You make several false assumptions or gross misunderstandings of how language changes.
The reason irregular verbs originally existed is because English is a Germanic language, meaning, that a thousand years ago, what we now call irregular verbs were actually regular verbs. There was a logical ordering and well understood way to modify the stem of a verb in order to agree with the subject and tense. At the time, irregular verbs changed their stem, but in a predictable and universal manner.
This all changed with the conquest of the Norman French. After the slow introduction of French and Latin into English, the verb forms we are now familiar with entered the language. In time, all verbs of Germanic origin were used the same way they had been used in Old English, while verbs brought in by the French used the forms we are familiar with today.
The reason it makes sense to see language regularization is because we have grown to expect the French form of verb agreement rather than the Germanic one. The Germanic system is more complex.
In short, the reason that "new verbs formed [are] never formed as irregular verbs ..." makes sense, is that the change from irregular Germanic verbs to regular French verbs is only about 800 years old.
Sorry but this is totally wrong. The weak inflection in english with a dental suffix is an proto-germanic invention shared with all germanic languages.
The reason why there are so many weak verbs is that the rules for strong verbs complicated over time so that the rules weren't obvious anymore and that the verbs were seen just as
irregular (there is thought to have been just two verb classes originally in PIE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut, but there are already 7 of them in the old germanic languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Strong_ver...).
Therefore new verbs couldn't be integrated as strong verbs by analogy.
> You make several false assumptions or gross misunderstandings of how language changes.
That's a little over the top. I only made a few claims, none specific to English:
Claim #1: There a processes that create and remove irregularities in a language. Some of these can occur in isolation, some are interactions with other languages.
Claim #2: At the very least, the ones resulting from interaction will continue to occur in the future. That is, we still have wars and immigration.
Claim #3: Implicit to my argument is my opinion that the creations occur approximately at the rate of the removals.
Certainly #3 there is the hardest to justify (and I only offer "they aren't gone yet" as my evidence). A much easier and not too different claim is "we won't reach 100% regularity" and if you like you can pretend that I argued that instead as it's not too different a claim. But "gross misunderstanding" seems unfair.
So which of these is a gross misunderstanding of language changes?
The reason irregular verbs originally existed is because English is a Germanic language, meaning, that a thousand years ago, what we now call irregular verbs were actually regular verbs. There was a logical ordering and well understood way to modify the stem of a verb in order to agree with the subject and tense. At the time, irregular verbs changed their stem, but in a predictable and universal manner.
This all changed with the conquest of the Norman French. After the slow introduction of French and Latin into English, the verb forms we are now familiar with entered the language. In time, all verbs of Germanic origin were used the same way they had been used in Old English, while verbs brought in by the French used the forms we are familiar with today.
The reason it makes sense to see language regularization is because we have grown to expect the French form of verb agreement rather than the Germanic one. The Germanic system is more complex.
In short, the reason that "new verbs formed [are] never formed as irregular verbs ..." makes sense, is that the change from irregular Germanic verbs to regular French verbs is only about 800 years old.