# Inputted



## Oros

*Forms* can be used to send data across the web and are often used as *contact forms* to convert information inputted by a user into an email, such as the one used on this website.

 On their own, forms are useless. They need to be hooked up to a program that will process the data inputted by the user. These take all manner of guises and are outside of the remit of this website. If you use an internet service provider to host your HTML, they will be able to able to help you with this and will probably have clear and simple instructions on how, for example, to make a form-to-email form work.

   The tags used in the actual HTML of forms are *form*, *input*, *textarea*, *select* and *option*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 I find strange to say 'the data inputted by the user'.


 For me, the word 'put' is the same in the past tense.


 What do you think? 
Does it exist in the jargon of computer terminology?


----------



## elroy

Oros said:
			
		

> *Forms* can be used to send data across the web and are often used as *contact forms* to convert information inputted by a user into an email, such as the one used on this website.
> 
> On their own, forms are useless. They need to be hooked up to a program that will process the data inputted by the user. These take all manner of guises and are outside of the remit of this website. If you use an internet service provider to host your HTML, they will be able to able to help you with this and will probably have clear and simple instructions on how, for example, to make a form-to-email form work.
> 
> The tags used in the actual HTML of forms are *form*, *input*, *textarea*, *select* and *option*.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I find strange to say 'the data inputted by the user'.
> 
> 
> For me, the word 'put' is the same in the past tense.
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> Does it exist in the jargon of computer terminology?



"Inputted" sounds better to me.

I don't know if "input" is possible as a past tense form.


----------



## Amityville

I always say input in the past. Inputted sounds terrible. Surprised at you, elroy.


----------



## Kelly B

Oh, dear, you'll be surprised at me too -- hanging head -- but because "input" is indeed computer jargon I've heard "inputted" fairly often and said it once or twice. I strongly prefer "entered", however.


----------



## gotitadeleche

I think inputted sounds awful. As I would never say "he putted," I would never say "he inputted." I have never heard it used.


----------



## jess oh seven

i'd say *input* in the past. "inputted" just sounds like a child speaking - "i goed to the park yesterday!" or something.


----------



## mzsweeett

For my two cents.... "inputted" sounds awful.... I'd never use it. I've never heard it either. "Input" is both future, present, and past. "Put" does not change forms. I would say "entered" or "input". 

HIH,

Sweet T.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Oros,

It's jargon.  It sounds atrocious.  I've read it and heard it.  I would not use it.

I agree with Kelly...'entered' is older jargon, and clear enough to be inoffensive.  As a dinosaur, I might have said 'written'.  After all, data entry is writing.

un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## panjandrum

Inputted *PLEUGGHHH!!!!*

The creator of such an abomination should be sackeded immediately.

"Entered" works perfectly well. "Input" will be tolerated.

Sorry everyone, but this is a pet hate.  "That word" is used quite often, but never makes its way into any formal documentation.


----------



## jacinta

No need for apologies, Panjandrum, I have never heard this but when I read the word, I putted my hands to my head in disbelief.  People actually say this with a straight face?


----------



## elroy

Wow - Kelly and I are vastly outnumbered, aren't we?   

I still maintain, though, that "I input" (in the past) sounds peculiar.  The best option, as was suggested, is to avoid the construction completely.


----------



## Aupick

I've got a solution!

Since the noun 'input' is really derived from the phrasal verb 'to put in', we should use this instead:

'I put the data in the computer.'
'I put the information in the database.'
'to convert information put by a user into an email'

Perfect!


----------



## Oros

Aupick

You wrote the following:

I put the data in the computer.

I have learnt it is common to use the prepositon *'on*' when talking about computers.

I store a lot of valuble information *on *my computer.

People don't say 'in my computer'.  
I know very well that you and I can't speak about the usage in these matters.
You would notice this when reading books on Cisco networking. I have bought a couple of Cisco books as I work with these things. Generally speaking, you find this pattern in  books related to IT or rather computer technology.

I have noticed these things for about 15 years. I bought my first computer somewhere in 1990 with windows 3.0 version.

I have heard that people consider you write somethintg on the screen. I maybe wrong. I am not a native speaker of English.

You live in a house.  --> We use the preposition 'in' here just considering the three dimensional nature.

This three dimensional nature is not considered though you have a computer box.

