Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The English language has a huge number of irregular verbs(~470). This is significantly more than other languages e.g. French (~130), German (~200)

Irregular verbs make the English language notoriously difficult to learn for non-native speakers.

And yet English is arguably the most spoken language internationally:

Modern English, sometimes described as the first global lingua franca, is the dominant language or in some instances even the required international language of communications, science, information technology, business, seafaring, aviation, entertainment, radio and diplomacy.

-Wikipedia("English Language") (Emphasis mine)

My question is: Why is there no move to introduce regular versions of verbs as acceptable alternatives of irregular ones? Could we even drop the irregular verbs all together?

Is it simply a case of tradition? Or is it impossible to forcibly manipulate a language- what has history taught us?

share|improve this question
1  
I've rewritten the question, to try to make it sound less like a complaint. Perhaps it might get reopened? –  Urbycoz Nov 11 '11 at 10:29
1  
@bizso09 To answer you question please read my answer to a somewhat related question. Essentially: no, irregular verbs are not kept due to tradition, it's just how people's minds work. –  Matt Эллен Nov 11 '11 at 10:56
1  
@Jasper Loy I think it is what he was asking. But we should probably ask the OP himself. –  Urbycoz Nov 11 '11 at 11:04
1  
Try dropping themyourself and see what happens. –  Barrie England Nov 11 '11 at 21:16
3  
You say Why is there no move but there are (and have been) many! Here is Simplified English: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_English or userlab.com/SE.html –  GEdgar Nov 11 '11 at 21:38

2 Answers 2

The English language, like all languages, is not handed down from above, but rather exists in the minds of the people who speak it. Native speakers have no problems whatsoever learning the irregular verbs, and languages generally do not adapt to make themselves easier for non-native speakers.

What does happen is that if a large number of speakers, native or non-native, make similar mistakes, these mistakes may eventually become the norm. This does, in fact, happen with uncommonly used words. Erez Lieberman et al published a paper claiming that verbs have a quantifiable rate at which they become regularized:

a verb that is 100 times less frequent regularizes 10 times as fast.

However, this takes a long time and is not part of any kind of "effort" or managed process. It takes a significant effort to change the language of an entire people.

Consider the Chinese government's attempts to police the Chinese language(s) and to implement what is essentially spelling reform (technically: simplified characters). This is a huge effort, spanning decades, and requiring total re-education of a billion people. Yet the smaller dialects are not all dead and some are not even dying, the use of traditional Chinese characters has not completely died out, and the Chinese were starting with a population that had a high illiteracy rate. There is a huge cost involved in attempting this and most countries would simply be unable to carry it through.

Language is determined by its speakers. As long as most native people don't have problems with irregular forms, the language will continue to have them. Non-native speakers probably have as much chance of changing that as I do of getting China to ditch characters and go Pinyin all the time.

Also note that some verbs are being irregularized, see this Language Log post about "snuck".

share|improve this answer
1  
See also Steven Pinker's 'Words and Rules'. –  Barrie England Nov 11 '11 at 19:36

"My question is: Why is there no move to introduce regular versions of verbs as acceptable alternatives of irregular ones? Could we even drop the irregular verbs all together?

Is it simply a case of tradition? Or is it impossible to forcibly manipulate a language- what has history taught us?"

Many attempts at "regularizing" English have failed (even Caxton and Webster kept irregularities so that they didn't change the language too much). If an authoritative enough source publishes a reform, then perhaps such changes might catch on. But what Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 says is correct: common usage can, eventually, win out over "technically correct" usage. In the meantime, you just have to go with what is currently "correct", by consulting a good dictionary in your "preferred" English (British or American).

Just look at Esperanto - a "global language" revolution: has that caught on?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.