Comments on: Sneak—Snack—Snuck http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Mon, 20 May 2013 14:53:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: OUPblog » Blog Archive » A scrumptious shrimp with a riddle http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-269469 OUPblog » Blog Archive » A scrumptious shrimp with a riddle Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:30:34 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-269469 [...] but the causes of the change are not baffling, while the indignation is completely wasted (there once was a post in this blog titled “Sneak, Snuck, Snack”). By contrast, the change of scrimptious to scrumptious had no environment to justify the [...] [...] but the causes of the change are not baffling, while the indignation is completely wasted (there once was a post in this blog titled “Sneak, Snuck, Snack”). By contrast, the change of scrimptious to scrumptious had no environment to justify the [...]

]]> By: “Snuck” sneaked in « Sentence first http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-164259 “Snuck” sneaked in « Sentence first Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:10:42 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-164259 [...] *sneikanan (q.v. snake). Sneak’s etymology “seems to be within reach, but at every step something goes wrong”. Snuck came later — in the late 19C. — yet the origins of both words are, in Robert [...] [...] *sneikanan (q.v. snake). Sneak’s etymology “seems to be within reach, but at every step something goes wrong”. Snuck came later — in the late 19C. — yet the origins of both words are, in Robert [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Lighter http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-85216 Jonathan Lighter Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:54:21 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-85216 I've posted an 1881 U.S. ex. of "snuck" to the ADS website. This antedates OED by just six years. I wonder if "shake/ shook" might not be the inspiration, but I haven't discovered any ex. of the spelling {*snook} to lend support to this idea. The frequency of "snuck" in American print after about 1895 (and its rarity before) suggests an innovation in the generation following mass German and Irish immigration in the 1840s-'50s. It would be consistent with known history, albeit entirely conjectural, to suspect some immigrant second-language influence reflected in "snuck." I’ve posted an 1881 U.S. ex. of “snuck” to the ADS website. This antedates OED by just six years.

I wonder if “shake/ shook” might not be the inspiration, but I haven’t discovered any ex. of the spelling {*snook} to lend support to this idea.

The frequency of “snuck” in American print after about 1895 (and its rarity before) suggests an innovation in the generation following mass German and Irish immigration in the 1840s-’50s.

It would be consistent with known history, albeit entirely conjectural, to suspect some immigrant second-language influence reflected in “snuck.”

]]> By: John Cowan http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-69292 John Cowan Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:50:51 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/snuck/#comment-69292 Of the four strong verbs , <i>sneak</i>, <i>dig</i>, <i>stick</i>, and <i>strike</i>, the only originally strong verb is <i>strike</i>. The other three are all weak verbs that have become strong by "wrong-way" analogy. <i>Dig</i> is apparently a borrowing from OF, a remote c, and had the weak form <i>digged</i> until the 16th century or so (the KJV uses the weak form). <i>Stick</i> was confused with the obsolete strong verb <i>steek</i> 'pierce, stab, transfix, fasten (in general)', both derived from OE <i>stician</i> but separated in different dialects and remerged later, presumably because of their phonetic similarity and overlapping semantics. All four verbs are in my opinion expressive to some degree, which may account for their following <i>strike</i>'s lead into the strong conjugation. Of the four strong verbs , sneak, dig, stick, and strike, the only originally strong verb is strike. The other three are all weak verbs that have become strong by “wrong-way” analogy.

Dig is apparently a borrowing from OF, a remote c, and had the weak form digged until the 16th century or so (the KJV uses the weak form). Stick was confused with the obsolete strong verb steek ‘pierce, stab, transfix, fasten (in general)’, both derived from OE stician but separated in different dialects and remerged later, presumably because of their phonetic similarity and overlapping semantics.

All four verbs are in my opinion expressive to some degree, which may account for their following strike‘s lead into the strong conjugation.

]]>