text:
Past tense of "text"
Now that text messaging has become a normal method of communication, "text" appears to have become a verb, as in "Text your vote in now". Once that vote has been sent, what is the past tense? I don't think that I can bring myself to use "texted", but always saying "sent a text message" seems to be a contrived way to avoid "texted".
Sort by
There are approximately twenty irregular verbs that have all three forms the same, and most of these have been around for hundreds of years. And, as you show, most of these have a single vowel followed by a single consonant - hit, cut, etc and so are not really analogous. Only two, I think, end with a double consonant - cost and burst.
Meanwhile there are thousands of similarish verbs, such as test, post etc which form their 2nd and 3rd forms regularly. It's arguable whether text is a new verb or not, but in any case virtually all new verbs take regular past forms - fax, faxed; google, googled, tweet, tweeted etc. Why on earth should text be any different? What makes it so special that it should it be included in a tiny group which has been closed for over two centuries?
On an idiomatic note, the British (and I believe, original) version of 'get your panties in a bunch' is 'get your knickers in a twist'.
Why are we getting our panties in a bunch for the past tense of a simple word as 'text'. Its not that there are no words in English language which lives with all it's tenses past or past participle as same, such as 'Cost', 'Cut', 'Hit', 'Let'etc...
Why can't we leave 'text' alone with its own past tense?
My two cents
While "text" may not be considered a verb by all, the majority of people use it as such. Therefore, it should be treated like other regular verbs that end in a 't' or 'd' sound. Paint goes to painted, wait goes to waited, mend goes to mended, paste goes to pasted. Yes, there are verbs such as "find" and "fight" that have irregular past tense forms, but unless the speakers of common English are going to come up with an irregular past tense for for "text", then we should go with what makes sense....TEXTED. The reason we add a second syllable to these verbs ending with 't' or 'd' is so that we can mark the tense change so people know we are referring to a time in the past. Using "fax" as an example does not make any sense, because fax ends with an /s/ sound not a /t/ sound. Just because there is an 'x' in "text" does not make it the same as all other words that have 'x' them.
@chris beaver
Oops. I just saw that you reviewed the grammatical rules and did a little error analysis. You can keep your day job.
@chris beaver
"As an English teacher" you should quit your day job. You really don't get it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "texted". It's just a matter of people who don't understand grammatical rules hyper-correcting yet again. Btw, I'm a grammar nazi.
@DRae - there has already been a lot of discussion about the 'put' group of verbs before your comment. Why make something irregular when a perfectly good regular version exists? The trend in English is towards regularisation, not the reverse. Why add a possibly ambiguous form when there is absolutely no need?
There isn't actually much disagreement about 'texted' except in forums like this:
'if she was going to go she would have texted us' - Oxford Dictionaries Online
tr.v. text·ed, text·ing, texts - 'She texted me when she arrived.' American Heritage at the Free Dictionary
' He texted a long wish list to his parents' - Random House at Dictionary.com
As for hanged and hung - they are traditionally used in different contexts (also discussed above), although that distinction seems to be slipping.
In the meantime there seem to be lots more hits on google for phrases like "she texted yesterday" than "she text yesterday"; so at the moment "texted" seems more common.
It is indeed true that some verbs have changed from the "ablaut" (vowel-change) sytem to the common "regular" inflection system, and a few have gone the other way. So technically there's no reason why "text" shouldn't one day become the standard past form. Stick around a few decades and we'll see.
What about the verb "put"? Today I put my keys on the table. Yesterday I ____ [put] them there. I have always put them there. You don't say "putted".
The following verbs work this way. Hit. Hurt. Set. Split. Let. Bet. Cut. Burst. Why would the word "text" not work that way? The only reason I can think of is because too many people started saying "texted" and the result has been that others are hearing it that way... so they say it, too... because in their world it sounds right. Therefore, it is becoming common, even though, by my grammar background, "text" should be the proper past tense of the verb. If your mom says "I seen" or "they've went" the whole time you're growing up, those sound right to you. But they are wrong. And we do have rules in grammar for a reason.... so we can understand one another's thoughts and meanings. If we don't all follow the same rules, it causes confusion. Language must have rules. But language is fluid and changes over time. That's why English is such a mess in the first place... because it was influenced by so many different groups of people over a long period of time. Now here we are.... with a new word. And we can't agree on what to do with it. No doubt, however the media handles it, that is how everyone will eventually use it. Comfortable or not. Or it will end up being like other words that came to have options. Yesterday I [hanged or hung] the flowers on the balcony. There was probably a huge debate over that one once upon a time.
And if you find it, it is no longer lost, but you can lose it again!
And if it happened yesterday, it was lost, you lost it and it has been lost.
When you lose something, it is lost.
"lose" , "lost"? What are the differences?
I have said texted but some non smart people have not evenben corrected and I take that as non smart
@Chris Beaver - you were unlucky to land on a page where at least two other English teachers are commenting, and I'm sorry if my previous comment was a bit brusque. Apropos your comment on workéd, when my EFL students do that I tell them only Shakespeare is allowed to pronounce it that way. They seem to quite like that.
I stand corrected. It simply does not sound correct to my ear, but after reviewing the rules of English, everyone is correct! You do pronounce the -ed at the end of "text." I am just used to correcting my ESL students when pronouncing the -ed in words like work, etc. My apologies!
@Chris Beaver - why on earth 'as an English teacher' would it drive you crazy to hear a verb pronounced in its normal regular way? As an English teacher you will of course know that there are three ways of pronouncing regular past forms:
1. silent e followed by 't' - worked, hoped, dropped, pushed, slipped
these follow the voiceless consonants - p, k, s, ch, h, f, x, h
2. silent e followed by 'd' - played, called, damaged, encouraged, opened, stayed
these follow a larger group of voiced consonants and vowel sounds
3. voiced e followed by 'd' when the final consonant of the main verb form is t (as in jayles' examples - and in texted), or d, as in - sounded, graduated, hated, provided, treated
Texted is not at all like the verb worked, where the base verb form ends with the voiceless consonant k. The verb text ends with a t (sorry to state the obvious) so its past form naturally follows all other regular verbs ending in 't', and the final syllable is pronounced, just as in all others of that group.
@CB and "started"? "butted"? "farted"? "matted"? "tested"? "textiles"? "contextual"?
I'm OK with using "texted" as long as the "ed" is not pronounced when speaking it. As an English teacher it drives me crazy to hear someone pronounce it "text-ted." It's just like the work "worked," you don't pronounce it "work-ted." But as I see it, using texted in writing for the past tense of text is fine.
I am an elementary school teacher with the audacity to require that my parents make a strategic effort to use the grammatically correct form of English with their children at home, as unfortunately, the color of their skin or even the intonation of their phrasing would be enough to cut them out of a job without adding the further impediment of a dialect perceived as a measure of intellect or ability. While teaching regular verbs in the past tense, I invariably have to state the rule someone mentioned further back in the thread: Regular verbs whose roots end in "t" or "d" always get a sounded "e", while all other regular verbs get a silent "e" when (-ed) is added. What I noticed is that my students will often overkill attempts to refrain from sounding the "ed" as "dead"(as in drop-ded), by neglecting to sound the "e" in ANY word which has the suffix (-ed). What sticks with them is that the sound of "dead" is "bad"(overgeneralization and classic modern day American problem -that of overgeneralization or taking things to extremes without thought - which will ultimately be our country's downfall as there are those poised to capitalize on this weakness) Back to the matter at hand, my urban 6 year olds forget that, in some cases, when following the rules, of the English language, you will hear "dead" or "ted" at the ends of regular verbs. Since it the word "text" now has widespread use as a verb and it endss in "t", it should be pronoinced TEX-TED, following the traditional rules of English, which is NOT the same as saying fix-ded or drop-ded, but probably evokes some feelings of wrongness (not a word) due to your elementary school teacher harping on wrkng uses of ted or ded or ed. Personally, I stick with the rules of English, but I assume that what rolls off the tongue most naturally for the majority of Americans is what will prevail in the end. Such is the way of the American masses. Whether it makes me and other lovers of language and diction cringe and whether rules of grammar are breached are moot at thus point in our country's evolution. Really important is whether we CAN and will attempt to understand each other when we commimicate. I will mot, however, be berated for following correct rules of English grammar before the rules have officially been changed. I think that is what bothers me about this debate. Also, what bothers me is the inability of some to acquire new information and an accompanyg set of rules and discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate applications of those rules.For those who call to mind the irregular verbs ending in "t", look up the reasons for their irregularity.
@Really?? - while agreeing with your grammatical conclusions, I wonder whether it is really necessary to be quite so condescending.
*Remove the 'are'.
We're are not ignorant of the rules of English, but the question is whether the word 'text' should follow the conjugation of regular verbs or irregular verbs.
I never comment on these types of things...usually just enjoy reading the mindless banter. But I can hardly believe how many people are so ignorant regarding the English language. People really, it's not that difficult. Stop and think for just a moment. Stop saying it "sounds funny" to say "texted." It is not like we are saying "he walked-ed the dog" or "she closed-ed" the door. Yes, those examples DO sound funny....because the past tense addition of "ed" was duplicated unnecessarily, and of course, incorrectly. Just because "text" ends in the letter "t" does not make it an exception in tense just because you think it sounds funny. Here are a few examples...say these words to yourself then follow up by saying "texted" maybe it won't seem so strange anymore: "The storm LASTED ten minutes." "The man EXITED the building." "I TESTED the temperature of the water. " "My dad RESTED on the sofa."
I could go on and on with verbs that end in "t" that properly transform to past tense with the simple addition of "ed" at the end of the word. So there you have it....LASTED, EXITED, TESTED, RESTED.... AND
...TEXTED. Make sense? Saying "text" as the past tense sounds lazy and uneducated, like when some people - instead of saying ASK- say "AKS" (sounding like "axe"). Don't be one of those people...don't be lazy. Use proper English. It is TEXTED. :) Get to know it.
Today I am texting my friend. Yesterday I "texted" him. Sounds absolutely right to me,
The past tense of "text" is "texted", whether it sounds good to your ears or not. I never knew so many people have trouble with basic english. It's Texted you fucks.
@Alison - how on earth can 'ex' be a vowel sound? - If anything it's a vowel plus a double consonant sound - 'eks'. Are 'es' and 'is' also vowel sounds? Why should 'ext' in 'text' be treated any differently to 'est' in 'test / tested' or 'ist' in 'list / listed'? Sorry, that's a lot of questions, but I'm genuinely puzzled. And has already been said, new verbs (if it is indeed new) are invariably regular, and all the dictionaries I've looked at list 'text' as a regular verb:
- I texted her to arrange a time to meet. (Cambridge)
- If she was going to go she would have texted us. (Oxford)
- I texted her a little while ago. (Merriam-Webster)
- She texted me when she arrived. (American Heritage Dictionary - via The Free Dictionary)
Personally, I can't see one single linguistic reason why 'text' should be anything but regular.
I say faxed because it ends with an x, not and xt. Clearly, my argument was based on verbs that end in t, so if you'd like to give me an example of a a verb that ends with t preceded by a vowel sound that ends with ed in the past tense then I will concede my point.
Interesting. Do you say fax or faxed?
