English grammar exceptions

Question

how could i know the exceptions of english grammar

Woodward · Accepted Answer

English grammar seems to be full of exceptions more than rules.
This is a vast topic that could easily fill a book (or two).
Where would you like to start?
Plurals, past tense, present tense, gerunds, infintives, articles...

Kitkattail · Answer

Yes, there really is no way to "figure out" where there will be exceptions. You just have to learn them gradually. There's no other way.
Speaking of exceptions, a language teacher of mine once pointed out that verbs like "to be" and "to have" are irregular in many languages. He suggested that this was because verbs that are used so frequently are more prone to being changed around over the years. Kind of like erosion, in a way, you know?
Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting point.

Moijelesuis · Answer

and then there is esperanto, which theoretically has no exceptions...

kitkat is right, things were eroding along nicely, languages were melding together, then gutenburg & co. came along with their silly machine and things started to fossilize, for lack of a better term. so blame them, if you wish...

Mike in Japan · Answer

Surely you just jest! Could the Luddites have really helped facilitate the melding of languages?

Pemmican · Answer

>>He suggested that this was because verbs that are used so frequently are more prone to being changed around over the years. Kind of like erosion, in a way, you know?

>kitkat is right, things were eroding along nicely, languages were melding together, then gutenburg & co. came along with their silly machine and things started to fossilize, for lack of a better term. so blame them, if you wish...

Oh oh oh...
Actually, it's just the other way round:
Language always has the tendency to become more and more simple!
Strong verbs e.g. often tend to become weak ones like
dream - dreamt - dreamt --> dreamed - dreamed
clothe - clad - clad --> clothed - clothed
work - wrought - wrought --> worked - worked
chide - chid - chidden --> chided - chided
...

The reason why "to be" is so irregular is because it is so frequently used that there's hardly a possibility of becoming weak!
Also, "to be" consists of actually 3 different stems, i.e. 3 different verbs expressing "to be":
One of them is the radical "buhu" (only present tense and past participle), kept in the forms: be and been
The 2nd radical is "esse" (only present tense), kept in the form: is
The 3rd one is "wesan", kept in the forms: are, was, were
(I don't really know, where the form "am" is derived from, but I guess it's a form of "wesan", too)

These three words have already been messed up long time ago and the lapse of dispensable forms led to one complete paradigm for the verb "to be", while before this, there were 3 verbs (including 2 defective ones) available with the same meaning.
This fusion simplified the verb(s) "to be" but it still is very irregular because it is very frequently used on the one hand, and on the other hand it is quite impossible to put forms of 3 different words in one "regular" paradigm.

Woodward · Answer

Interesting information Pemmican.

Pemmican · Answer

Hi there!

If someone is still interested in the irregular forms of "to be", I looked up the word again in an Etymological Dictionary.
Unfortunately, I only have a German Etymological Dictionary so it gives more German information while less English, but both languages are Germanic languages though, so it's not totally useless and I thought this might be interesting to know:

abbrevations:
* = this form is not bequeathed but has been concluded
OHG = Old-High-German
MHG = Middle-High-German
NHG = New-High-German (current German)
ps-sing = person singular
ps-pl = person plural

Ok, here we go:

"to be" (German: sein)

Germanic radical stems with the same meanings are:

1) BE

is already a mixed form from 2 different radicals:
a) Indo-Germanic: *bheou (-> belongs to West Germanic: *biu) and
b) Indo-Germanic: *esmi (-> belongs to Indo-Germanic: *im(m), Gothic: im)

related to Latin: fio "I become, I will be", fui "I've been";
Greek: phýo, Old-Indian: bhu "to become"
Old-Irish: biu "I use to be".

Anglo-Saxon: béo(m) "I am, I become"
equal to MHG, OHG: bin, older OHG: bim "I am"

2) ES: -S

Anglo-Saxon, English 3rd ps-sing: is
Anglo-Saxon 3rd ps-pl: sind

-> Gothic 3rd ps-sing: ist, plural: sind
OHG, MHG, NHG 3rd ps-sing: ist
OHG, MHG 3rd ps-pl: sint
NHG 3rd ps-pl: sind
Infinitive OHG, MHG: sîn, NHD: sein

equal to the Indo-Germanic radical *es
in Latin: esr, Greek: esti, Old-Indian: ásti
Latin: sunt, sim

3) WESAN

today kept in the past forms: was/were
(German: war, warst/ waren, wart and past participle: gewesen)
OHG, Anglo-Saxon: wesan, MHG: wesen "to be"
-> leads back to the Germanic radical *wes.

The current English forms of "to be" are according to this, derived from actually 4 different verbs, all meaning "to be":

be, been ------> derived from 1a: *bheou
is --------------> derived from 2: *es
was -----------> derived from 3: wesan
were ----------> derived from 3: wesan
am seems to be derived from 1b: *esmi (see similarity to Gothic: im)

Even it seems evident to me now, "am" is derived from a form of "to be", I'm not quite sure about where the form "are" is from. Maybe also a form of *esmi, but it could also be a form of wesan though.
Maybe anyone of you has an English Etymological Dictionary and can look it up? Certainly, a more English focused definition is given.

I hope this wasn't too confusing - and actually it's not important to know either, but maybe it can enlighten some difficulties...

Take care

Pemmican · Answer

Btw: It was possible to use forms of "to be" interchangeable in the Middle Ages in German, in Middle-High-German e.g., you could choose between these forms:

[]= form that is used today

Present:
ich bin, wise ...............................................I am [ich bin]
dû bist, wisest ........................................you are [du bist]
er ist, wiset ................................................he is [er ist]
wir birn, sîn, wesen ..................................we are [wir sind]
ir birt, sît, weset .....................................you are [ihr seid]
si sint, wesent .......................................they are [sie sind]

Infinitives: sîn, wesen .................................to be [sein]

Imperatives: bis!, sî!, wis! ..............................be! [sei!]

Ok, and now I'll finish this or I think I'll be kicked when I go on telling you all this unimportant stuff... ***
Cya later

Mike in Japan · Answer

Ah, so we don't blame the French for THIS one!!
Thanks for the great info Pemmican

Pemmican · Answer

Oh, have I discovered a hidden disfavor for French or why do you want to blame the French for this... ***
Actually, they share the same problem: the French form of be is as irregular as in English:

Infinitive: être
present participle: étant
past participle: été

Present................Imperfect.............Past
je suis..................j' étais.................je fus
tu es....................tu étais................tu fus
il est....................il était..................il fut
nous sommes.......nous étions..........nous fûmes
vous êtes.............vous étiez............vous fûtes
ils sont.................ils étaient.............ils furent

--> Also in French forms of "to be" you can find at least 2 of the 3 stems I mentioned above.
Unlike English or German, French kept always one form for one or two tenses and didn't mixed them altogether.
I don't know much about French though, I took it at school for about 3 years, but unfortunately I've forgotten almost everything by now. French confused me ***

For everyone who wants to know more:
I took this French forms from
---> www.verbix.com/languages
If anyone has problems with conjugating verbs, have a look at it - scroll to bottom of the page and you'll find conjugating paradigms for many verbs in 102 different languages, it might be a good help!

English grammar exceptions

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions