Talk:Spanish irregular verbs

Vowel-Alternating Verbs
Most linguists do not classify vowel alternating verbs as "irregular". I believe thet should be in a separate article. 161.24.19.82 12:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - the changes follow patterns that are as clear as the spelling changes to preserve the sound of the stem (c → qu before e/i, etc.), and as noted below those don't belong in this article. The section also seems to exclude e → i verbs (like pedir). 222.152.183.97 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not the same. Spelling changes are absolutely regular. Some types of vowel alternation can be considered regular only if you add a conjugation to the paradigm (that is, -ar, -er -eralt, -ir) or if you accept that some verbs should have more than two or more principal parts. Some alternations are completely unpredictable, or appear only in an odd couple of verbs. In any case, if "most linguists" don't agree with the content, we must show it with academic sources (WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vowel alternating verbs are irregular in the sense that whether any particular verb undergoes the alternation is not predictable looking at the infinitive. Whereas (AFAIK) the spelling changes like c->qu are regular in the sense that any verb with a c or qu before the theme vowel will undergo the alternation.


 * However, User:222... makes a valid comment about the e->i verbs. That is, there are two cross-cutting classes here: e-->ie when stressed, and e->i before a non-front vowel.  Some verbs (perder) undergo the first alternation, some (pedir) undergo just the second, and some (mentir) undergo both.  (AFAIK, there are no -ir verbs that just undergo the first alternation, and only -ir verbs undergo the second--so of course the only verbs that undergo both are -ir verbs.)  A theoretical study on this (somewhat dated theory, but the data is valid) is:
 * Harris, James W. 1978. Two Theories of Non-Automatic Morphophonological Alternations. Language 54:41-60.
 * Mcswell 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of verbs ending in -ducir to regular verbs in the preterite
I recently sent a message to the Real Academia Española which proposed the removal of all irregular stems in the preterite of all verbs ending in -ducir and their replacement with regular stems (for example: condujeron replaced with conducieron). 24.191.232.15 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Patterns in irregularities
If I am not mistaken (and my grasp of Spanish is not complete), most irregularities are based on patterns, e.g. just as "buscar" becomes "busque", other "-car" verbs become "-que" verbs. The same can be applied to "-car", "-gar", etc. You've also got those patterns among stem-changing verbs. It would be far more informative to outline the patterns among irregular verbs along with the common irregulars that don't seem to follow a pattern. There aren't really that many irregular verbs (among those commonly used, anyway) that don't follow one of these patterns or one like them. Fearwig 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The common patterns are already outlined in the article (viz. the vowel-alternating verbs and the -g- verbs). However, buscar is completely regular; it only changes its orthography a bit: buscar - busque and rasgar - rasgue are exactly like gastar - gaste, only that the spellings *busce and *rasge would not be read as intended. The changes c → qu for /k/ and g → gu for /g/ are regular and predictable. Believe me, there are more than a few widely-used irregular verbs; tener, poner and caber in particular are confusing even for native children. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think my understanding is failing me, then. Accept my apologies. Fearwig 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it might be worthwhile to mention them anyway, in a "Verbs with spelling changes" section. Currently they don't seem to be explained anywhere. — RuakhTALK 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * these verbs change to preserve the pronounciation. Buscar (hard c) subjunctive --> Busce would have a soft c, the que gives the hard sound. There are loads of examples (anything with a stem ending in j,g,c,qu) here is another: fingir 1st person finjo:

Reason for irregularities
The article on English irregular verbs has an explanation of how the Strong verbs started regular in old german but became irregular in old english. Something similar here would be nice.

Definitions of the verbs conjugated here?
It would be nice if someone could define the verbs conjugated in this section, as so complete beginners (such as me) could use this as a resource for irregular verbs

Thanks!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.0.125.238 (talk • contribs).

g verbs in the future tense
I have noticed that verbs with an inserted g before the o in the 1st person also have the spurious d repacing the last vowel in the future stem.

etc.

Is this a unbreakable rule, or just a coincidence in the examples I have seen.

Note that g verbs that dont follow the rules exactly dont work,

Vosotros: Hi everyone, sorry but in spanish the second persson is Vosotros (vos) and in spanish is podeis (podes is in sudamerican). Please change this words because in Spanin and other spanish countrys do nor use (podés, molés, tenés.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carran (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Vos as used in Argentina is used in many Spanish speaking countries, it is the singular second person not the plural as vosotros, and it'is the form recognized by the DRAE and I think it deserves to be mentioned. I also found some mistakes in the subjunctive chart with the pronoun vos and I'm going to correct them. Guidoylosfreaks (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

