Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: (In)transitive verbs

From:Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
Date:Friday, February 13, 2004, 1:44
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

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>