You store butter and cheese in the refrigerator.  --> This has the three dimensional aspect. Your fridge is a box.

I would like to know why people don't consider your computer as a box where you store information.


----------



## Aupick

I must apologise for misleading you.  I was really making a facetious remark about how the English language _should be_ used, rather than how it _is_ used, and don't really recommend any of my suggestions. In fact I agree with your original comment, that 'input' is much better than 'inputted'.

But you do raise an interesting point that as a native speaker I was not aware of: why do we use 'on' and not 'in' for computers? I will think about this, and offer any suggestions I come up with later.


----------



## Inara

suggestions from a non-native:
you store data *on* a harddisc, *on* a floppy or *on* a CD

a computer by itself doesnt store an information, it uses some "flat" things for it 

does it make sence?


----------



## Edwin

Sorry folks but Merriam-Webster allows *inputted*:



> Main Entry: input
> Function: transitive verb
> Inflected Form(s): in·put·ted or input; in·put·ting
> : to enter (as data) into a computer or data processing system



After all we say *I targeted him.* and not *I targot him*.


----------



## meili

Oros said:
			
		

> *Forms* can be used to send data across the web and are often used as *contact forms* to convert information inputted [input of information] by a user into an email..


 
--perhaps that is on a much safer ground.. 

However, I say that 'inputted' is already accepted now: [from merriam-webster online]

Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·put·ted or input; in·put·ting
: to enter (as data) into a computer or data processing system 

And I think that data and information are already inputs.


----------



## Amityville

Edwin said:
			
		

> Sorry folks but Merriam-Webster allows *inputted*:
> 
> After all we say *I targeted him.* and not *I targot him*.


 

Well, it is a false analogy as target is not made up of the words tar and get, in English (though it might be so in Unix). 
You can see how barbaric most of us find it, whatever the sainted MW says.


----------



## panjandrum

Dictionary point is irrelevant 
Just because a word is listed in some dictionary or other does not make it good usage, especially when it is unnecessary. There are many, many words in there that noone with any sense of taste and decorum would use. Similarly, there are many that noone with any feeling and sensitivity for language would use.
I will continue to reject anything coming to my desk that uses that word.

So what about the in/on debate?

*In* the computer is where you store and process the data.
*On* the computer is where you work.
Generally, but not without exception.
I compose all my letters and papers *on* the computer.
They are all stored *in* there somewhere - although, to be honest, I am more and more convinced this is magic*. 
Data and other things may be *on* the network, *on* the disc, *on* the tape,
but are generally *in* the computer.

* Footnote: I remember real disc drives two feet across that held almost 2Mb. You could almost see the bits. There is no WAY you can store 2,000 times that in a mini iPod. 
IT's magic, I tell you, magic; dark arts, no good will come of it.


----------



## Edwin

Amityville said:
			
		

> Well, it is a false analogy as target is not made up of the words tar and get



I was afraid someone would see that. I'll have to see if I can find a better example. 

I know that in Spanish for example one can usually depend on verbs which have the same ending as an irregular verb to be conjugated similarly.  I just haven't thought that much about it in English.   Most that come to mind seem to follow that rule:

overrun---overran
forget---forgot
overshoot--overshot
overhear--overheard
foretell--foretold
input--inputted


----------



## Amityville

Edwin, I agree, all compounds of put - input, output, and possibly throughput -  should conjugate the same as put, just as you say, based on the behaviour of compounds of run, shoot, hear and the rest. 
And the past participle of put is put. Therefore the past participle of input is input.


----------



## Edwin

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I remember real disc drives two feet across that held almost 2Mb.  You could almost see the bits.



Was that before or after the 1949 prediction in Popular Mechanics:   "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons."


----------



## panjandrum

Amityville said:
			
		

> Edwin, I agree, all compounds of put - input, output, and possibly throughput - should conjugate the same as put, just as you say, based on the behaviour of compounds of run, shoot, hear and the rest.
> And the past participle of put is put. Therefore the past participle of input is input.


  What a team, eh  
Just what I wanted to say.

Off-topic reply to Edwin: These were RKo5 exchangable discs on a PDP11 that ran the world (well, my world) in 1979.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Well, this discussion reminds me of another doubt of mine:  Do you say forecast or forecasted?  ("These are the prices we forecasted last months").  I think it is forecasted, but everytime I say it my brain goes "was that right?".

