Past Tense of "Text"
<div class="IPBDescription">what is it?</div>Anyone know the correct spelling and pronunciation of the past tense of "text"?
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->... and yes, it is listed as a verb.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->... and yes, it is listed as a verb.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Comments
Or texted if you think you're safe from gramernazis
Talking about nazis, my german-english dictionary says "texted"
Texticized.
"teks-ted" just sounds strange...
MW2 is better. OMA and ProPipe!
Also the correct term for the past tense of sending a text message is "submitted parlance through the short message service."
(As a spoken word it sounds horrendous so it is less clumsy to say 'sent me a text message' even if it is longer, but grammatically speaking 'texted' is correct)
You are the WINNAHRZ! :)
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->... and yes, it is listed as a verb.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So text ist soo nice and short I wised for it to be irregular.
to text text text
go went gone
think thought thought
eat ate eaten
hit hit hit
text text text
I hope that makes it clear :D
The original word text comes from the Latin "texÅ" - to weave. "Textile" comes from the same root. The perfect passive participle of "texÅ" is "textus" and this word was used as a noun to describe the parchment on which letters were written and over time the word text came to describe the writings themselves and not the parchment. I'm sure many people lamented the loss of better days when people spoke properly and used the word text to describe the woven parchment itself and not the lettering inscribed upon it.
Cut to modern day and we have a noun transmogrified into a verb by common pragmatic usage.
The two things that remain constant are:
1) Language evolves to be efficient and pragmatic.
2) There will always be Luddites who fear pragmatic change.
Cute, but your delivery was a little off.
2) There will always be Luddites who fear pragmatic change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forgot the corollary, where language will cater to the lowest common denominator. It's not efficiency or pragmatism... it's just that a majority of speakers are becoming too stupid or lazy to speak properly. Try using 'lol' or 'brb' in a job interview that isn't at a fast food chain, and see how open the hiring manager is to the argument about its efficiency, as compared to simply giving the job to someone who doesn't spell like a bulimic food fight after alphabet soup.
We cut corners in our use of the language because it's easier, and people are generally lazy. Trying to defend it as an evolution of language is more insulting than simply to accept the fact that we are becoming far less eloquent on the whole.
I think you should say that just to drive your grandkids(?)(neighbors' kids, relatives' kids, whoever) up a wall. Also, refuse to believe them when they tell you it's wrong. Then go off on a long winded story on how when you were their age you spoke into tin cans and when you wanted to send letters you used paper zeppelins which weren't very reliable, but the war was on and you couldn't make airplanes.