Slashdot Mirror

I don't think so

http://www.verbix.com/webverbi...

couldn't have bore

Actually, if you value literacy, pretty sure it's "I bear" -> "I bore" -> "I [could] have born/borne". But what do I know.

That's no past tense

The tense is past, whether simple past or past participle in the passive voice (which for "drag" happen to be the same). The GP's statement was correct. Furthremore, some dialects happen to not be 'correct' English, as understood by National Socialist linguistics.

The word patent is not a verb, dumbass.

I'm going to patent not bothering to do any research before calling someone a dumbass on the Internet!

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/patent.html.

Thanks for pointing this out, and for bringing up the verb "to be." This is, by default, the oldest verb in any language (except perhaps Russian, which they tell me doesn't have it), and therefore the most irregular.

Unfortunately, Verbix is down at the moment. Otherwise I might be able to find examples of regular 'to be' for you. I imagine pidgins and/or creoles might be good candidate languages.

Incidentally, I believe the article is full of shit. Apparently they have not had even a single linguist check their results, and they are based solely on English. One data point (language) does not prove anything!

Here is an excellent map of the language groups of Europe.
http://www.verbix.com/imag/map_indoeuropean.gif

Wikipedia also has an interesting article on the Germanic languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/

There, you can get a verb conjugated in one of a number of languages, everything from the mundane German, English, Spanish, French to the more exotic Welch, Volapük, Esperanto, to the ancient, Old english, Old Swedish, Old Norse.

I've been using it for years, and certainly before the February 25, 2005 filing date.

This takes non infinitive forms of a verb so that claim should be invalidated:

http://www.verbix.com/languages/english.shtml

Furthermore, suggesting mispelling corrections has been performed by spell checkers for years.

Auto translators have been around for years.

So combine these three features (motivation to combine these should be fairly apparent) and all claims of this patent should be invalidated either for anticipation or obviousness.

"Verbix is an independent non-profit organization that aims to promote and protect linguistic diversity [UNESCO Observatory: Multilingualism]. This site contains verb conjugations for hundreds of languages, ranging from national and international languages to regional and even extinct languages."

Have you taken a look at http://www.verbix.com/ ? Pretty nice program, with loads of languages. Input verb, output any possible conjugation form. Heck, I use the online conjugator all the time when I'm trying my best at the Finnish language.

I am not a patent expert, but Verbix seems to be a good prior art candidate. So is this, and a score of other results of a simple search for "verb conjugation". I hope the application is thrown out.

or this http://www.verbix.com/

According to Archive.org, Verbix has been around since at least March of 2000.

On a totally unrelated note, the site in your sig is fantastic.

However, they mispelled the most important quote: it's "videtur" not "viditur". That almost made my fundamental understanding of Latin crumble, and I'm not even 25...

minimalism? How about their gendered nouns and excessive conjugation of verbs? French pronunciation might be fairly straightforward, but it's grammatical rules are not.

minimalism? How about their gendered nouns and excessive conjugation of verbs? French pronunciation might be fairly straightforward, but it's grammatical rules are not.