What about texted?  "My boyfriend texted me an hour ago".

mmm...  Should I open two other threads?  probably...


----------



## garryknight

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Well, this discussion reminds me of another doubt of mine:  Do you say forecast or forecasted?


The past tense of 'cast' is 'cast', therefore the past tense of the compound 'forecast' is 'forecast'. It's the same principle as put/input.



			
				Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> What about texted?  "My boyfriend texted me an hour ago".


'Texted' is fine - it's the past tense of 'to text'.



			
				Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> mmm...  Should I open two other threads?  probably...


Probably not. All of these questions are about regular/irregular past tenses.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Cheers, Garry.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I hear a construction by analogy, with "on TV."  We tend to "see" the data on our computer, in other words interface with the monitor-- which is like a TV, of course.

I guess that raises the question, why not "_in_ the TV?"

In the radio?

Maybe it goes all the way back to "on the grapevine."


----------



## Oros

I am delighted to notice that 'Whisky con ron' is among us. He is good at Spanish too. I would say he is a double international.

He gave up drinking rum; now he likes Scotch Whisky.


----------



## cuchuflete

Oros said:
			
		

> He gave up drinking rum; now he likes Scotch Whisky.



He input sufficient rum. No he is inputting Scotch Whisky?


----------



## Whisky con ron

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> He input sufficient rum. No he is inputting Scotch Whisky?


 
(S)he is forecast to be inputting more in the near future. Rum is never considered to have been input in sufficient quantities.  More news will be texted later.

(Right, enough rant for the minute...)
Cheers!


----------



## Coyoacan

panjandrum said:


> Inputted *PLEUGGHHH!!!!*
> The creator of such an abomination should be sackeded immediately.
> "Entered" works perfectly well. "Input" will be tolerated.
> Sorry everyone, but this is a pet hate. "That word" is used quite often, but never makes its way into any *formal documentation.*


 
_"Oh, ok..."_ *so I thought,* _"__I, guess Panj must be right if it still hasn't made it into any half-decent authoritative reference... that would make sense..."_

*but then he said:*



panjandrum said:


> Dictionary point is irrelevant
> Just because a word is listed in some dictionary or other does not make it good usage, especially when it is unnecessary. There are many, many words in there that noone with any sense of taste and decorum would use. Similarly, there are many that noone with any feeling and sensitivity for language would use. [...]


 
*wait a minute Mr. Panj! *You simply cannot play both sides of the court at the same time! Your opinion is respected and highly valued by many here [me, included] but I feel you were speaking more outta your gut than your brain this time. If it is in he dictionary, then, Mr. Panj, it should stand: according to your own sentence. 

Not that I aren't _partial_ to the banning of the word myself. I've had the _misfortune, _you would say, of hearing it quite often, and though it hurts the ears a bit on ocassion I have to agree with elroy that "*input*" by itself (though perfectly orthodox and pure) still sounds *disjointed*... There is something weird about that word when one needs to use it in the past form. I'm sorry, but it does! Those are the times when *inputted *looks a little prettier to me... Yikes! Am I worthy of having my members cut off and sent out into the four corners of the land?? (or better: *cutted off*, haha!)

But seriously, there have been (and we have them all the time), these kinds of extremist feelings/positions on Spanish also at the SO forum with statements flying back and forth on the purity of language, how to preserve it, yada, yada; so I can understand the passion here expressed by the dissaproving majority... One thing that I've learned, however, is that, to my dismay, languages are, in more than one way, almost like living-breathing things with a life of their own, and no Royal Academy of the Language, nor any dignified Scholarly Institution whether Spanish, Mexican, Peruvian, Angentinian, Venezuelan, or otherwise (in your case) British or American can monopolize or be the sole guardians and safe keepers of the sanctity of Language, because not one has *all *the rights on its use. If you don't believe me, just check out this thread. 

When one does this, then unavoidably, we end up overestimating and underestimating schools and lines of thought just cause our geographical positions afford us the chance, and yet, neither of us have effectively and efficiently monopolized reason, nor convinced anyone other than our little group of friends that we are right. 

These institutions, they serve a purpose, but they also have limits, and the languages will continue to mutate, morf, change, and whatnot, all this to the displeasement of some of us, and with the inclusion of abhorrent words such as *inputted*! If MW said that it is admissible, should we then refute it? And when OED says its fine, should we then embrace it??