After reading many arguments for both sides here's my two cents: the verb text should be considered irregular and should not be conjugated in the simple past tense as a regular verb. The reason I have come to this conclusion is because of the vowel sound created by the combination of ex in the middle of the word. This makes the verb text behave phonically like a word that ends with t preceded by a vowel, such as hit or cut, rather than a verb that ends with t preceded by a consonant, such as start. Grammatical rule changes based on phonics is not unheard of (pun intended) since we all know to precede some nouns beginning with the consonant h with "an" rather than "a" based on that fact that words like hour sound as though they begin with a vowel. Therefore, I will use text as both the present and past tense of the verb to text.
'Brings in', blast it.
'Text' is 'written', surely?
'I wrote you a text.'
Back in the real world, though - yes, it's 'texted'. New technology - like the printing press in days of yore - always bring in new words.
Wouldn'tthe easiest solution be for us all to be less lazy and just say "Text Messaged"? "Texted" sounds unintelligent anyway. I can't bring myself to say it.....at all. If you are in that much of a hurry..... like, "Someones gonna die if I say more words than necessary", then "I" think the "fastest past tense" should be simply "Text", as in, "I text her earlier, but got no response." There are plenty of words in the English language which share the rule that present, and past tense, are the same spelling:
hit and hit
hurt and hurt
Let and let
Quit and Quit
Set and Set
Shut and Shut
Spread and Spread
Cut and Cut
Wet and Wet
Thanks for your consideration : )
Well maybe not hundreds... Perhaps I was having a lucid moment :-)
However, that's another good point you raise regarding burn/burned and burn/burnt, though. Effectively, that has become a new verb.
But adding 'ed', making a weak verb, does sound the most appropriate way to bring it into the past tense.
But that's just English! Hehe
@Methatica - you're obviously more imaginative than me; I doubt I could manage five.:) Except as I live in Poland, I would have to say 'I sent you an SMS'; text is not really used much in international English, at least not here. Anyway, I see texted seems to be winning the day on your Facebook page. Good sense prevails!
@the naysayers
Other newish technology verbs:
ping - pinged (not pang)
tweet - tweeted (not twet or twat)
ngram - ngrammed
google - googled
rip - ripped
All these other new techie verbs are regular, so even if AnWulf is wrong and text is a new verb, why should it be any different from these other verbs? And I bet most people say they burned a CD, not burnt a CD, even in the UK, where in the standard meaning of burn, burnt is the more popular past form.
It's not as if the alternatives put forward have much to offer. And I really can't understand why anyone would feel he had to 'admit that he was guilty of using the word "texted" when telling someone that [he] just sent them a text message' ( @lush). If we can say 'I phoned you', 'I called you', 'I emailed you', why on earth should someone feel guilty for saying 'I texted you'. It's beyond me!
Agreed that hanged and hung are absolutely different in definition, but as a base verb both, ultimately, 'hang'. And it is just an example of how two verbs, at the fundamental level, are the same, but branch off in different directions through evolution.
Again, I am in agreement with the verb tenses, but I bet, if you really put you mind to it, you can find hundreds of way of saying 'I sent you a text'. ;-)
@Methatica - I totally agree with you that one of the joys of the English language is that it is organic, but the underlying principles don't change so much. There are precisely twelve active tenses, and eight passive, hardly hundreds. And even the 180 or so irregular verbs, of which we commonly use less than a hundred, follow relatively few patterns which are easily recognisable.
By the way, I was always brought up to believe that hang/hanged and hang/hung had two rather different meanings: people get hanged; things, like pictures, get hung.
@Monocle - The verbs you list form a pretty well closed group. How many of these verbs have been coined in the last hundred years? Or even two hundred? Precisely one - preset, and that's simply the prefix pre added to an existing irregular verb. Of the rest the youngest is bust, which dates back to 1764, and is really a variation of the irregular verb bust. All the others are from at least 1600, and many of them date back to 1200 or beyond, as I'm sure AnWulf will be able to verify. Incidentally two of your examples - sweat and knit - are totally regular. And interestingly, one - fit is regular in BrE, but can be irregular in AmE. There are really no precedents for totally new verbs joining this august band. And absolutely none for text texd.
Virtually every new verb that enters the language is regular, and even when old verbs are put to new uses, they tend to be given a regular form. Hence a baseball batter 'flied out', not 'flew out'. In fact, the number of irregular verbs is declining, not increasing.
There's an interesting discussion about this at StackExchange - http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5366...
Your right, but never in the same context.
And so consequently, it is, effectively a new verb. I'm just interested to see how it evolves.
For example: hang/hanged hang/hung. Both similar verbs with similar meanings - but the operative word is similar, not the same.
Not that I disagree with you about the past tense being 'texted', it's just a thought. That's all!
OK, once again ... text has been in English language as a VERB for over 400 ... that's four HUNDRED years. For those four hundred years, the past tense has been "texted". This is not something new!
If folks want to try to change it strong, irregular verb ... giv it a try. But as it stands now, the right past tense is "texted".
Ultimately, the issue we all face is that 'text', as a verb, is a product of evolution, and was not a real word until the concept of 'texting' came about. We are also faced with the fact that English is a complex language with many hundreds of tenses and verbs, seemingly all with a different set of rules, but always with an elusive 'exception'.
There are rules to support every argument, but I think that ultimately every rule you throw at it is utterly pointless and it should be left to its creation, evolution. I, more often than not, here people saying 'texted', so I am left to conclude that 'texted' is the accepted verb.
But it is for the reasons I have mentioned that I love the English language. It is organic and always changing. We can weave thousands of different verbs and nouns together to create a single idea and yet, with all these variations, we still understand what we're talking about.
Monocle (et al.) - do we really need to add extra irregular verbs to the language when the perfectly regular 'texted' is already in common use and understandable?
To counter your list, how about - vet / vetted - pet / petted - arrest / arrested - reflect / reflected... why not text / texted...?
Reconsidered ! I agree with Rima ."it's so simple"
A number of verbs are irregular and don't change in the past tense, most end with the letter -- T
Beat - Cost - Cut - Hurt - Let - Put - Set - Bet - Hit - Quit - Shut - Read - Spread -
Wet - Thrust - Upset - Split - Slit - Shed - Preset - Bust - Bid - Burst- Fit - Wed
Knit - Sweat - Upset
Good precedence that ' Text ' logically and phonetically be treated similarly..
txt -- txd
Text -- Texd
Job done
Hey all,
Just revised the poll on FB…
I've been reading, with great interest, and I've started a poll on Facebook to get a gist of the use of the word.
Have a vote: here's the link…
Sorry, that should have read - All regular verbs whose base form ends in T or D sound the 'ed' syllable
@Ruthyphro - we are not actually discussing the past participle, we are discussing the past simple or preterite. But as a new verb (in the SMS meaning at least), and so regular, admittedly the preterite and the PP would be the same thing. And AnWulf's example in 'Let him be largely ***texted*** in your love', texted is not an adjective, this is a passive version of - May you largely text him in your love' or something similar.
@Kat - I completely agree with you. Texted has the advantage that it can't be confused with the noun or the base form of the word. I really can't see any problem with treating 'text' as you would any other regular verb, nor can I see any advantages in the alternatives being offered; they sound to much like text for me.
@crashdummy - it's only the last letter that matters, the X is neither here nor there. All English verbs that end in T or D sound the 'ed' syllable. Why should text be any different?
@Karyn - why should text be anything other than regular - verbs that don't change their form are are extremely rare - cost, cut, hit, let, put, and shut, although they do admittedly all end in T. But no verbs have been added to this list for centuries. New verbs are invariably regular.
I'm with Warsaw Will ... Bart didn't look too hard ... heck, all he had to do is scroll up a bit a the links and quotes are in my comments.
@Bart - Fascinated to know where you did your research. I've just checked ten dictionaries, and 'text' is listed as a verb in all but one of them. In any case we also have the noun 'texting', which as a gerund form must have originally come from a verb. New verbs in English are invariably regular, so I'm afraid your 'put, put, put' argument is not really appropriate.
Personally, I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with 'texted, let alone feel guilty about using it (@lush) .
You wouldn't say "puted", or "cuted". As peple would think you're a retard. :)
After doing some research as this was driving me mad, the word "text" is officially a noun. therefore it has no past tense to it. If it were to be a verb I would happily say it is "text" for past tense, after looking at similar words mentioned above, ie, Put, eg, "PUTTING something on the table" but the past tense of the word is still "Put". same with "Cut", Cut, Cutting, Cut. And from that I can happily conclude that the Past tense of "text" is "text". Text, Texting, Text.
IF it were to be a verb though. And because it is not, if you were ever tempted to say "I texted you earlier", just say "I sent you a text earlier".
I hope this makes sense to you all :)
I think the problem comes from the fact that when you say "text," some people think it sounds like "texed" (pronounced like "text", similar to "faxed"), so adding an -ed to that would be weird (texeded).
Personally, I believe that the root verb is text, and to make it past tense you add the -ed. Texted sounds fine to me, because the "t" at the end of "text" is just that. It's a "t". It's as if you took the word "grant" and made it past tense: granted. Why isn't that uncomfortable to say? (You don't think of it as "granned" in your head, you think of it as "grant". Same as you say grant-ed not grand-ed.)
Does anyone agree with me?
@Ruthyphro - "Let him be largely ***texted*** in your love. That all the city may read it fairly ..." That's not an adjectiv unless you're talking about noting the -ed PAST TENSE of a VERB as an adjective which is done. Here texted means means make it in big letters ... big enuff "That all the city may read it fairly."
Text as a verb is NOT new. It's been noted for centuries.
But if yu don't like that one, how about this:
To make the Great Rolls, which want it, more useful to the Public, it is humbly proposed, that they be new covered, marked, and ***texted***, the Records which lie in Chests to be bound up and labelled; ... Rob Gardner, Dep. Cl. Pipe. 16 Mar 1731.
Okay, after reaing enough of this discussion, made up my mind what I will do. When writing it will be text'd, and when spoken will be tex'd, close to text, but with a d , sounding similar to silent duh at the end of the word, as opposed to a two syllable ed soiund at the end. Not trying to convence anyone of right or wrong since finding that from this discussion everyone wil do whatever they want. Just sounds right to me.
AnWulf, we are discussing the past participle of the new verb 'text', your example is of an adjective.
Language is contingent and 'texted' is commonly used as the past participle of the verb 'text'.
However, it seems that 'text' is neater and less retarded sounding haha ;
@Karyn ... Huh? What "rule of thumb" would that be?
M-W has "texted" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/text%...
OED has "texted" http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/text?q...
Texted, as a pasted tense, has been in use for about 350 years:
"Oh, nephew, are you come ! the wel- comest wish That my heart has ; this is my kinsman, sweet. Wife. Let him be largely ***texted*** in your love. That all the city may read it fairly ..." — William Rowley, "Woman Never Vext", 1632
How much more proof do you need that "texted" is right?
It would seem, if we follow the rule of thumb, that the correct past tense of 'text' should be 'text'.
I sent a text.
I will text you, I did text you, I have text you.
I wonder what they would have said in Jesuses day.
It's so simple: There are irregular verbs in English. cut,cut,cut or run, ran, run. It's easier than saying cutted or runned.. The same applies to text: text,text,text. Come on everyone, no need to make it complicated !!! :)
"Texted" is a word!!!!!!!
check this link, and also scroll down, I copied the whole dictionary entry for "text".
Scroll to the last part and read that part!
text (tkst)
a. The original words of something written or printed, as opposed to a paraphrase, translation, revision, or condensation.
b. The words of a speech appearing in print.
c. Words, as of a libretto, that are set to music in a composition.
d. Words treated as data by a computer.
