A little more haplology.

[Pamela Munro]

No, certainly not. This is (for me) the only form that works that looks verbal  I assume it is in fact related to the verb "lighten", which I am not too fond of either (in this meaning). Actually, though, it's a totally defective paradigm, since
although "It's lightning out" seems ok, "I saw it lightning," which ought to be fine if it's an ordinary participle, is not.

Pam



"R. Rankin" wrote:

> Yowsah.  But can U say "It's thunder out."  I can't.
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Munro <munro at ucla.edu>
> To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: A little more haplology.
>
> > I would only accept "It's lightning out" as haplology from speakers for whom "to lightning" is a verb. It certainly isn't in my speech. Can you guys all say "It lightnings before there is thunder" or "It lightninged twice last night"? Surely if
> > "lightning" is a verb we should be able to. (I understand that this must be true for Bob!)
> >
> > Pam
> >
> >
> >
> > "R. Rankin" wrote:
> >
> > > Well, my point is that we all ARE making such judgments.  You and Catherine have examples of haplology apparently, and that is one of the standard responses.  I have polled students and "it's lightning out" is probably the most common response.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >



--
Pamela Munro
Professor
Department of Linguistics
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles Ca 90095-1543
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/people/munro/munro.htm