prescriptivism, conventions, irony, and could(n't) care less

[Beverly Flanigan]

At 02:09 PM 1/31/01 +0800, you wrote:
>At 12:02 PM -0500 1/31/01, Beverly Flanigan wrote:
>>Has anyone else noticed
>>the (seemingly) increasing use of "whom" generally in the media?  Even our
>>student newspaper is using it more, and it invariably sounds stilted.
>
>and not infrequently "wrong", i.e. hypercorrectly used for the
>subject (the candidate whom I think is going to win...)
>
>>
>>On p.t. of 'spit':  My dictionary (an old Webster's New World) lists both
>>'spat' and 'spit' (in that order).  I still hear, and use, 'spat', but it
>>will go when it goes.
>I'm still holding out for a revival of 'spitten' as the past participle.
>
>larry

I was going to add my dictionary's entries on that!  Mine lists both "spit
and image" and "spitting image," with the latter presumed to be a variant
of the former.  No explanation as to why it should take the pres. part.
form (as if the image is what's doing the spitting rather than what's
spit/spat).  I suppose the -ing is a hypercorrection from a presumed spoken
-in'/'n' -- resulting of course in the loss of the past participle meaning,
as you pointed out in your ADS paper.  Now I'll bet we've opened up a whole
nother can of worms.

_____________________________________________
Beverly Olson Flanigan         Department of Linguistics
Ohio University                     Athens, OH  45701
Ph.: (740) 593-4568              Fax: (740) 593-2967
http://www.cats.ohiou.edu/linguistics/dept/flanigan.htm