Category talk:English verbs which are their own past participle

What about the most obvious ones? "Read" and "hurt"?


 * Thanks i'll add those too Language Lover 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Appendix instead
Why not just have an appendix? See Appendix:English verbs with base form identical to past participle. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:English verbs which are their own past participle
Is this a good title? -- Beobach972 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to my ears. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A past particple is a verb (form), no? It's not clear. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a bad title. A verb can't be its own past participle. The participle of a verb can, however, be the same as its infinitive. A better title might be "Verbs whose past participles have the same form as their infinitives". (One example is set.)
 * See Appendix:English verbs with base form identical to past participle, which allows more flexible arrangement, which facilitates discovery of others derived from the base irregular verbs that account for these. What are the advantages of having this kind of thing as a category instead of an appendix? DCDuring TALK 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were automatically generated by, it might pick up some cases that the appendix would miss. But it seems quite useless in its current form. -- Visviva 02:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest Category:English verbs with past participle identical to base form, to be populated solely by . -- Visviva 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So far, I've had more luck finding errors in the use of en-verb (forfeit didn't have forfeited as PP when that consistitutes >98% of current uage, fit only had fitted) The manual list missed a few stem verbs, not just derivatives. It seems to me that we need an Appendix to error-check. Quality improvement seems to need redundancy. The approach of using ad hoc or annual runs against dumps that are designed to check for specific problems seems way better than narrow-purpose categories. I'm inclined to have this one deleted in favor of an Appendix. Is it worth filling up space at the bottom of the screen. For the short stem verbs (fit, bit, bet, etc) the Category can be a few clicks below the landing screen. In contrast, the inflection line presents the fact of form-identity. I don't know why a user would look to the category for others. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename, but keep a category with this information under some name. bd2412 T 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved all of the entries to Category:English verbs with base form identical to past participle. I will delete Category:English verbs which are their own past participle after waiting a bit to make sure it is unused. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)