Talk:Regular and irregular verbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Irregular verb)
Jump to: navigation, search

Merged from Talk:Irregular verb[edit]


I rather doubt the assertion that Latin has more than 900 irregular verbs. The irregular verbs in Latin AFAIK are esse and its derivatives, posse, dare, êsse, ferre and its derivatives, velle and its derivatives, fieri, and ire and its derivatives.

It's true that Latin has many verbs whose principal parts must be learned separately, and cannot be derived from a single basic form. Almost all of the verbs outside the first conjugation are like this. You have to know, for example, that spopondi is the perfect stem of spondere, and that the past participle is sponsum. But once you have that data, the entire sequence can be reconstructed from it by rule; it is not "irregular". This strikes me more as a matter of lexicon than a matter of irregular verbs. If these make irregular verbs in Latin, how many more do Greek and Sanskrit have, where again you have the problem of not knowing what derivational suffixes go with what roots, which ones reduplicate, which ones take the augment, and so forth. Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I took tht number from the article in the German-language Wikipedia. I don't have much knowledge of Latin, myself, only of modern Romance languages. Smerdis, you sound like you know whereof you speak. Could you edit the article accordingly, including a more thorough exposition of the issues you raise in the comment you just made. -- Jmabel 17:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Ire" is only considered an irregular verb more recently; it's only "irregularity" is the 1st person singular "eo" and the fact that its derivatives have "-ii" in the perfect tense instead of "ivi", which is a regular form. Truly it's about as irregular as "spondere". ~finlay, about midnight on Fri 21st May 2004 UTC
I also think it's a bit hypocritical perhaps that the very verbs that require extra learning for the lexicon in English are considered irregular, yet the equivalents in Latin, which require three lexical stems as opposed to one, are not considered irregular. --Finlay 10:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Irregularity has to be determined within a language, rather than by comparison to other languages, I think. There are dozens of Spanish verbs that might become irregular because Spanish spellings require changes to the appearance of their roots; these are rule-bound, however, and can be reconstructed by rule among those familiar with Spanish spelling. If we counted these, the number of irregular verbs would be substantially boosted there as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spanish has no irregular verbs in spelling. It has phonetic spelling. For example from recoger, recojo, there is no irregularity in spelling. Or from secar, sequé. Same for empezar, empecé. I deleted this sentence: "(Spanish, for example, has scores of [irregular verbs in spelling only])." (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Irregular auxiliary verbs in Japanese[edit]

What are the two irregular auxiliary verbs in Japanese that the table mentions? -- pne 09:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Presumably kuru and suru. VV 08:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
kureru has an irregular imperative form, kure, used especially in auxilary situations. aru has the irregular negative form nai, and again has many auxilary uses. (Although in Osaka dialect arahen is regular according to the rules of the dialect.) The five honorific verbs (irassharu, ossharu, kudasaru, gozaru, nasaru) are arguably irregular, but all conjugate similarly. Some of the single kanji + suru verbs like aisuru are slightly irregular, conjugating in some forms as though based off of aisu. For example, aiseru is used for the potential instead of ai-dekiru. Finally, shinu is arguably irregular, as it (along with verbs formed from another verb stem + shinu) is the only n-stem verb, but it conjugates in a very regular manner like other consonant-stem verbs. -- John Thacker 1 March 2005


Why were the English modals all removed from the list? VV 08:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This has even been observed in languages constructed to not have exceptions. The few people who are native speakers of Esperanto have, after only one generation, been observed to use contractions that have created a group of irregular verbs.

