Comments on: Rate of regularizing English verbs http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/01/rate-of-regularizing-english-verbs/ The blog of John D. Cook Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:42:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Word frequencies in human and computer languages — The Endeavour http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/01/rate-of-regularizing-english-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-83068 Word frequencies in human and computer languages — The Endeavour Fri, 20 May 2011 13:26:41 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=768#comment-83068 [...] and xylophones part II: learning Spanish Rate of regularizing English verbs Four reasons we don’t apply the 80-20 rule R, the good parts ? [...] [...] and xylophones part II: learning Spanish Rate of regularizing English verbs Four reasons we don’t apply the 80-20 rule R, the good parts ? [...]

]]> By: StackOverflow reputation statistics — The Endeavour http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/01/rate-of-regularizing-english-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-14006 StackOverflow reputation statistics — The Endeavour Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:12:09 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=768#comment-14006 [...] and power laws Rate of regularizing English verbs ? [...] [...] and power laws Rate of regularizing English verbs ? [...]

]]> By: Stephen Walker http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/01/rate-of-regularizing-english-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-9045 Stephen Walker Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:35:49 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=768#comment-9045 I'm skeptical of what Lieberman has to say, and would like to see the data. The key word in that article is "about." Given the function of irregular forms in language, I doubt there's much mathematical precision in terms of when or even if an irregular form should get regularized. I suspect that some irregular forms are immune from the process -- the value of having an irregular past tense is simply too great for the language to permit it to be lost for common verbs. This value of irregular forms seems to have completely escaped Lieberman's attention. He seems to view them merely as relics that survive through sheer repetition. Languages operate more like market forces or evolutionary theory in dropping less useful appendages and adapting and developing items from contact with other languages. For example, high school grammar teachers are powerless to dissuade newer generations from using newer ways of speaking that reflect the latest linguistic changes. It's like building dikes around New Orleans. Languages are constantly changing and they're not pack rats -- they don't keep useless things. There's a reason why English has such an extensive vocabulary, such as why we have "ruminate," "ponder," "consider" and "think." If something is useless, it disappears. If something new is needed, it can be created from within the language or borrowed from another. The irregular verb forms enhance listening comprehension, but we can only afford to use them with the most common verbs. I’m skeptical of what Lieberman has to say, and would like to see the data. The key word in that article is “about.” Given the function of irregular forms in language, I doubt there’s much mathematical precision in terms of when or even if an irregular form should get regularized. I suspect that some irregular forms are immune from the process — the value of having an irregular past tense is simply too great for the language to permit it to be lost for common verbs.

This value of irregular forms seems to have completely escaped Lieberman’s attention. He seems to view them merely as relics that survive through sheer repetition. Languages operate more like market forces or evolutionary theory in dropping less useful appendages and adapting and developing items from contact with other languages. For example, high school grammar teachers are powerless to dissuade newer generations from using newer ways of speaking that reflect the latest linguistic changes. It’s like building dikes around New Orleans. Languages are constantly changing and they’re not pack rats — they don’t keep useless things. There’s a reason why English has such an extensive vocabulary, such as why we have “ruminate,” “ponder,” “consider” and “think.” If something is useless, it disappears. If something new is needed, it can be created from within the language or borrowed from another. The irregular verb forms enhance listening comprehension, but we can only afford to use them with the most common verbs.

]]>