O.o

[bladespark]

Tell me, dear friends, do any of you know what the past tense of "bid" is? Because in reading an article, in a published newspaper, (specifically the Brirish "Sunday Times,") about shill bidding on ebay, I ran into the following line. "One leading dealer from London admitted last week that that he had shill bidded in the past."

Can you tell me what's wrong there?

I'll tell you what's wrong there! "Bidded" is NOT A WORD! That's what's wrong. And I'm pretty sure this is not just my American English at fault here, I'm pretty sure that the past tense of "bid" is still "bid" in England as well as in America.

Good greif! "he had shill bid" is the correct usage, you moron. How did you get to be a reporter, writing that crap? How the flip did whoever edited that get to be an editor? HOW DID IT GET PAST SPELL CHECK, EVEN? Isn't the Times a massive international paper, or something? I suppose if this British version has no association with the New York version, and is some tiny backwater paper or something, I could forgive it, but even then, this is SAD!

WTF. Bidded! Not. A. Word. NOT A WORD! Look it up in the dictionary. You go to dictionary.com, you type in "bidded" and it says "No results found for bidded." Notaword!

Comments

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Actually, the Sunday Times is the Sunday paper associated with The Times, one of the larger UK broadsheets, so yes, it is some massive international paper (owned by Rupert Murdoch).

I note that what has probably happened is a common modification effect in language, especially English. The writer is treating "shill bid" as a single verb for the purposes of conjugation, and mapping it onto the generic verb rules as a result. (That is, he would have conjugated "bid" as "bid", in the past tense.)

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Bah. They are two separate words. Shill. Bid. A shill bid is still a BID and as such, the word should still be conjugated the same. Bidded is not a word, and there is no reason to invent it when there is already a perfectly working past tense for bid which can be happily applied to "shill bid" just the same.

It's sloppy and annoying and I don't care if it's a "common modification effect," you still shouldn't do it! *muttermutter*

[loweko.livejournal.com]

I note that News International recently had a major cutback on sub-editors. This is the result.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

All is now made clear.

[scribe-of-stars.livejournal.com]

Maybe he had to use the bidet and made a Freudian slip.

Still, it sounds funny. Biddededededededed.

[wulfsbane.livejournal.com]

*eyes your last sentence* Are you letting Tenny type for you again?

[scribe-of-stars.livejournal.com]

EEP! *Flees*

[wulfsbane.livejournal.com]

I did a bit of Googling, and came across the following link

http://www.johndemayo.com/johndemayocom/2005/12/traditional_or_.html

That usage seems proper, for some reason. But that's the only case I could see it used in.

Also, http://www.bidded.com - a portal search website, but proves your point in horrible usage xD

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yeah, I can see that as correct, as you're using "bidded" not to mean the past tense of the verb bid, but as an adjective, so it changes the meaning of the whole thing, and is essentially a new word.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

I think newspapers everywhere these days are not the best place to look for award-winning writing. I always assumed journalists and editors got where they did by virtue of their writing and/or editing prowess as well... seemingly not so! I can pick up any of Canada's major newspapers and die from exposure to bad grammar. It's shameful... and PAINFUL!

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

People are being sloppy! I caught a HUGE typo in a published short story collection yesterday. You cannot just run things through a spell-check and call it good enough, somebody needs to do some actual editing!

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

*snort* If the reliance on a spell-check alone really bothers you, I suggest you never work for a vanity publisher. *cackle cackle*

Oh but really, I should ask cm for our 'Pearls' of wisdom we gleaned from poorly edited author works... funniest unintentional humour you'll ever read!

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

*laughs* I'm sure.

I intend to publish something through a vanity press myself, really. Ideally I'd love to get it properly edited too, but good editing tends to cost a fair bit.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's a privilege to have a self-published book properly edited that's for sure. Not many can afford it. I do basic proofreading myself, but I also have a friend who does substantive edits I believe, at a reasonable rate, so I could always pass you along to her for a quote sometime if you like.