2. The body of a printed work as distinct from headings and illustrative matter on a page or from front and back matter in a book.
3. One of the editions or forms of a written work: After examining all three manuscripts, he published a new text of the poem.
4. Something, such as a literary work or other cultural product, regarded as an object of critical analysis.
5. A passage from the Scriptures or another authoritative source chosen for the subject of a discourse or cited for support in argument.
6. A passage from a written work used as the starting point of a discussion.
7. A subject; a topic.
8. A textbook.
tr.v. text·ed, text·ing, texts
1. To send a text message to: She texted me when she arrived.
2. To communicate by text message: He texted that he would be late.
I don't imagine there is much debate about whether or not the past tense of TEXT is TEXTED - when written. It's how the past tense of TEXT is pronounced.
One school of thought compares TEXTED with the past tense of verbs which end in X such as FAXED. That could make TEXTED one syllable.
The other compares TEXTED with the past tense of verbs which end in T such as COASTED. That could make TEXTED two syllables.
Since TEXTED combines X and T, that really opens it up for confusion.
Toe may toe, toe mah toe ;p
@another try ... most verbs that end in "t" take an "ed" past tense ... painted, boasted, roasted, asf.
M-W has texted as the past tense: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/text%...
I texted her a little while ago.
I texted a message to her.
She just texted me back.
I just made a post on this, but as I wrote to somebody that I made a post, I thought...posted. Hey, that's pretty similar.
If you're going to write a scholarly article, I suggest you just use a workaround phrase and use far too many words, as most scholarly articles often do.
This is a long topic or case or whatever it's called.
I subscribe to "texted" as the proper past tense as the verb for of "text" meaning, to send a text message.
FYI, I will say a word in caps that I am separating from the rest of the sentence instead of using quotation marks.
The word TEST for example, sounds similar, though the X adds an extra KS sound. Say TESTED. I am taking a test. I am testing. I am being tested. They will be tested tomorrow. They will have been tested tomorrow. They have been tested. And now, I am sending a text. I am texting. I am being texted. They will be texted tomorrow. They wil have been texted tomorrow.
If you say that through a couple times, you will catch on how to say it. Don't say it slow and sloppy like you're unsure if that's correct. Say it confident and just imagine you're saying TEST.
As for the past tense of TEXT being TEXT, I disagree. I understand words like HIT, but this isn't quite the same. I'm not sure of any technical reason why, but it's similar to MEDAL in the Olympics, etc. It's a noun turned into a verb. It's like PLANK. If you haven't heard what planking is, I think it's just laying somewhere random like a plank of wood. So, planked, planking, etc. I also just saw something similar in a previous post, EMAIL. EMAILED. TEXTED just sounds different and to some people it sounds wrong because the only thing they can bring to mind is HITTED, which of course, should be HIT. I think the techno jargon is a large part of it. Technology terminology fits into the lexicon pretty quickly, and it's obviously been irritating to those who don't really consider all possibilities.
If I say I TEXT YOU and mean to tell them that it is something that I did in the past, there is no other context to indicate that it has already happened and has ended. Saying I TEXT YOU just implies that it is an ongoing action with no discernible ending or maybe even beginning.
Also: quit:quit, slit:slit, set:set, put:put. Perhaps a rule might be that if it ends in "t" then the plural is the same as the singular.
Text will probably go regular in the past tense i.e. "texted" but the past tense could also easily be "text." as in the past tense of other verbs ending in "t": burst:burst, cut:cut, cost:cost, cast:cast, bet:bet. The tendency seems to be to make words regular - note the use of "mouses", not "mice" for more than one computer mouse.
Yes, my poor attempt at one at least.
chrisbolton20, "whole nother" is a little joke, right?
I don't mind the FYI world of electronic communication, but when people say "eff why eye" in conversation and want to touch base with me, that's a whole nother matter.
My best friend and I have this debate daily, as she is a text messaging machine. I do not text, so I do not use the word "texted" in any conversation, not even when I ask if she sent a message to someone. However, when I hear someone say 'texted" I want to immediately tell them that isn't a word and if it is a word it shouldn't be because it sounds terrible. Why can't it just be text? I will text you tomorrow. I sent you a text. We were text messaging all day etc...I always thought of "text" as written words. Just saying it sounds a little wrong to add the "ed" to the end of text. That's my .02 on this subject. I will note that I will not text, be text"ed" (ha)... well, I may write an old fashion letter, but not on my phone. I don't even think I use the word "emailed". But I'm also one of those that cannot get into the whole OMG, TMI, FYI, world of language.
Language is a living thing and the vernacular is defined by those that speak it. The youth of our world have embraced text messaging and made it their own and they say "texted" pronouncing all of it "text - ed". So with all due respect to Webster and dissertations everywhere - Those that hold the real power on this, have spoken! Remember, too, every grammar rule has its exceptions. Weird isn't it?
I have always though it should be "text" not "texted" it sounds awful. To read and have read...text and text...or tex'd
Though I cannot think of one right now, I believe there is a verb (or some verbs) that use the same word for present and past tense forms. If that is correct, then we could say "yesterday I text you". Can anyone think of the verb(s) that is (are) treated this way?
So what is the correct way to say it, spell it, use it, whatever?
I just can't handle the two guys in the commercial, and the one guy say you just texsed me? CRINGE!!!!
Crashdummy: Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense now. However I'd say (for me) that emphasizing the "d" is something I'd have to do consciously. That's because "tex" (which, phonetically, is "teks") ends in an unvoiced sound, which naturally makes me pronounce the "d" as "t", just like I would in "vexed" or "faxed".
Chris, you are right. Text DOES end in "t" and your examples are good.
MY pronounciation of texted is to give it a one syllable sound by emphasizing the "d" at the end - making it tex/d/. The "x" sound is a strong one and, I was comparing it to similar words which contain it: vex, fax, max, hex, flex, ... Those are words which keep the one syllable sound.
Crashdummy: You describe your pronunciation of the past tense as "text'd" but say it only has one syllable. What do you mean by this exactly? How does this differ from just "text"?
"I can't think of other similar words which would change from a one syllable sound for the present to a two syllable sound for the past."
There are heaps of verbs that do this: rest-ed, wait-ed, post-ed, hand-ed, end-ed, ...
In fact I'd go as far as to say that any one-syllable verb ending in "d" or "t" becomes a two-syllable word in the past tense, as long as it's a regular past tense with the -ed ending.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
There shouldn't be a question of whether or not it's text or texted for past tense. It clearly needs to be written as texted. The only question, to me, is how it's pronounced. I say text for present tense; text'd for past. I can't think of other similar words which would change from a one syllable sound for the present to a two syllable sound for the past. Should texted become an awkward two syllable word or remain a word syllable word as text'd?
QUESTION: I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I need to know. What is the past tense of "to text"? And if it has not been officially decided, who decides when new words are part of the dictionary? This certainly needs to be addressed. Thanks. Sincerely, Al Gore/Inventor jk...
RESPONSE: The verb "text" is conjugated according to the normal English pattern, so the past tense would be "I texted." Here at Merriam-Webster, we have a series of criteria that a word has to meet to be considered for entry in our dictionary. We spend a certain amount of time every day scouring all sorts of published material for examples of new words, and when we find them, they go into our citation database. When we revise our dictionary, we check the database to see if any of these new words have enough support to warrant their entry. For more information on the process and criteria we use to enter words in the dictionary, please visit our Web site at http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_i... Daniel Brandon,Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc.
i always just say "hey, i text you yesterday"
Google has already picked it up.
This is all very simple: most verbs ending in d or t (hard sound) pronounce the ted at the end. Rest is rested. Nest is nested. Head is headed. Need is needed. Text is texted. Story ended.
This is all very simple: most verbs ending in d or t (hard sound) pronounce the ted at the end. Rest is rested. Nest is nested. Head is headed. Need is needed. Story ended.
Interesting reading. We've been texting seriously for ten years and we still haven't figured it out.
"Texted" makes the most sense to me (and that's what I say). Someone mentioned verbs ending in triple consonant sounds; the nearest ones (other than "text") I can think of are "jinx" and "inch", and it seems we can all handle "jinxed" and "inched".
If we're going to say "text" as the past tense then logically we must also write "text". But wait! We all write "fifth" and "sixth" (some more examples of tricky consonant combinations) but they often come out like "fith" and "sickth". So we don't always say what we write.
I'm going to say TEX-tid simply because saying "text" sounds like I haven't actually finished the verb yet and I'm ending the word early. "I text you." sounds like I'm talking like a neanderthal in the present tense. "Ugh ugh, me text you!" Texted isn't that difficult to say, and it's clearer than the homonym style.
Make that "offer" and "past". Don't know what happened there.
I'll just off that the pst tense of cut is cut, put is put, and I do hope text evolves the same way.
"Texed"? Wouldn't that be the past tense of just "tex"? Such as, "texing" someone? It doesn't even have a definition O_o. Just sayin'. I hope we figure this out eventually!
I never said I was correct - I just said what I used. Sheesh!
Well, You are wrong
I say text the same whether I in the past or present tense, but would write it as texted in the past tense!
Simply, in the english language if the word ends in a "t" then in the preterit of that word the "ed" must be pronounced, just as in the word "tested".
??? Love reading these, Wish I had more time to post my 3 pence worth!!!
Hi Jason
You are "correct" of course :) I agree and usually say the same to people ... I think (or at least I usually) put *'s or "s around words like correct and incorrect; usually at first and then I get lazy and/or forget/assume they remember my "looser" meaning of the word correct - This was influenced by 30 years as a programmer both in terms of having to conform to a much stricter syntax "correctness" / a background in formal logic where words like "valid" and "true" get "incorrectly" interchanged and also a Buddhist background where we talk of "correctness" in a Daoist sense :)
I think to wind-up though it depends on exactly which question people ask; examples
Can we use the noun "Text" as a verb - definitely yes
In using this verb in the past tense would it be correct to spell it as "text" - definitely depends on context - in a question where "did" renders it "tenseless" it is correct
In using this verb in the past tense would it be correct to spell it as "texted" - definitely yes - for the reasons you gave and the OED definition
If the person starts a debate by saying "if you spell / pronounce the word text in the past tense as texted you are wrong" then they are definitely "wrong"; which is what my friend said to me :)
Strangely enough though my personal "journey" was this. I used to say "texed" and thought that people who said "texted" were like the people who say (or pronounce) "drowneded" - probably because I heard it mostly on the UK equivalent of "The Jerry Springer Show" - it just sounded wrong. I don't know when or why but a few years ago I made the change and now "Texed" sounds completely "wrong" and "texted" seems logical - I have no idea why I never used to use it or why "Texed" ever sounded "right" - just the power of the wiring of the brain I guess
Anyway ... It's been really insightful ... thank you so much
I'll be sending my friend to this site :)
You are right that "text" gets used in past-tense sentences, as your question examples illustrate. However, what people were arguing about before was whether "text" could be the past-tense form in simple declarative sentences: "I texted you last night" vs. "I text (texed) you last night". Frankly, it surprised me that anyone would have thought to use the latter form, because of the following:
The reason I asked for other examples was because irregular word forms (such as build-built) are irregular because they are very old words that have survived through centuries of sound changes. Words that enter the language through borrowing or "verbizing", however, always conform to the language's inflectional system -- what are referred to as its "productive" morphemes. In English, "-ed" as a past tense suffix is productive, and no other past tense form is, to my knowledge. So "built" does not conform to the pattern, but it is a very old word, so we need not consider it. If a new word, such as "text" as a verb, enters English and takes on a past tense suffix other than "-ed", that would be truly remarkable. If you ever find such a word, post it here! But as I said before, I would be amazed if you ever do.
