Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Conjugating a verb

Switch Blayde

Here's a site I found on conjugating verbs. All you do is put the present tense form of the word in the search box and it gives you all the different tenses.

But it has to be the simple present tense of the word. I tried "rose" and it didn't work. I had to put in "rise".

http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/dive.php

sejintenej

@Switch Blayde

Here's a site I found on conjugating verbs. All you do is put the present tense form of the word in the search box and it gives you all the different tenses.

But it has to be the simple present tense of the word. I tried "rose" and it didn't work. I had to put in "rise".

From the heading it looks like you need to put in the infinitive. It's OK in English to use the 1st person present but, without thinking too hard, there may be differences in French or Spanish (which I see are available)

samuelmichaels

@Switch Blayde

But it has to be the simple present tense of the word. I tried "rose" and it didn't work. I had to put in "rise".

http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/dive.php

You dove right into the recent controversy, didn't you?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ross at Play
Updated:

Thanks, SB. It is better than other lists of tenses I have seen, but it is not complete.

I suggest a better example to use is:

"http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/eat.php"

Dive is too regular to be a useful example.
Eat is a good example because its simple past tense (ate) and its past participle (eaten) are irregular.

The site lists 12 basic tenses. It is worth noting that these "basic tenses" are all:
* one of present, past, or future;
* either simple or perfect (aka complete);
* either are, or are not, progressive (aka continuous).
That gives the 3 x 2 x 2 = 12 tenses that this site lists.

The site only lists verbs in the active voice. For transitive verbs there are 12 more corresponding tenses in the passive voice.
The passive voice always has an extra form of the be-verb inserted immediately before the principle verb, and the principle verb is changed to its past participle.
For example:
I am eating is in the present progressive tense, and the active voice;
I am being eaten is in the present progressive tense, and the passive voice.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@samuelmichaels


You dove right into the recent controversy, didn't you?


LOL

It wasn't "dive" that I looked up on the site. It was another word. But while I was there I was curious what they would say about "dove" which is how I discovered you had to enter the present tense.

One word I found interesting was spit/spat. Spat is the past tense of spit so when "dove" didn't work I tried "spat" (wanting to see if it was "dove" or a past tense verb that didn't work). Lo-and-behold, "spat" is both past tense and present tense.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

What about "imperative" tense? The motto of the University of Washington is "Lux Sit". Lux is light. Sit is the imperative form of esse, to be. It is Latin of course. It means "Let there be Light." So Sit means Let there be. To be in imperative tense.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

What about "imperative" tense?

Yes, the site does not list the 'imperative' form, but it is debatable whether that is a 'tense'.

What is, or is not, correctly classified as a "tense" tends to make grammarians very ... tense. I think, but I'm not sure, most grammarians would consider the imperative to be in one class of verb form, and all the 'tenses' are in another class.

Some grammarians even contend the English language does not have any future tenses, and that the "future tenses" are nothing more than 'will' being used as one of the many possible modal verbs. Technically, they have a point!

I used "basic tense" in my post in recognition of the fact that there are many other possible verb forms.

Other forms not included in the site's list are:
* the subjunctive mood
* the variant of all future tenses using 'going to' instead of 'will'
* the 12 "basic tenses" it lists, plus the 12 in the passive voice it does not, could all be multiplied many times by using various modal verbs.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

The site lists 12 basic tenses. It is worth noting that these "basic tenses" are all:
* one of present, past, or future;
* either simple or perfect (aka complete);
* either are, or are not, progressive (aka continuous).
That gives the 3 x 2 x 2 = 12 tenses that this site lists.

The passive voice always has an extra form of the be-verb inserted immediately before the principle verb, and the principle verb is changed to its past participle.

Wonderful! We now have an app that allows us to easily compose passive sentences using benign forms of "to be". The whole point of learning to write well is to avoid those types of construct!

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

* the variant of all future tenses using 'going to' instead of 'will'

How about the future tense using "In the new regime ..."

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

How about the future tense using "In the new regime ..."

Not a good time for jokes, CW, if you please. ;)
This is nightmarishly difficult stuff here, and something many here are confused about, and want to and need to learn.
Normally, I'd say go ahead, but for now ... ;)

Replies:   sejintenej
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


We now have an app that allows us to easily compose passive sentences using benign forms of "to be". The whole point of learning to write well is to avoid those types of construct!


No! NO! NO!

The passive voice is essential to good writing. Perhaps only in 5-10% of sentences, and they need to be the right 5-10%, but it is absolutely essential writers know how to use it.

EDIT TO ADD

I kid you not, I broke off from editing a story to make my first version of this post. I had just changed a line:
From: We were about to receive fines
To: _ We were about to be fined
I had yet to add a comment that using the passive voice was best for something happening to the subject and beyond their control.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

From: We were about to receive fines
To: _ We were about to be fined
I had yet to add a comment that using the passive voice was best for something happening to the subject and beyond their control.


I don't understand. Does the author intend that receiving the fines was within the control of whoever 'we' represented?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


I don't understand.


I did not say what the author had was wrong, only that the passive voice, 'be fined', is better. It is simply more precise about what will happen. The fines will happen whatever the subject does. There's no reason to suggest they will make of the action of receiving.

It's not vastly different in this example, but there are times to definitely prefer the passive, The man was eaten by the lion, instead of the equivalent active, The lion ate the man.

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

but there are times to definitely prefer the passive, The man was eaten by the lion, instead of the equivalent active, The lion ate the man.


Depends on the emphasis. Are you emphasizing the lion doing the eating or the man being eaten?

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

"spat" is both past tense and present tense.


for which meaning of the word - 'spat' is the past and present tense of the word with the meaning of 'having a small fight' and I think they come from different derivations and are just words that spell and sound the same.

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

for which meaning of the word - 'spat' is the past and present tense of the word with the meaning of 'having a small fight' and I think they come from different derivations and are just words that spell and sound the same.


Oh, that makes sense. I thought it was another British usage.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Oh, that makes sense. I thought it was another British usage.

