Forum: Author Hangout

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.

Possibly also Teared to Torn ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ...

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; there are a few more.

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

I know that; the Oxford Dictionary apparently does not.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

And I still call CDs albums.

Whoosh!

What's wrong with that?

AJ

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.

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.

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

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. ;)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes ... byte me! ;)

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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 ... ;)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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? ;)

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

"I have taste buds."

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.

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.

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.

"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."

"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

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.

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!

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

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

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