AE speakers who use "did used to"...

<I'm just saying that if the point of asking these questions is to point out how inconsistent English can be, that isn't necessary, because everybody knows that. >

Not as inconsistent as you would like us to think. Poor understanding of usage is sometimes covered up by calling such things "inconsistent" or "exceptions".

<Parallels in irregularity are based on morphology and phonetics, not semantics. >

Are the AE differences between "fitted" and "fit" (past tense) based only on morphology and phonetics?

<Part of the reason that I don't think "match" will develop into "maught" is because native speakers will have no idea what "maught" means.>

Many words begin life that way.

<< Not as inconsistent as you would like us to think. Poor understanding of usage is sometimes covered up by calling such things "inconsistent" or "exceptions". >>

I don't understand what your point is. Today's "poor understanding" can be tomorrow's standard grammar.

<<<< Parallels in irregularity are based on morphology and phonetics, not semantics. >>>>

<< Are the AE differences between "fitted" and "fit" (past tense) based only on morphology and phonetics? >>

What I mean is that "fitted" didn't become "fit" due to the meaning of the word. If "fit" meant "eat", or "run to", or "crow like a rooster at", it could still develop the same irregularity. Just because one word becomes irregular doesn't mean synonyms have to become irregular. That the verb isn't irregular in all senses doesn't change that. How many synonyms do you know of that share the same irregular forms?

<<<< Part of the reason that I don't think "match" will develop into "maught" is because native speakers will have no idea what "maught" means. >>>>

<< Many words begin life that way. >>

For example?

- Kef

<Today's "poor understanding" can be tomorrow's standard grammar. >

LOL!

>>This part is even more relevant, IMHO, M56:

"I suspect that we are dealing with that old and curious phenomenon, hypercorrection. The clearly incorrect form *I didn't used to play football is sometimes found in print. In speech this cannot be distinguished from I didn't use to play football and people who wish to make it quite clear that they are shunning a solecism can only do so by avoiding the homophony completely and using an alternative form."

http://lavengro.typepad.com/peter_harvey_linguist/2007/07/using-used-to.html

In reality, those who try to distinguish the double "t" sound in "used to" are guilty of hypercorrection. Those who avoid homophony seem afraid of contextualising. They take things in isolation and claim there will be confusion unless one rids the world of homophony. All nonsense, to those of us who worship at the feet of Context.

;-)))<<

So the differentiation of "use to" versus "used to" here has now been declared to be hypercorrection... wonderful... Yes, most people do not actually pronounce [t:] in "used to" in everyday speech, but that's because they shift underlying /stt/ to [s:t], with [st:] only showing up in careful speech; I doubt that people who were hypercorrecting would have such a shift myself. And note that such is just a natural pronunciation here, and is similar to other everyday pronunciations here, such as "need to" ["ni:t:u:] or ["ni:t:@:], "needed to" ["ni:I:t:u:] or ["ni:I:t:@:], and "be supposed to" ["bi"spos:tu:] or ["bi"spos:t@:].

<<<< Today's "poor understanding" can be tomorrow's standard grammar. >>>>

<< LOL! >>

You have no idea how grammar change happens, do you? So-called "poor understanding" is the only reason grammar changes in the first place!

- Kef

<So-called "poor understanding" is the only reason grammar changes in the first place! >

Actually, it also comes about through "good understanding".

Do you have any examples?

<Do you have any examples?>

Refusing to be fooled by the grammar "rule" which says that one must not split infinitives.

<That's not a change. Split infinitives occur as far back as Middle English. >

It's certainly a change for all those students who were forced to believe in the "rule" and have now "liberated" themselves from such nonesense. I escaped by analysing used language, comparing it with prescriptive logic and then making a choice. By understanding the language in more depth, by gaining a good understanding of the language.