You were right about 'spat' (past tense of spat) evolving to the same spelling as a pre-existing word.
Since 'ye olde days' there have only been four verbs that have moved from a regular form (-ed for past tense and past participle) towards an irregular form. Every other one of the 200 or so commonly used irregular verbs has been around for a long time.
Two verbs where a new irregular form totally transplanted the previous regular form are: from spitted to spat/spat; and from weared to wore/worn.
One which has gained substantial, if still somewhat regional, acceptance [and I won't be arguing about its precise status again] is that dove/dove has become an acceptable variant of dived.
One which has only limited, regional use and is considered dialectic is drug/drug for dragged.

ustourist

@Ross at Play

Possibly also Teared to Torn ?

Replies:   Ross at Play
sejintenej

@Ross at Play

This is nightmarishly difficult stuff here, and something many here are confused about, and want to and need to learn.

Nah. You wait until you have to learn the endings for nine conditionals. Yes, NINE conditionals. never happen, probably happen and certain to happen. On top of that they are endings. I gave up during the 23rd tense including two active future tenses. By comparison English is simple.

Otherwise try Akan (Ashanti) - it is tonal!

Replies:   Ross at Play
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

Two verbs where a new irregular form totally transplanted the previous regular form are: from spitted to spat/spat


I'm not convinced that's true.

Spit (expectorate), with the past tense spat, is mentioned as also having the archaic past tense of spit in my half-century old dictionary (but not spitted), but spit as the past tense seems to be becoming more prevalent, certainly in the USA.

Spit (impale), with the past tense spitted, has a different meaning, but nevertheless those West Atlantic barbarians are increasingly using spitted also as the past tense of spit (expectorate).

I wonder what evidence etymologists have for spit becoming spat, because my usage evidence suggests it's moving in the other direction.

AJ

Ross at Play
Updated:

@ustourist


Possibly also Teared to Torn ?


I expect that tear-tore-torn was a pre-existing template (but there is also bear-bore-born) when people started mimicking when some first started saying wera-wore-worn.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@sejintenej


Me : This is nightmarishly difficult stuff here

You: Nah. You wait until you have to learn ... By comparison English is simple.


Nah? ... Why, Nah?

Did I say other languages were NOT far worse?

However simple English may be in comparison to other languages, this part of its grammar is nightmarishly difficult stuff.

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

but nevertheless those West Atlantic barbarians are increasingly using spitted also as the past tense of spit (expectorate).

I was not describing what some West Atlantic barbarians may do. I was trying to describe what English and West Atlantic not-quite-so-barbarians do.

You may note the reference you so frequently expectorate on says, "In the meaning of roast on a spit, the verb is regular."
Wot ya gonna do now? Skewer it! ;)

There's I've just noticed for the first time. The references say North Americans sometimes use 'spit' as the past tense and past participle.
I suppose I have heard it used and understood it, but it would never have occurred to me that anyone would not use 'spat'.

So, don't blame me for what those barbarians may do. I happily expectorate on many of them, or even better, roast them over a barbarque,

What a pity they didn't elect an autocrat like Lee Kuan Yew! He outlawed and introduced very heavy fines for spitting in a public place in his early days in power in Singapore.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

'spat' is the past and present tense of the word with the meaning of 'having a small fight'


It seems to me that the usage you cited makes spat a noun, not a verb.

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

Spit (impale), with the past tense spitted, has a different meaning, but nevertheless those West Atlantic barbarians are increasingly using spitted also as the past tense of spit (expectorate).


As one of those West Atlantic Barbarians, let me say I have never heard spitted used for anything other than having run a pointy (usually metal these days) stick through a piece of meat.

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@REP

It seems to me that the usage you cited makes spat a noun, not a verb.

Correct!
According to references there are three distinct meanings that use the spellings 'spat' or 'spit'.
1. to spit as a verb is used when spots of liquid are produced - a person can spit on something, rain can be spitting, boiling fat can spit.
2. spit as a noun is one component of a device used for roasting meat.
3. spat as a noun is a minor fight or dispute.

In practice, things get complicated because speakers may freely use nouns as verbs, and visa versa.

Note that the correct forms are spitted, or spatted, when using the meaning number 2, or 3, as a verb in the past tense.
That follows the Law (and I do not mean "rule" - because we all agree that all "rules" may be broken - and this one cannot if you want to use correct grammar) that any word which is not already a verb must be conjugated as if it was regular whenever it is pressed into service as a verb.

I am not going to debate this with anyone. I would never argue that correct grammar should always be used, but on this point there is no doubt, IMHO, about what the correct grammar is.
I don't want to be pestered by examples where some have chosen to do otherwise - but as always - if you find a credible reference that explicitly states this is not the rule, then I might reconsider my opinion.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Dominions Son


As one of those West Atlantic Barbarians, let me say I have never heard spitted used for anything other than having run a pointy (usually metal these days) stick through a piece of meat.


I AGREE ;)
... either I mis-wrote or you mis-read somewhere

As I just I explained in another post, 'spitted' is the correct form for the sense of roasting meat, and incorrect for other senses.

EDIT TO ADD

I just noticed your post was directed at AJ, not me.
Frankly, my impression when reading his post was that some of the misuses he cited by the barbarians were very much less frequent that he thinks.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


'spat' is the past and present tense of the word with the meaning of 'having a small fight' and I think they come from different derivations and are just words that spell and sound the same.


That meaning of 'spat', as a noun, does indeed have a different derivation - and its own entry in dictionaries.

If used a verb in the past tense, the correct form is 'spatted'. I am not saying some people do not use 'spat', but such usage is undoubtedly incorrect.

Switch Blayde

@REP

It seems to me that the usage you cited makes spat a noun, not a verb.


verb (used without object), spatted, spatting.

3. to engage in a petty quarrel or dispute.

4. to splash or spatter; rain spatting against the window.

verb (used with object), spatted, spatting.

5. to strike lightly; slap.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


SPAT

verb (used without object), spatted, spatting
...
verb (used with object), spatted, spatting.
...


That's a totally new one for me, and distinctly American usage

I have been looking in the Oxford Dictionary which does not include any mention of 'spat' as a verb. However, I found the same definitions as you in dictionary.com.

I cannot explain the difference. The OED usually does include American usages of words, and identifies them as such.

However, notice it does specify the other forms when used as a verb are 'spatted, spatting'. If you think 'spat' only "exists" as a noun, but want to use it as a verb, you'll end up at the same place provided you obey the "Law" that new verbs are always conjugated regularly.

