Why the isn't "glew" a word?

[MiamiHeat]

I think it's time for "glowed" to be replaced by "glew"

I mean, think about it..

"Yesterday, Matt Bonner glew in the dark"

"Yesterday, Matt Bonner glowed in the dark"

why is this not a word? I was FLABBERGASTED when I found out today.

[TDMVPDPOY]

fail

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I think shat has more of a push to be a word than glew. No pun intended.

[Creepn]

People might might misinterpret glew for glue?

It'll be a tough nym.

"Matt Bonner likes to glue in the dark?"
"No like glew BRIGHTLY!"
"Oh ya, those glow in the dark glues are pretty cool."
"AARRGGH!!"

[monosylab1k]

getting LeBron doesn't mean you now have the power to alter the english language you arrogant .

[MiamiHeat]

People might might misinterpret glew for glue?

It'll be a tough nym.

"Matt Bonner likes to glue in the dark?"

glew is past tense! so it would be "Matt Bonner likes to glow in the dark?".. glow stays.

It's "glowed" that is being replaced

[MiamiHeat]

I think shat has more of a push to be a word than glew. No pun intended.

"He shat it out."

you might have a point.

[Jacob1983]

Shat isn't a word? I thought shat was the past tense of . ted just doesn't sound right.

[WESTACKED]

Shat isn't a word? I thought shat was the past tense of . ted just doesn't sound right.

either sounds fine when/if it's used to describe you IMHO.

[METALMiKE]

getting LeBron doesn't mean you now have the power to alter the english language you arrogant .

[TE]

getting LeBron doesn't mean you now have the power to alter the english language you arrogant .

[RandomGuy]

I think it's time for "glowed" to be replaced by "glew"

I mean, think about it..

"Yesterday, Matt Bonner glew in the dark"

"Yesterday, Matt Bonner glowed in the dark"

why is this not a word? I was FLABBERGASTED when I found out today.

To answer your question: because languages tend to move in the OTHER direction, from a scientific/linguistic standpoint.

You are talking about making a "regular" verb into an "irregular" verb.

Regular verbs in english have the following pattern to get from present to past:
I walk
I walked

They are easy to remember in that all that is done is adding an -ed to the end of the verb.

Irregular verbs follow several different patterns, and aren't always quite predictable, making them a bit harder to remember.
I throw
I threw

awake/awoke
dig/dug
forbid/forbade
freeze/froze
go/went
be/was
fly/flew
hang/hung
hit/hit

and so forth. Some change the word a little, some a lot, and some not at all.

But each of those words requires memorizing the past tense, because each one has a specific change.

The human tendency is to make things fit into patterns. Simply adding -ed to the end of everything is a lot easier to remember, and a lot easier for kids to learn.

For this reason we are seeing a slow extinction of irregular verbs.

light/lighted is much more common these days then when I learned light/lit in grade school.

dream/dreamt is becoming dream/dreamed and there are others.

That is the 100% serious answer to your question.

[RandomGuy]

A quick list of English irregular verbs:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/verbs.htm

Old english used to have a LOT more irregular verbs, but "glew" doesn't seem to be among them. It was an alternate spelling for "glue", and is apparently a family name of some sort.

[RandomGuy]

Shat isn't a word? I thought shat was the past tense of . ted just doesn't sound right.

Everything I know about I learned from wikipedia.

The verb “to ”
The preterite and past participle of are attested as shat, , or ted, depending on dialect and, sometimes, the rhythm of the sentence. In the prologue of The Canterbury Tales, ten is used as the past participle; however this form is very rare in modern English. In American English as a past participle is often correct, while shat is generally acceptable and ted is uncommon and missing from the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries.[5]

I would tend to agree simply because it follows the form /shat like sit/sat.

But ted seems to be the normal.

Fun thing about swearwords, is that language nazis/authorities don't tend to like coming down on one side or the other, because it is beneath them.

Take your pick, you won't be wrong, heh.

[MiamiHeat]

To answer your question: because languages tend to move in the OTHER direction, from a scientific/linguistic standpoint.

You are talking about making a "regular" verb into an "irregular" verb.

Regular verbs in english have the following pattern to get from present to past:
I walk
I walked

They are easy to remember in that all that is done is adding an -ed to the end of the verb.

Irregular verbs follow several different patterns, and aren't always quite predictable, making them a bit harder to remember.
I throw
I threw

awake/awoke
dig/dug
forbid/forbade
freeze/froze
go/went
be/was
fly/flew
hang/hung
hit/hit

and so forth. Some change the word a little, some a lot, and some not at all.

But each of those words requires memorizing the past tense, because each one has a specific change.

The human tendency is to make things fit into patterns. Simply adding -ed to the end of everything is a lot easier to remember, and a lot easier for kids to learn.

For this reason we are seeing a slow extinction of irregular verbs.

light/lighted is much more common these days then when I learned light/lit in grade school.

dream/dreamt is becoming dream/dreamed and there are others.

That is the 100% serious answer to your question.

learn something new every day

thanks

[badfish22]

getting LeBron doesn't mean you now have the power to alter the english language you arrogant .

crofl

[Solid D]

Why not add "praught" to the dictionary, also? If the past tense of teach is taught, then why isn't the past tense of preach...praught?

[mookie2001]

Yeah like clue glew