The vast majority of the 100 most common words in English are still inherited Germanic words.

English shares a common Germanic ancestor with German. German and English are sisters.

Yeah, cuz howling at the moon definitely isn’t something regular wolves are known for.

OK, so we know the game in question is not Dark Souls, because the great scythe is fast, hits like a truck, has massive range, and has bleed.

An awful lot of the neckbeards from the comic in these comments.

My wife’s engagement ring was a simple opal design that cost like 40 or 50 bucks on Amazon.

~$200 for the actual wedding rings, ordered off Etsy.

The one on All about a week ago was better.

More than a quarter of the independent studies still found neutral outcomes though.

And then if that rando did it every day for like five years, I’d get tired of their shit too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/reddit-race-black-people-twitter.html

Yeah, liberal/left subs definitely don’t do that.

True, but as usual, that’s offset elsewhere in the grammar (and a binary or ternary noun class system doesn’t really introduce that much complexity).

English still has number distinctions with multiple irregular patterns (and plural/collective distinctions like “fish/fish/fishes”), and even lesser recognized animacy distinctions that must take up some space in the grammar too (“my face” is fine, but “the face of mine” is odd, while “the clock’s face” and “the face of the clock” are both fine).

One example of such a process is subregular patterns getting extended instead of always levelling toward the most productive constructions.

In many southern dialects, for example, even though the productive past tense is the “-ed” past (just like it is in all modern varieties of English), and so we normally would expect to get regularization like “cleave/clove/cloven” > “cleave/cleaved/cleaved”, we instead in these dialects get irregular examples like “bring/brought/brought” being regularized not to expected productive “bring/bringed/bringed”, but rather “bring/brang/brung” on the pattern of “sing/sang/sung”, “drink/drank/drunk”, etc.

Extending subregularities like this can cause irregular patterns to persist and grow stronger over time.

I suppose that technically this isn’t introducing a new irregularity so much as it is helping an older one persist, but it’s a similar process.

Other recent innovations include things like Canadian and northern US English “I’m done my homework”, northern positive anymore (“Anymore, I go to the store on Fridays”), and prepositional “because” (“I can’t come tonight, because homework”).

Again, this isn’t exactly the development of new irregular morphology (word-building rules) specifically, but these are analogous processes elsewhere in the grammar.

It’s also worth mentioning that English is becoming more and more of an isolating language over time (a language with less morphology/word-building processes), and so we’d expect irregular morphology specifically to become less common in these systems over time.

That was kinda rambly, and way more than you asked for - I hope it made some sort of sense.

It isn’t though.

It may seem like it is, but English is actually becoming more regular over time in many dialects.

Dialects dropping the 3rd person singular -s, dropping irregular (and even regular!) plurals, dialects eliminating the subjunctive, and past tense/participle distinctions. In the phonology you have marked features like English’s interdental fricatives going away as well. All of these processes are producing less marked and more regular structures across the English-speaking world.

As always, there are processes countering these and introducing more irregularity, but as cattywampas mentioned, these are the sorts of processes that all languages are always undergoing. English really isn’t special - it’s just a natural language like any other.

The Golden Path!

Horizon: Zero Dawn. Such a haunting, beautiful story.

Do you know what happens to a toad joke when it’s struck by lightning?

Oodelally oodelally!

“Open sounds” (which, I assume, refers to continuants) and bilabial sounds aren’t mutually exclusive.

When you pronounce the /w/ at the beginning of “one”, your lips round (purse) and touch each other at the corners, but they don’t form a full closure. So, the oral tract is still open, but the articulators (moving mouth parts) are still touching.

This could be reworded as “the middle of your lips don’t touch each other”, but multiple commenters are correct in that your lips absolutely do touch each other when you say “one” in English.

Blink. Winks are voluntary.