Talk:List of English irregular verbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are currently some irregular verbs missing:

  • abide
  • beget
  • chide
  • deep-freeze

Ncik 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that abide and chide have been turned or were in the first place regular (abide, abided, abided; chide, chided, chided). I am unconvinced deep-freeze is a verb of its own any more than heavy labor or hard work; deep is just modifing freeze. You may have a point on beget. --66.67.57.134 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see "undergo". (outgo and forego are in there). Maybe compound words should be listed with the main word, so undergo, forego, etc. would be best off listed with go. Ken Arromdee 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lie

Okay, I'm aware that a dictionary will tell you that the past of "I'm gonna lie down in my bed" is "I lay down in my bed", and the pp. is "I had just lain down in my bed"... however, this is about the English language, not the English dictionary. As there is no official academy for English, the language is defined by actual worldwide usage. (Anyone can write a dictionary, after all.) If it weren't for the dictionaries being so insistently archaic, we wouldn't have lay and lain in there at all, at least if I had my way. (After all, we don't have "span" as a past of "to spin", among tons of others...) Oh well. Thoughts? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, not anyone can write a dictionary. Modern dictionaries are based upon VAST amounts of painstaking descriptive work, and few of us are qualified to do this. If a form you use is not in the dictionary, chances are it is your own private quirk, which you are entitled to, but let's leave it at that.
The present article has got to be about irregular verbs in standard English, because all the possible variants in non-standard varieties would just blow the scope of it. Or do you really want me to put in all the variants I know from Scotland??? You may say something colloquially, and it's one of the glories of the richness of our language that you are able to do that. But a list of irregular verbs should only include forms which you can show from a verifiable source to be regarded as standard in either Britain or America. --Doric Loon 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breastfeed/ Breast-feed

Is this irregular? Similar to spoonfeed? RAYMI. If so, please add. 01/12/2006

Yes, this is irregular - it goes like feed-fed-fed. However I wonder if it is really helpful to include all possible compound verbs in this table. --Doric Loon 09:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to wikt:Appendix:Irregular verbs:English

Doric Loon, "You can't do something as radical as that without consultation" you write. Was it all that radical? I'd merged the page to wikt:Appendix:Irregular verbs:English. Part of the merging process is redirecting the redundant page. You can't redirect to Wiktionary so I redirected to English irregular verbs. Mergers are going on all the time. I didn't think this one would be viewed as radical but, okay, consultation time.

Bearing in mind that Wikipeia is not a dictionary and that this article and wikt:Appendix:Irregular verbs:English are essentially the same i.e. lists of English irregular verbs, should these be merged? Jimp 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, what in the world led you to do this? Wikipedia has lots of lists. English is notable. Its quirks are likewise notable. I'm absolutely confounded as to why you think such a list does not belong here. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny, isn't it, what seems to one person a perfectly sane and straightforward thing to do baffles the next. What led me to do this? I found this page here and a couple of mouse clicks later I was on a different page with the exact same purpose. Generally when two pages are about the same thing we merge them ... okay, one was at Wikipedia and the other at Wiktionary ... so? I noticed that the two versions mostly overlapped but that each had some good features and content that the other lacked. I went ahead and brought the Wiktionary page up to speed.
Wikipedia has lots of lists ... yes, it does. Some of those lists would be good at Wiktionary. Is it best to have the same list duplicated on two projects? If not, then you must ask where the list would be best. If it comes down to a choice, where would such a list as this best be put? This list focuses on words. Thus, if we're choosing whether to have this list at Wiktionary or Wikipedia, it would seem that the former is the best choice.
Is there any advantage, then, of maintaining seperate versions of a list on these two projects? None springs to my mind. There is a significant disadvantage, though, which does come to mind. When there is only one page then editors focus on that one page. When we have multiple pages editorial efforts become divided and the pages evolve apart. I think we have a case of the whole's being greater than the sum of its parts here. Where all editors focus on one page the improvements they make outweigh the combined improvements made to two pages by two groups of editors.
English along with all its quirks are notable. Yes, I couldn't agree more. Is it a question of notability? I didn't wipe the stuff. It was all still here (i.e. in the Wikiverse). All I did was to reorganise it. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, it's not a case of us and them, it's just us. I'm in favour of building the bridges between these two faces of the same shape. One project needn't duplicate what the other covers. A page merge: a perfectly sane and straightforward thing to do ... or so I had been thinking.
Jimp 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