Could we have a citation for this, please? - Montréalais 22:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I bet they say tas for estas. Chameleon 22:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
'kay, but do they say something other than "tis, tos, tus, tu," etc? or do they just use the uncontracted forms? neither case would really be what's commonly thought of as an irregular verb. - Montréalais 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If they only do it in the present, that would make an irregular verb. Chameleon 01:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


And now I see someone has deleted the number for Spanish (23), arguing that it is way too low. Of course, it's all a matter of how irregular a verb has to be to be considered irregular: Spanish has a lot of slightly irregular verbs, often groupning into patterns that constitute a sort of secondary regularity.
I just counted the number of verbs included in the list of irregular and defective verbs in the Gramática de la Lengua Española de Emilio Alarcos Llorach, (1994) Real Academia Española, ISBN 84-239-7840-0 and he listed 615 irregular and defective verbs. I may be wrong in my counting a very few more or less, but Torrego, in his Gramática didáctica del español ISBN 84-348-5440-6 , also lists around 600 irregular verbs (honestly, I didn't count the list of Torrego so accurately as the other one). But, even when they both listed that amount of irregular verbs, as much as I have read, neither of them dare to assume and declare an exact number of irregular verbs in Spanish. Actually, I realized that both lists do not have exactly the same verbs. Besides, Torrego divides the Spanish verbs in 57 different conjugations, three of them regular, while Alarcos divides them into groups and subgroups depending on the kind of irregularities the verb have (phonological, graphic, accents, vocal deletion, irregularities on the root of the verb, especial irregularities (ser, estar e ir) and defective verbs. --Javier Carro 13:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I created this section and moved comments from the English section below to it because these comments don't seem to relate to English. DBlomgren (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


"English has 283 irregular verbs". Really? Where did we get this figure? It's spuriously accurate. You can't possibly give a figure because (1) many verbs have both regular and irregular forms, (2) some verbs are regular in one dialect (British or American) and irregular in the other, (3) some verbs have forms which are irregular but archaic, while other, now normally irregular verbs have archaic regular variants, (4) do you count "redo" as irregular, and if so, where do you stop? I noticed that our list of irregular verbs contains "redo" and several other "re-" words, but it by no means includes all of the "re-" and "mis-" irregulars which actually exist in the language. Basically, you simply can't give a figure. (unsigned)

The history shows that I'm responsible for bringing this factoid over from the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia. While their scholarly standards are generally a notch up from the English-language, in this case it looks like they had no citation at all. It looks like it was in the initial version of the article, created by de:Benutzer:4tilden, a rathre active user. That would probably be the best person to ask for a source. I agree that the number suggests precision beyond any possible accuracy, but if it comes from a decent source, it's still worth something if a citation is added as to whose estimate it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone get some numbers from citable sources? The actual number of irregular verbs in a language is, inevitably, controversial, but the number counted by a particular linguist with a particular methodology is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:55, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
In his book Words and Rules, Steven Pinker reports 150 to 180 irregular verbs exist in modern English, "depending on how you count". -- Schaefer 20:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

| Wikitionary lists 303 irregular verbs. Also, why is this list mentioned, these numbers are very, very soft. -- User:jimktrains 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've accumulated a list of 423 irregular English verbs, counting:

  • 171 normal, everyday verbs
  • 189 compounds (from the common "forget" to the uncommon "gainsay")
  • 8 archaic verbs (I prefer not to include them but I've come across some that pop up on various lists in English books and on-line lists - from "bedight" to "rap" [rapt/rapt].)
  • 15 British verbs that are regular in American English
  • 33 uncommon verbs - verbs that aren't archaic but are so rare that I don't ask my ESL students to learn them (from abide to zinc)
  • 7 defective verbs, including modals and "daresay", which I daresay you all didn't know was only used in the present first person singular.

So I tell my students that there are over 400 irregular verbs in English, but only about 170 that they need to worry about.

I would like to request that we leave out archaic verbs from these lists so that English learners don't think they are common and should learn them. Instead, I recommend that there be a separate list of archaic verbs, a term that of course needs to be defined. DBlomgren (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

English has over 470 irregular verbs. <Go to this link if you want to see the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Irregular verbs borrowed into English[edit]

