Re: another new verb
|Date:||Saturday, July 13, 2002, 21:00|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> friend of mine has just sent me a message using the verb 'to
> geek' . . . meaning presumably to do computer-centric things,
> or, in his definition 'lit means iwill have the net on and
> relax at home with a few bottles of red wine and a nice curry
> and have music in the background and sit on the net looking
> at what ever i feel to'
Looks like that word would be the my primary action when im awake...
> would it be strong or weak ?
> geek, [geekst], geeks, geek, geek, geek
> i geeked/i gaught
> i have geeked/i have gaught.
> i think we have to know !
Considering how English tends to manage new verbs, I believe
It would be "geeked" in the past tense.
> incidentally, my brother always used to treat the phrase
> 'have to' as 'haft to', and thus formed the past tense as
> 'hafted to'. still does in fact, and he's now 18. i suppose
> it's a bit like 'i used to', /'just@/ being negated as 'i
> didn't use to' (sp?) /'dId¬n? 'just@/ rather than 'i used not
> to', which my father would say.
I do it too. Actually, I say both, (hafted to, had to), depending on
the action, or so it would seem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----