Or, what is to do someone who has run out of options when the others seem so boring or archaic? (entered, wrote? [_cuchu, you stunned me!_] put in, keyed -in, typed, registered, recorded, filled-out, filled-in.) Don't take me wrong: they work well sometimes. Some other times, they just sound _off_, or _bland_... [forgive me Panj, I just feel that way.]

My goodness, I amaze myself, but sometimes I just find *inputted *a more precise word than these others, cause I feel weird in the presence of input as a past form! _[Should I be banned from the forum? I certainly hope you guys don't commit such a dreadful deed!]_

And understand my dear friends: I do not mean to say it doesn't make sense the whole use of "put" both in simple, as in present, as in past and past participle forms and all the rest that come out of the zillion conjugations thereafter... But though I've clearly grasped the explications given, and though I've absorbed them, still, *input *in the past, this one, just sounds limp.

One last thing: please, _don't nobody_ take this to be a disrespectful remark towards them, as I am simply stating a point of view in the utmost respect for _ya'll_.

With great interest to hear more opinions on INPUT and INPUTTED (and hoping not to be burnt at the stake),

-Coyo

_How about: *captured*, ?? <--(can this one ever be accepted as standard?? We have it in spanish and it works oh-so-perfectly.... _
_Ahh, peace!)_


----------



## Porteño

Shame on you panjandrum! What's this 'noone'? Does it rhyme with 'noon'?
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure you have to separate 'no' from 'one'. Otherwise you will have to use 'nobody'.


----------



## panjandrum

A post from the past.

Coyo hints at some inconsistency in my posts. He's right, of course, that I was speaking from the gut. Inputted is a pet hate. But I'm not sure I understand the point about inconsistency?
I haven't seen inputted in formal documentation, despite its appearance in dictionaries.

Inputted is used, often, and appears in dictionaries including the OED. That doesn't mean I have to use it, nor does it even mean I have to like it. I don't - for the reasons given by others I find it cringeworthy and of course it is completely unnecessary. It carries no additional meaning over the simple, and more common, input.

I hope that it is clear from the tone of my posts on this thread that I am here waging a personal campaign against a word that I abhor, not a linguistic campaign against neologisms or even linguistic deviance in general. As Porteño points out, so provoked was I that noone appears twice in that post. There is also a fair degree of flippancy around


----------



## Hockey13

I'm upset that I was too busy playing hockey getting all black and blue to join this discussion earlier. Anyway, here is what I will *always* say:

I *put* this information *into* the report/computer/paper.

I *gave* *my input* to the discussion.

I feel like "input" is sort of a half-verb that one rarely actually uses, but exists anyway. People often say "put this in the report" as a command, "I put it in," "We will put this in tomorrow," etc. I don't think I've often heard someone say "I will input this tomorrow." Sounds like you didn't think the sentence out before you said it. I will almost always use it as a separable verb.


----------



## jayanrfn

Hi,

I would like to know whether 'inputted' is the past form of 'input'?

Thanks,
Jayan


----------



## George French

jayanrfn,

You have had no replies, except mine.

I would suggest you use one of the many online sites that can give you an answer. Try this one. 

You will find the Preterite of input, look up preterite in the dictionay and you will be able to determine yourself if I have given you good information so that you can look it up yourself. This way is *much better* than us telling you about past forms. If you have further questions just post again..

GF..


----------



## xebonyx

However, I think it's worth adding that 'inputted' isn't exactly commonly used. Well, at least I've never heard it . Many people will use 'input' for the past or present(in both a 'computer' and 'opinion giving' context). And with the past, one might use "have had" or "having had" before the word.


----------



## JamesM

Actually, I have run into "inputted" quite a bit, although I prefer "input" as the past tense.  I believe that either one is technically correct. "Inputted" always sounds odd to me.


----------



## sdgraham

As a rhetorical question: Why wouId a person who would never, ever say "I putted the cat out the door" want to say "I inputted data?"


----------



## Nena19

xebonyx said:


> However, I think it's worth adding that 'inputted' isn't exactly commonly used. Well, at least I've never heard it . Many people will use 'input' for the past or present(in both a 'computer' and 'opinion giving' context). And with the past, one might use "have had" or "having had" before the word.



