Irregular verbs (those that for instance do not take the -ed suffix for the past tense) have long been the bane of students - especially English-as-second-language students. Not surprisingly, these verbs go back to the very beginnings of the language.
Not Exactly Rocket Science takes up the story:
Today, the majority of English verbs take the suffix '-ed' in their past tense versions. Sitting alongside these regular verbs like 'talked' or 'typed' are irregular ones that obey more antiquated rules (like 'sang/sung' or 'drank/drunk') or obey no rules at all (like 'went' and 'had')...
Today, less than ["fewer than?"] 3% of verbs are irregular but they wield a disproportionate power. The ten most commonly used English verbs - be, have, do, go say, can, will, see, take and get - are all irregular. Lieberman found that this is because irregular verbs are weeded out much more slowly if they are commonly used...
Lieberman charted the progress of 177 irregular verbs from the 9th century Old English of Beowulf, to the 13th century Middle English of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, to the modern 21st century English of Harry Potter. Today, only 98 of these are still irregular; many formerly irregular verbs such as 'laugh' and 'help' have put on new regular guises...
He used the CELEX corpus - a massive online database of modern texts - to work out the frequency of these verbs in modern English. Amazingly, he found that this frequency affects the way that irregular verbs disappear according to a very simple and mathematical formula...
Basically, irregular verbs that are used frequently (be, have, go, say) will stay irregular. Those that are used less frequently have a tendency to morph from the traditional irregular form to new "conventional" forms. Thus the past tenses of "dive" (dove) and "tread" (trod) are being replaced by "dived" and "treaded."
Which will be next? Lieberman has his speculative sights set on 'wed'. It is one of the least commonly used of modern irregular verbs and the past form 'wed' will soon be replaced with 'wedded'.
Interesting.
What were the former irregular past tenses of laugh and help?
ReplyDeletefor "help" I'm pretty sure it's "holp" -
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=vAr2T4Bh7nkC&pg=PA965&lpg=PA965&dq=%22past+tense+of+help%22&source=bl&ots=yO9jgyWYwA&sig=gou4jCi0YR9NYxT1UJWNQlT9dNU&hl=en&ei=wxLKSs2kKI-MMb61rPIH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=%22past%20tense%20of%20help%22&f=false
and for "laugh" I found this -
http://www.allverbs.com/cache/verbtables/20/l/laught.shtml
but I will defer to some of the wordsmiths who visit this blog if they have other answers...
dan
Deletechaucer in the Prologue writes "... then longen folk to go on pilgrimmage to Centerbury in full devout courage the holy blissfil martyr for to seke that hem hath holpen when that they were seke."
I'll certainly try to do my part. Let's see, past tense of "do" would be... "doed?"
ReplyDeleteMy favorite irregular verb has as principle parts mite, mote, mitten.
ReplyDelete:)
Treaded? as opposed to trod?
ReplyDeleteWho uses "treaded"?
Dived and dove, both are useful, in different contexts.
Pleaded vs Pled -- I remember when "pled" was used in the court system
ReplyDeleteCCL
I always thought "dove" was an archaic form that was being replaced by "dived", but it turns out that it's actually the newer form of the verb.
ReplyDeleteExplanations here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dive
and here:
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2006/08/lighted-vs-lit-and-dived-vs-dove.html
Go figger!
When I began teaching Jr.High English in 1956, the textbook had explanations for the differences in the use of sit/set, lie/lay, rise/raise, and bring/take. Of course, sit, lie, and rise have to do with position, while set, lay, and raise indicate putting something somewhere, and these last three take objects.
ReplyDeleteBut I was always puzzled why bring/take was even discussed, because it was never misused. "Bring is from there to here, and take is from here to there."
However, the textbook writers must have seen a trend, because nowadays, bring has almost universally supplanted take, in print as well as conversationally! And does it ever grate on my nerves!
which does not even begin to address the complete lack of correct agreement in the use of pronouns by ostensible professional speakers (television announcers and pseudo-sophisticated celebrities). Sub-literacy rampant. "For he and I..."!! O tempora o mores. Sombody "slayed" my language. And if slew is gone can slain be far behind?
ReplyDelete