The article says "All English irregular verbs are native, originating in Old English. ... All loanwords from foreign languages are regular." I believe "shrive" is an exception, sort of - it's a borrowing from Latin scribere, but was already borrowed into Old English. Reuben 21:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"sneak" looks as if it originated in Old English but the irregular "snuck" started in the 19th century. [1]. So I don't know if this is an exceprtion to the rule. Thincat 09:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dude. That is SO not funny. Matt Yeager 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Perceivedly Finnish may have irregular verbs, but the underlying consonant assimilation pattern is used also elsewhere, such as to produce the potential mood, e.g. tul+ne+ntullen cf. ol+taolla. Only the third person on "is" is irregular. Tehdä and nähdä are not irregular, the -h- is simply elided. --Vuo 8 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

sui generis[edit]

WTF is "sui generis"? This quite possibly ranks as the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. What in the world is an obscure Latin (right?) term doing in an introduction in the English Wikipedia? I'm taking it out. If anyone objects, put it back with a translation (or, just the translated phrase). --Matt Yeager 01:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


The table says there are 11 irregular verbs in Welsh. What are they? bod, gwneud, mynd, dod, cael… what are the other six? It would be good to have this information in the table. 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

...or to have it in the Welsh language article, or one linked from there. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that it includes the -bod compounds like gwybod, adnabod, and others that have additional inflected tenses or otherwise partial stem changes like the ones seen in bod. I'll add a few things about them at Welsh morphology. Strad 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Minister[edit]

The passage on Yes Minister seems only marginally relevant, and not written in a way that readily explains that relevance to someone not already familiar with the joke (especially because the example here isn't really a verb, it's a predicate). If someone can clean this up (and cite for it), great. Otherwise, it should be gone. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been 5 days. No response. I have cut it. Here is the material, if someone wants to rework it:

Yes, Minister
The phrase "irregular verb" was a running joke in the BBC television series, Yes Minister, that has entered popular culture. The phrase referred to an expression that changed from positive to negative connotation based on who was the reference of the verb.
A common example of an "irregular verb" in this context is:
I have an independent mind.
You are an eccentric.
He is round the twist.

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Irregular Verbs in Afrikaans[edit]

I disagree with the statement that there are only two irregular verbs in Afrikaans. I am aware of at least 4 irregular verbs in Afrikaans: wees (Pres. is, Pret. was, P.Part. gewees); hê (Pres. het, Pret. had, P.Part. gehad); weet (Pres. weet, Pret. wis, P.Part. geweet); and dink (Pres. dink, Pret. dag, P.Part gedag or gedog). In addition, the 4 Germanic modal verbs also have irregular preterite forms in Afrikaans (kan/kon, moet/moes, sal/sou, wil/wou). Finally, it should be mentioned that, although the irregular past participle forms of common strong German verbs are no longer used in modern Afrikaans, they are retained however when those participles are used as adjectives, for example, "ek het 'n brief geskryf" (I have written/wrote a letter), but "'n geskrewe brief" ("a written letter"). 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Afrikaans verbs have two past participle forms. The first is the standard form is regular and can be used as part of a full verb or as an adjective.
For example: was gebreek (was broken), gebreekte koppies (broken cups)
There can also be a second, irregular form is used when the past participle functions as an adjective, but figuratively rather than literally, or in some fixed phrases.
For example: gebroke hart (broken heart)
There are quite a few of these, for example:-
Standard Afrikaans form English Alternate Afrikaans form English
aangeneem(de) taken on aangenome kinders adopted children
begin began begonne taak begun task
beskryf(de) described beskrewe wette written laws
betrek involved betrokke lug overcast sky
gebind tied gebonde lewe restricted life
gebreek(te) broken gebroke hart broken heart
gebuig(te) bent geboë hoof bowed head
gedoen done gedane saak done deed
gedwing forced gedwonge rus forced rest
geskryf written geskrewe teks written text
gesterf died die gestorwe the deceased
gevries frozen bevrore vleis frozen meat
oogetrek(te) covered oortrokke rekening overdrawn account
verbied forbade verbode toegang no admission
verdink suspected verdagte dief suspected thief
verbind bandaged verbonde wond bandaged wound

Booshank (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of Irregular Verbs in Italian and Spanish[edit]

The number of irregular verbs mentioned in the table for the Romance languages looks suspicious to me. It is well-known that Italian and French have more irregular verbs than, let's say Spanish and Portuguese, but does Italian really have 10 times more irregular verbs than Spanish ? Incidentally, the number of true irregular verbs in Spanish is probably less than 46.

