On 12/11/01 9:38 PM, "Damien Broderick" <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
wrote:
> At 09:03 PM 12/11/01 -0800, James Rogers wrote:
>> ??? My dictionary does not have a problem with either their spelling or
>> usage of "forecasted".
>
> You mean he wrongly casted aspersions? Or have you casted a stone back
> wrongistically?
>
> (`Cast' *is* the past tense of `cast' in English, although perhaps not in
> American.)
While there is no "casted", both "forecast" and "forecasted" are accepted
spellings for the past tense (at least in the U.S.). This isn't the only
odd spelling anomaly like this. You would think the words would follow the
root, but they don't always. Maybe it is yet another bastardized
Americanism that we've added to the language.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT