Re: (In)transitive verbs

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Jack Ketch wrote:

> --- jcowan@REUTERSHEALTH.COM wrote:
>
> >Costentin Cornomorus scripsit:
> >
> > > If you look at grammars of English written by
> >the latter (Wright, etc)
> > > you won't find the terms "regular" and
> >"irregular" used to describe
> > > verbs like these. On the other hand, if you
> >look at a grammar written
> > > by an English Lit.  type, chances are pretty
> >good you'll see verbs
> > > unaccountably sorted into regular and
> > > irregular.
>
> >That reflects the difference in purpose.
>
> The ultimate "purpose" of both is, hopefully, the
> description of English grammar!
Indeed, but the people using regular/irregular are describing it from a
syncronic perspective and are aiming at best describing English today, and
the people who go for strong/weak/irregular are describing it from an
historic perspective are are aiming at best describing how English has
come to be.

> >Wright & Co. were doing
> >comparative Germanistics, so it was natural for
> >them to divide verbs
> >into the strong (with the inherited IE ablaut)
> >and the weak (with the
> >innovated dental suffix), and take little or no
> >account of regularity
> >or irregularity in any given language.
>
> The other guys take as little account of regularity.
Whether a system is internally regular doesn't mean it's externally
regular. All the class N weak verbs might behave the same way, but taken
in the broader picture of English verbs, they're not regular because they
don't form their past/pp. with -ed. (Note of course that -ed has at least
three pronunciations, so it's not that they all share a single
pronunciation that's important.)

> Well, we can see from dialect data that the issue is
> not so clear cut. I'm familiar with dialects where "it
> snew yesterday" is 100% regular and normal.
Wrong sense of regular. Let's at least try to avoid being difficult,
otherwise of course we're never going to agree.

> >What makes an irregular irregular?
>
> Inconsistency would be a good start. I would say that
> BE is a pretty good example of "irregularity", as it doesn't
> fit a consistent pattern.
So what are you going to call what the rest of us call regular verbs?
Dental/weak won't work because there are irregular dental/weak verbs.
You're denying that irregular verbs are irregular. What else is there?
John's explanation was at least as good as yours, and more intuitive to
boot.

From the dictionary I find that 'regular' means:
13. Grammar. Conforming to the usual pattern of inflection, derivation, or
    word formation.
The usual pattern in English is undeniably the -ed form...

> > > The regular/irregular argument is based on
> > > perception and subjective
> > > understanding,
> >
> >By no means.
>
> It absolutely is. Sing-sang-sung is just as "regular" as
> turn-turned-turned.
How do you explain John's explanation then?

> The problem may well be improper application of these
> words to the systems at hand. That's precisely why I
> choose NOT to call English verbs by the regular/irregular
> scheme. It's too simplistic and doesn't fit the language
> well.
It fits the language very well!

> PS = It would seem that I've discovered the per diem individual
> message limit is five. Is there going to be a similar limit set on the
> number of accounts an individual can sign on with as well?
It's called 'honesty'. Try it one day. The limit is there for a reason---
to help cut down on off-topic discussions like these. (And PS doesn't
'equal' that comment... You couldn't go through something and every time
you saw 'PS' replace it with your comment...)

--
Tristan.

Reply