Yea, it's a suppletive verb.
No problem understanding you:Ok, here's another three sentences (with a great many R's ).
Hey, that's why I post the files here! No need to feel bad.You're doing good, so I feel bad picking nits, but here you go:
Off how?- The eu in utilisateurs sounds off, but only slightly.
I figured as much so that's why I pick nits anyway.Hey, that's why I post the files here!
Dunno... Let me listen again and try to pinpoint it.Off how?
English does that with the verb "to be".I wonder why, even in the present tense, there are forms taken from different Latin verbs: je vais, tu vas, il va, ils vont presumably from vado, but then nous allons, vous allez from ambulo. I could see taking different tenses from different verbs (Greek does it often enough, and even Latin does it now and again) but why would speakers of proto-French feel the need to mix and match their verbal roots within a single tense like that?
They didn't chose to, it's because with Vulgar Latin, vadere and *alare were both in use, and eventually merged together in Gallo-Romance. It also happened in Spanish.I wonder why, even in the present tense, there are forms taken from different Latin verbs: je vais, tu vas, il va, ils vont presumably from vado, but then nous allons, vous allez from ambulo. I could see taking different tenses from different verbs (Greek does it often enough, and even Latin does it now and again) but why would speakers of proto-French feel the need to mix and match their verbal roots within a single tense like that?
It's hard to think of any kind of language change that doesn't seem arbitrary. You can identify a few mechanisms that follow a certain pattern (like analogy or grammaticalisation), but whether they trigger or not is arbitrary again ...it seems so arbitrary.
I'm not sure...Can one use trigger in a medium way like that?