Re: "Theory informs practice" - OK?
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, November 14, 2008, 11:34 |
|---|
I've heard, in jest, "blink, blank, blunk" given for "blink". Along
with "think, thank, thunk" (despite the existence of "thank"), "fink,
fank, funk" (despite "funk"), etc. So preexisting words with the same
form are not necessarily any impediment. Heck, I've also heard "dung"
used - in all seriousness! - as the past of "ding" ("I dung his car
all up") - this among speakers who regularly use the past participle
as the simple past, as we discussed the other week (e.g. "I seen"), so
the analogy with "rung" and "sung" is exact.
On 11/14/08, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
> Alex:
> <<
> What, are you ignoring diachrony? Back when the ancestor of "blank"
> would've been a plausible past of the ancestor of "blink", there
> wasn't any
> "blank" adj.; we stole that from French later.
> >>
>
> No, I think that "blunk" is purely a present time joke, and we
> can't erase our knowledge of the word "blank" right now. Had
> the joke been made *before* "blank" made its way into English,
> *then* "blank" would've been a likely made-up past tense.
>
> -David
> *******************************************************************
> "A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
> "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>
> -Jim Morrison
>
>
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
>