<<In the case of the aforementioned way of conjugating verbs, it is definitely rule-driven, it is just that the rule(s) behind it happen to be different from those specified in prescriptive standards and those used by other dialects which follow the more conservative pattern of verb conjugation. >>
Exactly. And those are even standard in written British English anyway. I've come across such usage in formal texts of British origin quite often.
<<One thing that must be strongly stated is that all language varieties operate according to clear rules, even if these rules are never written or standardized at any point. Just because these rules are different from those which have been decreed as so by prescriptivists at some point or another and likely have never been put down to pen (or have only been written down by linguists) does not mean that they are not rules. >>
Definitely. I think some people assume that the only rules out there are the ones they learned in grammar classes in school and that other language is somehow not rule bound (!) or at the best unfavorable and peripheral to "real" language. Absolutely false. That would imply that languages which had no written form or people who didn't know how to write somehow were speaking languages with "no rules," which is clearly absurd. Linguists know full well that all language is rule-bound whether or not the rules are consciously noticed by people or written down and regardless of whether or not specific examples of usage are approved of by prescriptivist sources for formal written norms.
<<Such ideas are likely tied into the use of such forms in dialects where such forms are to be found today, but the initial origination of such forms is likely to really not be clear at all, as is the case with many phonological changes, which have seemingly occurred just because. >>
Yes, language change doesn't have to "make sense." Language change is a mysterious yet fascinating being who rarely if ever consults people on the matter. If such were the case languages wouldn't be changing--people have tried to rein in language change over the centuries and it never works, no matter how hard they try or how strange a new usage may initially appear.
Exactly. And those are even standard in written British English anyway. I've come across such usage in formal texts of British origin quite often.
<<One thing that must be strongly stated is that all language varieties operate according to clear rules, even if these rules are never written or standardized at any point. Just because these rules are different from those which have been decreed as so by prescriptivists at some point or another and likely have never been put down to pen (or have only been written down by linguists) does not mean that they are not rules. >>
Definitely. I think some people assume that the only rules out there are the ones they learned in grammar classes in school and that other language is somehow not rule bound (!) or at the best unfavorable and peripheral to "real" language. Absolutely false. That would imply that languages which had no written form or people who didn't know how to write somehow were speaking languages with "no rules," which is clearly absurd. Linguists know full well that all language is rule-bound whether or not the rules are consciously noticed by people or written down and regardless of whether or not specific examples of usage are approved of by prescriptivist sources for formal written norms.
<<Such ideas are likely tied into the use of such forms in dialects where such forms are to be found today, but the initial origination of such forms is likely to really not be clear at all, as is the case with many phonological changes, which have seemingly occurred just because. >>
Yes, language change doesn't have to "make sense." Language change is a mysterious yet fascinating being who rarely if ever consults people on the matter. If such were the case languages wouldn't be changing--people have tried to rein in language change over the centuries and it never works, no matter how hard they try or how strange a new usage may initially appear.