[General] Special Cases On Verb Spelling & Pronunciation

[koniganadyr]

Please, could you recommend some sources on all verbs that have special person conjugations?

For example, the 'have' verb is for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-plural persons; the 'has' is for 3rd singular person.
The pair 'wit' - 'wot' (="to know", "to learn") is arbitrarily for 1st-plural/2nd/3rd-plural and 1st-sigular/3rd-singular persons.
The same situation wit the pair 'was' - 'were' for the 'be' verb. (I remember that 'were' is also used for the 1st-singular person.)

 

[emsr2d2]

We don't use "wit/wot" in modern English.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special person conjugations". All regular verbs in English have a different form in the 3rd person singular. Irregular verbs have all sorts of forms for the different persons. ("To be" is an irregular verb.)

I think you need to make your question a bit clearer.

 

[koniganadyr]

My question is not about irregular verbs but on such non-standard verb personal forms as ‘have’/’has’, ‘was’/’were’. Do more verbs with irregularities exist in English?
I mean there are more verbs with non-standart endings like ‘wit’/’wot’, although this verb ir used seldom in Modern English.

 

[koniganadyr]

Forget wit/wot'. It is never used these days.

However, they exist. See also:
1) the Merriam-Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wit#examples
2) Lexico (the OUP & Dictionary.com collaboration) https://www.lexico.com/definition/wit

Yes. You can find them in the lists of irregular verbs given in most grammars and course books,

Moreover, this verb is included in the UE Full Irregular Verbs list. If it's not used anymore, why did the UsingEnglish Team keep it without editing?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

However, they exist.

Asteroids exist, too. You'll never see those, either.

. . . Moreover, this verb is included in the UE Full Irregular Verbs list. If it's not used anymore, why did the UsingEnglish Team keep it without editing?

No one knows.

If your first language is English, you know that wit is for wags and wot is forgot.

 

[Tdol]

Moreover, this verb is included in the UE Full Irregular Verbs list. If it's not used anymore, why did the UsingEnglish Team keep it without editing?

It's meant to be as complete a list of irregular verbs as possible, including obscure and archaic ones. It's not meant to be a guide to current usage.

 

[emsr2d2]

My question is not about irregular verbs but on such non-standard verb personal forms as ‘have’/’has’, ‘was’/’were’. Do more verbs with irregularities exist in English?

I'm still not clear what your question is. "have" is an irregular verb. It's not a regular verb with a "non-standard personal form".

In general, regular verbs use the bare infinitive for the first and second persons singular, and the first, second and third persons plural, while the third person singular uses the bare infinitive + "s". The past participle is formed (for all six persons) by adding -ed/-d to the bare infinitive.
Any verb that doesn't follow that format is an irregular verb.

Regular verb:

I ask
You ask
He/She asks
We ask
You ask
They ask
I/You/He/She/We/You/They asked

Irregular verb (just one example):

I have
You have
He/She has (not "haves")
We have
You have
They have
I/You/He/She/We/You/They had (not "haved")

 

[Rollercoaster1]

Yes. You can find them in the lists of irregular verbs given in most grammars and course books.
Forget wit/wot'. It is never used these days.

Would it be wrong to say '...grammar and course books'?

 

[GoesStation]

Would it be wrong to say '...grammar and course books'?

Yes.

 

[Rollercoaster1]

Yes.

Isn't 'grammars' referring to 'grammar books'?

 

[emsr2d2]

[STRIKE]Isn't[/STRIKE] Doesn't 'grammars' [STRIKE]referring to[/STRIKE] mean 'grammar books'?

It does - Piscean is one of the few people who use it these days. Most of us tend to use "grammar books". However, since it is a perfectly acceptable word, there was nothing wrong with Piscean's original sentence.

I might have written "... in most grammar and course books", where "books" refers back to both "grammar" and "course". It's a way to avoid using "books" twice.

 

[TheParser]

For example, the 'have' verb is for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-plural persons; the 'has' is for 3rd singular person.

NOT A TEACHER

Koniganadyr, I thought this tidbit might interest you.

According to my most admired scholar on the English language, the form "has" is a contraction of "haves," which was once used in older English.


Source: George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language ​(1935), Vol. 1, page 250.

 

[PeterCW]

It does - Piscean is one of the few people who use it these days. Most of us tend to use "grammar books". However, since it is a perfectly acceptable word, there was nothing wrong with Piscean's original sentence.

I might have written "... in most grammar and course books", where "books" refers back to both "grammar" and "course". It's a way to avoid using "books" twice.

On the other hand I would still say "an English grammar" rather than "an English grammar book".

 

[Rollercoaster1]

It does - Piscean is one of the few people who use it these days. Most of us tend to use "grammar books". However, since it is a perfectly acceptable word, there was nothing wrong with Piscean's original sentence.

I might have written "... in most grammar and course books", where "books" refers back to both "grammar" and "course". It's a way to avoid using "books" twice.

I wonder why GoesStation said it would be wrong in post 11.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I wonder why GoesStation said it would be wrong in post 11.

You'll have to see what Goes says. Your "grammar and course books" works for me.