Re: (In)transitive verbs

Tristan McLeay wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Joe wrote:
>
>
>
>>Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Strong/weak, yes, but how exactly does "set, set, set" qualify as
>>>"regular"?  Regular would be "set, setted, setted".   And there's
>>>no regular "-etted" -> -"et" rule: "let" works like "set"; "fret",
>>>"jet", "net", and "vet" always keep the -ed; "bet" and "pet" can
>>>go either way; and "get" is hopelessly irregular anyway. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It is regular.  '-ted' is reduced to 't' in most native Germanic
>>verbs(all?).  And 'strong' isn't irregular.  Merely another class, which
>>changes vowels rather than prefixes(in English).
>>
>>
>
>No. They're all irregular. If a verb doesn't form its past/past participle
>in -ed, it's irregular. It doesn't matter what the justification of it is.
>
>
I disagree.  If there is a rule(which applies to multiple verbs), it is
regular(hence the term).

For instance, there is a rule that says a class III strong verb, which
has 'i' as the stem vowel, changes that stem vowel to 'a' in the simple
past, and 'u' in the past participle.  (swim, swam, swum, drink, drank,
drunk, sing, sang, sung).  The classes have no outward markers, but they
are grouped. The rules can change over time, but there are rules beyong
'-ed'=past tense.

Replies