Heave /Hove to -what are the limits?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

You are talking about two different words which are both homonyms and homographs. (i.e. they sound and are spelt the same, but they have different derivations and meanings)

1. hove ‎(third-person singular simple present hoves, present participle hoving, simple past and past participle hoved)

(obsolete, intransitive) To remain suspended in air, water etc.; to float, to hover.  [quotations ▼]
(obsolete, intransitive) To wait, linger.  [quotations ▼]
(obsolete, intransitive) To move on or by.
(intransitive, now chiefly dialectal) To remain; delay.
(intransitive, now chiefly dialectal) To remain stationary (usually on horseback).


Is a different word to:

2. hove- simple past and past participle of the verb "heave".

This is absolutely correct, and Wiktionary is spot on. Hove 2 has a different meaning, exactly as shown above. Hove 2 is either a parallel development (cognate to German "haben"), or was "pulled out" of the simple past of Heave.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hydra

According to my English teacher, this is called a "phrasal verb".

Alain

Your English teacher is right. The "to" is part of the verb -- phrasal verbs are compound verbs.

But that doesn't answer the question of how to conjugate it, which is what has got some of our friends here flummoxed.


These problems must seem pretty amusing to non-native speakers who would never have such problems in their native language. The problem is that English is a peasant language, a kind of pidgin of Low German and French, which has lost almost all of its grammatical structure over the ages, so there's very little grammar to know. In England, educated people spoke only French for about 400 or 500 years. It means that we native speakers of English have very little ability to deal with grammar at all, since there was so little of it to learn in the first place, so even the few grammatical questions which are left to us in our rudimentary grammar are stumbling blocks. Native speakers of English very often start to figure out the grammar of their own language only after struggling with a more structured language, like French.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The problem is that English is a peasant language, a kind of pidgin of Low German and French, which has lost almost all of its grammatical structure over the ages, so there's very little grammar to know.

News flash: a 9.0 earthquake just rocked Buckingham Palace!

[barnakiel]

So, does it then go like this:

a) In order to hove to, you do the following ...

b) Hoving to is a common practice ...

etc.

Are the above sentences correct?

Because, if so, then "to lay hove to" should have been "to lay hoved to".

Unless someone mixed something up, which is common among working class users of any language.

I am more puzzled now than before the many explanations! ;-(

THX,
b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

So, does it then go like this:

a) In order to hove to, you do the following ...

b) Hoving to is a common practice ...

etc.

Are the above sentences correct?

. . .

a) In order to hove heave to, you do the following . . .

b) Hoving Heaving to is a common practice . . .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Don C L

News flash: a 9.0 earthquake just rocked Buckingham Palace!

tee hee.


But as the occupants are actually Germans, I'm not sure they will disagree . . .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

tee hee.


But as the occupants are actually Germans, I'm not sure they will disagree . . .

Strange folk Americans.. a family can be 5 generations or more born in the USA but they are still Scots, Irish, Italian whatever..
In the UK if your born in England your English.. full stop.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

a) In order to hove heave to, you do the following . . .

b) Hoving Heaving to is a common practice . . .

This runs contrary to what Stu said.

b.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

tee hee.


But as the occupants are actually Germans, I'm not sure they will disagree . . .

One hopes that the Queen is not perusing the threads of CF in her spare time!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Don C L

One hopes that the Queen is not perusing the threads of CF in her spare time!

Anne might be.. keen sailor in her time but boat was up for sale in Poole a coupla three years back.. just under 1mil..

[barnakiel]

BTW Germans were occupied, Normans were the occupants. Normans were not French?

Someone was, as clearly English is just simplified French.

HM has no leisure time, she is busy applying another coat of varnish on her Britannia ;-)

b.

[Sea Dreaming]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

BTW Germans were occupied, Normans were the occupants. Normans were not French?

Someone was, as clearly English is just simplified French.

HM has no leisure time, she is busy applying another coat of varnish on her Britannia ;-)

b.

Oh barnikel...there is all kinds of wrong with this! Norse -North. Northmen.
While it's true English borrows from French / Latin , the basic root is germanic. Thus stems from the Viking influx into the British Isles . Many English words are actually recognizable in Dutch.
Norse is an old germanic, viking dialect and the origin of the French norse.

[Capt Phil]

Best drogue I ever had was a 250 ton black oil barge behind me coming down the Straits of Juan de Fuca driving a 45 foot towboat. You could have played a tune on the towline!
Not the most comfortable trip with about 10 meter seas and 50 knot wind gusting to 70 knots. Most difficult time was making the turn east around Cape Beale. Glad those days are behind me! Phil

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Strange folk Americans.. a family can be 5 generations or more born in the USA but they are still Scots, Irish, Italian whatever..
In the UK if your born in England your English.. full stop.

Ha, ha, ha. You've been too long out of Blighty, mate, and have it backwards.

So Rashid Khawaji, born in Sparkbrook to Pakistani parents, is automatically "English"? I bet he would be surprised to hear that.


I was semi-joking about your Queen, even if her real name is Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ("Windsor" was just made up, during WWI). I am (very!) distantly related to her.

Here's Elizabeth II's grandfather, George V, wearing his German Army uniform (!!), with his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II:



How German is the Queen? - Telegraph

Why are the royals STILL hiding their German past? | Daily Mail Online


Ja wohl! Segeln muss sein!

[Don C L]

Well, with relatives from Cornwall, my ancient Celtic blood may wish to point to the slightly earlier German invasion of certain Angles and Jutes... who brought... the Queen's Anglish!
And she rules Brittania! (The Roman name for the Celts!)
With Celtic and Basque blood in me, may explain the occaional temper!