Hey, M, regarding your posting of links to the Chicago Manual of Style: you have to register to see those links. While they do offer a 30-day free trial, it's a PAY site. You aren't selling something, are you?

Jon, Michael, how about this?

"The fraternity's social activities were very popular with the rest of the college community."

Translation: they had orgiastic keg parties that were very well attended and loved by all.

Compare to:

"The fraternity's societal activities were very popular with the rest of the college community."

Translation: they raised money to fight cancer, making everyone on campus proud.

If societal is more specific than social then it's not redundant. Frankly, even if they meant exactly the same thing (which they don't), that would still ok. Where did you get the crazy idea that there can only be one word for something? English is filled with tens of thousands of "redundant" words. They may have different origins, histories, imported into the language at different times. They may differ by a minor shade of meaning. The choice may differ according to context or perhaps be appropriate only in certain registers. This is not worthy of criticism. It's what gives our language richness of expression, poetry. Are you suggesting that there should be no synonyms at all? If I were to use all my fingers and toes, I still couldn't count all the words I know with exactly the same definition that refer to my naughty bits.

Now, I certainly agree, that using a ten-cent word incorrectly does reflect poorly on the speaker. Using a ten-cent word when a five-cent word would do just fine is also generally bad form. But, using a ten-cent word correctly, to reflect some subtlety of meaning, doesn't mean the speaker is trying to look smarter. It means the speaker IS smarter!

AO, Brett, "around" can be either an adverb or a preposition. When used in "spinning around", it's an adverb that means "in a circular manner". It does not mean "to encircle something else".

Also, as for the original question, I would suggest that normally, open-source should be hyphenated. It functions as a single adjective.

oops, correction. In the post above, I meant half a millenium, not half a century.

Douglas, we often agree, but I'm afraid I have to side with Mark this time, even on the points that he has already capitulated.

First of all, all these word lists and examples aren't particularly helpful. There is a simple, standard, consistent paradigm for pronunciation of standard past tense in English. Understand, I'm only talking about the standard past tense formed by adding -ed to the end of the present tense. It works like this:

If the present tense of the verb ends in a consonant "t" or "d" sound, then the -ed adds a syllable, ending in a voiced "d", usually pronounced something like -id, (but the vowel is really a shwa). Notice I didn't say the verb must end in a "t" or "d", but the actual final sound must be "t" or "d".

For all other verbs, the -ed does NOT add an extra syllable. It only adds either a "t" sound or "d" sound, appended to the end of the word without adding a syllable. If the present tense ends with a voiced sound then you add the voiced "d" to the past tense without adding a syllable. If the present tense ends with an unvoiced sound then you add the unvoiced "t", again, without adding a syllable.

This brings us to our first disagreement. The word "faxed" is pronounced EXACTLY as it is spelled. It is pronounced "fax't", one syllable, unvoiced "x" means the "d" is pronounced unvoiced, as "t", perfectly consistent with the standard pronunciation rule.

Next disagreement regarding "Whether it has a ‘t’ in it is not relevant." No, it is completely relevant. re-read the rule above. Words ending in "t" or "d" add a syllable. All others do not.

Debut is tricky, but it still follows the rule perfectly. It is pronounced "day-byou". The "t" is silent. It ends in a voiced, vowel sound, so you don't add a syllable and you use the voiced "d". The past tense, "debuted" is pronounced "day-byou'd", again, exactly according to the rule. Comparing text to debut is not useful. Text ends in a "t" sound. Debut does not.

Hated is two syllables, "hate-id". Corroded is three, "cor-rode-id". Pained is one, "pain'd". passed is one, "pass't". Rued is "Rue'd. See? examples of every combination according to the rule above.

Next, you haven't just listed verbs whose past tense sounds the same as the present tense. You listed verbs whose past tense IS the same at the present tense. Nowhere have you listed a verb that adds "-ed" but adds no sound at all. Technically, you have risen to Mark's challenge, but it's irrelevant to the issue of text vs. texted. These are all irregular verbs. Usually, irregular verbs retain their irregular form because they are ancient and their old form is retained from half a century or more of familiarity. It would be extremely unusual to adopt an irregular form for a new common word, especially a non-technical one.

Every single example in all the posts for this topic follows the rule I have mentioned regardless of what the posters are trying to prove. If you want to follow standard English pronunciation, then the same rule would dictate that texted should be pronounced "tekst-id", since "text" ends in a "t" sound.

I think the difficulty with some is that "text" already ends in a triply compounded consonant, quite a mouthful. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find any other verb that ends in the same triple consonant, so there really aren't any comparable verbs. Tell you what, let's do some verbification of our own. Let's invent a verb, "context", meaning, say, to put something in context. If I did it yesterday, I would have contexted it. Would you pronounce it con-text-ed, or context, same as the present tense?

No, you did not get my point. Referring to an individual thing in a context where other things exist is not the same thing as referring to an individual thing in isolation, nor does it imply that it is the only thing that exists. An argument that suggests such a reference is invalid because it necessitates the non-existence of the other items is itself specious. Oh, and you're quite right about non-sequitur.

Oh, and for what it's worth, one could make a case, at least as a mathematical abstraction, that a list with one item or even no items at all, zero, nada, still has an order.

Regarding: "As far as I am aware, the etymological fallacy describes, basically, the necessity for words to hold their original meanings."

I'm sorry, hot4teacher, but the exact opposite is true. The "etymological fallacy" describes the fact that words do NOT hold their original meanings. You're certainly free to believe that they SHOULD hold onto their original meanings, but labelling that belief "etymological fallacy" would be incorrect. That's why it's called a fallacy. It is an agreement in etymological academic circles that such a belief is wrong.

Glynn, bosses give "commands" all the time. Actually, non-bosses give commands all the time. What exactly is it about "fetch" that would make it ill-received? If your boss said "Go fetch Bill and Jane so we can discuss the Forbin project", that's no different than "Go get Bill and Jane so we can discuss the Forbin project." If he or she said "please" first, would that make it better received? In the two examples, "fetch" and "get" are virtually interchangeable.

Jeremiah, if your friend finds "fetch" to be referring primarily to dogs, perhaps it's simply because the word is not in frequent use except as a dog command. I don't hear "fetch" used often. Personally, when I do hear it, it sounds a bit archaic to me (but not offensive or dog-like at all).

When I see: “I didn’t want to loose the car keys.” I imagine the "s" in "loose" being pronounced unvoiced. I picture someone not losing their keys, but setting them free to roam about on their own (with some regret, of course). Thank you so much for the chuckle I'm having right now.

Also, regarding: "Yes I am claiming that. Since the word “forum” is a Latin word used in the English language, I do not see how using the English-based plural system would apply."

Hot4teacher, using the English-based plural system ALWAYS applies. forum is NOT a Latin word used in the English language. It is an ENGLISH word whose origin is Latin. While we're at it, “octopuses”, “radiuses”, and “fishes” are all correct. If you want to be prescriptive about it, using the Latin plural is considererd irregular (not incorrect), and generally only preferred for words of technical origin. Of the words you listed, only "radiuses" is unusual (but still not incorrect). Oh, and I can hardly wait. Just what do you think the plural of "octopus" should be?