  • In Portuguese (which is quite similar to Spanish), there are AFAIK only 16 major irregular verbs which, together with their more numerous compounds, are either anomalous or at least show stem changes in their preterite/pluperfect/past subjunctive/future subjunctive forms. There are also perhaps some 20 or so additional model verbs that have either irregular (i.e. unpredictible) stem changes or irregular conjugation in the present tense only (e.g "perco"/"perde", "meço"/"mede", "saio/sai/saem" "fujo"/"foge","subo"/"sobe", "leio"/"lê", "peço/"pede", "ouço"/"ouve", "odeio/odiamos", "ceio/ceamos", "destruo"/"destrói", "agrido/agride/agredimos", and so on). There is however a somewhat wider class of Portuguese verbs with irregular past participle forms (e.g. "preso", "aceso", "eleito", "morto","entregue", "impresso", "suspenso", and so on). However, with only a few exceptions like e.g. "dito", "feito", "aberto", "coberto", "visto", "escrito", "posto", all remaining irregular past participles are used only in passive voice constructions (e.g. "foi preso" x "tinha prendido") or when nominalized as adjectives (see comments on Afrikaans above). 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it all depends...on how you count verbs, and on what you count as irregular. Do tener, detener, obtener, contener etc. count as one irregular verb (they all contain--no pun--'tener', and conjugate exactly like the bare verb tener)? (These are perhaps what you mean by 'compounds' in Portuguese.)
As for whether any given verb is irregular, that also is open to dispute. Basically, the issue is whether you count some set of verbs that conjugate all in the same way, as another (perhaps small) conjugation class, or as a set of irregular verbs.
For example, Spanish has a verb buscar; the root is always phonemically /busk/, but that is spelled 'busc' when it comes before a back vowel, and 'busque' when it comes before a front vowel. Is that an irregularity? It's completely predictable, but it's also listed in the U of Chicago dictionary as irregular.
Or take the diphthongizing verbs, like dormir. The 'o' changes to 'ue' (and this is a change in the pronunciation, not just the spelling) when it is stressed. Stress on verbs is predictable. So are verbs like this irregular, or just a small conjugation class? Traditionally, it's treated as the former (possibly because the conjugation classes are traditionally based on the suffixes, not on stem changes).
I think the summary of this is, there is no clear and universally agreed-on definition of what counts for irregularity. And therefore there can be no such thing as a clear and agreed-on number of irregular verbs (or nouns, or adjectives etc.) in any language (unless it's zero). This is somewhat reflected in the disclaimer at the top of the table, but some of the counts (924) belie this. 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
U of Chicago dictionary is wrong. Spanish has no irregular verbs in spelling. It has phonetic spelling. For example from recoger, recojo, there is no irregularity in spelling. Or from buscar, busqué. Same for empezar, empecé. I deleted this sentence: "(Spanish, for example, has scores of [irregular verbs in spelling only])." Note that dormir is irregular. (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Irregular verbs in Turkish[edit]

Could someone who has the knowledge please post an opinion on whether there actually are any irregular verbs in Turkish or not? Some people who study the language told me that there was one such a verb - "olmak" = "to be" - so I am puzzled about this. Google gives pages for both possibilities, though mentions of no irregular verbs in the language are more frequent there. Plus, the Guiness Book of records mentions Esperanto as the only language with no irregular verbs, which would make it impossible for Turkish to have no irregular verb as well (though I think the Guiness-entry may easily be challenged). Blahma 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no irregular verbs in Turkish. "Olmak" is also conjugated regular. For simle past tense:

"Oldum, Oldun, Oldu, Olduk, Oldunuz, Oldular"

There are other "endings" for "am, is, are"(in English) in Turkish and they are not considered as "to be" verb. Ajda 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They say i ıs irregular, not because it is conjugated irregularly but because it can be merged into a noun. Consider the example;

