Originally posted by HandyAndyYou've answered Jigtie's question, if that was the question he was asking. I thought he was confused for a different reason -- one that I can't answer. You're probably right, though.
If have were a regular verb, the simple past tense would be haved and the third person singular would be haves.
It became irregular when the v vanished.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the real answer is that the English language is often illogical.
You've answered Jigtie's question, if that was the question he was asking. I thought he was confused for a different reason -- one that I can't answer. You're probably right, though.
(That's why we love it.)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI read the question the same way as you did. In Norwegian, and I believe in Swedish as well, the third person singular doesn't have a special form, no matter whether the verb is regular or irregular:
You've answered Jigtie's question, if that was the question he was asking. I thought he was confused for a different reason -- one that I can't answer. You're probably right, though.
jeg har
du har
han / hun / det har
vi har
dere har
de har
(Har har!)
However, a better question might be why English only has one form that is different. Both English and the Scandinavian languages have been simplified a lot over time.