abaka
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- Canada
- Current Location
- Canada
I read with interest the recent discussion about the most irregular verb in the language. Since my thoughts on this topic should probably be kept as far from beginning and intermediate students of English as possible, I'm starting this new thread. I hope "Linguistics" is the appropriate heading for it.
English has weak verbs and strong verbs, and several classes in each category.
Weak, so-called "regular": ask -- asked -- asked
Weak, so-called "irregular": spell -- spelt -- spelt (or "regular" <spelled> as well)
Strong, all irregular:
straight umlaut in the root vowel: sing -- sang -- sung
umlaut apparently vanished: let -- let -- let
with present-stem -n- inserted: stand -- stood -- stood
with additional weak endings added: bring -- brought -- brought
And so on. My examples are off the top of my head, but the point is that weak verbs strictly add suffixes to form the principal parts, whereas strong verbs modify the root in the three ancient Indo-European grades and may feature the present-tense -n- insert. Both features are extremely ancient, since they are not particular to the Germanic group.
Learners of English both native and foreign are always taught that an irregular verb is one that does not form its parts by the simple addition of "-ed". But surely at root that is a convenient lie: in fact both weak and strong verbs are ancient, natural, and with sufficient linguistic analysis thoroughly regular.
And if so, then the only truly irregular verbs in the language are:
* "to be", "to have", because their inflexion in the simple present does not follow the standard rule of "-(e)s appended only in the third person singular";
* the various modal verbs such as "shall", "will", "can", and so on, which are defective in not forming present or past participles, and therefore do not exhibit the full range of tenses.
What do you think? Are strong verbs really irregular?
And if they are not, does it make sense to explain them as they are sooner rather than later?
English has weak verbs and strong verbs, and several classes in each category.
Weak, so-called "regular": ask -- asked -- asked
Weak, so-called "irregular": spell -- spelt -- spelt (or "regular" <spelled> as well)
Strong, all irregular:
straight umlaut in the root vowel: sing -- sang -- sung
umlaut apparently vanished: let -- let -- let
with present-stem -n- inserted: stand -- stood -- stood
with additional weak endings added: bring -- brought -- brought
And so on. My examples are off the top of my head, but the point is that weak verbs strictly add suffixes to form the principal parts, whereas strong verbs modify the root in the three ancient Indo-European grades and may feature the present-tense -n- insert. Both features are extremely ancient, since they are not particular to the Germanic group.
Learners of English both native and foreign are always taught that an irregular verb is one that does not form its parts by the simple addition of "-ed". But surely at root that is a convenient lie: in fact both weak and strong verbs are ancient, natural, and with sufficient linguistic analysis thoroughly regular.
And if so, then the only truly irregular verbs in the language are:
* "to be", "to have", because their inflexion in the simple present does not follow the standard rule of "-(e)s appended only in the third person singular";
* the various modal verbs such as "shall", "will", "can", and so on, which are defective in not forming present or past participles, and therefore do not exhibit the full range of tenses.
What do you think? Are strong verbs really irregular?
And if they are not, does it make sense to explain them as they are sooner rather than later?
Last edited: