Print

Print


On 12 Jan 2016 08:46, "Alex Fink" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 12 January 2016 at 08:42, Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> they could *merge* into a single word with a broad semantic spread.
And pointed out to me once that, at least in English, this is the normal
state of affairs for verbs.
> >
> > Example?
>
> Embarrassingly, I can't remember.  Do I even have this right, And?

Pretty much. Haj Ross noted the absence of homonymy among English verbs;
it's as if there's an implicit principle of "one sense per word", so that
if there could be multiple senses then they grow tendrils towards each
other, to form a single family-resemblance category, and perhaps the
comparative concreteness of noun senses makes them more resistant to this
sort of merger. But you'd have to find your own examples of merged
homonyms; I don't know any.

--And.