Re: Think, thank, thunk (was Re: Unicode character pickers)

BP Jonsson wrote:
>
> I do this in both Swedish and English.  I also am fond of backformations
> like _contage_ (noun as well as verb) rather than _contagion_.
You're right in tune with modern usage. We have "to liaise" from liaison,
and many others. Who'd a thunk?

> What seems a bit worrying is that it is normally assumed that it is
> the regular/simpler patterns that are contagious, especially with
> children, but with us glossomaniacs it seems to be the rare, archaic
> and "irregular" that is contagious, suggesting that the parts of our
> brains that deal with language are *really* differently wired from
> normal people.
Could be, though I'd suspect it's just that we're more familiar with the
oddities and so more able, and inclined, to play around with them.

> OTOH I've heard my stepsons, who certainly aren't any
> glossomaniacs use strong inflection for standardly and historically
> weak Swedish verbs from a young age.
>
That's rather normal for children before they acquire all the
irregularities. Regularizing "goed" for "went"; analogizing
"bring-brang-brung" (heard those in grade school; considered quite
sub-standard) For some reason the ing(k)-ang(k)-ung(k) paradigm seems quite
powerful; one never hears *bringed.)

Reply