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

But you were the one who posted that 'spat' had supplanted 'spitted'! For supplantation to happen, spitted must at one time have been used as the past tense of spit.

There are a few stories on SOL where a character eg spitted on his cock, but spitted is somewhat more frequently used as the past tense of the 'impale' sense of spit.

My own perception, possibly wrong, is that spitted is slowly gaining ground, with the irregularity of 'spat' being disliked and 'spit' being ambiguous with regard to tense.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

According to references there are three distinct meanings that use the spellings 'spat' or 'spit'.
1. to spit as a verb is used when spots of liquid are produced - a person can spit on something, rain can be spitting, boiling fat can spit.
2. spit as a noun is one component of a device used for roasting meat.
3. spat as a noun is a minor fight or dispute.


My dictionary lists four meanings of 'spat' alone.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


My dictionary lists four meanings of 'spat' alone.


To have been specific, I should have said "three distinct entries that use the spellings 'spat' or 'spit' - most of which have multiple, but vaguely similar senses.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

So your dictionary doesn't mention the footwear or baby shellfish?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

So your dictionary doesn't mention the footwear or baby shellfish?

The only two senses it has for 'spat' are small fight and footwear.
I really don't give a damn about the list of obscure meanings these words may have.
The point I was making, and it is a valid one, is there are some meanings of 'spit' and 'spat' that are conjugated as regular verbs.
There is only one meaning that is irregular. That is for 'spit', as a verb with all senses involve drops of liquids; and for that meaning or those senses, the verb is irregular.
... over and out, toodle-oo, sigh on ah ra, ...

Replies:   sejintenej
REP

@Dominions Son

I have never heard spitted used for anything other than having run a pointy (usually metal these days) stick through a piece of meat.

I agree. Even when that pointy metal object is a sword and the piece of meat is the guy trying to kill you with his pointy metal thing. :)

REP

@Switch Blayde

verb (used without object), spatted, spatting.


Yeah. Spat can be both a verb and noun. All I addressed was when used in the context of a fight, it is a noun.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@REP

All I addressed was when used in the context of a fight, it is a noun.


"The spat lasted all night." noun
"We spatted until passing out." verb

Both refer to a fight as in:

"The fight lasted all night."
"We fought until passing out."

Replies:   REP  Crumbly Writer
sejintenej
Updated:

@Ross at Play


The only two senses it has for 'spat' are small fight and footwear.


Ross; there are a few more.

Spat as a noun and verb can be the seed (I nearly put sperm) ejected by a bivalve such as an oyster as well as the ejection of such matter. For an oyster farmer the word would have great importance.

A don't know about footwear but a spat can be a short gaiter (and I would bet a Victorian would refer to a man wearing such as spatted - a parallel to cloaked for someone wearing a cloak or the hiding of something such as in a fog)

My dictionary mentions the USA colloquial reference to "strike with a spat" when referring to a short argument of spat. Not one I know or really understand.

Ross at Play

@sejintenej

Ross; there are a few more.

I know that; the Oxford Dictionary apparently does not.
I merely stated, when asked, what senses it lists.

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

I know that; the Oxford Dictionary apparently does not.


Their online dictionary or a print version? If print, is it the unabridged version?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Their online dictionary or a print version? If print, is it the unabridged version?

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, print and DVD versions.
As I said, "I merely stated, when asked, what senses it lists."

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

A don't know about footwear but a spat can be a short gaiter


From my hobbledehoyhood, I remember 'spats' being reasonably common as a form of footwear. Although I have no idea what, I got the impression they were casual wear.

AJ

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

The Oxford Dictionary appears to be an extremely expurgated form of the Oxford English Dictionary. Presumably giving people a free sample is meant to entice them into paying for an OED subscription, although they're not doing that very well at all.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

From my hobbledehoyhood, I remember 'spats' being reasonably common as a form of footwear.


I thought spats were worn in the 1920s.

awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

I thought spats were worn in the 1920s.


I remember them well so I wasn't there ;)

It may be the case that usage of the term was a hangover which has since passed away into verbage heaven. We still use 'dial' in connection with telephones, although the number of phones still utilising physical dials is vanishingly small.

AJ

Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


The Oxford Dictionary appears to be an extremely expurgated form
... Presumably giving people a free sample


It's not some Mickey Mouse pocket dictionary. It is the size of brick, with some added features for those learning English as a second language.
Not free either. It cost me about USD$30.

This is the first time I have noticed it not having the same definitions as dictionary.com.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

From my hobbledehoyhood, I remember 'spats' being reasonably common as a form of footwear.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spats_(footwear)

shows them as a cover for the top of the shoe to give them a two-tone look

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

If it's for those learning English as a second language, I can understand it being restricted to a core vocabulary suitable for most everyday usage.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I thought spats were worn in the 1920s.


Spats go back to at least the mid 19th Century.

They would be considered outdoor wear as they are coverings for the upper part of the shoe and ankle to protect against dirt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spats_(footwear)

PS. I'd heard the term, but until I just looked it up, I had thought it was a type of shoe.

Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

We still use 'dial' in connection with telephones, although the number of phones still utilising physical dials is vanishingly small.


When I record a show on my DVR it's going onto the device's hard drive, but I still say "I'm taping the show."

And I still call CDs albums.

Replies:   awnlee_jawking
REP
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


Both refer to a fight as in:


I agree with you wholeheartedly SB. But my original comment was spat (not spatted) is a noun. I did not address its verb form.

edited to delete unintended Bold

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@REP

I agree with you wholeheartedly SB. But my original comment was spat (not spatted) is a noun.


In present tense, you'd write, "Every time they meet, they spat over the girl."

Personally, I would never write that. I'd write "fight over the girl."

Replies:   REP
awnlee_jawking

@Switch Blayde

And I still call CDs albums.


Whoosh!

What's wrong with that?

AJ

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

If it's for those learning English as a second language, I can understand it being restricted to a core vocabulary suitable for most everyday usage.

Oh, for fuck's sake! It's 2,000 fucking pages and printed in a tiny font.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

Do you have any theories why it is missing words found in other dictionaries, including those from the same stable?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
REP

@Switch Blayde


Personally, I would never write that.


I agree SB. In your example, fight is a verb. The verb form of Spat is to Spit.

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

Do you have any theories why it is missing words found in other dictionaries, including those from the same stable?

