Re: (In)transitive verbs

jcowan@REUTERSHEALTH.COM wrote:

>Joe scripsit:
>
>
>
>>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).
>>
>>
>
>I don't think that's so much a rule as a cluster of associations that
>represents the decay of a rule that hasn't worked reliably for over a
>thousand years.  The strong verbs used to form seven clear-cut classes,
>as we can see by looking into a grammar of Gothic, but what's left of them
>in English is messy, with all kinds of borderline cases.  Consider "run",
>whose p.t. "ran" and p.p. "run" suggest that the present should be "rin",
>as indeed it is in Scots.  But "rin" changed to "run" at some point and
>produced the current (unique?) u/a/u alternation.
>
>
Yes, so can't we call 'run' irregular, but 'swim' regular?