Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!jmrobson
From: jmrobson@watdaisy.UUCP (Mike Robson)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Any new irregular verbs?
Message-ID: <6583@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-May-84 16:13:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6583
Posted: Tue May 22 16:13:27 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 23-May-84 19:17:32 EDT
References: <49700001@hpfcra.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22

[Please do not read this line]

	The question of whether verbs tend over time to become regular or
the opposite can presumably be answered by reference to one of the languages
for which we have written records going back far enough (e.g. Greek or
Latin/Italian).  It is apparently a very slow process since the lists of
irregular or strong verbs in modern English and German are very similar
after rather more than a millenium of separation.  I haven't got a German
dictionary or grammar handy but after racking my brain a bit the only
likely candidate that I can think of is "shit" which is regular in English
(in my dictionary at least; I had to look it up because I don't use the past
tense very often) but I think "scheissen" is strong.  Any German speakers
please confirm and comment on status in Old High German or whatever.

	On further reflection, a more interesting example might be
"scribe/schreiben".  It seems plausible at least that this word lapsed from
being irregular to being regular as a consequence of ceasing to be common
enough to be irregular, when it dropped out of being the normal word for
"write".  Alternatively perhaps the opposite happened in German?  It is 
clear that we need the OED on line to find quick answers to questions like
this.
		Mike Robson  (past participle  Muck Rebson)