Re: "Theory informs practice" - OK?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:15:08 -0800, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:

>Au contraire x2: the past tense *would* be "blank" if that word
>didn't already exist!  That's why "blunk" comes out first (same
>with "wink/wunk").  It's a blocking effect.
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.

Or, is it in fact true that there's a correlation, that we've lost more
strong forms of verbs that collide with other words than which don't?

Alex

Reply