USAGE: Re: Grammar Evolution and Exceptions

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

ObConlang: Is there any morphological or other irregularity in my
conlang? No.

John Cowan:
> > > "Dived" is the original form.  "Dove", though still reckoned as
> > > non-standard, has become increasingly common through analogy. This
> > > is one of the rare analogical changes from the weak to the strong
> > > conjugation of verbs in modern times.
> >
> > Are they so rare? I think of SNUCK, THUNK, SHAT, TWUG.
>
> Rare in near-standard English, I meant.  (Listfolk say DOVE is
> now standard.)

I have - in error, I discover from you - been teaching my students
that _dived_ is a modern regularization of older irregular _dove_.
Certainly that scenario is more compatible with the dialectal
situation apparent among my students (_dove_ found only among older &
less standard speakers).

> Is SHAT really an innovation?  I always assumed it was original
> (documentation on this verb is a bit hard to find, probably).

I think I checked that one out once. I'd been teaching that _shat_
was the original preterite form & then discovered it was created by
analogy.

> I don't know TWUG, but SWOLE appears in older books about nonstandard
> American --- it sounds archaic to me now.

TWUG is my favourite: it's the preterite form of TWIG = "cotton on
to; suss". I presume it's a relatively young word, so the irregular
pret must also be relatively young.

--And.