Lena, Thanks, that's nice of you to say.

I was re-reading Strunk and White's "The Elemsnts of Style" and found the following entry for 'while' in the chapter "Misused Words and Expressions":

"While. Avoid the indiscriminate use of this word for and, but, and although. Many writers use it frequently as a substitute for and or but, either from a mere desire
to vary the connective, or from uncertainty which of the two connectives is the more appropriate. In this use it is best replaced by a semicolon."

That's good punctuation advice, even if it does "bury the lead."

'Causal' means of or relating to cause or arising from a cause. 'Causative' means operating as a cause or expressing a cause. In describing an etiological agent, 'causative' is the accurate word. 'Causal' would be used to describe the relation between the agent and the infirmity.

Merriam-Webster lists 'emplace' as a back-formation of 'emplacement', and dates it to 1865 – perhaps a Civil War coinage. 'Emplacement' has a military connotation: a prepared position for weapons or military equipment; M-W dates it to 1802. The use of 'emplacement' in reference to IEDs is A-OK, but unless the books are incendiary its use in a book-bag context is inappropriate.

'Utilize' means "to make use of : turn to practical use or account" (Merriam-Webster). It is inappropriate to ask to 'utilize the latrine' unless the intent is to find a new use for it. (Don't ask, don't tell.)

'Societal' is a perfectly good word, but it is best confined to the social sciences, as a rule. I'm having a hard time imagining how a cadet would utilize it.

I agree with Rob that the use of '10-cent words' to impress is ill-advised. The military has always had its own strain of sesquipedalian lingo. But in the trenches, you can be sure that they revert to "clear, clean, austere English." (Well, maybe not 'clean'.)

I realize this is an old question, but what neither the questioner nor any of the three previous answerers notice is that what is being discussed here is not the use of a double negative. A double negative is the use of two forms of negation in one clause, as in "I can't get no (satisfaction?). The sentence being discussed here uses two negatives, but in different clauses.

However, I agree with the questioner that it is an awkward sentence. It is not bad – or improper – English to repeat 'wasn't' in this case; the author is trying to use matching phrasal structures, which is a 'literary device'. What makes the sentence awkward is the intervening clause "in the sole agency contract," which interrupts the matched clauses.

I would have preferred: "In the sole agency contract, there wasn't a clause left that wasn't a source of conflict."

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

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.

Clearly I have been unclear. Let me reiterate my four points:

First, the past tense of the verb 'text' is properly written 'texted'. In this it follows the general rules of Standard English.

Second, the word 'texted' is currently spoken as both 'texted' and 'text'.

Third, usage will determine which is to be the standard pronunciation.

Fourth, "Non-standard" does not mean "Sub-standard."

Our sparring has been fun, but neither you or I will determine the future usage of any word, old or new. We may bandy precedents all day and all night, but the language will do as it likes.

My young friends, whom you dismiss, are the same sort who created our language, back when being twenty was middle-aged. Sure, they use some crappy expressions; most will vanish in time. But I prefer their neologisms and unkempt sentences to the stiff proscriptions of antiquarians who would never split an infinitive just because Cato couldn't.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1813 letter: "I have been pleased to see that in all cases you appeal to usage, as the arbiter of language; and justly consider that as giving law to grammar, and not grammar to usage." I am merely extending his principle to pronunciation. In the same letter Jefferson opposes "...Purists, who would destroy all strength and beauty of style, by subjecting it to a rigorous compliance with their rules." Again, I find this especially applicable to the spoken word. Even as an old man Jefferson was open to change, and optimistic about the future of the language.

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.

Mark, Since you insist, I will comment on your insistence that 'text' as a past tense verb must have a precedent. You will agree, then, that 'texted' needs precedent too.

You ask for "a verb ending in ‘t’ which has a silent ‘ed’ in it’s [sic] past tense form." I think a more germane test would be this: How are words ending in '-xt' typically treated?

There are very few English words that end in '-xt'. Setting aside compounds of 'text', such as 'hypertext', most are either archaic words, like 'twixt' and 'betwixt', or archaic spellings, like 'transfixt' and 'unmixt'. This leaves only three commonly-used words with the '-xt' ending: 'context', 'next' and 'pretext'. None of these are verbs (yet!). The '-xt' verbs that do exist, like 'fixt' and 'vext', are already past tense, being archaic spellings of 'fixed' and 'vexed',

So there is no precedent for either 'text' or 'texted' as a past-tense formations of an '-xt' verb. This leaves the choice to the users of the word, at least for now.

By the way, I had a conversation with a few college students recently. These students used 'text' in its past-tense sense. But when I asked them directly what the past tense of 'text' was they all said 'texted'. This supports what I wrote in my previous comment, 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." These students understood the difference, and were perfectly – and justifiably – comfortable with using the putative non-standard in casual conversation.

Finally, I wouldn't call English anomalous, I prefer to think of it as complex. With luck, texting as a technology will pass away – as did formerly the telegraph and will soon the fax – and with it this particular conundrum. Let's all move on to the past tense of 'tweet'.

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.