5,135
  • 1
    There are only two different vowel sounds there. Despite the spelling, says and said have the same vowel. – Peter Shor Mar 14 '17 at 11:25
  • @Peter Shor ...you may well be correct. I detect a little difference in how I pronounce the two vowels, but it is not significant. I will edit. Thanks.. – J. Taylor Mar 14 '17 at 11:48
  • 1
    I think strong verbs are only those in which an internal vowel change denotes a change in tense. Here the tense is already marked by the 'd'. – Brian J Mar 14 '17 at 12:01
  • @Brian J...I would think there is a vowel change marking tense, one that is not reflected in spelling.. For me, "say-said" is really no different from "lead-led".. I do think it possible that "to say" was a weaker verb 500 years ago, making it exceptional. – J. Taylor Mar 14 '17 at 13:06
  • 2
    "Strong verb" and "weak verb" are two distinct classes of verbs, not a spectrum (at least in their historical-linguistics meaning, which is what you should be using when talking about Old English). "Weak verbs" form the past tense with a dental suffix; strong verbs form the past tense with ablaut (not just any vowel alternation, but a special type of vowel alternation inherited from Proto-Indo-European). "Say" forms the past tense with a dental suffix, making it a weak verb. The strong-weak distinction is not the same as the regular vs. irregular distinction in modern English. – herisson Mar 14 '17 at 13:20
  • Wikipedia has an article on weak verbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_weak_verb You can see the ancestor of "say," *sagjaną, is what Wikipedia calls a "Class III" Germanic weak verb. – herisson Mar 14 '17 at 13:24
  • @ sumelic... your analysis is fine, IF that is how you wish to see things. Bosworth classes the AS verb as weak, but, it clearly was not so always. The fact that the vowel mutates from one tense to another is strong evidence that the verb was not always weak...and the current spelling go back to what probably was a weak verb in some dialects and some points in time.. But given the current vowel change in the tenses, one has to believe that "to say" has been stronger in some dialects at times. There IS a continuum that has made weak verbs from strong verbs over time in English. Thanks – J. Taylor Mar 14 '17 at 13:40
  • @ sumelic.. I would not question that "sagjaną" or something similar was a predecessor of "to say". However the modern German verb, sagan,(for example) does not mutate the vowel in different tenses, while the Modern English does. Other factors, which cannot be simplified into black and white, are clearly involved. I understand your objection to what I wrote. I respect that objection. I feel, to properly answer the question, something beyond set classifications were needed. I will withdraw my answer when a better one appears.. Thank you again. – J. Taylor Mar 14 '17 at 13:55
  • Say is actually rather an example of the opposite: a weak verb that has become irregular. The Proto-Germanic verb and its Indo-European predecessor were both quite regular and weak. Its present tense was formed with a *-j- suffix (stative or factitive in origin); the past with a *-d- suffix (the weak past suffix). The vowel was the same throughout. The fact that the vowels are now different is down to i-mutation in the individual Germanic languages and the loss of *-gd- [ɣð] leading to vowels coalescing. It never was and is not now a strong verb, though. Just irregular. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 30 '17 at 00:58