Are irregular virbs Loan in a language?

the case of irregular virbs and why they do not form like normal ones?

for example normal virb goes
destroy destroyed
but run goes
run ran
or
be was been

in Anatolian languages and Greco-aryan past is formed different
like πραττω επραττων πεπραξα in Greek

but τρεχω (run) goes
τρεχω ετρεχον εδραμον (compare δρομος)
or
φερω εφερον ηνεγκα future οισω

have someone thought why these virbs are irregular?
maybe loans?

is it connected with later and modern simplicity (or make poor) a language?
and why modern languages are loosing cases and forms etc?

First of all I have to welcome myself at the forum!

Those apparently irregular verbs are certainly no loans.
You may search google,wikipedia for "(Indo-European)-ablaut".
These "irregular" verbs are seen now as irregular, but back then,
regular change of vowel in a stem was a productive morphological process.
Such processes can come to an end, and new morphological processes arise, such as
Germanic suffix -de, -te, -ed in the past tense of a verb.
If a process isn't productive anymore, later speakers don't recognise it anymore as such,
and may see it as irregular.

This is smth that has been bugging me too. Not exactly for the English language, but for albanian.

Exp: The verb 'come' in albanian is 'vij'. The irregular form in english is 'came'.The only change is the vocal 'o' in 'a', but in albanian the verb totally changes and becomes 'erdha'. On a linguistic note are this two words connected, 'vij' and 'erdha'? How did they end up so different?

Another verb i can think of now is 'see'-'shikoj' and 'saw'-'pashë'. Again from 'shikoj' to 'pashë'. Total change.

Endri said:

This is smth that has been bugging me too. Not exactly for the English language, but for albanian.

Exp: The verb 'come' in albanian is 'vij'. The irregular form in english is 'came'.The only change is the vocal 'o' in 'a', but in albanian the verb totally changes and becomes 'erdha'. On a linguistic note are this two words connected, 'vij' and 'erdha'? How did they end up so different?

Another verb i can think of now is 'see'-'shikoj' and 'saw'-'pashë'. Again from 'shikoj' to 'pashë'. Total change.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a completely different question - vowels inflection was very common in some languages (germanic, celtic) but here you're speaking about changing the root of the verb - I suppose there was here use of a synonyme root - gaelic is very found of this use and I don't see why helas! brittonic languages do'nt have that -

Endri said:

This is smth that has been bugging me too. Not exactly for the English language, but for albanian.

Exp: The verb 'come' in albanian is 'vij'. The irregular form in english is 'came'.The only change is the vocal 'o' in 'a', but in albanian the verb totally changes and becomes 'erdha'. On a linguistic note are this two words connected, 'vij' and 'erdha'? How did they end up so different?

Another verb i can think of now is 'see'-'shikoj' and 'saw'-'pashë'. Again from 'shikoj' to 'pashë'. Total change.

Click to expand...

The same anomaly exists also in Greek with forms of a virb with same meaning which also take simmilar form

Virb βαινω veno ( to go) in active voice is normal but in passive ερχομαι (to come) and aorist (past) and future might go ηρθα ertha (aorist) and ελθω (eltho) future

at least in albanian kepts the -h- larygeal which in Greek is lost

by comparing other words like αναριχωμαι etc seems like a virb meaning (to be) near existed in IE or a non IE from which sprung forms,

Sometimes verbs (and other words also) do have quite a similar meaning; it might happen that the verbs become interchangeable; due to levelling of a paradigma one form may be used for present tense, and the other for past tense.
For example: the Latin verb "to be" does have in present tense a stem: "es-/s-" from the Proto-Indo-European verb "to be" and in the perfect a stem: "fu-" which in PIE originally may have ment "to appear/become".
These verbs thus are not etymologically related, but in a sense of meaning, they look similar.
You could imagine it does not make a lot of difference saying:
"I am in the room" vs "I'm standing in the room".
Language is an everchanging mechanism; it may be that once "to stand" is interchangeable with "to be". Then ther could happen a fusion between those to verbs.

It seems that in the Greek and Albanian examples such a thing happens.

Yetos said:

The same anomaly exists also in Greek with forms of a virb with same meaning which also take simmilar form

Virb βαινω veno ( to go) in active voice is normal but in passive ερχομαι (to come) and aorist (past) and future might go ηρθα ertha (aorist) and ελθω (eltho) future

at least in albanian kepts the -h- larygeal which in Greek is lost

by comparing other words like αναριχωμαι etc seems like a virb meaning (to be) near existed in IE or a non IE from which sprung forms,

Click to expand...

1)Adding the latin letters equivalent would help a lot the posters here who don't know greek to understand what you are saying cause frankly I (I i mean people who don't know greek) have no idea what you've written in greek and see just some signs with no meaning...
2)The /h/ isn't a sound in those verbs. The /h/ after a /d/,/s/,/t/ is a letter in albanian so d+h=dh like 'the', s+h=sh like 'shopping', t+h=th like 'theater'

Endri said:

1)Adding the latin letters equivalent would help a lot the posters here who don't know greek to understand what you are saying cause frankly I (I i mean people who don't know greek) have no idea what you've written in greek and see just some signs with no meaning...
2)The /h/ isn't a sound in those verbs. The /h/ after a /d/,/s/,/t/ is a letter in albanian so d+h=dh like 'the', s+h=sh like 'shopping', t+h=th like 'theater'

Click to expand...

it is difficult to use latin letters cause there missing sounds

ok to read correct
h as small h is aspiration mark '
Ch is strong H as Chorus and not as Choice so ch is H and not ts
d is δ ορ Δ and sounds like th in They and not as thought so Th might read as Δ,δ but translation modern uses d
nt is english d
Θ θ is dificult modern use the th as in hought and not as in they so th is θ
ε Ε is e as in English and not as in elektronic
Ι ι is i as in pitty and not as in Ireland
I ι many times can be sound with a tiny w infront as wi γι
γ Γ is letter c but sounds like wh as in why where but it is symbolized as g
so Γανυμηδης is written as Ganymidis (erasmian Ganymedes) but G sounds as wh
Η η in Greek is also i but longer so ι Ι is short i or wi (soundless w) but H η is 1,5 time or 2 i (long i)
Ω ω Is long o and not w
Λ λ is l
Ρ ρ ιs r
Π Π is p
Q does not exist and in Greek is ς soft s
Σ σ is s
ψ ψ ις ps
X x is ch
Ξ ξ is x
Β β is V and not B but many times you see b but sounds V β
etc

as you realise the once you put +h like dh and th in Greek is Δ,δ and Θ,θ

now virb to come near is erchomai but past (aorist) is ηρθα (Alb irtha with long i) and future is Ελθω (Alb Eltho)
there many words to express go come etc one of them is also virb Βαινω (veno)

the other virb is Αναριχωμαι anarichome meaning I climb up
ano = up

so the theme -rich- (not rits = wealthy) exist in 2 virbs meaning that is an ancient virb,
I do not know and not compare to tell you if it is IE or not.

If you keep the signals then it is easy to read them next time

On the contrary, the irregular verbs are the most used/native in a language and their ethymology can be traced straight back to IE roots.

Franco said:

On the contrary, the irregular verbs are the most used/native in a language and their ethymology can be traced straight back to IE roots.

Click to expand...

correct - when we learn a new language or when a language is adopted by foreign people the most common deportment is to push away the irregularities and to create a logical model by analogy - very often when a language is taken on by a population it is simplified on every ground