By the way, be careful about using the word "correct" in linguistic discussions. Many people contend (and I agree with them) that there is no sensible definition of correctness in language, only statements about how a language is used. So in the above, I have not described "text" (past tense) as wrong, but simply counter to the way that we know English to work in all other cases.
Have you seen the movie Avatar ... there's a link on IMDB in trivia for that movie about how they invented 1,000 words that were easy to pronounce and weren't like any words in any other language (near on impossible I would have thought!) Some of it did sound like Native American/Indian dialects to me. But it kind of reminded me of Tolkein inventing his languages in The Lord of the Rings, etc.
I was also talking to a friend the other day from the UK who learnt Japanese while he lived there ... for any plurals / multiples instead of adding -S, -ES, etc. as we sometimes do they just say the word twice - which I found quite quaint/unusual/funny
Hi again Jason
Two things have just struck me which I just had to share :) (well three if we include why I've stayed on this page so long!)
I think my points are still valid as text can be used in "a past sense sentence" even though the actual word text in a past tense sentence is "sense-less" and that this is part of the reason some people have split into two camps - whilst the use of "Texted" is undoubtedly the correct use as per your very useful explanation backed by the OED definition - i.e. they're talking at cross purposes if discussing the simple form of the question should a word be text or texted in a past tense sentence - it can but it's not actually what they mean - i.e. a) it's "sense-less" in some cases but b) Texted is undoubtedly "correct"
And finally I think you asked for an example where "-ed" wasn't used to "past-tense-ize" a verb. Above I noticed this
Build - past tense - Built - not Builded - or am I missing something?
Phil, that's a hilarious link. I can sympathize. I'm working on a project right now studying a dialect of Ojibwe, a language spoken by the indigenous people of the upper US midwest and southern Ontario, Canada. While they don't mutate the sounds at beginnings of words as dramatically as Welsh, it is impossible to use a verb (and sometimes nouns!) without attaching multiple prefixes to it. So until you know all of the tense, aspect, and person markers for the language, looking up words is hopeless. "Ngiizegzid" is filed under Z.
Regarding "verbizing" nouns, anyone who opposes that is surely unaware of the extensive history of such activity in the history of English. :) Contentious examples include access (1962), impact (1935), and enthuse (1827). But many verbs were created this way centuries ago: link (1300s), love (very old), and others. The process can go in reverse, too: sink (1400s) was originally a verb, as was drink (very old).
As for the pronunciation of "texted": it certainly is a lot of consonant sounds, but in no situation would I ever devoice the "-ed" suffix. Trying it out just now in rapid speech, I do tend to elide the final "t" sound in "text" to produce something like "tex-ed" (two syllables). But for me it is unequivocally two syllables and the "-ed" suffix is clear as day. In slow speech I enunciate all of the consonants: "texted".
I do take your point though - interesting stuff :)
I find all this kind of stuff interesting ... and also amusing how heated and disrespectful people get when debate seems to degenerate to argument. I think
signing off with respectfully is a very cool way round this ... just thought I'd comment
Having attended a Welsh school and having had most of my lessons in Welsh (though English is my first language) the syntactic rules do, in some cases, merge incorrectly for me :) In Welsh we have a lot of what we call soft mutation where, in one type, one word ending in a vowel followed by another beginning in a vowel are joined together the suffix and prefix vowels merge into another "voweley" type sound - it's a strange old language!
If you're interested (and you do seem to be and knowledgably so) in this you might like to take a look at this
It's quite funny but true!
Cheers :)
Hi Jason
Thanks for that :) I think, in a sense, we're both saying the same thing, albeit you more eloquently and having knowledge of the correct terminology (I got lost with transitive verbs etc. when I was in school :-P) I was merely pointing out that a) people were arguing "at cross purposes" for the reasons you/we gave - the different "senses" of the verb Text (tensless? verb) or Texted (past tense) - i.e. in this sense there are two issues can the noun text be made into a verb and - erm all that stuff you said about tenseless or past tense
b) The OED does suggest this "Verbising" of the noun text to be correct since 2004
I'ld be interested also on your take on the pronunciation - I personally think it's just an unfortunate coincidence that Text and Texed sound the same and that Text-ed would be correct (with a "hard" second T)
Cheers :)
Other examples may clarify
yes I texted you earlier
yes you texted me earlier
did i text you earlier?
did you text me earlier?
(both text and texted correct as past tense verbs depending on sense)
Incorrect: (Obviously)
yes I text you earlier
yes you text me earlier
did i texted you earlier?
did you texted me earlier?
So, in summary, the use of Texted as a past tense verb of to send a text/text message/whatever is correct - and defined as correct in the OED - as far as pronunciation goes, I haven't got access to the online OED but my guess would be Tex-ted, Text-ed or tek-sted as in Tes-ted or test-ed. To pronounce it Texed (which, only by coincidence, in this particualar case is phonetically similar to the "base word" text) would be incorrect - to pronounce Text-ed as Texed would be analogous to inventing a new phoenetic rule of "the second T in texted is silence and pronounced Texed" - ridiculous
That's all folks :)
The string "did you text" is not an example of "text" in the past tense. Here, "did" is an auxiliary verb, which necessarily takes a verbal complement in base form. The base form is sometimes called the infinitive. The tense of the whole question, "Did you text me last night?" is certainly past, but the word "text" is tenseless in your example.
For new words in English, transforming a verb to past tense really is simply a matter of adding "-ed" to the end. While the rules of a language do change over time, there is no evidence whatsoever that the rules for past tense formation are changing in English. I would welcome any examples of other new words which have taken past tense forms not ending in "-ed", but I sincerely doubt they exist.
Hi There
I must admit that I didn't get to the end of this thread but possibly another spanner in the works is that the past tense gets modified by the subject... e.g. "did you text me last night" or (to use the noun) "did you send me a text last night" could both be answered in the affirmative with either of the following 1. "yes i texted you last night" 2. "yes i sent you a text last night" (noun version); however, note also that text in "did you text" is a past tense verb ... whereas did you texted is clearly wrong. My point is that to transform a verb to past tense is not simply a matter of adding "-ed" on the end.
I think an answer on google answers finalises this:
According to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary
(available through some libraries), there has been a verb "text" since
the 1500s, with a past tense of "texted" or "tex'd." The current
meaning of "to send a text message" was accepted by the OED in its
draft additions of June 2004, and includes the example of "texted."
That's the OED's stance on the subject! This is nothing new however - language is always in a state of flux and when quoting "rules" is simply a statement of the current "rule" at that time - it changes and it has changed - get over it. Place names have been shortened; not due to laziness but due to soft mutations and popular consensus - to quote a current "rule", moreso, to ridicule others *incorrectly* for using texted as a past tense rule is pompus, snobish and arrogant. The only reason people would do this would be to make themselves appear clever and they usually do so by a misguided belief in their own knowledge and opinion rather than actually looking up the "rule" in the first place
Just my two pence worth lol
I usually spell it "texted" but pronounce it "texed" and kinda just drop the t since it makes it easier to say.
The problem is, the word "text" is a noun. Lately it has become a verb, therefore it is difficult to give a noun a past tense.
Text should join the list of irregular verbs in the English language. These include: hurt, set, cut, put, beat, cast, cost, forecast, broadcast, hit, let, upset, et al. Context dictates tense. Children who are still learning the English language often pronounce the past tense of these verbs incorrectly (e.g. hurted or cutted). IM and text messaging have gained popularity in todays mobile and online social tools. They have gained popularity with children and young adults. They have become social norms. They are also butchering the English language. Texted needs to be considered improper English.
I like Mac's explanation. I didn't sense any arrogance in it and it sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks.
If this ends up posted twice, I apologize, but I hit the wrong key the first time.
Going back to porsche's post:
>>" If the present tense of the verb ends in a consonant "t" or "d" sound, then the -ed adds a syllable, ending in a voiced "d", usually pronounced something like -id, (but the vowel is really a shwa).... For all other verbs, the -ed does NOT add an extra syllable. It only adds either a "t" sound or "d" sound, appended to the end of the word without adding a syllable."
If you listen carefully to folks in my area of the country, you will not hear the final "t" on "text" when people are speaking extemporaneously. You will hear they send tex' messages and are tex'ing their friends. People who pronounce the word without the final "t" sound will tend to follow the linguistic rule that says not to add an extra syllable after the "x" sound, following the same rule as is used with faxed, waxed, fixed, mixed.
Those who do pronounce the final "t" will tend to use two syllables. I am told that in the OED, "tex'd" is listed as one of the spellings for the past tense of "text." Unfortunately, I'm not home right now, or I'd go check my own copy. Can do it tonight, if anyone is that interested.
English is a living language that changes constantly. In Shakespeare's day it was common to pronounced the -ed as a separate syllable on many words that we pronounce as one syllable now:
I nurs'd her daughter that you talk'd withal.
(Romeo and Juliet 1.5.115)
I'll bet he received a lot of criticism from the linguists of his day.
Gotta love a living language. It never gets stale.
I'm a bit puzzled by some of the debate on this thread. First of all, the spelling of a word and its pronunciation are not independent. If indeed we were to settle on 'text' as the past tense form of 'text', it would not be spelled "texted"; it would be spelled "text". So that's irrelevant. What does matter is the rule for forming past tense verb forms in English, which was stated well by porsche back on October 5th. Irregular word forms (such as geese, built, mice, brought, cast, and many others) are very old words that have persisted through centuries of changes in English -- and they were all regular at one time.
However, the regular patterns of forming plurals, past tense, and other word forms are very well-established and part of the linguistic knowledge of every native speaker. Whenever a new word is introduced (as in the new verb "text", from the noun "text"), it follows these regular patterns, without exception. The past tense of 'text' would be 'texted' and there's absolutely no way around that because there is no optionality in the rules or wiggle room for what sounds right.
I won't call 'text' as a past tense form incorrect, in case usage of it eventually predominates, but I do see those who prefer it in two possible categories:
1) You are choosing to use "text" in the past tense because you think it sounds nicer and see precedent in verbs like cast, cut, and wed.
In this case, I say that you are probably fighting a losing battle against the extremely powerful rules of English, and that anyone who hasn't made the same aesthetic choice will probably misunderstand you.
2) You are choosing to use "text" in the past tense because it's the only way you've ever done it and it's the natural way to form the past tense for you.
In this case, I find you to be a very interesting case study, because your choice is highly unexpected for a word entering the language. As others have pointed out -xt is an unusual end to an English verb (or any English word, for that matter), and the relation of that to your unexpected grammatical choice could be interesting.
It's funny, I hear most people say 'text-ed' and yes, I think it sounds wrong. I guess it's not and the answer is unclear. I prefer text used for present and past tense. I won't go around correcting anyone, though. LOL.
If you need examples of words that have changed in this manner throughout history simply look at the long list of I-mutations.
"I-mutation is caused by the very human habit of laziness: taking the shortest distance between two points. The plural of man in ancient West Germanic, the ancestor of Old English, used to be a word something like *manniz. The speakers "cheated" on the first vowel in the word to be in position for the second vowel. It's the same thing you do with doing. It doesn't change the meaning of the word to do so.
So after hundreds of years of this, the plural came out as *menniz, or something similar, when people said it. Eventually, the shifted vowel itself comes to stand for the plural, and since laziness dislikes doing the same job twice, the syllable at the end of the word slowly shriveled and dropped off."
