The contrary substitution of the preterite for the perfect participle, as in "I have /went/" and "he has /did/," apparently has a double influence behind it. In the first place, there is the effect of the confused and blundering effort, by an ignorant and unanalytical speaker, to give the perfect some grammatical differentiation when he finds himself getting into it--an excursion not infrequently made necessary by logical exigencies, despite his inclination to keep out. The nearest indicator at hand is the disused preterite, and so it is put to use. Sometimes a sense of its uncouthness seems to linger, and there is a tendency to give it an /en/-suffix, thus bringing it into greater harmony with its tense. I find that /boughten/, just discussed, is used much oftener in the perfect than in the simple past tense;[46] for the latter /bought/ usually suffices. The quick ear of Lardner detects various other coinages of the same sort, among them /tooken/, as in "little Al might of /tooken/ sick."[47] /Hadden/ is also met with, as in "I would of /hadden/." But the majority of preterites remain unchanged. Lardner's baseball player never writes "I have /written/" or "I have /wroten/," but always "I have /wrote/." And in the same way he always writes, "I have /did/, /ate/, /went/, /drank/, /rode/, /ran/, /saw/, /sang/, /woke/ and /stole/." Sometimes the simple form of the verb persists through all tenses. This is usually the case, for example, with /to give/. I have noted "I /give/" both as present and as preterite, and "I have /give/," and even "I had /give/." But even here "I have /gave/" offers rivalry to "I have /give/," and usage is not settled. So, too, with /to come/. "I have /come/" and "I have /came/" seem to be almost equally [Pg206] favored, with the former supported by pedagogical admonition and the latter by the spirit of the language.