Re: Evidentials for a future English

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. :)

> 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.

>  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.

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

Replies