Does irregularity indicate something about antiquity?
In answer to a question on the Latin site, Are magister and majesty etymologocially related, one answer stated :
Of course, magis and maior are not regularly formed, and hence we need to look further back to trace their common ancestry
Is it the case (in English) that any irregular verb or noun is necessarily one that has a long ancestry and therefore has an etymology that needs to be traced further back than itself if one is seeking the real root of its meaning and usage ?
etymology irregular irregular-verbs
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
add a comment |
In answer to a question on the Latin site, Are magister and majesty etymologocially related, one answer stated :
Of course, magis and maior are not regularly formed, and hence we need to look further back to trace their common ancestry
Is it the case (in English) that any irregular verb or noun is necessarily one that has a long ancestry and therefore has an etymology that needs to be traced further back than itself if one is seeking the real root of its meaning and usage ?
etymology irregular irregular-verbs
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
2
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
2
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
add a comment |
In answer to a question on the Latin site, Are magister and majesty etymologocially related, one answer stated :
Of course, magis and maior are not regularly formed, and hence we need to look further back to trace their common ancestry
Is it the case (in English) that any irregular verb or noun is necessarily one that has a long ancestry and therefore has an etymology that needs to be traced further back than itself if one is seeking the real root of its meaning and usage ?
etymology irregular irregular-verbs
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
In answer to a question on the Latin site, Are magister and majesty etymologocially related, one answer stated :
Of course, magis and maior are not regularly formed, and hence we need to look further back to trace their common ancestry
Is it the case (in English) that any irregular verb or noun is necessarily one that has a long ancestry and therefore has an etymology that needs to be traced further back than itself if one is seeking the real root of its meaning and usage ?
etymology irregular irregular-verbs
etymology irregular irregular-verbs
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
edited 7 hours ago
Nigel J
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
asked 8 hours ago
Nigel JNigel J
17.2k94584
17.2k94584
2
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
2
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
2
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
2
2
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
2
2
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485587%2fdoes-irregularity-indicate-something-about-antiquity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485587%2fdoes-irregularity-indicate-something-about-antiquity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Interesting, but probably “too broad”.
– user240918
7 hours ago
2
Not necessarily, no. The past tense form dove (to dive) is quite recent, formed analogically to verbs like drive/drove, so that doesn’t need to be traced back very far. But in general, yes. Regular patterns change over time, and when they do, anything that doesn’t change along with them ends up being irregular – today’s regular is tomorrow’s irregular. So most commonly, if you have an irregular form, etymology has to explain not just the root of a word, but several individual forms. (Did you mean “long ancestry” instead of “short ancestry”?)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
7 hours ago
@user240918 Yes, you are probably right. I didn't think to confine it to an example. Point taken.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes. I got muddled, there. Edited to correct. Thanks.
– Nigel J
7 hours ago