Nope. It's certainly not because it does not routinely identify British-, American- or Australian-only idioms and slang.
It is the first time I have noticed it missing something that dictionary.com does list.

Ross at Play

@REP

The verb form of Spat is to Spit.

Not according to any dictionaries. They all say the verb form of 'spat' is 'spat'.
See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spat?s=t

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@REP


The verb form of Spat is to Spit.


No no no. It's like "lay" is the present tense of to lay something down while it's also the past tense of "to lie" as in recline.

Yes, "spat" is the past tense of the verb "spit" (meaning to expel moisture from your mouth).

but it's also a present tense verb meaning to fight (and can be a noun meaning "the fight").

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


it's also a present tense verb meaning to fight.


And I have never seen spat used as a verb for fighting. The only use I've ever seen is to refer to a fight; not the act of fighting.

Can you provide an example?

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@REP


Can you provide an example?


"They got into a spat." noun

"They spatted every time they were together." verb

As I previously said, I would never write either of those.

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


I would never write either of those.


I would and have used the first, but I would never use the second.

I will say it again in a slightly different way.

The word "spat" is a noun. In changing it to its verb form you add a suffix, and you no longer have "spat". You have spatted, spatting, of spats - not "spat".

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@REP

And I have never seen spat used as a verb for fighting. The only use I've ever seen is to refer to a fight; not the act of fighting.

Dictionaries differ on this one. The Oxford Dictionary apparently considers using 'spat' (in the sense of fight) as a verb is so weird they only list it as being a noun.
dictionary.com lists that sense as both a verb and a noun.
In theory, you can press a noun into service as a verb, but it's really bad form when there is another existing meaning with the same spelling.

Can I provide an example?
I can see a potential use of 'spatted' or 'spatting', as in the example SB gave above, "They spatted every time they were together." Like him, I would not write that.
To me, it gets far worse in the present tense, e.g. "They spat every time they were together." I think all readers would assume that meant spitting at each other, not fighting.

In theory it is allowed, but ... yuck!

Ross at Play
Updated:

@REP


In changing it to its verb form you add a suffix, and you no longer have "spat". You have spatted, spatting, of spats - not "spat".


Without meaning to sound contrary towards you, these are some simple facts about how verb forms can be described.

* Every verb, except the 'to be', can be defined by listing only five forms. An example where all forma are different is 'eat'. It has the forms: eat (present), eats (third person present), eating (progressive), ate (past tense), eaten (past participle).
* References rarely, if ever, bother listing the third person present form. There is only one verb where that form is not simply the present tense with 's' or 'es' added onto it. That verb is 'to have'; its third person present form is 'has' (i.e. not 'haves').
* References rarely, if ever, bother listing the continuous form either. The rules about dropping an 'e' or doubling the last consonant before the '-ing' is added are more complicated, but there are no irregularities in the way it is done for any verb.

The way references usually show all possible forms of 'to eat' is just simply: eat-ate-eaten. Everything else can be inferred by following rules which apply to every verb, except 'to be' and 'to have'.

No offense intended. ;)

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

In theory, you can press a noun into service as a verb


Yeah, like "I Googled it."

But can you really change any noun into a verb? People who write sex stories often change the noun "piston" into a verb "pistoned." Pistoned is not a word (Firefox even underlined it in red).

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Yeah, like "I Googled it."
But can you really change any noun into a verb?

Firstly, allow me to begin by totally pissing you off.
Nah, like "I googled it."
The noun 'Google' is a proper noun, and begins with a capital when used as a noun, or an adjective.
The verb 'google' is a modern, but entirely regular verb. It does not begin with a capital.
Thus sayeth both my (large and comprehensive) Oxford Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary, and CMOS 8.152

'can you really change any noun into a verb?'
Many nouns you would not want to use that way. I heaven something??? I aeroplaned something??? ... but 'I shipped something' is okay.
However, if you want to, if others can figure out what you're trying to say, then you may.
You questioned the use of "pistoned" as a verb.
Is it of dubious merit creatively? I would say so. Is is grammatically incorrect? Definitely not, provided it is conjugated as a regular verb.
Shakespeare created a huge number of verbs that had only been used as nouns before. I do not consider him an illiterate barbarian of the language.
Are you comfortable with: hoovered? dry-walled? eye-balled? At some earlier times, these would all have made dried-up old farts like we are now very irate, but in truth, it may be poor usage if you're the first to try it, it may be genius if you're Shakespeare, but it's not grammatically wrong.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

I did not say what the author had was wrong, only that the passive voice, 'be fined', is better. It is simply more precise about what will happen. The fines will happen whatever the subject does. There's no reason to suggest they will make of the action of receiving.

You're absolutely right about needing the passive voice, but like other things, it's so consistently overused, I've learned to seek them out, deciding whether to keep or reject each one. It's not a bad practice, as it's the only way to limit it's abuse. Often, passive language denotes doubt, which is important, but only in small samples.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

You're absolutely right about needing the passive voice

It is needed, but rarely.
Could you imagine writing an SM (not BD) story in the active voice? ;)

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


The verb 'google' is a modern, but entirely regular verb. It does not begin with a capital.


From Grammar Girl: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/do-you-capitalize-google

Although there doesn't seem to be an absolute rule, companies prefer that you capitalize trademarked terms if you insist on using them as verbs.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

then I looked it up.

Where did you look it up?
ALL of the sources I usually rely upon say no capital for the verb. That is Oxford Dictionary, dictionary.com and CMOS.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


companies prefer that you capitalize trademarked terms if you insist on using them as verbs.

This is what CMOS said about that.

Note also that some companies encourage the use of both the proper and the generic term in reference to their products ("Kleenex facial tissue," not just "Kleenex") and discourage turning product names into verbs, but these restrictions, while they may be followed in corporate documentation, are not legally binding. (In fact, Webster's includes entries for lowercase verbs google and xerox.)

So, it's choose your favourite bunch of Nazis. Do you do what Google wants, for no reason other than its corporate image, or follow what CMOS (and dictionaries) recommend. Whatever their faults, they have actually considered what the correct grammar is.

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

Where did you look it up?


I modified the post. It seems after you read it. I thought you'd be sleeping in the UK

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

I thought you'd be sleeping in the UK

OUCH!
I'm an Australian. It's mid-afternoon on the East Coast there, and midday where I live in Indonesia.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

Anyway, now that you referenced CMS I guess I won't capitalize it. It seemed wrong to do so anyway.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

Yeah, like "I Googled it."


