Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that 'text' is not the past tense of 'to text'

95 replies

UptheChimney · 22/08/2013 02:12

Actually, I know IANBU.

The past tense of 'to text' is 'texted,' as the past tense of 'to telephone' is 'telephoned.' It is conjugated as a regular verb, which in English means that one adds 'ed' to the present tense make the simple past tense.

Writing 'text' when you mean 'texted' just makes you look illiterate, and makes my teeth itch. The latter is far more important, obviously Wink

OP posts:
Original poster
UptheChimney · 23/08/2013 01:52

Why would anyone deliberately adopt an irregular verb form, when it's so easy to say/write 'texted.' I don't think that 'texted' is difficult to say -- but then I speak RP, and articulate my consonants, so I don't find it difficult to pronounce the plosives 't' and 'd' precisely.

And georgettemagritte thank you so much for that fascinating explanation. Really interesting, and makes sense.

Guiltismymaster >>because they think they're speaking a more elevated language

OP posts:
NickL · 23/08/2013 03:09

Surely it's txd?

DropYourSword · 23/08/2013 03:32

I've always been unsure. I wondered if texted was a bit like saying cleverer or funner! So always avoided.

Original poster
UptheChimney · 23/08/2013 04:54

"Cleverer" is an intensified adjective, and is OK, although "more clever" is perhaps a more elegant usage. "Funner" is wrong -- it should be "more fun," but I've heard people use it deliberately as a joke or affectation.

In the context of my OP, 'text' is a verb, not an adjective such as "clever" so follows different grammatical rules. Or not.

OP posts:
FairPhyllis · 23/08/2013 05:22

There was a long thread on this a few weeks ago ...

Suelford · 23/08/2013 08:22

OP's Mistakes:

'texted,' -> 'texted',

'telephoned.' -> 'telephoned'.

present tense make the simple... -> present tense to make the simple...

far more important, obviously Wink -> far more important, obviously. Wink

Original poster
UptheChimney · 23/08/2013 09:11

Actually, there are several views about the punctuation. I am not in error in the OP -- check a variety of style manuals. It is perfectly acceptable in some style manuals to place the punctuation inside the quotation marks.

OP posts:
Original poster
UptheChimney · 23/08/2013 09:16

But a fair cop on missing the "to."

However, my OP wasn't about typos or grammar generally -- it was about one particular usage which is really really annoying, irritating, and illiterate.

PS see what I did there with the Oxford comma?

OP posts:
JacqueslePeacock · 23/08/2013 09:24

But even if it IS an irregular verb, it's not likely that the past tense would be the same as the present tense, is it? I mean, I know there must be some verbs where this is the case, but I'm really struggling to think of any...

Original poster
UptheChimney · 23/08/2013 09:48

Ur all wrng its txt

Actually, maybe birdsgottafly has been right all along.

OP posts:
KissMeHardy · 23/08/2013 10:00

No such word as 'texted' - it sounds awful and wrong wrong wrong !

JacqueslePeacock · 23/08/2013 10:44

But even if it IS an irregular verb, it's not likely that the past tense would be the same as the present tense, is it? I mean, I know there must be some verbs where this is the case, but I'm really struggling to think of any...

OK, I think I finally have one. BID. As in, I bid on something on eBay yesterday. I can't think of any others though.

georgettemagritte · 23/08/2013 10:51

Actually, texted is already in the OED as the past form with a 2001 example (and there is an earlier transitive usage as a verb dating from the Renaissance (meaning to inscribe, write or print) with an example usage of "texted" in 1607 by Dekker and another from 1624 by Heywood)

Oblomov · 23/08/2013 10:54

I text you yesterday . Texted sound wrong.
I bid on it yesterday.

Both sound fine to me. I will continue with these. I don't even care that they are incorrect. I prefer them.

Lweji · 23/08/2013 12:16

I texted you yesterday. Text sounds wrong to me. :)

And bid only sounds right because I got used to it.

JacqueslePeacock · 23/08/2013 16:21

Bid is right! That was my whole point! You can use it with impunity Grin Text, though, is Definitely Not Ok.

Mintyy · 23/08/2013 16:22

I sent you a text yesterday

is it so difficult?

Lweji · 23/08/2013 16:53

Jacques, you lost me.
So, should it be text or texted?

And yes, bid is right.
But the regular would have been bidded, which would sound more natural for someone who didn't grow up with English as first language. Grin

Lweji · 23/08/2013 16:53

Mintyy, I don't know. Some people find it hard to send text messages. Mostly older people. Wink

chateauferret · 23/08/2013 17:02

YABU. Many monosyllabic verbs in English are strong - that is to say, instead of making a regular preterite in -ed they drop the ending and take a vowel change where possible (an "Ablaut grade"). This is similar to what happens in German.

When new verbs are coined the language may find that a regular preterite is clumsy. In that case the verb could be naturally treated as strong. Short -e- has no Ablaut grade so the strong preterite of text would be text.

OTOH there is not really rhyme or reason as to whether a verb should be strong or not. If it's sing - sang - sung and ring - rang - rung, why is the preterite of ping (to test the network connection to a server, in IT) pinged and not pung? So maybe YANB all that U after all.

Lweji · 23/08/2013 17:16

sing - sang - sung and ring - rang - rung
have such endings because they are old verbs.

BTW, about how new verbs should sound and how we apply rules to them - fascinating book by Steven Pinker

georgettemagritte · 23/08/2013 17:32

Chateauferret but there are reasons why those monosyllabic verbs are irregular: they're Saxon/Norse and predate prescriptive grammar. It isn't the fact that they're monosyllabic or that some end in t. Whereas "text" is a more recent Latinate loan-word, which has recently formed a new verb usage, but already has an existing (if rare) transitive verb use with a regular past tense. There is no reason that it should be irregular (Latinate and new coinages don't tend to form as irregular verbs). The Germanic strong verb, which is a bit of a red herring here as modern English no longer really works that way (no reason why a recent coinage of Latinate derivation would behave like a Germanic strong verb - compare "phone" as a similar recent monosyllabic verb formation from "telephone" as a noun - you don't say "I phone him yesterday").

miffybun73 · 23/08/2013 18:48

YANBU, of course it's texted.

JacqueslePeacock · 23/08/2013 19:06

Irregular is as irregular does, but even most irregular verbs don't use the exact same form for the present tense and the past tense.

I think this makes the argument that it doesn't have to be texted because it might be an irregular verb a bit useless - unless of course you're suggesting the past tense might be tuxt, taxt or tought... in which case that wuld be interesting!

Ilovemyself · 23/08/2013 19:48

Language is a living thing and changes over time. So whose to say that text will not become the most widely accepted use in future.

Swipe left for the next trending thread