fit/fitted

<I always use "fitted" when referring to tailoring or equipping something: >>

So you wouldn't use it here?

"John invited us to stay with him for a night in New york. It fitted our plans quite nicely so we accepted."

<"John invited us to stay with him for a night in New york. It fitted our plans quite nicely so we accepted.">>

No. >

OK. I assume from that that you would also say ""John invited us to stay with him for a night in New york. It match our plans quite nicely so we accepted." or ""John invited us to stay with him for a night in New York. It suit our plans quite nicely so we accepted."

If not, why not?

<< OK. I assume from that that you would also say ""John invited us to stay with him for a night in New york. It match our plans quite nicely so we accepted." or ""John invited us to stay with him for a night in New York. It suit our plans quite nicely so we accepted."

If not, why not? >>

Well, for one, because "match" and "suit" can *never* be past tense forms. It sounds completely wrong.

Moreover, when it means "match" or "suit", the corresponding past form of "fit" is "fit". Nobody here has argued otherwise. "Matching" and "suiting" in this context have nothing to do with the acts of equipping or tailoring. You're drawing an analogy where none exists.

And, again, there is the rule of thumb that an action must be carried out: when you say "It fit our plans", there is no action. The word "it" is referring to the previous utterance, and utterances cannot carry out actions. By contrasts, tailoring and equipping are actions: they are something that somebody does.

- Kef

All "yer" is is an informal spelling of a reduced realization of "your", generally [j@`] (even though I have [jR=:]). It is not standard *orthography* at all, but at the same time [j@`] is still a very common pronunciation of "your" in North American English dialects.

<Well, for one, because "match" and "suit" can *never* be past tense forms.>

Why not? Was "fit" always a past tense form?

<By contrasts, tailoring and equipping are actions: they are something that somebody does. >

Interesting. What do you call the "fitting room" in stores in the USA?

<Moreover, when it means "match" or "suit", the corresponding past form of "fit" is "fit". Nobody here has argued otherwise. "Matching" and "suiting" in this context have nothing to do with the acts of equipping or tailoring. You're drawing an analogy where none exists. >

If "match" can be an action as in "I matched the clothes to suit the occasion", and not an action in "the clothes matched perfectly", then I don't understand why AE speakers don't also use "match" as a past form.

<< If "match" can be an action as in "I matched the clothes to suit the occasion", and not an action in "the clothes matched perfectly", then I don't understand why AE speakers don't also use "match" as a past form. >>

OK, I understand your analogy now, but such logic seldom applies to irregular verbs. The verb "fit" simply became irregular in some contexts... the irregularization had more to do with an analogy with "hit" (presumably) than with the context the word appears in. The development of the irregularity itself had nothing to do with the meaning of the word, only the way it sounded. The strange part is that the irregularity typically doesn't occur in all contexts. I don't really know why that is, but it isn't the only verb to behave in such a fashion. For instance, the past tense of "slay" is usually "slew", but it can be "slayed" when used in the metaphorical sense of giving great amusement ("the comedian slayed the audience"). Some verbs might be irregular when intransitive but not when transitive... I came across an example the other day, but I've forgotten it.

- Kef

<OK, I understand your analogy now, but such logic seldom applies to irregular verbs. The verb "fit" simply became irregular in some contexts... the irregularization had more to do with an analogy with "hit" (presumably) than with the context the word appears in.>


One would then expect Americans to adopt "maught" to align with "caught". It may be coming.

And once again I see no reason why such a thing should happen... language just doesn't work that way.

<And once again I see no reason why such a thing should happen... language just doesn't work that way. >

So you think it's more of a random thing? Where does that leave the system?

<Where does that leave the system? >

Probably up the effluent creek without a paddle.

<<One would then expect Americans to adopt "maught" to align with "caught". It may be coming.>>

Either that, or "caught" will become "catched", and hit/hit/hit will become hit/hitted/hitted or even hit/hat/hitten, etc.

You never know how irregularities will evolve.