This subjects can get real weird real fast. Under the US law companies have to very closely protect their trade names or risk losing all protections the laws give for them. However, it gets very tricky when you slightly alter the name like above. Although the companies insist on you using the name in the way they do with the same capitalization the courts may or may not support them insisting on the capitalization of variants. Thus a Google search must have the capital, while you might be able to get away without a capital when you say you're googling something, or you googled it - this is because the law courts haven't yet had a case to rule on such a usage.

The closest court case I've seen a reference to this in the past was to do with Kleenex where the courts ruled in favor of the company to have people use the capital letter when they use the name, but that has no derived versions.

The other hard part is working out if and when the companies will take you to court on using their trademark or brand name in such a way. I find it best to avoid such issues if you can easily do so.

sejintenej
Updated:

When you clean a floor with a vacuum cleaner you say that you hoover it even if you use an implement made by a different company.
In the same way "to google" simply has come to mean that you do an internet search - you don't have to use Google, you could use AltaVista for example.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@sejintenej


When you clean a floor with a vacuum cleaner you say that you hoover it even if you use an implement made by a different company.

In the same way "to google" simply has come to mean that you do an internet search - you don't have to use Google, you could use AltaVista for example.


True, but when you say it there is no way to know if you used a capital letter or not. However, when you put it in print in the USA the companies have a legal right to take you to court for Trademark infringement unless you use a capital letter - and many will. The reason being the US courts regards you as giving up your Trademark ownership if you do not strongly defend it against such misuse. Mind you, in most other countries they don't have the legal pressure to jump on you about it.

typo edit

Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

Thus a Google search must have the capital, while you might be able to get away without a capital when you say you're googling something, or you googled it

I agree the capital is a must when Google is a noun, or a noun being used as an adjective.
However, while lawsuits are a theoretical possibility if lower case is used for a verb, there doesn't seem to be any practical possibility when defendants can simply say they just followed examples in multiple dictionaries.
I would not criticise someone for choosing capitals for verbs too, on the grounds of self-preservation.

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

"They spat every time they were together."


Shouldn't that read 'They spat every time they are together.'?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

Shouldn't that read 'They spat every time they are together.'?

Yes ... byte me! ;)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I know you're a bit simple at times (me too), but I don't think it's feasible to compress you into eight binary digits ;)

AJ

Ernest Bywater

Just another Eric Idle question - Do you use a conjugal visit to conjugate a verb?

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

The other hard part is working out if and when the companies will take you to court on using their trademark or brand name in such a way. I find it best to avoid such issues if you can easily do so.


That's why I was capitalizing the verb variant of Google.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@Switch Blayde

Interesting technical point there.
If the company has only trade marked the capitalized version, then using it with a capital could lay yourself open to use without permission, whereas lower case wouldn't.
If they have trademarked the lower case version as well, then you aren't using it incorrectly.

Switch Blayde

@ustourist

If they have trademarked the lower case version as well


The trademark is a proper noun so it's capitalized. The capitalization isn't part of the trademark.

Thermos used to be a trademark name. But people started using it generically without the capital and the company lost their trademark. That's why companies nowadays will sue if their trademark is not capitalized.

However, I don't know what the legal rules are for changing a trademarked noun to a verb.

Replies:   ustourist  Dominions Son
ustourist

@Switch Blayde

The trademark is a proper noun so it's capitalized. The capitalization isn't part of the trademark.

That may also have been devised as a way of getting round trademarking nouns that are in general use. I always wondered how companies like Monsoon or Apple could claim "rights" on a word.

Dominions Son

@ustourist

If the company has only trade marked the capitalized version, then using it with a capital could lay yourself open to use without permission


You only need permission to use a trade mark if you are using it for commercial purposes.

On the other hand, you can be sued for disparagement and/or dilution of a trademark if you use it as a generic term, especially if you are encouraging others to do so.

The problem in a non-commercial context is not lack of permission but using the trademark to refer to something other than the product/service/company for which the mark was registered.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


However, I don't know what the legal rules are for changing a trademarked noun to a verb.


As long as you only use the verb form to refer to using the product/service for which the mark was registered, that should be okay. The problems start when you start using it as a generic term.

If you stick to using Googled/googled strictly for searching with the Google search engine, you are in the clear.

On the other hand, if you start using Googled/googled as a generic reference to using any search engine, you are opening your self up to being sued by Google.

If you are explicitly encouraging other people to use googled generically you will almost certainly be sued if it comes to Google's attention.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
Ernest Bywater

@ustourist

That may also have been devised as a way of getting round trademarking nouns that are in general use. I always wondered how companies like Monsoon or Apple could claim "rights" on a word.


I looked into this US law side some years back when i was checking out the legal aspects of using the university name in Shiloh. The situation in the US is while you use the trademarked name the way the company uses and it's not a derogatory way that opens up other legals aspects like slander you can use the trademarked name in the very same manner as the company does in their advertising and normal operations from the consumer / user point of view. Thus you can have someone buy fast food from Burger King or a McDonalds - but you can run into issues if you set your story in one of their businesses (because that implies you're taking the name for your own use). When you use the trademarked name you can legally use it in the exact same way as they promote it - thus Google is the legal way to present the word.

The other aspect is they have to aggressively defend and protect the trademark name if they wish to maintain the trademark - that's usually seen by the US courts as taking legal action when they find someone misusing their trademark.

The first stage of legal action is a cease and desist letter by their lawyers, then it take them to court if they don't stop. With a story if you get a cease and desist you have to remove the name from the story unless the usage is legal. So it's legal for me to mention Burger King to have a character buy a meal there and enjoy it, but it's not legal for me to have my character own and operate a Burger King store unless I get their permission first.

Another weird area is when the trademark is a word or a name, you can often legally use it in another field of business as long as the two do not look exactly the same. This has been dealt with in one court where a drink company and a clothing company both used the same name, one took the other to court, but court found against them because the two names have a very different visual look due to them using two very different fonts to display the names - one was very plain and the other a very fancy script - the courts found them to be two distinctly different trademarks using the same letters and in different field, so they weren't taking business from the other.