Büyüktüm - Büyük idim Büyüktün - Büyük idin Büyüktü - Büyük idi

so on so on. i ıs the only such verb, a special oneç please note that in simple past it is not possible segregate i (Büyüğüm - Büyük im?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually "Büyüğüm" is regular because it is in the form of "Büyük -üm" where ğ to k is consonant mutation which is regular and i to ü is vowel mutation which has to be happen to provide vowel harmony in the word. So i is actually regular because changes of the letter is because of vowel harmony and this is one of the biggest rules of Turkish. Every Turkish word has to obey the rule of vowel harmony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Olmak" can be considered as an irregular verb. The simple present tense form of "olmak" is "ol-ur" instead of "ol-ar", which is the regular form of simple present tense. There are 13 such verbs in Turkish: al-ır, bul-ur, bil-ir, dur-ur, gel-ir, gör-ür, kal-ır, ol-ur, öl-ür, san-ır, var-ır, ver-ir, vur-ur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the list of 13 verbs mentioned above, there are verbs like "etmek", which conjugate to "ederim" (the t changes to d), whereas "satmak" conjugates to "satarım" (the t remains t). "gitmek", "tatmak" and "gütmek" conjugate like etmek, as well as verbs like "affetmek", which are derived from "etmek". Also, I think "yemek" has an irregular imperative ye/yiyin/yiyiniz. Auximines (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Punning irregular verbs[edit]

Some reference to this humorous group should be made - the most well known example is 'I am firm, you are obstinate, he/she is as stubborn as a mule' - ie positive and two increasingly negative terms. Jackiespeel 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

350 irregular verbs in Dutch?![edit]

There aren't that many irregular verbs in Dutch. Most strong verbs follow predictable patterns in their vowel changes. As there seem to be rules for this, I don't think you can say they are irregular.

I got this list of patterns from the ANS (Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst), which mentions them (though I've removed the lists of verbs from in between the patterns).

1     ij      ee   ee    ee
2     ei      ee   ee    ee
3     ie      oo   oo    oo
4     ui      oo   oo    oo
5     ee      oo   oo    oo
6     i       o    o     o
7     e       o    o     o
8     aa      oe   oe    aa
9     aa      ie   ie    aa
10    a       ie   ie    a
11    a       i    i     a
12    oo      ie   ie    oo
13    o       e    e     o
14    oe      ie   ie    oe
15    ouw     ieuw ieuw  ouw
16    uu      oo   oo    oo
17    ij      oo   oo    oo
18    e       ie   ie    o
19    e       ie   ie    aa
20    ee      oe   oe    oo
21    ee      a    aa    ee
22    ee      a    aa    oo
23    i       a    aa    ee

The ANS also lists the verbs that do not follow these patterns, but of these there are only 55 (unless I've miscounted, but it won't be far off) instead of the claimed 350.

French irregular verbs[edit]

As I understand from French, there are about 66 families of irregular verbs, and there are 13 ways to conjugate regular verbs in -er, and one way for the usual -ir. On top of that, there are more than 50 verbs that doesn't fit anywhere. It appears to me the total of 81 irregular verbs is far from the truth, half of all verbs appear to be irregular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souris2005 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (Holy Crap! Would the person posting about grammatical structure LEARN grammatical structure!! -L.S.)

Proposal to delete numbers section[edit]

The section of this article containing the table of numbers of irregular verbs is unhelpful and misleading, it is unsourced and never can be sourced, and it is original research conducted without a proper research methodology. I propose the whole section be deleted. Given that irregularity means quite different things in different languages, I doubt that there are meaningful comparisons to be made here, except within limited subgroups (e.g. comparing German with Dutch, where the phenomena bear comparison). All the figures conceal underlying subjective choices, like whether a French -re verb is irregular or whether you are looking at British or American English (dived/dove) or whether buk as the past tense of German backen is archaic. Besides which, I'm not sure that an exact number is worth having in any case. OK, it's 276 - so what? I suppose if some linguist could be found who has attempted to do this on a proper scientific basis, his results could be included, but I doubt if this has ever been done because it is kind of a sensationalist approach to thinking about language and I doubt real linguists would be particularly interested in it. So let's just get rid of it. In its place, you could write up a properly thought-out description of irregularity in some of the languages, and if what you want is a general impression of which languages tolerate larger numbers of irregular verbs, that could be indicated without the pretense of absolute numbers. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, since the proposal has gone unchallenged for a fortnight, I hereby delete the section. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Humorous "irregular verbs"[edit]