This of course explains why we geese, and built. Instead of builded and gooses. So all of you guys talking s*** about people being lazy by saying text instead of texted need to realize just how many words that you use on a daily basis came to be exactly in this way.
Again, it is only my opinion that the smaller words which spellings could not be altered and sounded fine were left alone. But when you look at the lengths we will go to for these other words to not sound so silly, it kind of makes some sense of it all, doesnt it?
This is the full article from The Online Etymology Dictionary which I quoted from:
Text sounds silly when pronounced texted for the same reason as build sounds silly as builded, or goose sounds silly as gooses. Am I wrong or is the reason that these words are not pronounced the way that they should be is because they just plain sound silly coming out of the mouth. Does the word builded break any rules at all?? I dont think it does. Neither does the word gooses. The reason we dont use that form of the word today to diplict a flock of geese is simply the fact that we dont like the way it sounds. We as a people decided it sounded as though you were uneducated when you spoke such words maybe? We even went so far as to change the spelling of these words dramatically!! Just so that we would never have to hear them spoken again. LoL Am I right here folks? The problem with the word text is that you cant change its spelling. Just like the examples that have been given, which were all small 3 or 4 lettered words such as cut, fit, hurt, put, rid, shut. We couldnt change the original spelling of these words so we just decided to leave them as they were. These words all sound just fine when using them in past tense form. This is my reason for thinking texted sounds silly and out of place in the English language. It should definitely IMO be left alone just as these other words have been because it just plain sounds better.
I just text my girl to look at this thread because I always correct her when she says texted.
I just texted my girl to look at this thread because I always correct her when she says text.
I think text will win out in the long run because of this fact.
I understand lazy tongue, poor English, blah, blah, blah. But, although I've read that both are acceptable, texted-pronounced 'text' sounds better. For some reason 'text-ed' sounds wrong. The spelling similar to 'tested' but the pronunciation different. Love the complexity of the English language. TTFN
No more relevant than "chat" which isn't relevant because it is not preceded by a consonant sound, like, say, "x."
Hey guys, just reading through your comments, trying to weave through your explanations and I came up with one example that no one has talked about yet, and that gave me pause in completely agreeing with Mark: shit. Phonetically ends in t. So...how about that one? (Perhaps this can add a little more hillarity to this bizare forum...)
Inquiry, correction, and admonishment to jai:
1. How do you figure "Grammar Girl" has any more right to make claims than say... me?
2. According to a poster who cited the OED on the previous page, the word "texted" has been around since the 15th century.
3. "Unscrupulous" means lacking the ability or desire to distinguish between right and wrong. I'm fairly sure that there is no evidence of anyone here lacking either. Don't use words you don't understand.
Hello Douglas. As I said, those were my last words, (so I'm making a liar of myself). Thanks for the debate, it's been fun. I'm going to say farewell now, to you and all those who continue to sail in the good ship Texted. I hope that a resolution will eventually be found.
Sorry, I didn't mean "on purpose," I meant "appropriate."
Mark, I wasn't patronizing you when I suggested that I had been unclear. You said yourself that I confounded you. I guess I missed your meaning.
As for my earlier statement, which you quote, I stand by it, though on reflection I might soften it some. Non-standard English can have the effect I describe, and one needs to be aware of the reader's – or listener's – possible response. I'm not saying that is a good thing, just that it happens. At the same time, the reader or listener should not make unwarranted assumptions based on linguistic prejudice. (And I'm not directing that at you personally.) I see people here slinging epithets at total strangers over minutia of usage and pronunciation, and find it unhelpful and unseemly. It's a fault all should guard against, and I include myself in that admonition. Still, it is important to know what the standard rules are, when to bend them, and when not to. We all use non-standard English occasionally; sometimes it's on purpose, sometimes it ain't.
Hey everyone, stop arguing about it. You're being unscrupulous already! "Texted" is generally used by the populace nowadays and it might be totally acceptable in the future. But as far as I am concerned, using the noun 'text' to form the verb "texted" is gramatically incorrect. It's like saying, "I googled it". Ask Grammar Girl and be enlightened.
Final Words
No Douglas, you haven't been unclear and I sense that I am being patronised when you suggest that you might have been. The fact is that I just don't agree with you, that's all. I know you don't agree with me either. That's fine. We'll just have to leave it at that. By the way I didn't think we were sparring. I thought it was more of a debate. I wouldn't dare spar with someone who uses the word 'putative' (I had to look it up in the dictionary).
I'm just going to leave you with a quote from one of your own responses in a debate about obstinacy:
"But I do maintain that nonstandard words lead to unclarity, not just because the words may be misunderstood, but because a reader or listener with knowledge of correct English will balk and bristle at the error and doubt the articulateness of the writer or speaker."
Enough said I think.
"That was so fun."
Do you mean to suggest that there is something wrong with this phrase, Mark?
Clearly I have been unclear. Let me reiterate my four points:
First, the past tense of the verb 'text' is properly written 'texted'. In this it follows the general rules of Standard English.
Second, the word 'texted' is currently spoken as both 'texted' and 'text'.
Third, usage will determine which is to be the standard pronunciation.
Fourth, "Non-standard" does not mean "Sub-standard."
Our sparring has been fun, but neither you or I will determine the future usage of any word, old or new. We may bandy precedents all day and all night, but the language will do as it likes.
My young friends, whom you dismiss, are the same sort who created our language, back when being twenty was middle-aged. Sure, they use some crappy expressions; most will vanish in time. But I prefer their neologisms and unkempt sentences to the stiff proscriptions of antiquarians who would never split an infinitive just because Cato couldn't.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1813 letter: "I have been pleased to see that in all cases you appeal to usage, as the arbiter of language; and justly consider that as giving law to grammar, and not grammar to usage." I am merely extending his principle to pronunciation. In the same letter Jefferson opposes "...Purists, who would destroy all strength and beauty of style, by subjecting it to a rigorous compliance with their rules." Again, I find this especially applicable to the spoken word. Even as an old man Jefferson was open to change, and optimistic about the future of the language.
Once again Douglas you confound me. You agree that there is no precedent for a silent 'ed' at the end of texted. You must therefore agree that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of precedents for for the 'ed' not being silent. How can you then turn it around and say that this leaves the choice to the users. I take it you're don't practice law? Just because there's an 'x' before the 't', doesn't mean a completely new rule is required. Do you imagine that there was such a debate for every other verb that had a different consonant before the final 't'? No, I don't either.
By the way since when have students been paragons of virtue when it comes to the finer points of English grammar? These same students will no doubt be happy making use of expressions such as:
That was well good
And I was like......blah, blah, blah
That was so fun
By the way, you didn't mention what they were studying, English or woodwork?
While you are probably right about fax, I'm not so sure about telegraph. This seems to have gained a new meaning, particularly in sporting circles, where it means 'to make obvious that which you are about to do'. One verb which does appear to have dropped out of favour though, is 'to gestetner', meaning 'to photocopy'. That's a shame really, because it had one less syllable.
So, now that we are agreed that I am right after all, we can now move on to the past tense of tweet. I'm going to suggest 'twitted' (with a silent 'ed' of course).
Porsche, Your analysis is excellent, and I will leave it at that.
My point is simply that usage will ultimately determine which form of a word becomes standard. I agree that it will be best if existing rules are followed; I expect they will be. The English-speaking world will probably settle on 'texted', except perhaps in casual speech. I only discuss this particular word – which I would happily do without – because it highlights several issues, in particular the difference between "standard" and "non-standard" English.
Mark, Since you insist, I will comment on your insistence that 'text' as a past tense verb must have a precedent. You will agree, then, that 'texted' needs precedent too.
You ask for "a verb ending in 't' which has a silent 'ed' in it's [sic] past tense form." I think a more germane test would be this: How are words ending in '-xt' typically treated?
There are very few English words that end in '-xt'. Setting aside compounds of 'text', such as 'hypertext', most are either archaic words, like 'twixt' and 'betwixt', or archaic spellings, like 'transfixt' and 'unmixt'. This leaves only three commonly-used words with the '-xt' ending: 'context', 'next' and 'pretext'. None of these are verbs (yet!). The '-xt' verbs that do exist, like 'fixt' and 'vext', are already past tense, being archaic spellings of 'fixed' and 'vexed',
So there is no precedent for either 'text' or 'texted' as a past-tense formations of an '-xt' verb. This leaves the choice to the users of the word, at least for now.
By the way, I had a conversation with a few college students recently. These students used 'text' in its past-tense sense. But when I asked them directly what the past tense of 'text' was they all said 'texted'. This supports what I wrote in my previous comment, that ",,,'texted' – so spelled and so pronounced – will prevail, and that the spoken word 'text' as a past-tense verb will either die out or become non-standard." These students understood the difference, and were perfectly – and justifiably – comfortable with using the putative non-standard in casual conversation.
Finally, I wouldn't call English anomalous, I prefer to think of it as complex. With luck, texting as a technology will pass away – as did formerly the telegraph and will soon the fax – and with it this particular conundrum. Let's all move on to the past tense of 'tweet'.
oops, correction. In the post above, I meant half a millenium, not half a century.
Douglas, we often agree, but I'm afraid I have to side with Mark this time, even on the points that he has already capitulated.
First of all, all these word lists and examples aren't particularly helpful. There is a simple, standard, consistent paradigm for pronunciation of standard past tense in English. Understand, I'm only talking about the standard past tense formed by adding -ed to the end of the present tense. It works like this:
If the present tense of the verb ends in a consonant "t" or "d" sound, then the -ed adds a syllable, ending in a voiced "d", usually pronounced something like -id, (but the vowel is really a shwa). Notice I didn't say the verb must end in a "t" or "d", but the actual final sound must be "t" or "d".
For all other verbs, the -ed does NOT add an extra syllable. It only adds either a "t" sound or "d" sound, appended to the end of the word without adding a syllable. If the present tense ends with a voiced sound then you add the voiced "d" to the past tense without adding a syllable. If the present tense ends with an unvoiced sound then you add the unvoiced "t", again, without adding a syllable.
This brings us to our first disagreement. The word "faxed" is pronounced EXACTLY as it is spelled. It is pronounced "fax't", one syllable, unvoiced "x" means the "d" is pronounced unvoiced, as "t", perfectly consistent with the standard pronunciation rule.
Next disagreement regarding "Whether it has a 't' in it is not relevant." No, it is completely relevant. re-read the rule above. Words ending in "t" or "d" add a syllable. All others do not.
Debut is tricky, but it still follows the rule perfectly. It is pronounced "day-byou". The "t" is silent. It ends in a voiced, vowel sound, so you don't add a syllable and you use the voiced "d". The past tense, "debuted" is pronounced "day-byou'd", again, exactly according to the rule. Comparing text to debut is not useful. Text ends in a "t" sound. Debut does not.
Hated is two syllables, "hate-id". Corroded is three, "cor-rode-id". Pained is one, "pain'd". passed is one, "pass't". Rued is "Rue'd. See? examples of every combination according to the rule above.
Next, you haven't just listed verbs whose past tense sounds the same as the present tense. You listed verbs whose past tense IS the same at the present tense. Nowhere have you listed a verb that adds "-ed" but adds no sound at all. Technically, you have risen to Mark's challenge, but it's irrelevant to the issue of text vs. texted. These are all irregular verbs. Usually, irregular verbs retain their irregular form because they are ancient and their old form is retained from half a century or more of familiarity. It would be extremely unusual to adopt an irregular form for a new common word, especially a non-technical one.
