Re: Natural language with the MOST irregular verbs?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Sebastian Hew wrote:
> >
> > J. W. Love wrote:
> > > Sebastian wrote:
> > >
> > > > By this definition, THINK is weak, since its preterite
> > > > and past participle THOUGHT are formed with the
> > > > dental suffix -t.
> > >
> > > But a weak THINK would generate THINKT.
> > >
> > > For "strong," see the ninth edition of MWCD, definition 16: "of,
> > > relating to, or constituting a verb or verb conjugation that forms
> > > the past tense by a CHANGE IN THE ROOT VOWEL and the past
> > > participle usu. by the addition of no suffix or a suffix
> > > containing _n_ with or without change of the root vowel"
> > > (emphasis added).
> >
> > Yes... I admit that I was wrong in my interpretation of the MW
> > definition, but I still submit that it is confusing to define the
> > terms this way when the standard definition in Germanic philology
> > (which is where the terms came from in the first place) differs.
>
> So in Sebastian-world, etymology is a guide to meaning? Silly knave!

That was completely uncalled for. The etymology is not in question. The
point is that English is a Germanic language, and a standard meaning of
the terms apply for Germanic languages. To redefine the terms
specifically for English means that the term may be used in two subtly
different way, and since both would occur in the same context (i.e.,
pertaining to verbs) there is no way to disambiguate them without some
sort of a priori knowledge. Why use confuse the terms weak/strong in
this manner? Surely some other pair of words could have been chosen.

If the terms weak/strong were used for Japanese (as indeed they have
been), I would have no problem, because Japanese is not a Germanic
language, and it is clear that the definition whereby 'a strong verb
exhibits vowel gradation according to one of the Germanic ablaut series'
does not apply. However, English is a Germanic language, so the standard
Germanic definition could potentially apply, in addition to the
English-specific one (of which I was hitherto unaware). Indeed, from
what I can gather, several other posters in this thread have
automatically assumed the standard Germanic classification whereby THINK
is weak.

Sebastian.