G-verbs
I prefer "G-verbs" to "go-verbs" or "yo-go verbs" because the G appears not only in the "yo" form of the present indicative but also in the present subjunctive. (In spite of a long career teaching Spanish and seeing dozens of textbooks, I've never encountered a name for this group of verbs before, but I admit it could be useful to name them.) James Harris (Spanish Phonology, MIT Press, 1969) calls the G a "velar augment" and lumps it together with the C of "conozco", "parezca", etc. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing new paragraph on irregular futures and conditionals
This is written as if the infinitive were a "master" form which was then changed to create other forms.This is completely false. Infinitives were not very important before printed dictionaries, which began in the sixteenth century. And it's not the case that anyone or any group of people "made these changes". There are no written discussions of Spanish, and I suspect no oral discussions, until centuries after these changes. Like most linguistic changes prior to printing, they probably happened without conscious thought by anyone. I don't know if it is appropriate to mention this, but I have a Ph.D. in Spanish and taught History of the Spanish Language for many years at Florida State University. deisenbe (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As you of course already know, historically the future and conditional in Spanish and other Romance varieties derive from the infinitive + haber; therefore it makes sense to link irregularities in those tenses with the infinitive. --Jotamar (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is true, but it's not the whole story. The stem was not changed as such. ("We're going to take the infinitive and make two new tenses from it.") The additional, stressed syllable at the the end (é) meant that the previous stem vowel was now atonic (unstressed), and it fell out, as atonic syllables of polysyllabic (3+) words, not just verbs, tended (and still tend) to do for phonological reasons. So the stem change was a secondary result. And it's questionable whether it was an "irregular" change. It's not in the same category as es/fue and tengo/tuve.


 * The combinations with é and ía are pretty late, Alfonso el Sabio or later. Writing them as one word was still later. And it was a long time after that that they were designated or recognized as tenses. It wasn't some committee that decided to create new tenses; like most language change, especially before printing, it took place without intent and without conscious knowledge that it was happening. deisenbe (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyway, a page about language irregularities can have little more than very generic patterns. I guess the section about future and conditional could have been rewritten in some way, rather than deleted. --Jotamar (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be rewritten. 2601:58C:C401:B199:3129:454C:86CF:1BCA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you think of any alternative to rewrite the deleted section, Daniel? --Jotamar (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone can retrieve the source of the paragraph I deleted, which I can't manage to do, I'll have a go at it. I should have done that originally, I just get ornery, unfortunately. deisenbe (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, the source of the paragraph? Can't you see it in the history tab? --Jotamar (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

While we wait for an improved section, I'll recover the deleted part. --Jotamar (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New External Link?
Hello - I built a website to conjugate Spanish verbs, largely based on the information in this Wikipedia page. I'd like to include the following link to it in the External Links section:


 * [decimos.net] A Spanish verb conjugator, largely based on this Wikipedia article, that explains each conjugated form, including any irregularities, step by step.

I think it makes a useful contribution, illustrating the application of the irregularities described to most verbs, including where multiple irregularities coincide.

Per External links, this is a potential conflict of interest, so I'd like to seek opinions on adding it. If there's no response I'll probably add it in June 2019. Please ask if you have any questions, etc.

Thanks Brute100 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Irregular present stem(s) of haber
This could be mentioned in the Others section. Like ser it is not just the first person singular that is different, it actually has four different stems in he, has/ha/han, hemos, habéis. (habeo was regular in Latin, *h₁ésmi was regular in PIE). This is of course the auxiliary verb.

Fun fact: As far as I can tell, it's the only case where 1st and 2nd person plural have different stems; in all tenses of all other verbs and in all other tenses of haber, you can remove -mos and add -is/-isteis to get the 2nd person plural from the 1st person plural (merging double i when relevant and possibly adding/removing a tilde to keep the same stressed syllable). Lhmathies (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it sounds like it could be put there, it's pretty irregular. Erinius (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a side fact, I found an article giving citations for a 1st person plural habemos used in the existential sense (more or less "we are available") and noting that the form hemos spread with the use of haber as the auxiliary replacing ser. Not in scope for the main article, but it helped me understand how things came to be as they are.Lhmathies (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Important information regarding the verb andar
In the Asturian language, the vosotros conjugation for the verb andar in the preterite is andaron, but this is not the case for the ustedes conjugation in Spanish (which is anduvieron). The improper use of regular conjugations in the preterite (for example, the use of andaste and andaron instead of the actual terms anduviste and anduvieron) for the verb is sometimes used in regular speech, however, and the prevalence of this has been increasing in recent years, particularly among non-native speakers. Therefore, it can be inferred that andar is one of only a few verbs that is decaying at a faster rate than other verbs that are irregular in the preterite.

Historically, the English language had many irregular verbs, but most of them have decayed within an average period of 1,400 years (with the remaining irregular verbs having a decay period that can go up to 38,800 years, which is way past the lifespan of the language). This is because the English language lacks an authoritative governing body, unlike Spanish, where the Real Academia Española governs rules related to Spanish grammar.

24.191.232.15 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)