Past tense of “text”

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.

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.

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.

oops, correction. In the post above, I meant half a millenium, not half a century.

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.

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).

"That was so fun."
Do you mean to suggest that there is something wrong with this phrase, Mark?

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean "on purpose," I meant "appropriate."

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.

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.

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...)

No more relevant than "chat" which isn't relevant because it is not preceded by a consonant sound, like, say, "x."

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

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.

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:

http://www.etymonline.com/imutate.php

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.

I like Mac's explanation. I didn't sense any arrogance in it and it sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks.

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.

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.

I usually spell it "texted" but pronounce it "texed" and kinda just drop the t since it makes it easier to say.

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

:)

Phil,

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.

Respectfully,
Jason

Other examples may clarify

Correct:

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 :)

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 :)

Phil

p.s.

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

http://www.madog.org/dysgwyr/readings/reading01.html

It's quite funny but true!

Cheers :)

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".

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.

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

p.p.p.s.

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

:)

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.

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 :)

??? Love reading these, Wish I had more time to post my 3 pence worth!!!

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".

I say text the same whether I in the past or present tense, but would write it as texted in the past tense!

Well, You are wrong

I never said I was correct - I just said what I used. Sheesh!

"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'll just off that the pst tense of cut is cut, put is put, and I do hope text evolves the same way.

Make that "offer" and "past". Don't know what happened there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=texted

Google has already picked it up.

i always just say "hey, i text you yesterday"

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?

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.

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: 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".

I just can't handle the two guys in the commercial, and the one guy say you just texsed me? CRINGE!!!!

So what is the correct way to say it, spell it, use it, whatever?

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?

I have always though it should be "text" not "texted" it sounds awful. To read and have read...text and text...or tex'd

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?

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.

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.

chrisbolton20, "whole nother" is a little joke, right?

Erica,

Yes, my poor attempt at one at least.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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%5B2%5D

I texted her a little while ago.
I texted a message to her.
She just texted me back.

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

"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!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/texted
text (tkst)
n.
1.
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.

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 !!! :)

TEXT, TEXTED (TEXT) --- MILK, MILKED (MILKT)

I wonder what they would have said in Jesuses day.

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.

IMHO

@Karyn ... Huh? What "rule of thumb" would that be?

M-W has "texted" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/text%5B2%5D
OED has "texted" http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/text?q=text

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?

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 ;

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.

@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.

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?

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 :)

P.S.

You wouldn't say "puted", or "cuted". As peple would think you're a retard. :)

@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) .

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.

@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.

Sorry, that should have read - All regular verbs whose base form ends in T or D sound the 'ed' syllable

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…

http://www.facebook.com/pathofthegodsbook

Hey all,

Just revised the poll on FB…

http://www.facebook.com/pathofthegodsbook

txt -- txd

Text -- Texd

Job done

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

e.g.
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..

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...?