Every single example in all the posts for this topic follows the rule I have mentioned regardless of what the posters are trying to prove. If you want to follow standard English pronunciation, then the same rule would dictate that texted should be pronounced "tekst-id", since "text" ends in a "t" sound.
I think the difficulty with some is that "text" already ends in a triply compounded consonant, quite a mouthful. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find any other verb that ends in the same triple consonant, so there really aren't any comparable verbs. Tell you what, let's do some verbification of our own. Let's invent a verb, "context", meaning, say, to put something in context. If I did it yesterday, I would have contexted it. Would you pronounce it con-text-ed, or context, same as the present tense?
23 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
OK, OK Douglas, enough with the past tense same as present tense examples already. You've made your point, and made it with aplomb. Clearly we can see that English is an anomalous language. The main thrust of my argument though, part of which is now in tatters, is that we needn't make it any more so than it already is.
On the plus side (for me anyway), whilst you met the past/present tense challenge extremely well, you still haven't satisfactorily produced a verb ending in 't' which has a silent 'ed' in it's past tense form. 'Debut' is a bit of a cheat really since, in it's spoken form, it doesn't end in a 't' at all. This means that pronouncing texted as 'text' still has no precedent, and also confirms that I'm still right.
I know I'm going to regret saying that. Over to you Douglas.
Mark: Let me try to clarify my comment. I am not proposing "new spelling rules." As I stated, the written form of the past tense of the verb 'text' should, according the rules of Standard English, be 'texted'. But 'text', as a verb, is a new usage, and both 'texted' and 'text' are common pronunciations of its past tense. One will likely win out, but at this point it is premature to dismiss either: the standard form will be the one most people choose to use.
I cited 'faxed' as an comparison because it is also a new word, and one that is not pronounced as spelled. Whether it has a 't' in it is not relevant. Another example of spelling differing from pronunciation is 'debuted', which is pronounced as a two-syllable word with the 't' and 'd' combined into a single stop sound. It is written as it is for clarity, but pronounced the way it is for simplicity; the same argument could be made for 'texted', if one were so inclined.
As for other verbs where the present tense sounds exactly like the past, here is a partial list: beat, bet, burst, cast, cost, cut, fit, hit, hurt, knit, put, rid, shut, slit, split and wed. Again, I am not saying that the past tense of 'text' be spelled 'text', but that argument could be made based on the existence of these words.
I think that 'texted' – so spelled and so pronounced – will prevail, and that the spoken word 'text' as a past-tense verb will either die out or become non-standard. But non-standard is not sub-standard. Those who denigrate non-standard English speakers betray their own ignorance of the history of English.
You've lost me now Douglas. If fax was spelled faxt you'd have a point. It isn't though, so you don't. Also, you can't say 'this is the spelling, but we're going to make up our own pronunciation.' Where would that leave us. There are already some very well set precedents for how this word should sound (see my previous post), we don't need to create another. The whole point here is that the, so called, spoken version of the past tense is being incorrectly pronounced, and as such, sounds exactly like the present tense. Perhaps, Douglas, you could let me know of another verb where the the present tense sounds exactly like the past tense when spoke?. While you are at it, you could also try to find another verb, in it's past tense form, where the 'ed' after a 't' becomes silent. Please, let us not start creating new spelling rules. Particularly ones which make no sense & don't even sound correct.
Google Search guy found the site that everyones talking about.. See "Texted" being used and and spoken by todays youth!!! Parents approve,Like Myself. www.ThatsNotCool.com
Mark, half a wit is better than none. Mike is correct, but only as far as the spoken word is concerned. The written form should, by the rules of Standard English, be 'texted'.
But Merriam-Webster, by their own account, only studies the written usage:
"Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called 'reading and marking'."
They call it 'reading'. What a clever bunch. No mention of listening, though.
The word 'texted' is new and its pronunciation is still up for grabs. I have heard it both ways – as 'texted' and as 'text'. Consider the verb 'to fax': its past tense is spelled 'faxed', yet nearly everyone says 'faxt'. I'm not advocating one pronunciation of 'texted' over another; perhaps one will win out or perhaps we are stuck with both. But the use of one or the other is not laziness, as Paulina suggests, nor dim-wittedness, as you do. It is merely preference.
Mike, clearly you are a halfwit:
Taste - Tasted
Last - Lasted
Best - Bested
Test - Tested
Bust - Busted
OK so the last one is a joke, but these words have never caused a stir for having 'ed' on the end. Moreover they've never caused anyone any difficulty with pronunciation. So why should texted seem so outlandish? I'm going to have to refer you back to the reply on the 1st of June 2009 from the writers of the Websters dictionary. I can't believe it wasn't the final word on the matter.
Vote for Paulina... "YOU ROCK GIRL" Let me buy you a round or 2! my email for You.. firstname.lastname@example.com She can be a snob if she wants... TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED TEXTED Lol ;)
27 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Paulina, you're wrong. Both "text" and "texted" are acceptable. It's not a lazy tongue, nor is it an opportunity for you to be a snob (sorry).
No, it's "I text him yesterday" that makes one cringe, it's so crass and vulgar! Not to
mention sloppy (lazy tongue) and ignorant to the rest of English. It seems to be
only with people who say "deteriated" instead of "deteriorated" because it's too
difficult for their poor lazy mouth. It's wrong! Now repeat 500 times: texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted texted...
43 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Bill, you are the one who is ignorant. You don't say "I sent you a texted message" because the "text" there is a noun not a verb. Do you make all your nouns past tense then? E.g. Bill's cat is black. Bill's catted was black. No! It's quite simple, text, texting, texted. Very simple regular English rules applied. Just like mix, mixing, mixed, you add an "ed" on the end for past tense. In olden times you would pronounce the "ed" as another syllable e.g. mix'ed, text'ed.
I'm going to stick my neck out here & say it should be texted. It's not hard to say, in spite of previous comments, and I'm more likely to cringe when I hear people say "I text him." Anyway, if there isn't a distinction, how can we tell if someone is talking in the past tense or present? It's 'texted' without a shadow of a doubt. In my experience it's the less well educated people I know who say 'text', and the better educated who say 'texted'. Proof, if proof were needed, that texted is correct. If you have corrected something, you dont say "I correct it," you say "I corrected it." It's simple really. I honestly can't see what the debate is about.
I tend to use "text" instead of "texted" when talking in the past tense. Both "texted" and "text" seem to be in use regardless of what the dictionary says. The good thing about the English language is that we don't have an Academy prescribing trends for us to follow, instead dictionaries observe current trends and standardise them. If "text" as the past participle isn't in the dictionary yet, it will be soon!
To me "Yesterday I text him" has the same feel as "Yesterday I paint the house."
I am surprised at how many have said that the sound of "Yesterday I texted him" makes them cringe; I don't understand why. Having skimmed the entries, above, I didn't notice anyone explaining <i>why</i> this makes them cringe, either. Perhaps someone will, and my mind will be changed, though.
I still cringe when I hear people say 'texted' just sounds ridiculous. I will keep using 'text'. The other suggestion that we use 'texd' even sounds better. Even though I hate hearing that word, I suppose in the end it is each to his own.
From: Dan Brandon
Sent: Mon 6/01/09 1:47 PM
QUESTION: I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I need to know. What is the past tense of "to text"? And if it has not been officially decided, who decides when new words are part of the dictionary? This certainly needs to be addressed. Thanks. Sincerely, Marianne
RESPONSE: The verb "text" is conjugated according to the normal English pattern, so the past tense would be "I texted." Here at Merriam-Webster, we have a series of criteria that a word has to meet to be considered for entry in our dictionary. We spend a certain amount of time every day scouring all sorts of published material for examples of new words, and when we find them, they go into our citation database. When we revise our dictionary, we check the database to see if any of these new words have enough support to warrant their entry. For more information on the process and criteria we use to enter words in the dictionary, please visit our Web site at http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_i... Daniel Brandon,Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc.
@Luis Valentine
TheIR!!! Not there, theIR!!
And why would you assume T-Mobil didn't catch that? They did. Texted is, obviously, correct.
I saw a T-MOBIL commercial the other day and it portrayed two young girls with there mother sitting at a shopping mall text messaging. One of the girls said to the other that she just "texted" her friend.
I was surprised that T-Mobil didn't catch on to that and edit it out of the commercial.
There apear to many varied academic arguments for both 'texted' and 'text' as past tense for text.
From a personal perspective, though, I can say that when I say 'texted' it seems right but sounds wrong. On the other hand, when I even think of using only 'text' as the past tense (let alone allowing the sound to materialise from my lips) I feel dirty and get a shiver like when you eat the jelly off tinned ham!
Problem is, your use of "text" as a past tense carries the phonetic implication, in English, that "tex" is the present tense, suitable also for an imperative, as if one would say "tex me, baby, it feels so good." To me, "He text me yesterday" sounds like "She kiss me last Monday, she leave me last Tuesday." All is forgiven if you're new to the language, but come on! Comprehensibilty, tradition, and aesthetics can get along just fine. If "texted" is intolerably ugly to some, then I stand correct'd, and here's hoping I won't be arrest'd.
IDC what everyone says...I use TEXT as the past tense of Text. "Texted" sounds ridiculous, and appears to be grammatically incorrect. I understand that Dictionary.com and Urban Dictionary recognize the word TEXTED, but Merrier-Webster does not...not do I. It is a built in past tense, and it sounds cleaner and clearer to use TEXT as present, past and future tenses.
Porsche, I know that the "nucular" pronunciation is disapproved of by many people. But I wanted to know how it could be "more than a bit frightening". How is a variant pronunciation frightening?
furthermore, I would like to propose the following etymology (is this the right word for origin of pronunciation, rather than the origin of the word itself?) Please note, this is pure speculation on my part.
Nuclear is a relatively recent word (middle nineteenth century) with a rather technical origin. It probably didn't enter common usage right away. It is also somewhat difficult to pronounce with its compound consonant, a bit unusual in English.
I've actually heard recordings of Harry S Truman saying "nucular". Considering that he was president when the first atomic bomb was dropped, I would guess that the word "nuclear" and the pronunciation "nucular" was suddenly under great public focus.
Clearly, the "nucular" pronunciation is simply an example of metathesis, like when a child says pasketty instead of spaghetti, but when someone of such great influence does it, it can have great impact on the language. I would suggest that it is in deference to Harry Truman that the use of nucular, especially by politicians, has become somewhat common (personally, I suspect that calling it "widespread" is a gross overstatement on M-W's part).
If I may relate an event that happened when I was in college. I was taking a course in communications theory. English was not the professor's first language, and he had trouble pronouncing the word "facsimile" (fack-si-mi-lee). Instead he would pronounce it as "fack-smile", two syllables, where the second syllable is said like "smile for the camera". He was certainly an intelligent and very well-respected faculty member, but just had a little trouble with the language. Wouldn't you know it, a few students in the class actually started pronouncing the word "fack-smile" (only when in the class), I guess, to spare embarrasment (his and/or theirs), or perhaps in deference.
Imagine this same phenomenon on a presidential scale.
