A little more haplology.

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Pamela Munro wrote:
> 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.

I've been trying to resist the thunder and blazes discussion, but ...

It seems to me that I have lightning usually as a noun, but accept it,
reluctantly, as a verb (lightnings, lightninged), but mainly in the
participle form, and in those cases where I'd expect *lightninging as the
participle I have lightning instead.  Whether this is haplology or a
fosilized relict of 'to lighten' with regular syncope of -en- I am not
sure.  It seems like it would be hard to tell.  Anyway, it's 'thundering
and lightning' and 'thunders and lightnings' or 'thundered and
lightninged'.  'Thundered and lightened' means 'it thundered and something
got less heavy'.