I have a small quibble with your definition of "irregular".
1) If a French, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew word follows a regular pluralization paradigm for that language, is it really irregular? In other words, should we acknowledge "foreign" words as foreign, instead of calling them "irregular English words"? 2) The f-to-v transformation is, in my opinion, a normal ablaut, not an irregularity. This is an euphony feature to make the resultant word easier to pronounce, not a change within the root word.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
1) If a French, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew word follows a regular pluralization paradigm for that language, is it really irregular? In other words, should we acknowledge "foreign" words as foreign, instead of calling them "irregular English words"?
2) The f-to-v transformation is, in my opinion, a normal ablaut, not an irregularity. This is an euphony feature to make the resultant word easier to pronounce, not a change within the root word.
Just my two bits. (Ha! a pun!)