Would it be appropriate to have a few words about the humorous "irregular verbs"? Of the sort, "I am a gourmet, you are a gourmand, he is a pig", "I am casual, you are messy, he is a slob"? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk[edit]

I don't remember ever making a personal comment in a talk page before, but the person who wrote the "Yes Minister", "Punning Irregular Verbs" and "Humorous Irregular Verbs" comments (and I am guessing that they are all from the same person) doesn't seem to have a clue what he/she is talking about and perhaps could stop adding these comments. (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the other two comments making the same suggestion that I did - some 4 years earlier. I can understand that someone would not think much of this form of humor. But it does seem to be as significant as "knock knock" jokes or shaggy dog stories, which have treatments in Wikipedia. But if there isn't any interest in it, I have no intent on pushing for it. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to belabor a point, but the examples you give have nothing to do with irregular verbs. (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
TomS, you are quite right that different sorts of jokes are encyclpedic. But it really doesn't belong here. Perhaps you could look at some of the existing articles on humour and see where it can be written up. If you do that, I would see no objection to having a "see also" comment at the bottom of this page pointing to it. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC), everyone is entitled to talk. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your point. But I will note that I am not the one to write up anything about it. I don't have any reliable sources to cite, just to mention one thing. In fact, I came to Wikipedia looking for information about this kind of joke. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


It's proposed to merge regular verb and irregular verb into a single article. Please see Talk:Regular verb. Victor Yus (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to this? If not, I'm ready to go ahead - please see the other talk page. Victor Yus (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged from Talk:Regular verb[edit]

example words of participle of regular verbs

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you requesting something? The article already gives an example of this for English ("talked"). --Doric Loon 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

use of the verb comprise[edit]

I need to understand that, can the verb "comrpise" be followed by the preposition "of" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

This is a question of verb valancy. To my mind, comprise must have a direct object, though the passive to be comprised of does have a preposition. But people do use such things in a variety of ways. --Doric Loon 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)i realy want some of the example of regular verrb iam qaisar from bnuner and i have dificalty in understanding the ir regular verb


I´m brasiliam and I´m doing level intermediate and I would like to know if have a complete list of the irregular verbs...

Yup. List of English irregular verbs --Doric Loon 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I say don't. They are two entirely different things, and as such, require two entirely different articles. Jmlk17 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Undecided. Since regular and irregular define themselves with reference to each other, a single article would make sense if it is managable, but we would want two articles if we have so much to say about each that separate discussions would be meaningful. The problem is that at present these two overlap, and in particular there is quite a lot of material on irregular verbs in this Regular Verb article. That suggests that we are not keeping these separate anyway. I suggest we first rationalise the two articles, and we may find the Regular Verb article is reduced to a stub which should be merged. --Doric Loon 05:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The result of the merge would be Regular and irregular verb (like Even and odd functions is the unique article for even functions and odd functions). 16@r 10:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

HA3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(Some years later) I think such a merge would be a good idea. It's the same subject - nearly everything we say in one article also belongs in the other. The description of regular verbs in English (or in any other language we might decide to include) belongs at English verbs or the grammar pages for the specific language. Victor Yus (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've set up the merged article Regular and irregular verbs. It still needs quite a bit of work, but that's true anyway of both of the current separate articles. Before embarking, I'd like to see if there are any objections to the principle of combining the articles. The rationale for doing so is contained in my comment immediately above. Victor Yus (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to go ahead with this. All the information is preserved at the target page (it will be rewritten somewhat by way of cleanup). Transferring the contents of this talk page as well. Victor Yus (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)