With the coming of the information age, English became the de facto language of technology. America invented the computer (or, what we know as 'computer' today, it's true origin is much earlier than that) so computers adopted America's language - English. Now that's all well and good. English is, comparatively speaking, a fairly easy language to learn and speak. It isn't very convoluted, and it was alreay widely spoken prior to the internet age.

But alas, one thing English is notorious for, is having horribly irregular and strange-sounding past tenses. sing, sang, sung, but bring, brang, brung? No, bring, brought, brought. lay, laid, lain, but say, said, sain? pay, paid, pain? No, say, said, said. pay paid paid.

Yes, we have a sickenly confusing past tense in English. So much so, that even those speak English natively don't really know how it works all the time. This is, however, how language evolves. Already in American English less-often used verbs like "dream" or "learn" are losing their irregular past participles in favor of more regular ones. Verbs like "eat" will not, however, because they are used too often to just "change" in people's minds.

You could, for example, get away with saying "The other night, I dreamed I was flying," while you could not get away with saying "Ok, I eated my dinner!" There is actually a terminology for verbs that do not use the normal -ed ending in the past tense. They are called strong verbs, whereas regular verbs are called weak verbs.

So, getting to the point, the overall linguistic trend in modern English is towards a simpler, more uniform past tese. This is why I assert that new verbs that become part of the verncular, whether on E2 or elsewhere, be written and spoken using the regular -ed suffix for past participles. So, therefore, the past tense of "ping" is ping, pinged, pinged, not ping, pang, pung. The past tense of "ching" is ching, chinged, chinged.

Thank you, and good day.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.