When native speakers learn a new verb or noun...

Not really. Most nouns and verbs we don’t already know aren’t irregular, so they have simple pluralization rules and tense rules. Even the ones that don’t we can infer because they usually share a rule with something we know.

When you are a kid first learning it is very common to just add s and ed to all the verbs. And it is seen as cute. So in school they go over the most common verbs that change. But you are also learning to recognize patterns so based on the letters/vowels and things is this Latin or Gernamic or based in a different language. And what are the procedures for those. But the biggest thing is this which is counter intuitive. Irregular words are very common words. If a word is used that breaks the pattern but is rare then people would forget how to used it properly. So most the used irregular words in English are words you will probably come into contact with naturally just listening to conversations, reading books, etc. Not all of them, there are a handfull or so that aren't common. But they probably were at one point and just became outdated. And so you just remember what to say. Like native speakers don't think in terms of conjugation or grammar really at all that specifically. It's more like I know this word is Run and I know this word is Ran and because they are the same action they are linked but philosophically many native speakers might think of them and two words describing the same thing in different ways more than one word that changes. Like synonyms maybe. Little vs Small vs Tiny. Hmm interesting thought

Not really. Most new words are regular or at least easy to infer, usually because they’re similar to words we already know. For example, today I learned the word [*aromorphosis*](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/well-that-was-surprising-top-moments-from-the-national-spelling-bee.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LU8.wzUs.YYl_UP0k5-f5&smid=url-share). The plural is *aromorphoses* (with the ending pronounced /iz/). Even without looking that up, or without being able to tell that it’s from Greek, most native speakers would probably at least be able to see the resemblance to *metamorphosis*, a word learned early in primary school, and assume that the plural is formed the same way.

No. Noun formation isn’t as irregular as it seems - English is made up of words ‘stolen’ from other languages. Different ways of forming nouns depend on which language they come from. Propel (from Latin) - propeller/ propulsion (nouns formed by adding suffixes). Govern (from French) - government (noun formed by adding suffix). The plurals follow these patterns. Even if native speakers don’t know this and these patterns explicitly, they get a feeling for how words are formed and what pattern a particular word will follow by looking at its root. (Eg ‘Pel’ words ’ Impel / propel/ compel / expel / repel …) New words that native speakers come across are likely to be words from Latin and French roots - these are formal words - the Angle, Saxon and Scandinavian words are informal and probably already known (thorn / throne / queen etc). As a learner, it’s worth you learning some of these patterns, as it acts as a vocabulary multiplier - you can take a noun / verb and form many other words: Produce (v) Product (n) Production (n) Productive (adj) Productively (adv) Productivity (n) Produce (n) Producer (n) Reproduce (v) … Unproductive (adj) Overproduce (v) … Underproduce (v) … Etc.

As in most languages, the irregular words in English tend to be the most commonly used words. So no, we usually don't have to look up the plurals of nouns or principle parts of new verbs, because they're very, very likely to follow the regular patterns. There are some exceptions, though. English does this really weird thing where it sometimes borrows not just a noun from another language, but that noun's morphology too. This is particularly common in Latin and Greek borrowings, but I've also seen it in French borrowings. So the word "alumnus" meaning person who graduates from a particular college has the plural "alumni," and its feminine form, "alumna," has "alumnae." And some words look like they should have a certain plural, but don't, like "octopus," which looks like it should be \*"octopi," but isn't. (It's either octopuses or, if you really want to be pedantic, octopodes). Many of those words have multiple plurals, one in the English way, the other in the source language. So "cul-de-sac" can be either "culs-de-sac" or "cul-de-sacs."

We often treat it like its a typical pattern and sometimes someone will correct you. Sometimes more rarely used words get bastardized so much that the bastardized version becomes the more accepted correct way because it sounds more natural.

No consider Octopus. It has three plural forms because people go with what they think sounds good. rather than following guidance.

I have quite literally never looked up how to conjugate any verb in English ever.

