So, basically, what you're saying is that there's the old way, based on tradition and evolution from previous forms. Then some guys came along, cleaned things up a bit, made the language more regular and logical, and helped smooth out the extraneous stuff (like taking out the extra Us). The traditionalists refused to go along with it, because "that's not how we do things." So, even though one makes more sense, it's less popular. Like Esperanto. Or the Metric System.
(In case that's not clear... I'm kidding.)
Seriously, thanks for the info. I do find this sort of thing interesting. Nice to know where it comes from, even if it doesn't fit the pattern. To me, once you have an established system (for something that should be basic and logical), there should be a good reason for any deviations. (And yes, irregular verbs also irk me. Be - am, are, was, were... huh??) Evolution from other languages makes sense, though, and it's cool to know.
(Sorry, BTW, if the original post came off as at all hostile. That's what I get for writing at that hour. It was mostly genuine curiousity, with a hint of playful teasing or something along those lines. All too often, though, I forget how hard it is to get the latter across in plain text.)
Here, BTW, "cee" is a homophone of "see" and "sea." "Tse" is something I'm more used to seeing in connection with the Hebrew letter Tsadik.
So, thanks for the explanation and the discussion, guys.
I guess I'll keep calling it Z, you can go around calling it Z, and we'll all be happy.
Paul
P.S. Yeah - what Pam said.