If both pages were in Wikipedia I would absolutely agree about the merge. But Wikipedia and Wiktionary are different projects, and I don't see it as problematic if they occasionally do duplicate material. I don't have a Wiktionary login, as I don't have time for more than I do here, so I wouldn't like to comment on what they think they are doing, but I do want to resist the idea we sometimes get that if something is "about words" (whatever that means) Wikipedia can't deal with it; Wiktionary format resists anything discursive, for example. Now I would have thought this list is an important backup to some linguistics articles we are running which Wiktionary can't do. And since like many people I don't bounce back and forth between projects easily, I find it useful to have this here. At any rate, the links from the verbs to the verb classes are very useful, and I don't know if they would work from Wiktionary. This is not a "no way", though, just a "think it through". --Doric Loon 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Jimp... well, that's interesting. I guess it comes from being an almost-exclusive WP editor, but I think Wiktionary duplicating stuff is perfectly alright. I certainly wouldn't look for it on Wiktionary, I'd look for it on the encyclopedia (although to be honest, I would probably scour Wiktionary if I for some reason couldn't find it here). I've never heard of a cross-project merge... things get moved from one project to the other often enough, but that's always because they weren't appropriate at their respective original project. I've never heard of anything like this before. Which of course is not to say that such a move CAN'T be correct, but it's certainly a step out. To be honest, though... I am very much in agreement with Doric Loon on this one, there's no problem with duplicating across projects. This is a big-picture problem, but I see wiktionary as being a totally different site. It's like saying "you can find Africa on Encarta, why do we need it here?" Yes, it's run by the same company in this case, but they're still totally different projects. What do you think?
The advantage, I think, is clear--if you're browsing Wiktionary, you can find this list, and if you're browsing Wikipedia, you can find it also. Isn't that enough? (I apologize if I seemed rude earlier, I was just slightly confused. Re-reading it now, ouch, that was a little harsh. My apologies.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so, yes, there is the question of mobility between projects the difficulty of which I had rather been underestimating. I was once a pedia-only editor until one day I went and opened an account at Wiktionary. Now I have little trouble bouncing between projects ... though you do have to log in seperately ... but casting my mind back I guess I can relate to what you're both saying. Why not create accounts over there too? Wiktionary could use more editors especially those interested in language ... but that's another issue.
Of course, there is mobility as an editor verses mobility as a reader ... and, of course, the blurry middle ground that a good number of us find ourselves in. Creating a link from any given Wikipedia page to any given Wiktionary page or vice versa is quite a simple matter though these inter-project links all come out in light blue as opposed to red or dark blue depending on whether the page exists. So, for the reader bouncing between projects is easy - just click on the link. Easy, that is, to do, but admittedly potentially confusing for those unfamiliar with the workings of Wikimedia. Then, yes, there is bouncing as an editor: a whole new can of worms. Not only do you have to log in to Wiktionary seperately but, whilst there, you have to use a different style and abide by different rules.
I s'pose I've somewhat overlooked all of this. On the other hand, it seems to me that building ties between projects is a positive thing. They are different projects but do bill themselves as "sisters" ... would Encarta be a neighbour, a friend ... a rival? There may come the day when bouncing between projects is a completely ordinary thing. I do recall reading talk of unification of logins across projects. Let the bridges be built. One day cross-project mergers may be as unremarkable as I'd mistook them to be.
I agree that "this list is an important backup to some linguistics articles we are running" and we know that Wiktionary doesn't do articles. On the other hand, though, one could argue that in general Wiktionary is an important backup to Wikipedia. Without trying to push the point here, in principle ... or at least in a perfect Wikiworld, could a list not do as good a job if it lived at Wiktionary as if it lived here? Specifically, those links to the verb classes; which you mention, Doric Loon, and which definitely are very useful, as you describe; now exist on the Wiktionary version of this list and are working fine (just like the links to the Wiktionary pages of the verbs on this version).
Matt, you write "I certainly wouldn't look for it on Wiktionary," good point but would you look for "List of English irregular verbs" here either ... or would you look up something more along the lines of "English irregular verbs", "Irregular English verbs" or just "Irregular verbs" and follow the links? Whether you're browsing one or whether you're the other, following links, you can switch across.
But, yes, this is a big picture thing. They are still totally different projects ... though "sister projects" nonetheless. However, I guess, today's not the day for such a thing as radical as a cross-project merge. P.S., Matt, re: your "harshness" - no worries mate. Have a good weekend. Jimp 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course, if those links are working then I have rather less objection. The problem with two parallel lists is that corrections and additions in one place don't necessarily find their way into the other. So I see your point. I suppose the trouble is that I have edited here (I actually started the links to verb classes) and certainly wouldn't have done so if it had been in "another place". But that's my problem. --Doric Loon 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright... Hmm, perhaps at some point your view will hold true and we won't have this stigma against cross-project links and redirects. But for now, yeah, I think it's just too big of a leap for most editors. This has been a fairly enlighteneing experience, though... and it is tought to contest any of your points. I think we all realize that while your idea makes sense, it just doesn't fit where the project is right now all that well. (Wow, usually debates never end that succinctly!) It's quite honestly been nice talking with you, hope you both live wonderful and fulfilling and irregular lives. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't often end this succinctly ... and often don't seem to end at all. Oh well, one day, 'ay. Thanks for both of your inputs: this has certainly made me think. Matt, I hope you too live a wonderful, fulfilling and irregular life. Goes for you, Doric Loon, too. But I'm sure we'll bump into each other again at Wikipedia ... and perhaps Wiktionary ... see ya 'round. Jimp 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my life is certainly irregular. Cheers! --Doric Loon 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shat