Goofy, I'm afraid your quoting of Merriam-Webster is both incomplete and out of context. First, you left out the part at the very beginning where it says: "Though disapproved of by many...". Next, if you had researched it further you would have found the following clarification, directly from Merriam-Webster. Taken from:
We do not list either the ÷feb(y)wer pronunciation of February or the ÷ nü-kyl(r) pronunciation of nuclear as "acceptable"; we merely list them as commonly used pronunciations. Both of those pronunciations are clearly preceded by the obelus mark ÷ (which looks like a division sign). This mark indicates "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A full description of this can be found in the Key to Pronunciation Symbols. We are definitely not advocating that anyone should use those pronunciations or that they should abandon the others that are regarded as more acceptable.
Of course, M-W goes on in descriptive fashion to say that they are presenting usage, not "correct" pronunciation, if there even is such a thing, and that it is their responsibility to present all common documented pronunciation variants. Please see the link for the full text.
According to Merriam-Webster, the nucular pronunciation is in "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president." Why is it frightening that some presidents have a different accent than you?
Nunberg says:
'...But it doesn't explain why you still hear "nucular" from people like politicians, military people, and weapons specialists, most of whom obviously know better and have been reminded repeatedly what the correct pronunciation is. The interesting thing is that these people are perfectly capable of saying "nuclear families" or "nuclear medicine." I once asked a weapons specialist at a federal agency about this, and he told me, "Oh, I only say 'nucular' when I'm talking about nukes."'
Yes, Wittgenstein, and the man with his finger on the trigger of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world can't actually say nu-cle-ar. He says nu-CU-LAR. Nor is he the first president to do so. While I mostly agree with you, I still find this more than a bit frightening.
Meaning = use
If everybody uses 'text' as a verb, then it's a verb.
If some people use 'texted' as the past tense of 'text,' and are generally understood by the people they are communicating with, then 'texted' is a legitimate past tense form of 'text.'
Same for the other variants. Also for words like 'aksed,' as hard as it is for my own ears to adjust. I work with a guy who speaks much more formally and with more precise enunciation than I do, who nonetheless uses 'aksed' 100% of the time. I know what he means - our customers know what he means - so why should anyone bother to 'correct' him? It's a dialectical variation, not the result of 'ignorance' or 'poor education.'
Language is constantly evolving because people and cultures are constantly evolving. We still need dictionaries and english classes so we can all keep up with one another. Just because you learned that 'text' is a noun when you were in elementary school doesn't mean it can't be a verb today.
Am I the only person who noticed the improper use of "it's" from Garth Bryan and "weather" from Jess?
Okay Well i am very confused now..
I have always said"i text" for past tense...
I wouldn't know, i'm only 14..
I honestly don't know, WHAT to say now..
Do i say text or texted? Because either way SOMEONE'S going to think i'm ignorant. What is even the point of this anyway? Both sound perfectly fine to me..
The way i saw it was exactly as another person said, "i hit him, i text him, i cut him,"
Except, with some of these arguements, i am tempted to put an 'E.D' on the end because now i fear it sounds like i am talking in the present.
I TEXT HIM as in, i usually text him.
Oh, you know what, i give up!
It's the same as " vex " using " vexed " as the past tense !
Ralliart, I cannot agree with your argument. The regular and natural way to form the simple past tense of a verb that ends in 't' is to add 'ed' at the end. Here are some examples of the regular use of the simple past tense of some other verbs that end in 't': 'he hunted', 'I inherited', 'she greeted', 'we waited', 'it melted'. Verbs like 'to hit' or 'to cut' are irregular in this respect (see http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/irregular...). We should not be adding new irregularities to the language on a whim. That would be completely arbitrary as DFWDave correctly points out.
'Texted' is the only correct and acceptable way to form the past tense of this verb. And if I hear people say something like 'I text him yesterday' it sounds like the person hasn't given any thought to what they have said. It just sounds completely wrong, and it is!
Why are people debating this? The verb is already listed in many dictionaries with its past tense noted as "texted" with two syllables.
In addition to the citations listed above, here is another: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719421/te...
There's no justification for a perception of the use of "texted" as uneducated. In fact, it seems the opposite may be the case.
Additionally, to accept "texted" in written form but verbally pronounce it as "texed", or any variation thereof, has no precedent. Doing so would be simply arbitrary and should be disregarded as a solution.
It's "texted". The educated already know this.
Thank you in advance for anyone who decides to go past the point im making and point out the flaws in my hurried statement. Please just stick to the actual topic at hand....this is a good topic.
I think that texted just sounds like it would come from someone who is uneducated. I cannot take anyone serious who uses it. There are alot of words that are slang. This is not a slang, it would fall more under a jargon being that it is more closely related to a technological change in the usage of a word. Which would mean there are no set guuidlines in how it is really used. However, it still brings me two other words like Hit or Cut. I Hit him, is past tense, I cut this, is past tense.. I text him.... NOW there is confusion?? Im not sure as to why. The confusion starts when the word text which orignally started as a noun which ment any of the various forms in which a writing exists. I like that meaning the best. However now text has become a verb which shows an action not the actual "thing" being sent. If we are going to change this due to technology when I send you a picture which is a noun would I have then pictured you? Sounds just as absurd right? Because when used properly as in "I sent you a picture you say just that. In that case we would say I sent you a text. And this whole confusion would be done. However we crossed over and are creating a hybrid which is noun used a verb following noun properties! These are some of the effects of the changes in technology that cause a new language or jargon. The only reason that texted has came about is because of the easability to add an 'ed, oh and the great education system that we have. If simply using a word incorrectly will make it correct then why do we even worry about having a dictionary or english class?
David, I don't think "phone e-mailing" works very well. You can actually send e-mail from your phone as well, but that's not the same thing as sending a text message.
I think the verb "texting" should be "phone e-mailing"
A while ago Porsche and I talked about how long "text" has been a verb. The OED has "text" as a verb with these meanings:
1. To inscribe, write, or print in a text-hand or in capital or large letters. Also fig. Obs.
b. trans. To write in a text-hand upon. c. intr. To write in text-hand.
2. a. intr. To cite texts. b. trans. To cite a text at or against (a person). Obs.
for meaning 1a, they provide this citation:
1599 SHAKES. Much Ado V. i. 185 Yea and text vnder-neath, heere dwells Benedicke the married man.
There is an additional meaning:
trans. Telecomm. To send (a text message) to a person, mobile phone, etc.; to send a text message to. Also intr.: to communicate by sending text messages.
with these citations:
1998 Should I or shouldn't I? in alt.cellular.gsm (Usenet Newsgroup) 14 Mar., We still keep in touch..'texting' each other jokes, quotes, stories, questions, etc. 2000 Guardian 3 June (Weekend Suppl.) 26/1 One private school in Berkshire has just instituted a fine system for anyone caught texting in teaching-time. 2001 Publican Newspaper 4 June 5/6 Customers will be invited to text a message to a number given on the banner if they want to take part. 2001 Leicester Mercury (Electronic ed.) 31 July, I texted my mother and my friends when I got my results.
Whenever I hear someone "text" in the past tense, I cringe and think they're ignorant. It is akin to hearing someone say that they "aksed" you a question instead of "asked". Using the word "text" makes you sound lazy and uneducated.
Here's what we should do. Past tense should always be WRITTEN "texted", but past tense can be SPOKEN in two forms: tekst or tek'-sted.
It's as simple as that.
"Texted" Messages will be in Your Daily Stressed Lives in no time... as the word I "HATE" is Bling, Bling in my "BANK ACCOUNT" $tanZe"MAN"
Since the text question is vexed, you can do your own thing or just avoid the issue using more words. Spitfire is right, "sent a text" defines the tense of text, skirts the issue and avoids the shibbolethic pronounciation.
I agree with Jess. Anytime I hear someone say "texted" I cringe and instantly think they are ignorant. I think the past tense of text, is text. "I text you yesterday" is short for "I sent you a text message yesterday". Why would a person say "I sent you a texted message yesterday"? Using "texted" for the past tense of text, sounds just as bad as using "thinked" for the past tense of think.
"SMSed" sounds better than "texted".
Perhaps "texd"?
I don't use "texted" either. I always say, "i text you a minute ago. it sounds the same it means the same thing. I "texted" you makes me cringe. weather im right or not it sounds sloppy.
I don't understand why anyone is confused about this. Text is now a verb because most of us use it as a verb, and like it or not that's how the English language evolves. In the past tense it becomes 'texted'. This is entirely regular. We should not be trying to work out irregular forms of new verbs just because some people think a regular conjugation doesn't sound right. Personally I think 'texted' sounds exactly right and is easy to pronounce so why is it a problem? And I think any new verbs that come into use in the language should always be conjugated in a regular form. Irregular verbs are there because of historical inconsistencies and although these existing irregularities make our language more interesting we should not introduce further irregularities for the sake of it.
I have noticed that in speech some people will say something that sounds like 'I texed you yesterday' but this is probably due to confusion surrounding the 't' sound at the end of the infinitive which makes it sound like 'text' is already in the past, which it is not.
28 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
merriam-webster.com does list "text" as a transitive verb, therefore past tense should be "texted"
You say "Toe-may-toe", I say "Toh-mah-toh"... does it really matter? No matter what ends up in the dictionaries, there will still be fools who mispronounce the word. Texted seems fine. Using "text" as a past tense "I text you about it yesterday" sounds clumsy... but then, the English language is a smelting pot of languages and people - its sopken all over the world, and nowhere is it the same. I am living in New Zealand, and some americans cant understand me when i talk quickly. Sometimes, when Irish tourists visit NZ, I can not - for the life of me - understand them when they talk quickly. My point is - it doesn't matter what gets put into the dictionaries of the world - people will still say it wrong. (But then, at least today, I am a pessimist...)
Loving the debate...
What does need have to do with anything?
After careful consideration. The answer is "sent a text". Not everything needs to be shortened.
Correction: my last should have been:
I suggest that the past form is pronounced "texd."
I suggest that the past form is pronounced "text'd".
It should thus likely be written as "texted".
This would be in line with similar verbs like "work" and "mix".
I am definitely all about saying "text" as both past and present. "Texted" is just wrong.
Yeah I am strongly evangelizing for the "text as both past and present" boat. I suggest you jump aboard.
Besides the citations above of John and Confused (which convince me since dictionaries reflect, rather than determine, the way words are used), why don't we look at other English words with the form:
consonant-short vowel-consonant-t (single syllable)
and see how they are treated as a rule...
test - very close to text, yeah? tested-texted, sounds o.k. to me
best, rest, etc.
then there is sext, a real verb, meaning to text sexual meaning.
BTW Online Etymology dictionary "Shat is a humorous past tense form, not etymological, first recorded 18c"
i always wanna say texd. it sounds ignorant but it feels better
oops, sorry. I posted this in the wrong place. I meant to post in "no woman no cry" much apologies,all
When I see:
"no woman..." meaning "no, woman..." meaning you're saying no to a woman and actually calling her "woman" like some sort of title or nickname
and compare it to:
"no woman..." meaning "you don't have a woman..."
it reminds me of a comedy country song from long ago called "My Girl Bill". The entire song sounds like it's about a girl named Bill, but then at the very end, the last line is "...she's MY girl, BILL", and it's clear that the singer is telling this to his male friend, Bill, not singing ABOUT a girl named Bill. The entire song can be understood either way, which, I guess, is what makes it funny.
Yeah what DO you say for past perfect tense of the verb 'text'? I say we take a vote
Do you say
1. I texted you
2. I text you
3. I texed/texxed you
4. I tex'd you
I'm writing a speech about this.. Do you people ut there say ''She texted me last night'' or ''She text me last night''?? It;s really bothering me..
I hate to say it but... the OED says that texted exists from the 15th century, and not like you may think it does.