No, never. I feel like I can usually tell the rules for pluralisation and tenses by its spelling. Most words are not irregular

Adding to the chorus that irregular words are ironically some of the most common words, so native speakers can usually figure out the forms of a new word, even if they don't know what it means. For completeness, when I encounter a word I don't know, I do look it up immediately to learn what it means. Here's a very uncommon one, just for you: twitterpated. It means "infatuated, obsessed"

Most native speakers can figure out how to make a noun plural and change verb tenses without looking it up.

Nope. Never done that in my life.

What usually happens in my circles is we get to a case where we need to pluralize a word, start to just tack an S into the end, and then when it sounds wrong or weird go “thesauruses? thesauri? thesauropodes??” until someone one either corrects us or laughs (or, in the right group, looks it up).

English inflection is pretty weak. Most nouns pluralize with "-s", and verbs are also mostly regular. Furthermore, most rare words use regular inflection, so I assume new words are regular. If they aren't, I'll eventually figure it out.

Every example I can think of is a foreign loanword that allows you to form a regular English plural from the singular, and most people who try to use an irregular plural get it wrong anyway: *octopuses*/*octopodes* (*octopi* is incorrect; the *-pus* is Greek for “foot”), *bar mitzvahs*/*b’nai mitzvah* (*bar mitzvot* is incorrect; the *bar* is Aramaic for “son [of]”). *lemmas*/*lemmata* (also Greek, so *lemmae* is incorrect), and so on. The only uncommon verbs that haven’t been regularized were fossilized by the King James Version of the Bible, like *wreak*/*wrought*, *beget*/*begat* and *cleave*/*cleft*, so anyone who’s read that has seen them all. The loanwords that started out as irregular participles have split off and today are just nouns and adjectives. The past participle of *affiance* is *affianced*, not *fiancé*, and the past participle of *divide* is *divided*, not *dividend*. One interesting exception is that J.R.R. Tolkien is single-handedly responsible for creating the irregular plural *Dwarves*, by analogy to *elves*. He later wrote, "The real historical plural of ‘dwarf’ (like *teeth* of *tooth*) is *dwarrows* anyway: rather a nice word, but a bit too archaic. Still I rather wish I had used the word *dwarrow*." *Dwarves* was copied by enough other Fantasy authors that it starts showing up in Google’s corpus in the mid-twentieth century, but in the twenty-first century, after Peter Jackson brought Tolkien’s books into the mainstream, *dwarves* has become just as common as *dwarfs*.

I will only do so if the word seems to have been borrowed from another language, and therefore might possibly follow the rules of that language when used in English. (But I will look up a new word’s meaning, to make sure I’ve gotten it right.). Otherwise, I assume new words to be regular.

Nope, never. Almost every verb/noun in English is completely regular. Most exceptions are used very commonly and known to all English speakers. Sometimes we'll get corrected on the outliers and internalize that.

No. None of that. Do you do the equivalent in your native language?

No, we usually assume that it's regular unless told otherwise. So the plural would be -s or -es and the past participle would be -ed. Most irregular words are common, which also means that most words we have never heard are not irregular.

We make the rules. We don't need to look them up. Do you look it up in your own language?

Most new nouns and verbs we learn are regular so there’s no need.

generally the irregular words are highly represented in the most common words so it is rare that we come across an unfamiliar word that doesn't follow the regular patterns. when we do, most don't look it up, and it often regularizes. You'll hear "Attorney generals" and "cul-de-sacs" a lot even though if you look them up, it's supposed to pluralize irregularly. but this development is also naturally one of the ways languages regularize, so it becomes an alternative plural after some time and enough people using it. similarly octopus has many plurals in use: octopuses (regular) octopi (regular plural for latin -us words) octopodes (original plural from Greek)

I usually look it up in the OED, which lists the various forms. That happened to me yesterday, when I came across the word "ruche" in a crossword. (Metro cryptic, 30/5/25). I did half-remember the word as "something to do with fringed cloth", so I finished the crossword (with the helper letters - it couldn't have been much else)... but I looked it up later, and was interested to learn that it can be used as a verb too. I'd only thought of it as a noun. Always good to learn. Every day is a schoolday. “Ruche, N., Sense 2.b.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9124139181.