I'm sorry, but I really think "shat" should be included as alternate preterit form of "to shit". I know it is a joke (and doesn't properly fit into any strong verb paradigm), but it's a joke that has been around for a long time, so much so that it's entered common usage. Everybody uses it. So, let's avoid a poll and discuss it. Zweifel 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls, discussions ... what we really need is a reliable source. Consider it added. Jɪmp 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember using shat at school in Scotland in the 60s. --Doric Loon 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions by anonymous

A user without a username has added lots of verb-forms to this table which I don't think are modern English. I haven't checked them, so some might be Shakespeare's English or older. But we need to decide on criteria for including forms here. Is this just about the forms of modern English, or do we try to include historical forms, as this user wants, dialect forms, as another user in the past wanted, etc? I can see arguments for both, but a scholarly account of the history of English irregular verbs in all the twists and turns of their journeys through the past two millennia would probably need a different form. --Doric Loon 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your definition of modern English is too narrow. English exists not only in people's mouths today but in the compiled literature of the last five-hundred or so years, any piece of which may at any time be read by people today. Therefor, shouldn't the list include verbs that may be encountered in dealing with Modern English, not just verbs which are currently in the vernacular. Furthermore, isn't an exhaustive list more informative than a selective one? If someone reads the list, finds a variant conjugation, and thinks its wierd, no harm is done. If on the other hand, someone comes along looking specificly for verb variants and finds only a list of what one person considers valid variants, he might have to work a lot harder to find what he's looking for.--24.151.175.5 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wasn't pleading for one person's taste. The criterion would be what is found in the sources, and if we are restricting it to current colloquial English, that means the criterion is what is found in a medium-sized dictionary. But you are right: there is a case for a list which covers archaic and non-standard forms. Indeed, perhaps that would be the answer to the discussion we had before about how this list relates to that in Wiktionary: Wiktionary really is about current standard language, whereas this could be more exploratory. But if you are going to do that, you need:

  • first, an agreement about parameters, which must be established here on talk, i.e. how far back in history do we go, how deep do we go into dialects and variants
  • second, an agreement about criteria, i.e. what sources are acceptable as evidence of a form
  • third, a strict code about not accepting anything without a source, because it is just too easy for someone to say "I would say this" and we don't know if he is a prankster.
  • fourth, a system for indicating where a form fits into the overall picture, so the reader is not left with standard colloquial forms and medieval Scots forms and Caribbean rap forms all mixed up with no way of telling which is which.

If you want to go this way, I will back you, but you have a lot of work ahead of you and will need to show commitment to the page. Half-measures would be a catastrophe. So if you are prepared really to take this on, great. Otherwise please leave it as it is and limit it to the modern standard. (BTW, if you are going to take this on, please get yourself a username - you will need the personal authority which comes with a track record if you want to move a project forward.) --Doric Loon 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually already got a username and have been around wikipedia for several years now, but sometimes I make edits when I'm not logged in and on those pages I usually try to stay consistant in my replies for the sake communication. However, from now on I'll use my username.
I wholeheartedly agree that citations would greatly improve the quality of information in this article and I also wouldn't mind including literary examples. But the current tabular nature of the list doesn't lend itself well to this. I would be interested in exploring different formats, but I'm not sure if much more information can be added without turning the article into a small dictionary.
In regard to criteria for inclusion, up till now if I could not find a certain word listed in any Modern English dictionary then I did not include it. This method both ensures a chain of vericability and means that only words common or important enough to be recognized by dictionarians make it into the list.
Believe it or not, I spend most of my free time learning about languages and looking up words in dictionaries anyways so you needn't worry about me following through.--24.151.175.5 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)--Jr mints 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jr mints, yes that about forgetting to log in happens to me too. Of course I believe you: you are probably the very person to do this job. Good, well if you are really interested in exploring that, why don't you think about ways to do it. What we could do is have a column for the modern standard forms, and somewhere further to the right, a column for non-standard forms. We could define standard forms as those to be found in one British and one American dictionary: but medium-sized dictionaries, because the full OED, which for many things is the ultimate authority, contains many historical forms. I would go for recently-published single-volume corpus based dictionaries aimed at schools or foreign learners rather than scholars. For the variant column we can include any dictionary. I would suggest we have a two or three-letter abbreviation for each dictionary, and after each form we note what dictionary we found it in. When a word also has regular forms (like abided) I would suggest we don't write these in, but just note in the "class" column that they can also be regular. --Doric Loon 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)