Picture only because I accidentally posted this as media instead of text in Voyager.
The verb run is only conjugated as “ran” in the simple past tense, as in:
- I ran a mile.
- He ran the company.
For literally every other conjugation of that verb, you should use “run.”
It baffles me that ran has somehow overtaken the other, much more (historically) common, much more appropriate, conjugation of “run,” which applies to most situations where you have a helper verb like to be or to have:
- I did run a mile
- He did run the company
- I have run a mile
- He has run the company
- I would have run…
- I might have run…
- I will have run…
This applies to a lot of other verbs with similar vowel changes like sing/sang/sung, ring/rang/rung, etc. In general, if you’re using an irregular/strong verb that has an “a” in it, it is only meant for simple past tense.
Now, all of this is really only appropriate for when you’re meaning to sound professional nowadays, since simple past tense is overtaking all those other verb conjugations. But for now, it’s still a good YSK.
ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran
Who exactly is this for? I’ve literally never heard or seen anyone misuse “ran.”
I don’t understand what the issue is. I’m sitting here trying to figure out when “ran” is used inappropriately. I only use it for simple past
There are two views on this: language creates grammar after the fact, those are rules, we need to stick to these rules, and this be the hill I die on.
The other view is more liberal. Native speakers don’t care about these rules and naturally deviate from some. Not all, not all at once, and not always to an extent that is recognized by the majority of speakers. But occasionally, certain uses make it. The use of the past tense in constructions that by the laws of grammar should require the past participle is a feature of Black American English. The popularity of hiphop and rap have spread this all over the world. With the now much derided term “woke” it has even reached other languages.
By heart I’m a narrow minded stickler for the rules myself. The nonsensical use of “literally” still makes me mad. But that horse is so far out of the barn you can barely see it on the horizon. Fighting the fight for clean past tense/past participle separation may be one against windmills.
English as a Germanic language comes from a protolanguage that probably only had irregular verbs in the vein of sing-sang-sung. Over time, and probably out of desperation by people who needed to learn it as a second language via migration and mingling, the verbs we now consider regular (team -ed) came about later. Language changes. English is living proof with its spelling making no sense at all and clear influences of Viking and Norman invasions and the spread around the world via the Empire. American English made spelling changes. Indian (Asia) English developed its own unique characteristics that may deviate from the King’s version. There is such a thing as EU English where you can see what happens when mostly non-natives go to town in it.
Grammar came after the spoken version. It’s like a constitution that can be changed by quiet, gradual consensus.
Native speakers don’t deviate from the rules. The rules are simply wrong when they don’t describe how native speakers speak. Native speakers speak differently than their ancestors. That’s normal. It’s not deviant. The grammar pedants need to learn to be more flexible and describe the actual language - English as She is Spoke - 2026 edition.
- He has run the company.
This sounds less correct than:
- He ran the company.
Both imply that “he” has been running the company from some point in the past until the present time of the statement or a past time. Neither carries an implication of anything happening in the future tense. Obviously, “he has ran the company” is improper English, but both examples above are correct for the context.
much more appropriate
Says who? -er- According to whom?
Is this so you can show superiority? Separate those pesky lower classes out? Language is spoken the way it is spoken and it changes. “have ran” is something that would have gotten me yelled at as a kid and it, honestly, is still kinda grating. However, it’s not my business. If I can understand that speaker, language is doing its job.
I have a feeling this is advice for people learning English as a second/third/hundredth language. If you want to sound like a native speaker, this is bad advice.
Im a native English speaker and anyone not following this advice would sound wrong to me
You’re not here to f@ck spiders going by the TLD on your handle. The average yank wouldn’t know what that meant.
“Native English speaker” is not adequately complex as a label. I think you have to be more specific.
Hang around down undah much?
“I run an hour that day” doesn’t sound too bad.
“I run the business last year” is plain confusing.
Those are both simple past tense like the first example, so they should use ‘ran’
Those are simple present
Yeah, never mind; it was early. I didn’t understand the original post and was so confused about why it was written, I didn’t fully read these examples. From them, I now understand that people are using “run” as simple past. It isn’t clear from the original post that was basis
Last year seems like the past
So is “that day”
linear time is an illusion
Get back in your worm hole and be quiet!
Well, that sentence doesn’t make sense::
I ran the company last year. (not anymore)
I have been running the company since last year. (still)
I had run the company last year before it went bust.The first one is clear present —statement of fact
