This coexistence might permit a subtle differentiation of meaning, in a similar manner to that of burnt and burned. I would be willing to bet that yote will win out as the major form, with yeeted existing as a variant, rather obsolete form. The vowel change present in yeet-yote is closer to the expected of ablaut reduplication, i-a-o, and follows the trend of moving from a front high vowel to a back low vowel. When considering the vowel change of yeet-yate one sees the vowel i: change to eɪ whereas with yeet-yote one sees i: change to oʊ. Instead, ablaut reduplication is what favours yote and disfavours yate, when the verb is thought of, or recited, as its principal parts. As such, I would suggest that this is not the primary reason for yote ( joʊt) to be prefered to yate ( jeɪt). Other verbs such as smite-smote might play a part yet I feel trying to explain why a form is preferred purely by comparison to other verbs misses the key understanding of why these other forms seem correct. This could be because of the commonness of speak-spoke which would favour, by comparison, yote. Some of these act identically in Modern English to verbs which are descended from Strong Verbs.Īs such one must consider why it is that yote seems to be preferred to yate. The other reason why looking to Old English verb classes is unhelpful is that many Modern English verbs that have irregular past tenses are not descended from Old English Strong Verbs. As such the only grammar that should be seriously considered is that of Modern English. This argument is fallacious for a number of reasons, primarily that yeet is a truly modern word, not a descendant of any Old English form. The most common explanation seems to be that yeet fits into one of the classes of Strong Verbs in Old English and thus must form its Simple Past form in a certain way. Oddly there seem to be very few arguments that suggest that both could survive, as is the case with spoke and spake. As there are two different possible forms there are many explanations why one is more correct than the other. And so from eat-ate and speak-spake, one generates yate, whilst from speak-spoke one generates yote. However, the pattern of the verbs I have mentioned cannot work for yeet as it would result in yet which is already a common word and so is not a viable option.Īs such, a comparison must be made with other irregular verbs: e.g, eat and speak. Comparison with verbs such as, meet-met, feed-fed, and lead-led, suggest that the verb will act irregularly and will not take the form yeeted, and instead takes an irregular form in a similar manner to pre-existing verbs. When considering this, people tend to think of how similar-sounding verbs act. In this article, I will focus only on how the Simple Past can be formed. What is of interest is the multitude of forms the verb seems to take in different tenses, and so is an interesting example of how language evolves and how new words are created and integrated into pre-existing grammatical structures, especially in the online world with new forms of communication. For the purposes of this article, it doesn’t really matter what it means, which is useful as it does not have a meaning that can easily be pinned down. Originally the name of a sort-of dance, it has undergone verbification to form the verb that this article concerns. The verb yeet ( ji:t) is a neologism which seems to have been coined around February 2014. Originally Published in Silly Linguistics Magazine, Issue 3.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |