I know that the following forms of to carve have lately become obsolete, but are they so archaic that I can even not use them in writing (books (not formal documents, indeed)); that is, would any of them not be understood at all? The forms: Past simple: carved = corve Past participle: carved = carven or corven

  1. My name is carven on one of those rocks.
  2. I corve a craft for you.
  3. This cat (craft) is for you, corven of wood by me personally.
  • Closest I've heard to any of them is "cleaved". I think the obsolescence is because "cleave" and "carve" are similar, and the past tense of the former sounds better than the old past tenses. I would not assume that these the list you gave is going to be understood without some context. You could likely get away with it if you have a character use it... and it goes into a non-sense off topic debate among the characters as to which is the right word and which should be.
    – hszmv
    Feb 8 at 13:29
  • 1
    I'm familiar with carven as an archaic word, but I've never come across corve(n) with this meaning. Feb 8 at 14:20
  • I looked corve up in OED and it only knows the word as a variant spelling of corf which has nowt to do with carve. How did OP come to the idea that it is a recently obsolete variation on carve? Feb 10 at 14:03

1 Answer 1


As a native British English speaker I would understand the first one, but unless the whole story was in old-style language I would just think it was a typo.

I wouldn't understand the other two. From the context I might be able to guess, but equally I might think they mean 'made' or 'bought' . Again, the story would need to be generally in archaic language, otherwise my brain would write it off as nonsense.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.