"Text" or "texted" for past tense?

[peacefuleasyfeeling]

I have seen and heard the word "text" , as in "to send a text message / SMS" used as past tense quite a few times recently:
"So yesterday, he text me to say..."
"She text me last week and I..."
I have always assumed that it should be "texted", but the frequency with which this is popping up suggests "text" as both past and present tense is common parlance.
Am I just an out of touch fuddy-duddy?

OK - posts by you, Koala and HullyGully just sound really worked up, nothing to indicate attempt at humour, more like an attempt at a heart attack . I just can't feel the rage even though this error does grate a little.

Texted! Drives me mad when people say text. We don't ignore all the rules of English just because its a newish word. It's a simple word with an obvious past tense, I don't know why so many people don't see it.

It's bloody texted! Aargh!

Text as past tense has been common parlance for a good few years IME - nails on a blackboard every time I hear it.

Constance - we've discussed this above.

Native speakers know the rules of English and don't have a problem applying them reliably in novel situations: like everyone else, a few years ago I'd never heard "to google" as a verb, but once I had I had no problem inflecting the past as "I googled."

So, I find it intriguing that in the heat of speaking and typing, people use "text" rather than "texted" for the past tense. Why do they do this? I think a possibility is that there are many common verbs ending in "t" (eg put, set, cut) where the past is the same as the present, and this subconscious knowledge is just enough to interfere with regular tense formation. It may also be that to the ear, "text" sounds like "flexed" or "vexed" so the brain is fooled into thinking it has formed the past tense.

Sent a text!

But of course to many listeners, they hear "text" and initially parse it as present tense, then use other clues to realise it is past tense, and so that grates on the ear. Does it really make you that cross?

waitrose - good luck getting people to say the verbose "sent a text" in speech when "texted" is quicker and more natural!

I know, I know, but I like verbose. 'Texted' always makes me think of an episode of Jeremy Kyle!

It's only one extra syllable. I've paid particular attention these days and I definitely say "I sent X a text" rather than "I texted X".

Eh, waitrose? Why?

It's how the past tense of regular verbs is formed: you add -ed. The past tense of 'twist' is 'twisted', so why wouldn't the past tense of 'text' be 'texted'?

Nothing Jeremy Kyle about it!

Sent a text ... and I would type that all out too.

I always would say or type "sent a text".

I don't think it's just a matter of one extra syllable.

The listener has to parse your sentence in the order it comes: their brain registers (sub-consciously) "I sent X" so they start thinking "Speaker sent something" and that something was "X" or possibly "X" is indirect object and I need to wait to hear what they sent to X. Then they hear "a text" and they can resolve the meaning. If the listener hears "I texted" they immediately know you are talking about sending a text and just wait to hear who it was you texted. (And their brain doesn't have to activate all the memory associations of what "sending" might be taking place - "text" is a verb with a narrow meaning, so less cognitive load).

Also, there is nothing wrong with "texted" so why not use it?

I'm glad this is Pedants' Corner where we can merrily debate these obscure points!

I use texted.

I hadn't heard 'texted' until I saw the JK show once and it was being screeched across the stage. To me it sounds horrible and wrong, correct or not.

Sent a text or texted if in a real rush. This thread has reminded me of the seething rage I quietly feel and try to ignore when people say 'tex' or 'texes'...that is an absolute abomination of the English language and laziness in the extreme.
Also, I'd like to think that everyone in this thread does actually use vowels in their texts, I refuse to reply to any where people don't other than to insist on a translation.

Stuff, you are a kindred spirit

I'm not alone! Hooray!

I punctuate texts and use full words. I did, in an attempt a) to save my poor aged fingers b) to save time, start doing the old "txt" thing, but luckily my teenage students told me to stop it, apparently only old gimmers who think they are dahn wiv the kids innit do that now, with the almost total takeover of predictive text (do not get me started on that) kids have gone back to texting full words. (well, their phones have, their input is perhaps negligible beyond the first few letters)

dad I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread, you appear to look at things in a different way. Are you a linguist?

Ha, ha, no!

I do enjoy reading about linguistics and grammar usage, eg languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ (American and covers a wide range, but in their archives they've covered the grammar peeving stuff that crops up here, such as less/fewer, who/whom). Contributors are professional linguists (including Geoffrey Pullum, one of the co-authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) - so people who don't just repeat rules of style or syntax because that's what their English teacher told them at school, but study how actual writers construct sentences.

Reading Pinker's "A Sense of Style" also was informative.

I like to think I've absorbed some of their concepts and terminology. I'm bound to have got some things wrong, but I hope I've got the right attitude that I want to know why a "rule" is justified, by studying how English-speakers actually operate. Since English speakers know to add -ed to make a past tense, I just find it intriguing why they sometimes don't do it for "text". I've suggested a theory, but I'd love to hear alternatives.