tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post1953920272065737161..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: tex(t)ingJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53729611822986919362010-10-29T08:43:57.931+01:002010-10-29T08:43:57.931+01:00<>
This is a common tendency in US. For exa...<><br />This is a common tendency in US. For example, I once heard an American say "I never should have trust (trussed!) him.Attlilanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-75567967206257943572009-11-11T14:45:34.645+00:002009-11-11T14:45:34.645+00:00This is improbable because the pattern isn't (...This is improbable because the pattern isn't (otherwise) productive.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-62370153424029438762009-11-11T14:38:58.910+00:002009-11-11T14:38:58.910+00:00Why can't the verb text be an "AAA irregu...Why can't the verb text be an "AAA irregular" like cut/cut/cut, hit/hit/hit, hurt/hurt/hurt, cost/cost/cost, etc. "Things cost more this year than they cost last year." "My parents text me so often: yesterday they text me five times." Sure, some people say "It costed me a lot" but that doesn't make it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-29521203833010440812009-10-26T18:43:38.815+00:002009-10-26T18:43:38.815+00:00But causes.But causes.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-25086473989981446752009-10-26T18:27:02.081+00:002009-10-26T18:27:02.081+00:00Indeed, -ate representing the Latin participial en...Indeed, <i>-ate</i> representing the Latin participial ending is semantically completely empty in English: there simply is no definite reason why we say <i>prepare</i> but not <i>*separe</i>, or <i>separate</i> but not <i>*preparate</i>.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-75513400490551009112009-10-25T11:25:48.239+00:002009-10-25T11:25:48.239+00:00@S.C.Anderson,
I wasn't serious. English verb...@S.C.Anderson,<br /><br />I wasn't serious. English verbs from Latin are formed of all kinds of stems in Latin, but the formation from a past participle is not at all rare, and much more common than in, say, French or German.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10457383499501216152009-10-25T11:21:33.384+00:002009-10-25T11:21:33.384+00:00Hardly; that way of forming past forms clearly isn...Hardly; that way of forming past forms clearly isn't productive anymore, and those who tend to say <i>texed</i> would probably prefer <i>-ed</i> even where it is an existing parallel form to <i>-t</i> (= zero) in existing words.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-74907306986543525322009-10-24T19:11:05.591+01:002009-10-24T19:11:05.591+01:00It could be due to the tendency of verbs ending in...It could be due to the tendency of verbs ending in /t/ in English to have a null past tense morpheme, like burst, cost, split, quit, set, let.... 'Text' instead of 'texted' doesn't look erroneous in that company.<br /><br />I know some people do say /teksIz/ instead of /teksts/ (or, at least, Google knows - I'd never heard it), but the irregular past tense is far more widespread - most people seem to use it - so your theory seems not to be the only explanation.Bebedoranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-52794141294868003322009-10-24T01:48:41.928+01:002009-10-24T01:48:41.928+01:00Interesting. I've never noticed, myself, but I...Interesting. I've never noticed, myself, but I'm a latecomer to txting.<br /><br />What I did notice, though, was "boxed set" - /bɒks(t) set/. My impression (beware frequency illusion!) is that "box( )set" is more common - which rhymes nicely with the reduced pronunciation.<br /><br />A very quick look at Amazon(uk) gives:<br /><br />"boxed set"<br />Books (2,077) <br />DVD (91) <br />Music (151) <br />VHS (35)<br /><br />"box set"<br />DVD (21,772) <br />Music (48,911) <br />VHS (1,969) <br />Classical Music (14,675) <br />Books (5,718)<br /><br />"boxset"<br />DVD (489) <br />VHS (30) <br />Music (252) <br />Books (171)Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-88771910816626068262009-10-23T22:46:42.734+01:002009-10-23T22:46:42.734+01:00Here in Louisiana we hear 'breakfases' for...Here in Louisiana we hear 'breakfases' for the plural of 'breakfas'...Martin Ballhttp://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mjb0372/mjball.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-70700382154614930042009-10-23T20:57:53.443+01:002009-10-23T20:57:53.443+01:00@JW
Have you (or anyone) actually seen the forms ...@JW<br /><br />Have you (or anyone) actually seen the forms *tex, *texing, *texes in the wild? <br /><br />The only nonstandard form I am aware of is "text" for the past tense/past participle. <br /><br />I am wondering whether the mechanism you cite (general elision of the final "t") might explain too much.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-68679591274250968252009-10-23T20:53:52.176+01:002009-10-23T20:53:52.176+01:00@S.C.Anderson
English verbs of latin origin usual...@S.C.Anderson<br /><br />English verbs of latin origin usually come from the past participle root, not the present root. Should "script" become "scrib"?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10779049715199530492009-10-23T18:46:18.771+01:002009-10-23T18:46:18.771+01:00You have a point, Lipman.
The Latin 'textus&#...You have a point, Lipman.<br /><br />The Latin 'textus' does, after all, come from the verb 'texere' (to weave?).<br /><br />So should the verb be 'to tex' and the past participle thus 'texed'?S.C. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04325161546290294854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-28567307371113780872009-10-23T16:36:58.348+01:002009-10-23T16:36:58.348+01:00Maybe the tex(t)ing masses only seem to lack educa...Maybe the tex(t)ing masses only seem to lack education. They really go back to Latin tex-, not text-. Only the uneduced form English verbs from Latin participles.Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-81767834679011935882009-10-23T16:25:07.577+01:002009-10-23T16:25:07.577+01:00This is analogous to the problem: what is the pos...This is analogous to the problem: what is the possessive of <i>Jones</i>? Many choose <i>Jones'</i> rather than the more regular <i>Jones's</i> because the pronunciation of <i>Jones</i>, ending with /nz/, already sounds like a possessive.<br /><br />Similarly "Text", ending with /kst/, already sounds like a past tense ending.<br /><br />Ben Zimmer has an interesting article about this here: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1819/vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-7953708392368033392009-10-23T15:09:04.941+01:002009-10-23T15:09:04.941+01:00"Indeed, [ə teks(t) mesɪdʒ] could then be int..."Indeed, [ə teks(t) mesɪdʒ] could then be interpreted as a texed message, one that you can tex to someone."<br /><br />that does seem plausible to me, although i've yet to notice <i>texes</i> (in the U.S.). my husband tells me he often hears <i>text (texed)</i> for the past tense, although i still hear <i>texted</i> more often.c.c.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17707704571448468226noreply@blogger.com