On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:22:43 -0800, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>--- On Thu, 2/23/12, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Yeah, I realized I had made a mistake.
>> > I arrive. I arrove. I have arriven.
>> > The swan glides. The swan glid. The swan
>> > has glided? Glidded?
>> Wouldn't this be:
>> The swan glides. The swan glode. The swan has glidden.
>That's the one I use (internal ideolect). Agree with Adam on arrive,
>arrove, arrivven.

The spelling is indisputably "arriven" with one V though!  Just like "driven
striven shriven ?swiven".  English spelling has a strong constraint against
*vv (just like against final *-v, and in the pre-Renaissance stratum against
*uv: thus we can't but spell "love" and "cove" and "move" as eye-rhymes.  If
you ask me, the regular spelling of the word meaning 'makeshift knife' /SIv/
is "shive").

As for "glide", I would totally never have realised "glid" was not the
standard past / ppt if it hadn't been mentioned.  Far too prone to
contamination with "slide".  

But of course the whole strong verb system has shattered to smithereens in
modern English.  Where we once had seven cohesive classes, now we have
umpty-ump sui generis classes as in ths former class 3 verb the past has
overwritten the participle, but in tht one the participle has overwritten
the present, und so weiter.  It's all well and good to strengthen the weak,
but while we're at it let's put the discipline back in the strongs as well!
 I ran, I have run, but I *rin*, etc.  Who's with me?