"And I still have other smothered memories, now unfolding themselves into limbless monsters of pain. Once, in a sunset-ending street of Beardsley, she turned to little Eva Rosen (I was taking both nymphets to a concert and walking behind them so close as almost to touch them with my person), she turned to Eva, and so very serenely and seriously, in answer to something the other had said about its being better to die than hear Milton Pinski; some local schoolboy she knew, talk about music, my Lolita remarked: 'You know what's so dreadful about dying is that you're completely on your own'; and it struck me, as my automaton knees went up and down, that I simply did not know a thing about my darling's mind and that quite possibly, behind the awful juvenile cliches, there was in her a garden and a twilight, and a palace gate - dim and adorable regions which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me, in my polluted rags and miserable convulsions...” ― Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita
I assume you are referring to the difference in spelling between 1st and 2nd person singular vs. plural. present tense.
Sometimes irregularities are the result of foreign influences on the language. In many nations the elites spoke a language different from the domestic population, so outside influences would gain undue usage.
To take an example from English, after the Norman conquest many French language constructions were imposed onto the locals. During periods of Catholic Church ascendancy, this was reinforced by the clergy especially w.r.t. to the use of Latin structures. Where the popular English language roots used suffixes to indicate person and tense, Latin used internal changes to the letters comprising a word.
Where English speakers of the time might say I build present tense, I builded past tense, the elites wanted it changed internally to the more elegant I build present, I built past. Much more recently the use of the latinate structure was imposed onto the English language in the case of the wind blows present, the wind blowed past which was directed to be changed to the wind blows present, the wind blew past. The people that mattered in society made it clear that anybody who used the term the wind blowed were childish, simpletons or illiterate oafs.
At the same time they tried to change I wash present, I washed past to I wash present, I wesh past. They didn't succeed. Just by looking at it I wonder if the same process wasn't in play in the development of the conjugation of mourir. But, then again, maybe not. Perhaps it was just regional influences creating a compromise between two ways of spelling.
Regardless, as percyflage posts, from the point of view of students, irregular verbs just are and need to be learned that way. Notice I used the anglo-saxon learned and not the latinate learnt. I also use the anglo spelled instead of spelt. I believe you are British so I'm guessing you will understand what I mean when I write.....You know, 1066 and all that...
oh, I can't really, or at least I don't know if we can do that. I just can go to the threads where I have commented, like this one (I receive a mail if someone comments). What I meant with "here" was that I usually read the discussions of almost every exersice, sometimes people's comments are funny =)
That reminds me of an old movie I saw on TV some years ago, starring Audrey Hepburn. In the movie, the setting was WW1 and she and another guy were going on a boat and got caught by the Germans, who were going to hang them. She asked the German captain, " Would you please hang us together." Then the man said to the German captain, "Could you marry us first, before you hang us. It'd only take a minute and it'd mean a lot to the lady."
While the German was marrying them, the bomb they had set up, rammed into the German boat and blew it up and they escaped.