Replies:   sejintenej
Switch Blayde

@ustourist

I always wondered how companies like Monsoon or Apple could claim "rights" on a word.


Don't forget, not only did the computer company use Apple, but so did the Beatles for their recording company.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Switch Blayde

I used Google to learn more about verbs derived from a trademarked name and the first three on International Trademark laws all said you should not use the trademarked name as a noun or verb. Now these were directed to companies with trademarks. The following is from one of them, but all three said the same thing:

DO NOT use a trademark as a noun. Always use a trademark as an adjective followed by a noun. For example, KLEENEX tissue.


That makes no sense. How else would you say: "I prefer Coca Cola to Pepsi"?

Switch Blayde
Updated:

Here's something from http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/15458/should-capitals-be-used-when-verbing-trademarks


When using a trademark as a verb ("hoovering", "xeroxing", "photoshopping" and "googling"), should it be capitalized or uncapitalized?

Strictly speaking, Google and Adobe are opposed to their trademarks being used as verbs or as generic trademarks, but that's a separate topic.


and

It depends on popularity and usage. As brand names become more and more familiar, they evolve into regular words in the English language. A common example that comes to mind is the British English word, sellotape. One would hardly, if ever, find this verb capitalized. Google is still in the works; one may find that its capitalization is not consistent, hence, googling and Googling. I must add that using g/Google as a verb is not yet considered formal.

Some quick dictionary research will reveal that it is standard practice not to capitalize proprietary nouns-turned-verbs. In some cases, the capitalized equivalent is also acceptable. This is a rule that largely holds, in my opinion, for those words that still exist in the informal realm. Standardized verbs (genericized trademarks) mostly go uncapitalized, except they are not yet widely accepted


I got a kick out of:

many use Fedex these days, even if they're going to UPS or DHL it!


When I was a kid, we spent the summer in the Catskill Mountains. My family rented a bungalow across from the hotel for the summer. I once asked the guy in the next bungalow if I could have some Scotch tape. He got angry. He was the president of a company that made Tuck tape and hated when people referred to adhesive tape as Scotch tape.

Switch Blayde

Here's a link to Adobe's official rules for using it's trademark products: http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html

Here's Adobe's stand on it:

Trademarks are not verbs.
Correct: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.


This backs up the "not a noun" that I found elsewhere:

Trademarks are not nouns.
Correct: The image pokes fun at the Senator
Incorrect: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.


As to capitilizaton

Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
Correct:The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.
Incorrect: The image was Photoshopped.
Incorrect: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.


This also goes back to the International Trademark rules I found earlier

Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
Correct: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.


So, legally, you can't use an Adobe trademark as a verb (e.g., photoshopped) so my guess is Google feels the same way. But it happens every day.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

How else would you say: "I prefer Coca Cola to Pepsi"?

"I have taste buds."

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

DO NOT use a trademark as a noun. Always use a trademark as an adjective followed by a noun. For example, KLEENEX tissue.



That makes no sense. How else would you say: "I prefer Coca Cola to Pepsi"?


It makes a lot of sense when you considered that the remark was directed at trademark owners. If the owner is using it as a noun, that encourages others to do so, and the more people use it as a noun, the more likely they are to use it generically.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Here's a link to Adobe's official rules for using it's trademark products:

In mean, seriously, are you really concerned you might get sued if you fail to obey their diktats?
There are multiple dictionaries that list 'Google' as a noun, and 'google' as the verb.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

There are multiple dictionaries that list 'Google' as a noun, and 'google' as the verb.


And if Google doesn't fight it, which it looks like they aren't, nothing will happen.

What's important to this discussion is that you aren't supposed to use a trademark as a verb. So if you do, it makes no difference if it's capitalized or not. Since CMS says not to capitalize the verb, that's okay with me.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

What's important to this discussion is that you aren't supposed to use a trademark as a verb. So if you do, it makes no difference if it's capitalized or not. Since CMS says not to capitalize the verb, that's okay with me.

AGREED!

I did notice a difference between dictionary.com, and what CMOS and the Oxford and Webster's dictionaries all say.

It has separate American and British listings.
* their American listing has a capital for the verb
* their British listing has 'verb (without a cap)'.

I only mention this to achieve "full disclosure". Personally, I am going to apply the LAW that it is a newly created verb - therefore it is totally regular.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking
Updated:

@Ross at Play

Shannon vigorously shook the bottle then pointed it in Doug's direction and released the top. Doug was covered from head to foot.

"Help!" Doug cried out, "I've been coca colaed."

??????

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde


Don't forget, not only did the computer company use Apple, but so did the Beatles for their recording company.


Different Industries, so you can use the same name.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

4. to splash or spatter; rain spatting against the window.

I've never heard (or read) that usage before. For me, it was always "spattering", as in a light sprinkling, rather than the window getting soaked in a heavy downpour.

I guess my day's complete. I've learned my 'one new thing for the day' and can now go to bed.

However, while Dictionary.com is a reliable source, it's not as respected as the other, more established dictionaries.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

My own perception, possibly wrong, is that spitted is slowly gaining ground, with the irregularity of 'spat' being disliked and 'spit' being ambiguous with regard to tense.

What the Grammar Pig said to his friend:

I spat on your incorrect usage of spitted! I hope you're spatted on a stage and roasted over a slow fire.

Common, what's a love of words if you can't have fun with them every now and then? If you take grammar too seriously, no one will ever talk to you again, for fear of being constantly corrected!

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

"The spat lasted all night." noun
"We spatted until passing out." verb

I haven't checked the dictionary on this one, but isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense, making it "We spat until passing out"? That's a lot of spitting, requiring frequently trips to the fridge for rehydration!

Also, "spat" isn't a synonym for "fight", instead it's a form of "light disagreement, that never amounted to much", which is why it's frequently used to refer to married couples. As long as no one moved out, and the couple continues to sleep together, their fights are considered mere "spats".

Crumbly Writer

@sejintenej

Spat as a noun and verb can be the seed (I nearly put sperm) ejected by a bivalve such as an oyster as well as the ejection of such matter. For an oyster farmer the word would have great importance.

Uh, dumb question, considering this is a literary authors' site: can you provide any uses of the word "spat" meaning 'the seed of a bivalve' in ANY work of literature? 'D

Even among Oyster farmers, I doubt many people are familiar or would even recognize the word when used.

