4 ms·

Yes, but in your construction, you're using a popular pseudo-participle form of to think. The author of the article is suggesting that we use these weird ablau

by nrr 17y ago

Yes, but in your construction, you're using a popular pseudo-participle form of to think. The author of the article is suggesting that we use these weird ablaut/umlaut morphs in place of the preterite. For example, "I thought" would then become "I thunk".

georgecmu 17y ago
A few things to note: 1. It's not at all my construction. That's precisely why it's hard to see originality in this. 2. If you read his post carefully, you'll see that the author isn't aware of distinction between past simple and present perfect, let alone of ablaut: he confuses "swam" and "swum" and then proceeds to use the newly invented past tense form of "cutch" in present perfect. 3. Ablaut would be along the lines of think-thank-thunk -- something the author is not suggesting. 4. Think and catch already have the "weird umlaut morph". Changing it to the "swim-swam-swum" pattern is, like I said, nothing new.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I would reply directly, but haven't been able to find your email, so a brief response here: Originality is hard to pin down. I've never seen it suggested that this should be a new regular form, rather than an ad hoc collection of joke forms. I've never before heard "lunk" and "cluck" used like this. Has anyone else? Is that original? I'm not a grammar expert, no doubt I've may have missed some. Besides, if I'm re-inventing, then perhaps it truly is an idea whose time has come (yes - joking) I am aware of the differences between present perfect, simple past, past continuitive, past perfect, past pluperfect, etc, but I was trying to avoid having this turn into an article on grammar. For one, although I have a working knowledge I'm not an expert, for another, that wasn't the point. Good catch about "cutch" in the present perfect. I'll need to re-write an earlier part to make it clear that it's not really the "past tense", but the "word form usually used for the past tense" (avoiding technical grammatical terms). I appreciate your observations - thanks.

by nrr 17y ago

georgecmu 17y ago

A few things to note: 1. It's not at all my construction. That's precisely why it's hard to see originality in this. 2. If you read his post carefully, you'll see that the author isn't aware of distinction between past simple and present perfect, let alone of ablaut: he confuses "swam" and "swum" and then proceeds to use the newly invented past tense form of "cutch" in present perfect. 3. Ablaut would be along the lines of think-thank-thunk -- something the author is not suggesting. 4. Think and catch already have the "weird umlaut morph". Changing it to the "swim-swam-swum" pattern is, like I said, nothing new.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
I would reply directly, but haven't been able to find your email, so a brief response here: Originality is hard to pin down. I've never seen it suggested that this should be a new regular form, rather than an ad hoc collection of joke forms. I've never before heard "lunk" and "cluck" used like this. Has anyone else? Is that original? I'm not a grammar expert, no doubt I've may have missed some. Besides, if I'm re-inventing, then perhaps it truly is an idea whose time has come (yes - joking) I am aware of the differences between present perfect, simple past, past continuitive, past perfect, past pluperfect, etc, but I was trying to avoid having this turn into an article on grammar. For one, although I have a working knowledge I'm not an expert, for another, that wasn't the point. Good catch about "cutch" in the present perfect. I'll need to re-write an earlier part to make it clear that it's not really the "past tense", but the "word form usually used for the past tense" (avoiding technical grammatical terms). I appreciate your observations - thanks.