1

I am just curious about why this kind of words has to be defined this way. What is the advantages of using the same exact word as its present form with the only different is how you pronounce it.

I am referring to other words that have similar property like this. For example,

  • read

and these words that not only have the exact spelling but the exact pronunciation too.

  • put
  • hit

Why would they not behave like other words for simplicity and similarity?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Jason Bassford, Nathan Tuggy, Andrew, M.A.R., Davo Jan 7 at 15:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • That's English. I really sympathise with you. On the other hand, it keeps me in a well-paid job.. – Matt Jan 4 at 23:20
0

Because of English's messy origins, I don't know if it's possible to say for sure

English is a language that traces word origins back to many other languages and, often, words from different languages were spelled similarly but sounded differently or sounded similarly but spelled differently.

There was a thing called the Great Vowel Shift that took place a little before the printing press was invented and which continued for a couple hundred years afterward. During this time, a lot of words were respelled (and their pronunciations drifted, too). Words like "room" were once spelled "roum," for example (because it originally came from the German word "raum").

So what may have happened was the word "to read" got boxed in because there were already words like "red" and "rid" and "rod" which limited its ability to have its spelling change when its tense changed. As a result, it ended up as a verb with an irregular conjugation.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.