The distinction between hanged and hung has been a topic for commentary since Joseph Priestly first broached the subject in 1769. The issue was raised by only a few writers in the 19th century, but 20th-century commentators have taken up the cause wholeheartedly, and almost all books on usage now include some mention of hanged and hung. The primary concern of the critics is that hung should not be used in the "execute" sense, or that such use should at least be avoided in formal writing. Many commentators recognize that hung for hanged is now common in standard English, but more than a few persist in describing it as an error, pure and simple.That last sentence is a masterpiece in its own right.
Our evidence shows that hung for hanged is certainly not an error. Educated speakers and writers use it commonly and have for many years:
...that if he was hung he would plant flowers on his grave — James Stephens, The Crock of Gold, 1912
The negro murderer was to be hung on a Saturday without pomp — William Faulkner, Sanctuary, 1931
...a 13-year-old evangelist, who hung himself because his mother spanked him for sassing her — Flannery O'Connor, letter, 23 Apr. 1960
Placed in solitary he hung himself — Horace Sutton, Saturday Rev., 1 Mar. 1980...
The distinction between hanged and hung is not an especially useful one... It is, however, a simple one and certainly easy to remember. Therein lies its popularity. If you make a point of observing the distinction in your writing, you will not thereby become a better writer, but you will spare yourself the annoyance of being corrected for having done something that is not wrong.
« Older Sick of Charity Records?... | At least you know they're not ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by papercake at 5:46 AM on November 30, 2004