I agree, "input" can be used in the past, i.e.:
He input the data yesterday. 
He has input the data.


----------



## cervantesmx

sdgraham said:


> As a rhetorical question: Why wouId a person who would never, ever say "I putted the cat out the door" want to say "I inputted data?"



Sir, you imply that as it is not commonly used, it is incorrect. I don't believe so.

To answer the question of the post, yes, Inputted is the past form of Input.


----------



## cervantesmx

I believe mostly all of the responds to the thread are confusing to somebody that just wants to know if the word is correct or if it is even a word.

Why can't we all say:

Although it is not commonly used, it is indeed correct.

Not because we think a word in its past sounds bad means we're going to replace it or not say it entirely. How barbaric is that?

Or just because I don't like how "done" sounds, I'll go around saying "Yes, I have do my homework mother"
Inputted is right, as it is the past of input, like it or not that's the correct way to speak.

Wtf...


----------



## ungatomalo

From someone very used to this: inputted is nearly never used in common CS literature.

You usually say 'user data', 'keyed data', 'user input', 'user keypresses', 'entered data' and so on.

edit: entered data?


----------



## rbenham

I have two observations to make:

(1) _Inputted_ sounds terrible and I hate it.

(2) Unfortunately, the following argument is probably valid: _input_ as a verb is not really a compound verb at all (like say the almost universally misspelt _forgo_), but a new verb created from the *noun* _input_, and as such should be conjugated regularly. As evidence for this (perhaps heretical) view, one could cite the accent on the first syllable, and the obvious non-productivity of prepositional prefixes on verbs for the last millennium or so.

That said, I will go on either using _input_ as the past tense and past participle or avoiding the issue by using a different verb or a periphrastic construction.


----------



## JulianStuart

cervantesmx said:


> Inputted is right, as it is the past of input, like it or not that's the correct way to speak.
> 
> Wtf...



Ahhh, but I can write, just as easily and with as much authority, the complete opposite of what you just wrote! 

 So what's _ongoing_ here?   (I'm barely over the concept of the one-word verbification of "put in").  

Many usage changes start out as clear errors (i.e., they are incorrect and to the people of the day, sound wrong, terrible, eeuuuugghhh etc.) but they are perpetuated by the "ignorant" and become more and more commonplace until they begin to "sound" right.  Eventually the new usage outnumbers the old one and, hey Presto!, it becomes "correct".  I would venture to say that a majority of English speakers here think "putted" is incorrect, whether it has "in-" before it or not.  There seem to be many other ways of saying it without mis-conjugating a word that's only just evolved into a verb.   Obviously, the frequency of use of input as a new verb (that has no "conjugational" link to put) is increasing and one day, it may be considered correct.  I don't think we're there yet, despite your assertions and probable protestations.


----------



## Redshade

Hello _foreros_ (not a word that I have ever come across before in speech,print or dictionary but I am not going to cavil at either its coinage or continued usage ).

However, I _have_ come across "inputted" in public and private conversations as well as hearing it on the radio and reading it in various types of printed matter.I have even been known to use the word myself.
It_ is_ a word in current usage that would be understood by most,if not all,native speakers.

The question of whether it is a _proper_ word or not is therefore irrelevant.


----------



## ungatomalo

I think there's one more aspect of it. As I said five posts above, this is rarely used in the context the original poster posted.


----------



## 3dfan

The past form of input is...input!


----------



## panjandrum

3dfan said:


> The past form of input is...input!


The OED supports 3dfan 
It also lists inputted.


> *3.* _Computers_. To supply or feed in (data, a program, etc.) _to_; to feed _into_. Pa. pple. *'**input*, (less commonly) *'**inputted*.


Hello 3dfan - welcome to WordReference


----------



## Jeeno

Hi guys, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary recognizes either form


----------



## JamesM

sdgraham said:


> As a rhetorical question: Why wouId a person who would never, ever say "I putted the cat out the door" want to say "I inputted data?"


 
I don't think this is an actual parallel.  For people who use "inputted", I think it follows the same pattern as something like "upturn":

I upturn the vase. (present tense)
I input the data. (present tense)

I upturned the vase. (past tense)
I inputted the data. (past tense)

I don't personally use "inputted" (at least, I don't think I do), but I can understand the concept of looking at it as a verb that is being conjugated regularly.

