To think that the past tense of the verb to text is texted, not text!

[Marmitelover55]

Assuming it is actually a verb and not a noun...

But why does the fact that something is, let's face it, minimally awkward to say mean that it has to be changed to something that causes unnecessary confusion? We have all sorts of neologisms and newly imported words that aren't exactly a picnic to pronounce but we cope. Think about aluminium, islamisation, tsunami, reflexology, nanotechnology ...

I'm also an antiquated dinosaur to whom 'I text him yesterday' sounds horrible, and 'like toddler-speak', but, if I unleash my pedant-brain and let it range free, I can just about hear what the 'text' supporters hear. It's obvious that to them my 'texted' sounds as wrong and toddler-speaky as if I'd said 'I hitted him.'

But we all know that "hitted" is wrong, because we have all been brought up from the very early stages of speaking to know that the past tense of "hit" is "hit". With "text", what we have is a new term with absolutely no back-history and no suggestion that it should be anything other than a regular verb. You don't hear people saying that "fitted" or "knitted" sounds wrong and like toddler-speak.

Veritas the answer to why is because language is organic. It evolves, shifts.
The answer to other awkward words like aluminium (which I don't have a problem with) is regularity of us.
I found a PP's point about letters really interesting and I thought about all the words we use for communication.
I'll call you
I'll ring you
I'll bell you
I'll message you
I'll mail you
I'll PM you
I'll text you.

It's a particular part of language which shifts all the time.

I forgot

I'll inbox you

Irregular and regular verbs are not created, though. They become, they evolve. Some evolutions I heartily dislike and will take every chance to smother, but that doesn't alter their nature.

The words we use for communication....as past tense though, which is the part you omit.
I called him, I messaged him, I mailed him, even I PM'ed him. So, obviously, I texted him.

Ziggy, I agree, it's interesting.
I would say rang him or rung him (colloquial) instead of called or phoned. and I do say texted myself but it sounds more one syllable than text-ed. Text'd.
What I find interesting is that as technology keeps changing, the words change and then fall into disuse really quickly. The noun as verb acquisition is very quick these days.

candycane many of those are grim, especially 'I'll bell you' and 'I'll inbox you'.

Ring is ok because ring is obviously a verb - we ring bells. So is call - clearly a verb. Message, bell and inbox are nouns.

Not sure about PM'd. Somehow that one sounds quite nice. It has a nice ring to it

Rather than getting irritated that people use "text" for the past tense (even when speaking), I find it fascinating. English speakers generally have no problem applying the +ed rule to form the past tense even with a verb that's new, eg "google" --> "googled".

So, that creates an interesting puzzle of why people appear to trip up in this case and say "I text him yesterday". My theory is that the "ext" sound at the end of the verb tricks part of the brain into thinking it is already in the past tense, like "vexed" - when speaking the "ext" sounds very much like it's ending with the "ed" sound. So that blocks the normal formation of the +"ed".

So, if you are typing fast in an informal setting like texts or MN, you may miss that you have not followed the +"ed" rule. If it becomes widespread enough, "text" may become accepted as irregular with past tense "text".

If it becomes widespread enough, "text" may become accepted as irregular with past tense "text"
Which is why we need to fight against it! Stand strong against this tide!

Oh, I just went back to the discussion of this on Pedants' Corner, and there's another point...

What do all these verbs have in common: bet, broadcast, burst, cut, cast, hit, hurt, let, set, put, quit, shut, slit? Answer: they all end in "t" and their past tense is the same as the present tense (no adding "ed"). Might some people brain's be swayed by this pattern when using "text"?

Dad3 totally agree. It already sounds finished. When I say text'd, you can barely hear the difference.
There is only text and next that I can think of that have this one syllable ext formation. So no wonder people can get in a muddle.
Ziggy, alas, the genie is out of the bottle I suspect.

Tex.

"I tex her yesterday"
"Tex me later, yeah?"

I would love to hear you pronouncing 'text'd' like that, candy. It does look difficult to jam all those consonants together. When I say 'texted', it's no shorter an ending than in a word like 'collected'.

Something-are you serious?

My theory is that the "ext" sound at the end of the verb tricks part of the brain into thinking it is already in the past tense, like "vexed" - when speaking the "ext" sounds very much like it's ending with the "ed" sound. So that blocks the normal formation of the +"ed".

Yes, this makes much more sense than the idea that texted is "hard to say" (it's not sufficiently hard to say to make people create a new verb form to avoid saying it).

Haven't RTFT but yes, I say texted and have explained to DSS why I do so when he queried it. I also bemoan the substitution of invitation for invite nowadays though, so this sort of thing irritates me easily.

Brecon it's like instead is text-ed it's more like text-Der but with a very short d
I think it must be a colloquial thing as its a common pronunciation where I live.

It should be invitation, not invite!

I say text.

I don't care if it's wrong, texted just doesn't sound right.

It cannot sound wrong! It clangs in my ears. You don't say I post it yesterday because posted sounds wrong! People who say I text him yesterday sound like toddlers!