Re: Evidentials for a future English

Mark J. Reed wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:30:11PM +0100, Chris Bates wrote:
>
>
>>Can't we go with the irregular spelling option (like dwarf -> dwarves...
>>I know that's a noun changing, but I mean along similar lines) and write
>>them timzed and timzing or... wait, that's no better..
>>
>>
>
>Not at all, and it removes the etymological information from the
>orthography. Which is about the only good thing about English orthography, so for Pete's
>sake don't get rid of it, too. :)
>
>
I really wish we can have spelling reform, so the spelling gave a better
idea about pronunciation, but it'll never happen. :(

>>Its like "text"... its becoming a verb
>>
>>
>
>It is a verb.  In English, you can verb any noun.   The case of "times"
>and "minus" and "plus" is interesting because they're *not* nouns;
>they're prepositions.   So the verbification process is less direct.
>
>
>
I still don't like it. "Text" is a very awkward verb.

>> but never mind spelling it how the
>>hell do you pronounce the past form?
>>
>>
>
>It seems very clear to me that the past tense form is "texted" and is
>pronounced /'tEk.st@d/, which I don't think sounds stupid at all.
>
>
>
Over here the commonest past tense force is clearly /tekst/ at least
where I am in england. If people say "texted", about 50% correct themselves.

>You're just getting stuck by analogy, since English doesn't have any
>(other) verbs ending in -xt, but it does have verbs ending in -x, which
>have a past that sounds like -xt.  However, that's different.   I don't
>think "texted" is any stupider than "rested" or "bested" or any of that
>ilk; you don't argue that the past tense of "to rest" should be "rest"
>because the past tense of "to bless" is "blessed", do you?
>
>-Marcos
>
>
>
I think texted does sound silly. Its a personal sense of aesthetics
reinforced by the fact that the majority of people I know clearly
consider it to be at best borderline correct.