I can certainly understand the oddness of "putted" and the argument that you would not change the word if the verbs were broken into their constituent parts:

I turned the vase up. (past tense)
I put the data in. (past tense)

I think that's why "inputted" sounds so odd to me.  Nevertheless, I've seen it and heard it quite a bit over the years.


----------



## bibliolept

I find both forms acceptable and have encountered them on numerous occasions.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

cervantesmx said:


> To answer the question of the post, yes, Inputted is the past form of Input.


It would be more accurate to say that _some_ people now use "inputted" as the past tense of "input". 

Most people, however, would realize that "input" indicates that something has been _put in_, and so would not find it unnatural to conjugate the verb the same way that the root verb of_ put_ is conjugated. As the past tense of _put_ is also _pu_t, the past tense of _input _was originally, and for many people still remains,_ input_. It is certainly by no means incorrect, or even questionable, to use "input" as the past tense.


----------



## JamesM

I don't know that "input" predates "inputted", GWB.  Merriam-Webster gives the same date of origin (1946).


----------



## JulianStuart

Inputted sounds horrible to me too. This is an ongoing discussion  I'm sure it will ongo for a while.  It's already onwent for some time.  If it ongoes long enough, weird-sounding it won't be.


----------



## Loob

bibliolept said:


> I find both forms acceptable and have encountered them on numerous occasions.


Me too, bibbles!

EDIT: previous thread here: Inputted


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I don't want to cause outrage here, but _inputted _sounds fine to me. I have heard it used, and while it might not be elegant, I don't really see what's wrong with it.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Pedro y La Torre said:


> and while it might not be elegant, I don't really see what's wrong with it.


 
It ain't elegant, that's what.


----------



## BalBurgh

I agree that 'inputted' sounds clunky but see the validity of arguments from both viewpoints.

That said, I wonder if this is the sort of word that may migrate to a more 'standard' form with the -ed suffix as 'wed' is supposedly being replaced with 'wedded,' though the latter process appears to be much, much farther along.  If 'input/inputted' stem only from 1946 (or the to me more plausible 1745-1755 I saw in a separate listing which would be associated with machine processes from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution) it seems like it would be much less 'core' than a word like 'put,' which would be almost as 'core' as a word could get, short of 'is' or 'go.'  

I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, just couldn't resist commenting...


----------



## xebonyx

cervantesmx said:


> Sir, you imply that as it is not commonly used, it is incorrect. I don't believe so.
> 
> To answer the question of the post, yes, Inputted is the past form of Input.



That's your opinion, then, but most of the other native speakers also agreed that it either sounds odd or it's not as commonly used.


----------



## natkretep

For what it's worth Macmillan also gives both forms:



> *past tense* _input_ or _inputted
> _*past participle* _input _or _inputted_



The placement of _input _ in first position indicates a preference for this.


----------



## Pat Rob

<<Welcom to the forum Pat Rob.  I have merged your thread with a previous discussion to prevent duplication.  You will find the search box at the top of the page useful when looking for previous threads with the searchword in their title>>

I don't think the word INPUTTED should exist. When you INPUT data isn't that past tense already? How is this different from saying the past tense of TO PUT is PUTTED? Does anyone else agree this is just plain UGLY.


----------



## Andygc

The existence of words does not depend on prettiness or ugliness, it depends on usage. The past form "inputted" exists and has done so for over 40 years





> From the OED
> 1967   W. F. Bauer in W. J. Karplus _On-Line Computing_ iv. 80   Data verification is done by the computer's reflecting back to the user on the cathode-ray-tube scope exactly what has been inputted.


That's all there is to it.


----------



## George French

Andygc said:


> The existence of words does not depend on prettiness or ugliness, it depends on usage. The past form "inputted" exists and has done so for over 40 yearsThat's all there is to it.



If some percentage of the human race is prepared to use inputted then I suppose we can't stop them. Nevertheless: I make a plea to everyone to use input...

GF..

Inputted jars,  at least to my ears and brain...  
And to Pat Rob, welcome to the WR fora.


----------



## Myridon

George French said:


> Nevertheless: I make a plea to everyone to use input...


To play devil's advocate: When creating new verbs, why would we want to create them as irregular verbs? Let's go all the way and make it "input, inpat, have inpatten" while we're being irregular.


----------

