Fit or fitted?

[Helen Borrie]

At 12:28 p.m. 30/05/2014, Writer wrote:
>It's not a verb in this case; it's a predicate adjective.
>
>Nadine
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Robert Lauriston <robert at lauriston.com>
>>To: Stephen O'Brien <sobrien at innovmetric.com>; "Frame Users (framers at lists.frameusers.com)" <framers at lists.frameusers.com> 
>>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:42:49 AM
>>Subject: Re: Fit or fitted?
>> 
>>
>>
>>Per Betty Azar, in American English, the present, simple past, and past tense of the verb "to fit" are all "fit." 

Actually, it's not.  The example from the OP used "fit" as a transitive verb and "fitted" was applied as the past participle.  A pedagogue would rule this usage illegal but English, the bastard language of the world, grows this way.  Usage of "fit" as a transitive verb has become widespread in my lifetime, although I'd have got the red crayon if I used it in a high school composition.

Things get muddy when we try to use fit in the passive voice, which is the usage in question here.  Intransitive verbs can't be used in passive voice so what do we do?  We can try to borrow the past historic of the intransitive verb, which is "fit" or we can pursue the formation of a participle by regularising it.  "The members iof the Olympic team were fit for their new uniforms" doesn't work.  "The members of the Olympic team were fitted for their new uniforms" seems to. 

My call would be that the regularising rule applies here.  If the OP MUST use passive voice (dubious tech writing practice at best) then make "fitted" the participle, rather than awkwardly stealing the past historic from the transitive verb. It fits better (sic: intransitive!) with other forward formations that are already in use.

Helen