At 12:28 p.m. 30/05/2014, Writer wrote:
>It's not a verb in this case; it's a predicate adjective.
>> From: Robert Lauriston <rob...@lauriston.com>
>>To: Stephen O'Brien <sobr...@innovmetric.com>; "Frame Users
>>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:42:49 AM
>>Subject: Re: Fit or fitted?
>>Per Betty Azar, in American English, the present, simple past, and past tense
>>of the verb "to fit" are all "fit."
Actually, it's not. The example from the OP used "fit" as a transitive verb
and "fitted" was applied as the past participle. A pedagogue would rule this
usage illegal but English, the bastard language of the world, grows this way.
Usage of "fit" as a transitive verb has become widespread in my lifetime,
although I'd have got the red crayon if I used it in a high school composition.
Things get muddy when we try to use fit in the passive voice, which is the
usage in question here. Intransitive verbs can't be used in passive voice so
what do we do? We can try to borrow the past historic of the intransitive
verb, which is "fit" or we can pursue the formation of a participle by
regularising it. "The members iof the Olympic team were fit for their new
uniforms" doesn't work. "The members of the Olympic team were fitted for their
new uniforms" seems to.
My call would be that the regularising rule applies here. If the OP MUST use
passive voice (dubious tech writing practice at best) then make "fitted" the
participle, rather than awkwardly stealing the past historic from the
transitive verb. It fits better (sic: intransitive!) with other forward
formations that are already in use.
You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com.
Send list messages to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.