Funly

[Mark A. Mandel]

John Baker writes:
>>>
        [...]
        That example, though, had an emoticon, which may indicate the
writer's intentional use of a neologism.  This Google Groups example
from 11/13/1994, referring to the lyrics of the band Spin Doctors, is
unambiguous:

        <<Good points DE - a thing I read oncve that troubled me was an
article about the SD's once where John Popper was part of the interview, and
he was talking about the bands' friendly relations and how Chris was the
greatest lyricist and John has the harp as his thing that no one can touch.
Well, although the article was about Chris and his band, so it was Popper's
job to promote them - I would place John Popper above Chris Barron as a
lyricist any day. Now SD songs are fun, and funly - and Chris writes some
neat shit, but John is a poet. And I wondered why John didn't say he was the
lyricist - why? humility. A trait seldom found in the rock and roll world.>>

<<<



It may be unambiguous as not being an obvious neologism, but I can't read

  Now SD songs are fun, and funly

as an adverbial use. Maybe the blogger was thinking of adjectives like
"manly" and "studly".



-- Mark A. Mandel
   Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org