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

"Help!" Doug cried out, "I've been coca colaed."
??????

Are you have fun over there today?

NOPE!
At the very least it must be:
"Help!" Doug cried out, "I've been coca-colaed."

I'd probably go with:
"Help!" Doug cried out, "I've been coca-cola'd."

Replies:   awnlee_jawking
Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

From my hobbledehoyhood, I remember 'spats' being reasonably common as a form of footwear. Although I have no idea what, I got the impression they were casual wear.

I'm not sure it ever made it into many dictionaries, but during the 1920s it was used to refer to a certain type of shoe. A popular usage at the time, meaning dress shoes so shinned that it stands out.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

It may be the case that usage of the term was a hangover which has since passed away into verbage heaven. We still use 'dial' in connection with telephones, although the number of phones still utilising physical dials is vanishingly small.

Nowadays, the only thing we "Dial" is soap! 'D

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

I haven't checked the dictionary on this one, but isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense

If you are willing to accept what your preferred dictionary does say, you will change your mind after you have checked it.

awnlee_jawking

@Ross at Play

"Help!" Doug cried out, "I've been coca-cola'd."


I think you needed a smiley there.

It's been done before with 'You've been tangoed'. (Cue ruptured eardrums.) Look on youtube for the vids.

I suppose, for a male, being coca colaed is better than being Chanel No 5ed. ;)

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

Another weird area is when the trademark is a word or a name, you can often legally use it in another field of business as long as the two do not look exactly the same. This has been dealt with in one court where a drink company and a clothing company both used the same name, one took the other to court, but court found against them because the two names have a very different visual look due to them using two very different fonts to display the names - one was very plain and the other a very fancy script - the courts found them to be two distinctly different trademarks using the same letters and in different field, so they weren't taking business from the other.

That may be in the USA but I think the situation here is different. A certain US fast food company with a Scottish name sued and forced a Fish and Chip shop owned and run by Mr M*D****d to change it's name despite the name having been used before the USA company arrived. I think that in fact the chippie owner was bankrupted by the USA company

Dominions Son

@sejintenej

That may be in the USA but I think the situation here is different. A certain US fast food company with a Scottish name sued and forced a Fish and Chip shop owned and run by Mr M*D****d to change it's name despite the name having been used before the USA company arrived. I think that in fact the chippie owner was bankrupted by the USA company


The US fast food company are both operating in the same field. That is, they are both restaurants.

Relevant fields for trademark usage are much broader than most people imagine.

For example, a professional sports team trade marks it's name. That that trademark applies to all professional sports, not just the specific sport in which the team plays.

Another example, a few years ago in the US, there was a trademark dispute between a State University and a liquor distiller that used the name of the state as part of it's business name. The state university was opposing a trademark application by the distiller.

However, the dispute was not across the fields of education and liquor production. The distiller wanted to sell memorabilia apparel with their name on it, so they applied for a trade mark on their name in the field of apparel.

The university already had a trade mark in the field of apparel on the school name. The university argued that it would dilute their apparel trademark and cause confusion.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense, making it "We spat until passing out"?


Not according to the conjugating verb site I referenced.

Simple present
I spat

Simple past
I spatted

Present perfect simple
I have spatted

Past perfect
I had spatted

Future
I will/shall spat

Replies:   REP  REP
Ross at Play

@awnlee_jawking

It's been done before with 'You've been tangoed' ... I suppose, for a male, being coca colaed is better than being Chanel No 5ed. ;)

I have absolutely no doubts it is correct to simply add '-ed' to anything ending in 'o', 'i', or 'u'.
I'm not so sure about something ending in 'a'?
That is why I said, "I'd probably go with"; I'd want to do some research before stating an opinion.

Can you think of any verb with a present tense ending in 'a'?

OTOH, I do have an opinion about Chanel No 5'd.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

Rumbaed and sambaed are both accepted but my dictionary also lists rumba'd and samba'd. I don't understand the latter - why elide the e? Apostrophes in that situation look wrong to me.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Capt. Zapp

@Dominions Son

The problems start when you start using it as a generic term.


I thought I heard something a few years ago about Adobe and the use of 'PhotoShop' as a verb. I don't know if they got their way or not since 'photoshop' appears in the Oxford Learners dictionary:

photoshop something to change a picture or photograph using a computer
I'm sure this picture has been photoshopped.
It is so Photoshopped it doesn't even look like her.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Capt. Zapp

since 'photoshop' appears in the Oxford Learners dictionary:


As you see by the Adobe link I posted, Adobe wouldn't like that. How can the Oxford dictionary get away with that?

REP

@Switch Blayde

isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense, making it "We spat until passing out"?

Not according to the conjugating verb site I referenced.


CW:
As I said earlier to SB. Spat is not a verb, but a noun. To form its verb form you add a suffix and you have spatting, spatted, and spats.

SB:
All correct if you are referring to spitting. Wrong if you are referring to fighting.

Replies:   sejintenej
REP

@Switch Blayde

isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense, making it "We spat until passing out"?

Not according to the conjugating verb site I referenced.


CW:
As I said earlier to SB. Spat is not a verb, but a noun. To form its verb form you add a suffix and you have spatting, spatted, and spats.

SB:
All correct if you are referring to spitting. Wrong if you are referring to fighting.

sejintenej
Updated:

@REP


isn't "spat" (as in "to fight") the same in both present and past tense, making it "We spat until passing out"?

Not according to the conjugating verb site I referenced.

CW:

As I said earlier to SB. Spat is not a verb, but a noun. To form its verb form you add a suffix and you have spatting, spatted, and spats.


My dictionary states that there is an intransitive verb to spat (referring to the fight) and specifically mentions "spatted" and "spatting". It also states that this noun and verb are US American.

I would comment that the noun in this meaning was also used in South Devon in the 1950's but perhaps it was brought by the large numbers of GIs posted there before D Day, some of whom stayed after the war.

Separately, in the reference to an oyster/bivalve expelling spat it includes those same two above-mentioned words. There is no reference to the USA for this meaning.

This is, of course, a UK published dictionary sold in the UK.

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

Rumbaed and sambaed are both accepted but my dictionary also lists rumba'd and samba'd. I don't understand the latter - why elide the e? Apostrophes in that situation look wrong to me.

