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.