'Vanity presses' or 'on-demand publishers' are fine, and certainly a lot better than taking countless rejections from the big publishing houses. A number of very good writers also passed through the one I worked for; it's all about the quality you put into it. Unfortunately, some self-publishing authors' standards seem a bit low... ¬_¬

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Though really that doesn't bother me too terribly. They're not really professionals. That's what gets me! If editing is your JOB, and your profession, you shouldn't let that kind of thing slip past you! It's a sort of broad, on-going pet-peeve of mine, people who are supposedly professionals who can't actually do their jobs properly. (Don't even get me started on some "professional" artists out there...)

I'm not bothered in the least by the atrocious grammar and bad spelling I see all over the internet. (Well, not by most of it, anyhow, some of it would be improved by having a monkey edit it, but that's another rant altogether.) Bad grammar from the general populace doesn't bug me, it's when somebody who's supposed to know what they're doing does something stupid that I start foaming and posting and ranting.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I definitely agree with you. Amateur stuff is usually just humorous, and the examples I'm talking about are pretty severe; like, 'writer-must-be-on-crack' kind of severe. ;) I don't get upset about that either. It's the 'pro' stuff that actually bothers me too. I should just become a journalist if it's that easy, I tell ya. ;P

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

But you have to sell your soul first, if you want to go into journalism. Just like law, or accounting.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

Aw rats... well, I probably already sold my soul for a donut somewhere along the way, so I guess that's out!

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

And on that editor thing... I might take you up on that, but not right away, I still have to rescue my files from my old dinosaur of a computer where they are languishing, unable to be moved due to the break down of my floppy drive and the total technological imcompatibility between that thing and anything I currently own.

[kainhighwind-dr.livejournal.com]

Sure, no problem, just let me know if/when you're ready. :)

Also, I thought I'd mention (if I haven't already) that a vanity press isn't your only option. If you're willing to do a bit of the publishing legwork on your own (and save some money in the process) you can look into any print shops in your area that offer good quality book printing/binding in short runs, supplying them with a book file that's already laid out. You'll also have to acquire an ISBN, make a deposit of book copies with the National Library, submit your book to Amazon, etc on your own. That's what almost all my clients do (save for a few), and it's a good way to publish yourself for less.

Some people prefer to just pay a vanity press to do all of that for them, because it saves them the time instead. Just be aware of what it is each publisher offers for the prices they charge. A lot of the services they provide can be very easy and quick to do on your own; it's the professional print job that's more difficult unless you have your own bindery in your linen closet. ;)

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Good to know.

[graydown.livejournal.com]

When I was in college, there were often journalism students in my writing classes. Their work was easy to spot -- not only was it badly written, but it was poorly punctuated and often completely incomprehensible. This thing you found, along with the scary typos I find in newspapers ("double-breasted cormorants"? "two pipe bomb blasts elated"? proofread much?) are why I am convinced, to this day, that journalists are, in general, morons.

But then the linguist in me says, "that's just how language evolves..."

[unspeakablevorn.livejournal.com]

Are those grammarhammers?

Vorn

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes they are.

[beetlecat.livejournal.com]

OT, but that icon of the marching hammers seriously creeps me out whenever I see it... it's just so ominous..

... are they taken from a scary short movie or something that is lodged in the back of my brain? I swear I've seen them before..

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Pink Floyd's The Wall, the movie version thereof.

[malakim2099.livejournal.com]

You know, after reading complaints from people because their buyers are loosers that have not payed for their items and are calling them liers, lyers, lairs, or leirs, I ignore such things. *hehehe*

Though we never use Bidded where I work. Always Bid. *winks*

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

The English past tense of 'bid' is still 'bid'.

And the Times is part of a huge multinational belonging to Rupert Murdoch, who has a very bad reputation here but I've never looked into why.

[thetommydodd.livejournal.com]

Depends on the context. If you want to be really arcane and "literater than thou" (No apologies for that one) you could always use 'bade', although I only recall seeing this used for a past tense of 'bid' in a spoken form eg. "I bade him good day".