You were right! ;)
I was right! ;)
We were both right! ;)

I understand why apostrophes feels wrong to you.
To me, it feels like a misspelt word whenever I see an 'a' followed by an 'e' in any word, except for the British spelling of old words like 'archaeologist'.
The dictionary suggests you may choose your poison; neither is fatal.

As I understand it ...
Apostrophes before 'd' or 'ing' only exist for extremely unusual situations.
* One is when something that doesn't look like an ordinary word needs to be used as a verb. OK'd and OK'ing were, until now, the only examples I knew of that were listed in a dictionary. I am sure it is the correct way to conjugate the verb, Chanel No 5.
* Another would be to prevent an ambiguous word, for example if you want to use one word as a verb, but another verb already exists with the same spelling, except for an 'e' on the end.

I see the allowance of rumba'd as analogous to the option writers have when adding prefixes. For example, dictionaries say preexist is a valid word, but writers are entitled to use pre-exist if they feel it will aide in clarity. SB has said he sometimes does that with re-read. Dictionaries do not list that as an option, but I have no problem with writers doing that.

So, going back to the example you came up with - which I imagine you thought was showing I was wrong by finding a ridiculous example - I have absolutely no (theoretical) problem with you pressing Coca Cola into service as a verb, and when you want to create the past tense I believe the correct forms are either: coca-colaed, or coca-cola'd.

Aren't we always arguing here that we should never allow to restrict our creativity needlessly. Go ahead, do whatever you want, but if you want readers to understand a verb that's really strange, this is how to do it!

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Capt. Zapp

@Switch Blayde

As you see by the Adobe link I posted, Adobe wouldn't like that. How can the Oxford dictionary get away with that?


The first example is lowercase and could mean that legally Adobe can't do anything. The second example is capitalized and is therefore the product name. Adobe may be able to do something about that.

Personally I am hoping it is an indication of acceptable usage.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@sejintenej

That may be in the USA but I think the situation here is different. A certain US fast food company with a Scottish name sued and forced a Fish and Chip shop owned and run by Mr M*D****d to change it's name despite the name having been used before the USA company arrived. I think that in fact the chippie owner was bankrupted by the USA company


As DS said, they were in the same industry, and the first guy never trademarked the name or registered it in any way to protect it - so the court had to find in favor of the one who paid the fees to protect the name. It's a well publicized case.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

As you see by the Adobe link I posted, Adobe wouldn't like that. How can the Oxford dictionary get away with that?


different countries, and different laws

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Capt. Zapp


The first example is lowercase and could mean that legally Adobe can't do anything.


If Photoshop is trademarked, which I'm sure Adobe did, per their rules for using their trademarks you cannot make a verb out of it. So it's in violation.

Switch Blayde

Here's an interesting article on verbing a trademark:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/weekinreview/19cohen.html?_r=0

It seems the marketing people want to create verbs from trademarks. The intellectual property attorneys do not.

This is the marketing view:

"In the past, Xerox ran a very expensive campaign in places like Editor and Publisher that said don't use xerox as a verb," she said. "What people know from marketing experience now and what people now understand as a practical matter is that it is very good when people use your name as verb."


And yet:

The leader among Internet brands turned verbs, of course, is Google. Imagine the glee in Microsoft headquarters if Google lost its trademark protection to genericide. If "google" becomes synonymous with conducting an Internet search, then Microsoft could legally and confusingly advertise by saying: "Use Bing for all of your most complicated googling!"

Still, even with so much to lose, Google seems conflicted on the question. It has a policy page that instructs companies it does business with on how to use its trademark terms: "Use the trademark only as an adjective, never as a noun or verb, and never in the plural or possessive form. Use a generic term following the trademark, for example: Google search engine, Google search, Google Web search."

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

different countries, and different laws


Everything I talked about, like only using trademarks as adjectives, comes from the INTA - International Trademark Association.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  REP
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


Everything I talked about, like only using trademarks as adjectives, comes from the INTA - International Trademark Association.


The current head is - J. Scott Evans (Adobe Systems Incorporated—USA) is the current INTA President. - INTA was started in New York as the US Trademark Association and changed it's name to International in 1993, and most of its work outside of the USA is to advocate for trademark laws like they have in the USA. It claims to represent 30,000 individuals from 190 countries, but what they promote is law in the USA and not the law in most of the other countries around the world - which is why they lobby for the laws to change to match the US laws.

Thus, they aren't a valid source of what the law is around the world, just a source of what they want it to be.

To date, the only country I've found where the law demands you aggressively protect your trademark by jumping down every single misuse is the USA. Most other countries do not penalize the company for not jumping down the throat of anyone misusing the trademark. Thus, where someone doesn't misuse a trademark for profit or to confuse the public or for slander type actions the company can ignore it and not have to worry about trademark dilution the way they have to worry about trademark dilution in the USA.

typo edit

Replies:   Capt. Zapp
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/rumba.php

http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/samba.php

Oddly enough it barfed at Chanel No 5.

Since 5 isn't a vowel, should it be doubled? Ie 'As we were passing the perfume counter, my bratty little sister grabbed a sampler and Chanel No 55ed me'. ;)

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/rumba.php
http://www.the-conjugation.com/english/verb/samba.php

While I'm sure the site will be helpful to some, I cannot consider it credible.
If you look at the bottom of the screen you'll understand why it exists. It is an advertisement for XiTi software.

I have no need for it. I can work out any basic tense for any verb after looking up just the present and past particples.
After that it's just making the few simple choices listed below, and figuring it out from first principles.

* Present, Past, or Future
* Simple or Progressive
* Complete or Incomplete
* Active or Passive

Capt. Zapp

@Ernest Bywater

To date, the only country I've found where the law demands you aggressively protect your trademark by jumping down every single misuse is the USA.


Just another example of the USA trying to tell the rest of the world what to do.

REP

@Switch Blayde

It appears that I misread my dictionary's usage instructions. You were correct "spat" can be used as a verb in the context of to fight. Way to awkward for me to do so, but it can be done.

richardshagrin

One of the definitions of "conjugate" seems to be bacteria having sex. (Exchanging genetic information.) Seems appropriate for this site.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

One of the definitions of "conjugate" seems to be bacteria having sex.


Not just bacteria. Prisoners with spouses can get conjugal visits in prison.

Back to Top