(no subject)

Date: 5 Mar 2007 02:35 pm (UTC)
The etymologists were suggesting that a confusion of accent was the origin of the divergence/the "thing" form, not that it's a separate occasion of mispronunciation every time it's spoken, so Simon's accent wouldn't have to confuse the two sounds, he would just have to speak a dialect that uses the "thing" form (but in fact the issue is whether the accent would require separate enunciation of two k sounds: think(.)coming. I can't think of any accent offhand that would pronounce it that way outside of deliberate emphasis). The origin would have to have been decades ago at least for the forms to be so close to neck-and-neck in usage as they are today (and for 80% of users of each form to be unaware of the existence of the other!).

I can't really see how they could have separate meanings. How would you parse the significance of the phrase with "thing"? What would it mean that was different from the version with "think"? The beginning of the expression refers to assumptions and doesn't imply anything about objects of any kind.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

cimorene: cartoony drawing of a woman's head in profile giving dubious side-eye (Default)
Cimorene

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 3 4 5 67
8 91011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

  • Style: Practically Dracula for Practicalitesque - Practicality (with tweaks) by [personal profile] cimorene
  • Resources: Dracula Theme

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 12 Jun 2025 06:37 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios