Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: irregular conlangs

From:Eric Christopherson <raccoon@...>
Date:Saturday, October 16, 1999, 3:32
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Pearson <jmpearson@...>
To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 1999 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: irregular conlangs

> Eric Christopherson wrote (wrought?): > > >> Like "wrought", originally the past tense of "work", but now a seperate > >> verb. Presumably, when the regular "worked" was used, some speakers > >> retained "wrought", but since they were few, people thought it was a > >> different verb. > > > >I thought wrought was the past tense of wreak... > > I believe that "wreak" and "work" were originally different forms of the > same word - perhaps the same word in different dialects of Old English? > The "wreak" form survives only in "wreak havoc" and maybe one or two > other fixed expressions, while the "work" form has been generalised.
Well, that was my idea, but I recently looked it up in a dictionary of etymology, which said that it came from an OE verb meaning something like "inflict," if I'm not mistaken (which I quite possibly am, as I don't have the book in front of me. In any case it seemed to come from a different root).