costed

Kendra   Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:24 am GMT
cost cost cost
[kAst kAst kAst]
Jim H.   Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:38 pm GMT
I use "costed" as the past tense and past participle of "cost". I also tend to use "costes" for the third person singular form.
Jim H.   Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:16 pm GMT
<<Do you mean that you pronounce it [kAst@z]? I've never heard that pronunciation before. I say [kQ:s:].>>

That would be [kAUstIz] and yes I do use such pronunciation. I'm guessing you must pronounce "roses" and "Rosa's" the same way judging by how you transcribed "costes". I have [r\oUzIz] and [r\oUz@z].
Jim H.   Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:51 pm GMT
<<No, actually I don't. I thought I remembered you writing [@] in that kind of situation before, but it seems I was wrong. I say "roses" ["r/o:z1z] and "Rosa's" ["r/o:z6z].>>

Are you thinking about someone else, as this is only my third day posting in this forum. Are you thinking of the other Jim, which is the whole reason why I have the "H." after my name to start with?
chico   Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:06 pm GMT
from an uneducated native american english speaker i would use neither costed nor beated. i would have said those were made up redneck words. not trying to be offensive but that is how they sound to me.

the past tense of cost is still cost and the past tense of beat is still beat.

on a more serious note. do people really use beated and costed?
Uriel   Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:54 am GMT
The British say "costed" but only when referring to a certain meaning of the word -- doing a cost analysis or comparison. For the more usual meaning (such as "this coat cost me eighty pounds"), they would use "cost" as the past tense.
M56   Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:58 am GMT
<The British say "costed" but only when referring to a certain meaning of the word -- doing a cost analysis or comparison>

"Costed" is found in many British dialects. Non-Standard dialect speakers have, in my mind very wise and logical, tendency to regularise irregular verbs.
Travis   Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:11 am GMT
>>"Costed" is found in many British dialects. Non-Standard dialect speakers have, in my mind very wise and logical, tendency to regularise irregular verbs.<<

Often, but not always. For instance, it is very common in North American English dialects to make some irregular weak verbs even more irregular by eliding the weak suffix in their preterite forms, such as in the case of:

Gloss : Infinitive/Present : Preterite : Past Participle
"sell" : /sEl/ : /sol/ : /sold/
"told" : /tEl/ : /tol/ : /told/

In these cases, in Standard English the preterite and past participles are the same, and yet many dialects have made the two different in everyday speech.

Another good example is the attaching of the suffix "-en" to irregular weak past participles of the form "-ought" or "-aught", which often occurs in informal speech in the dialect here. This is definitely a shift away from regularization because it not only makes the preterite and past participle forms dissimilar, but it also introduces a novel past participle form that did not exist before. (The form "boughten" is more widespread, but most dialects do not have the generalization of this which results in forms like "broughten" and "caughten".)
M56   Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:39 am GMT
<Gloss : Infinitive/Present : Preterite : Past Participle
"sell" : /sEl/ : /sol/ : /sold/
"told" : /tEl/ : /tol/ : /told/ >

In which dialects?

Are you saying that such speakers would pronounce the preterite form that way if asked to speak the word in isolation?


Can you give us an example sentence with the -en suffix?
Travis   Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:49 am GMT
>>In which dialects?<<

It's present here, and I hear it pretty frequently in actual speech in North American English.

>>Are you saying that such speakers would pronounce the preterite form that way if asked to speak the word in isolation?<<

That's the thing - they would almost certainly pronounce the preterite and past participle forms the same in such contexts. The problem is just asking someone to say a word in isolation invokes things like register which would interfere with what one is trying to observe by making people speak "carefully". To get an accurate result one would have to basically analyze spontaneous speech by individuals without actually telling the person to say or read what one is actually trying to observe.

>>Can you give us an example sentence with the -en suffix?<<

"Have you caughten up with them yet?"

It looks really weird to me in writing, as I am simply not used to writing out such sorts of words, but sounds natural when I actually read it aloud.
M56   Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:59 pm GMT
<The problem is just asking someone to say a word in isolation invokes things like register which would interfere with what one is trying to observe by making people speak "carefully".>

I don't agree. Say I'm an old Spanish friend visting your area and have been there some months, when I ask you what the Spanish "yo vendi" is in English, what do you answer? Do you think you suddenly jump out of your register or dialect?

<"Have you caughten up with them yet?" >

Odd.
Travis   Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:25 pm GMT
>>I don't agree. Say I'm an old Spanish friend visting your area and have been there some months, when I ask you what the Spanish "yo vendi" is in English, what do you answer? Do you think you suddenly jump out of your register or dialect?<<

I would say [so:Ud] rather than [so:U], as [so:U] generally does not show up when speaking "carefully" for me. However, the difference between [so:U] and [so:Ud] is not merely phonological, as [so:U] only shows up in preterite forms and not past participles, where I normally have [so:Ud]. It might be conditioned by stress or like, though, because I do sporadically hear [d]-less past participles as well.

Another example of this kind of thing is "figure" for me at least. If you asked me to pronounce "to figure", I would also certainly say [%t_hu"fI:gjR=:]. However, if one actually recorded everyday speech, you would almost always hear the verb "figure" being pronounced as ["fI:gR=:], which is actual pronunciation used in the dialect here for "figure", as opposed to the formal spelling pronunciation ["fI:gjR=:].
Pos   Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:00 pm GMT
<I would say [so:Ud] rather than [so:U], as [so:U] generally does not show up when speaking "carefully" for me. >

What is this speaking carefully thing you like so much?
Travis   Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:12 pm GMT
>>What is this speaking carefully thing you like so much?<<

What is this making impertinent comments thing you like so much?
Pos   Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:40 pm GMT
<What is this making impertinent comments thing you like so much? >

It's a question about usage. If you can't answer it...