1. Skilled or learned in 'texts' or authors. rare.
~(In this sense texted wel (v.r. text wel) appears in one group of Chaucer MSS., where another has textuel. The latter was prob. the original reading, but the change in some MSS. perh. implies that texted was known.)
~14+ Chaucer's Manciple's T. 131 (Harl. MS.) But for I am a man not texted wel [so Corp.; Lansd. texed, Petw. text; 3 MSS. textuel] I wil not telle of textes neuer a del. Ibid. 212 But as I sayd, I am nought tixted wel [Corp., Petw., Lansd. text; 3 MSS. textuel, -eel, tixt-].
2. Written in text-hand or text-letters; engrossed.
~ 1620 Dekker Dreame 1 They beg nothing, the texted pastbord talkes all; and if nothing be giuen, nothing is spoken. 1650–66 Wharton Poems Wks. (1683) 340 To write Custodes in a Texted-hand. 1695 Lond. Gaz. No. 3125/4 Texted Indentures for Attorneys.
Way to go RenagadeX!! My thoughts exactly.
I'd go with SENT as the past tense of SEND and TEXT and MAIL and SHIP. Sent can hardly be used with verbal messages, so e-mail was sent. We used to use typed as a past tense...now we use keyboarded. Why make life more complicated?
I was thinking about this while in the shower of all places and I personally say "I text him yesterday", however my grandparents (yes they can 'text') say "texted". It seems to me that as there is nothing concrete yet both "texted" and "text" can be used in the past tense and for someone to claim that either is wrong, is wrong! It is slang after all! Anyone agree?
I think it's text.
I think it sounds strange to say 'text' for the past tense as well as the present. I always say 'texted' for the past tense, although it has prompted some debates with friends (as seems to be common by reading all the comments on here!).
I'm really hoping 'texted' makes it into the dictionary.
Why not simply "text" for a past tense? An example of other words with this rule would be "hit". The past tense of "hit" remains "hit". Personally I think it keeps it simple and sounds natural to say from an aural aspect. "Texted" just seems a little odd, as most of you have admitted to. Kudos to those with my idea who had already implied it. I just felt like sharing my idea.
18 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
I'm curious, danielle, what exactly does your sister say it should be?
My sister and I are having this argument this minute, and I agree that it is texted, and having read all the comments, I feel justified. Thank you.
authorized is correct, not authorize. Oh, and it's an adjective, not a verb.
Is the verb in it's correct tense if I say, "an authorized agent, " or " an authorize agent?
Dr. Pete,
How do you get "taxed" as past tense for text?
I like "text messaged".
I see your point, Porsche, but not everyone agrees. I got this info from this:
which states that this usage of "text" as a verb is cited in the OED. I don't have the OED to check, it could be a mistake.
Actually, in that Shakespeare example, text is a noun, not a verb:
But when shall we set the savage bull's horns on the sensible Benedick's head?
Yea, and text underneath, 'Here dwells Benedick the married man!'
Clearly "...and text underneath" is a list continuation that grammatically means "...and SET text underneath..."
It's like saying, "When do we put the star on top of the Christmas tree? ...Yes, and presents under it!" Presents is a noun ("...PUT presents..." is implied) not a verb.
"text" as a verb:
"Yea, and text underneath, 'Here dwells Benedick the married man!'"
Shakespeare, Much ado about nothing
Why are you confused? "text", past tense "texted", pronounced (in SAMPA) /tEkst@d/. Easy.
I believe the past tense of text should be texted, but pronounced with the 2nd "t" silent. I've checked quite a few dictionaries, and the word "texted" does not exist. Then I came across this one:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source text (těkst) Pronunciation Key
The original words of something written or printed, as opposed to a paraphrase, translation, revision, or condensation.
The words of a speech appearing in print.
Words, as of a libretto, that are set to music in a composition.
Words treated as data by a computer.
The body of a printed work as distinct from headings and illustrative matter on a page or from front and back matter in a book.
One of the editions or forms of a written work: After examining all three manuscripts, he published a new text of the poem.
Something, such as a literary work or other cultural product, regarded as an object of critical analysis.
A passage from the Scriptures or another authoritative source chosen for the subject of a discourse or cited for support in argument.
A passage from a written work used as the starting point of a discussion.
A subject; a topic.
A textbook.
tr.v. text·ed, text·ing, texts
To send a text message to: She texted me when she arrived.
To communicate by text message: He texted that he would be late.
Now I'm really confused!
no entiiendoh naa xD
Response to John: I"m curious as to what the meaning of the verb form for "text" was in the 1500s. Can you elaborate?
RE: fax vs. FAX
I am a technical writer, and have been for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you unequivocally that "fax" is NOT an acronym; it's merely a shortened version of the word facsimile. Check any dictionary. I looked at both the Merriam Webster online and the OED and neither one of them say its an acronym, nor do they spell it with all caps. So you folks that think it's an acronym, you need to check your facts on fax. In addition, two different style guides I checked, list it as fax and not FAX. As a matter of fact, the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications specifically states that one should never use "FAX".
26 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Found through Google Answers...
According to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary
(available through some libraries), there has been a verb "text" since the 1500s, with a past tense of "texted" or "tex'd." The current meaning of "to send a text message" was accepted by the OED in its draft additions of June 2004, and include the example of "texted.
This is kind of interesting that this topic comes up. Recently, watching day time tv I have noticed an increased amount of usage with the work "texted". I have never heard that used otherwise. Now I am watching the O.C and I see that texted made its way into their script. Its interesting how fast we can promote stupidity in our culture over the waves in the sky.
NO, renegade, it IS an acronym. It stands for Facsimile Transmission (with transmission commonly abbreviated as X-mission), i.e., FAcsimile Xmission. So there. And it's NOT particularly off topic either.
Anonymous wrote: And, by the way, it's spelled "FAX", all capitals, not "fax".
That's off topic, and bogus. "Fax" is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation of the word "facsimile". Name me one other abbreviation that gets all-caps?
19 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
I know I'm guilty of saying "textED," but always with the recognition that it sounds funny.
Anyone who says it should be "texed" because "FAX" changes to "FAXed" is an IDIOT! "Text" ends in "t". "FAX" does not. There's no analogy here at all! And, by the way, it's spelled "FAX", all capitals, not "fax".
21 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
"learnt" That form always bugs me. Learned. Ah, that's better.
I'm finding this discussion fascinating.
I always privately pondered whether the word should be said as "text-ted" or "text'd" (<-said similar to "faxed").
But then we get to the "it ends it t" issue..
However, consider the word "fast", as in "to go without food".
Jesus went on a fast for forty days. Do we not say that he "fasted" ("fast-ted")? If the past of fast is fasted, then the past of text should be "texted".
Therefore, methinks that Dr. Pete should hold Webster's horses.
27 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Some of my uneducated friends say the past tense of text is texted. However, my cohorts and I have written dissertations about the sound of the word "texted". As an intellectual whole, we feel it doesn't fit within the overall vernacular of the English Language. The past tense of text is taxed and it will be published in Webster's Dictionary in 2008. I just got it passed.
Olá, sou Brasileiro e não domino muito bem o inglês e gostaria que se algum estrangeiro que entende a lingua inglesa me enviasse textos que estão no " PRESENT TENSE" E "PAST TENSE".
desde já muito obrigado!!!!
Brsil, 11 de agosto de 2006......
I think that it is true that it has become a verb, but in a different language. It is a verb in txt language so it has none of the original english rules to apply to it. Because txt is such a loose language, it would be perfectly acceptable to have three forms of the past tense. People use whatever they feel like, when they feel like, no matter who likes it or not. Though i am an extreme pedant, I have learnt this new language and so I know that in txt, the past tense of txt is txtd. It is little more than academic interest whether and how we should transliterate this into English as everyone who speaks txt will use the pronunciation (and people, please get that word right, it is one of my biggest pet peeves, pronounce is the verb pronunciation is the the noun) teck stid.
You are all wrong. Text has not become an verb, it is slang. If used as slang, the past tense of Text is Text.
60 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Yes, when "text" is a verb (i.e. send a text message), it's past tense is "texted". And I hear it quite commonly in everyday conversation.
Present tense text
Past perfect texed
without the harse double sound and the double false sound
It is the pronumciation text-ed as 2 parts I dislike, texed should sould very similar to text , one does not say run -ed
16 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
test - tested, fax - faxed, text - texed. Make it happen Webster!!!
17 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
I personally like "Taxt" as the past tense of "Text"
but i was never very good in English
I'm a grammar Nazi, so I wouldn't use it if I didn'tn think it was correct. The fax analogy serves my perspective well: I use the word "text" as a verb which I'd define as "to send an SMS text message from one mobile phone to another" and I conjugate it as a regular verb. I will text you later; I haven't texted him yet.
47 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
I'm with you, Slemmet, but this happens to be one of my wife's pet peeves. She hates hearing that olympic atheletes "medal" in a particular sport. In fact, when a noun is made into a verb, she says that they "verbed a noun". See? She does it too! Personally, I love it. I think it's the dynamic nature of the language (although I do try not to use "interface" as a verb. It's such a corporate non-speak buzzword.)
That's how it is. It sounds strange, but when written in a specific way based on how it sounds, it reads:
Which is also confusing. There is an "ed-ed" sound in there, which you have been taught to never say.
"Texted" will never make it into common use. Unfortunately for some, the Internet makes it easier and faster for people to define language. Anyway, I think "texxed" or "texed" (sp?) is the best solution.
As one of the previous commentors stated, it sounds like "text." However, I think there is some small difference (softer ending sound, maybe a difference of emphasis).
Stik, the point is that it is a noun that has also become a verb. That is very common in English.
Since text is not a verb (it's either a noun, as in "sending text")or an adjective, as in "text messaging") why not avoid the whole thing and say: "I sent you a text message?" or "I text messaged you"?
34 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
"Sent" can be used in this case, as in "I sent you a message."
Don't forget that English is a living language and changes. "Fine" used to mean "thin" as in the phrase "there's a fine line between ...."
We could implement a spelling change for the past tense of "text." Which, in turn, would copy an existing word and thus, create an additional meaning for this word. The past tense of "text" could be "taxed." Let us not forget that "shat" has worked wonderfully beside "shit." Although, there are no other meanings for the word "shat."
18 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
I've found that when somebody says "I just texted you", even though in my head I think it's spelt "texted", people actually pronounce it the same as "text"... or maybe more accurately, "tex'd" (which then sounds almost identical to "text").
33 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
could always use "im'd" like...."hey, i im'd you a bit ago"
I think the aversion to 'texted' comes from the 't' at the end which forces an awkard two syllable jump unlike faxed. It is also less pleasant than tested because of the hardness of the 'x'. But there isn't much that can be done about it since 'textd' is completely unacceaptable. Just to let you know a variant. I've used and heard several people use 'ping' instead of text. Which comes from the computer program 'ping' which lets you find a computer on the internet. So you can 'ping bob' or say 'I pinged you about it an hour ago' which is much more comfortable to say. Though I don't think it will catch on.
21 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
Of course it is "texted", why wouldn't it? Same as with "test/tested".
32 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse
i have to admit that i am guilty of using the word "texted" when i am telling someone that i just sent them a text message. i'd say, "i just texted you!". it is just so convenient to do that. mobile text messaging language is really not a very good source of language practice.
Do you use "faxed" for the past tense of, the, now verbed, "fax"? If so, is it not the same for "text"?
42 votes • Permalink • Report Abuse