Knowledge Bank

I briefly explain four examples of morphological irregularities involving gender and number that are synchronically inexplicable but can be understood as the product of diachronic changes. I then present a converse case in Japanese in which the apparently simplest explanation for certain verb forms fails to account for why most are conditionals while one is provisional. It may be expedient to tell language students that morphological irregularities are just “exceptions that prove the rule,” but why withhold the historical truth when it is helpful?