<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: pinged vs. pung</title>
	<atom:link href="http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/pinged-vs-pung/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/pinged-vs-pung/</link>
	<description>by Colin Barrett</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 00:19:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Colin</title>
		<link>http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/pinged-vs-pung/comment-page-1/#comment-1002</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/28/pinged-vs-pung/#comment-1002</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hm, that&#039;s quite interesting. It seems like that could be the same mechanism by which we differentiate synonyms by connotation. A word&#039;s connotation is pretty much just the contexts in which we remember it being used, and in my experience words which are synonymous with meaning have subtle connotative clues attached to them (that may not even be in a dictionary.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Back on the original topic. Thinking about my own usage, I seem to only be using &quot;pung&quot; in the construction &quot;pung out,&quot; but only when referring to myself: i.e. I always say &quot;he pinged out a while ago,&quot; but sometimes I say &quot;I pung out a while ago,&quot; rather than &quot;I pinged out a while ago.&quot;  I suppose it&#039;s an odd quirk—it does &lt;em&gt;sound&lt;/em&gt; interesting though. A &lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=pinged+pung&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Search for pinged pung&lt;/a&gt; reveals that others have been at least struggling with this, so it&#039;s not just me being odd (whew!)If you have a link to that Skeptical Enquirer, Myk, I&#039;d love to see it.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm, that&#8217;s quite interesting. It seems like that could be the same mechanism by which we differentiate synonyms by connotation. A word&#8217;s connotation is pretty much just the contexts in which we remember it being used, and in my experience words which are synonymous with meaning have subtle connotative clues attached to them (that may not even be in a dictionary.</p>

<p>Back on the original topic. Thinking about my own usage, I seem to only be using &#8220;pung&#8221; in the construction &#8220;pung out,&#8221; but only when referring to myself: i.e. I always say &#8220;he pinged out a while ago,&#8221; but sometimes I say &#8220;I pung out a while ago,&#8221; rather than &#8220;I pinged out a while ago.&#8221;  I suppose it&#8217;s an odd quirk—it does <em>sound</em> interesting though. A <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=pinged+pung" rel="nofollow">Google Search for pinged pung</a> reveals that others have been at least struggling with this, so it&#8217;s not just me being odd (whew!)If you have a link to that Skeptical Enquirer, Myk, I&#8217;d love to see it.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mykmelez</title>
		<link>http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/pinged-vs-pung/comment-page-1/#comment-1001</link>
		<dc:creator>mykmelez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/28/pinged-vs-pung/#comment-1001</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;In a recent Skeptical Enquirer, Steven Pinker noted recent brain activity studies that show different parts of the brain being active when speakers use irregular conjugations.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Specifically, irregular conjugations activate memory areas of the brain, while regular conjugations activate analytical (rule-processing) areas.  His theory is that irregular conjugations are harder to use and thus rarer (and restricted to commonly used words), but they&#039;re also more evocative (because memory-related) and thus preferable to boring regular conjugations.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In any case, conjugations and other grammar change over time (sometimes swinging back and forth), so I wouldn&#039;t get hanged ;-) up on supposed &quot;rules.&quot;  Today&#039;s heretical linguistic innovations will be defended as &quot;correct&quot; by tomorrow&#039;s language cops, just as yesterday&#039;s innovations are defended by today&#039;s cops.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;(FWIW, I occasionally have used &quot;pang&quot; and &quot;pung&quot;, but I generally prefer &quot;pinged&quot; these days.)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a recent Skeptical Enquirer, Steven Pinker noted recent brain activity studies that show different parts of the brain being active when speakers use irregular conjugations.</p>

<p>Specifically, irregular conjugations activate memory areas of the brain, while regular conjugations activate analytical (rule-processing) areas.  His theory is that irregular conjugations are harder to use and thus rarer (and restricted to commonly used words), but they&#8217;re also more evocative (because memory-related) and thus preferable to boring regular conjugations.</p>

<p>In any case, conjugations and other grammar change over time (sometimes swinging back and forth), so I wouldn&#8217;t get hanged ;-) up on supposed &#8220;rules.&#8221;  Today&#8217;s heretical linguistic innovations will be defended as &#8220;correct&#8221; by tomorrow&#8217;s language cops, just as yesterday&#8217;s innovations are defended by today&#8217;s cops.</p>

<p>(FWIW, I occasionally have used &#8220;pang&#8221; and &#8220;pung&#8221;, but I generally prefer &#8220;pinged&#8221; these days.)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Hosey</title>
		<link>http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/pinged-vs-pung/comment-page-1/#comment-998</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hosey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iamthewalr.us/blog/2007/03/28/pinged-vs-pung/#comment-998</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I had a look using egrep &#039;^..?ing$&#039; /usr/share/dict/words to find four- and five-letter “*ing” words. Ignoring nouns and gerunds, we have:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;bring: brought, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;ding: dinged, in all cases. (Definitely &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; dung.)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;sting: stung, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;wing: winged, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;zing: zinged, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;fling: flung, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;wring: wringed (pt); wrung (pp)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;ring: ringed (pt); rung (pp)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So the &lt;em&gt;inged/&lt;/em&gt;ung division only happens when the preceding letter is ‘r’. In all other cases, it&#039;s either all-&lt;em&gt;inged or all-&lt;/em&gt;ung. I&#039;m inclined to go with “pinged” myself.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a look using egrep &#8216;^..?ing$&#8217; /usr/share/dict/words to find four- and five-letter “*ing” words. Ignoring nouns and gerunds, we have:</p>

<p>bring: brought, in all cases.</p>

<p>ding: dinged, in all cases. (Definitely <em>not</em> dung.)</p>

<p>sting: stung, in all cases.</p>

<p>wing: winged, in all cases.</p>

<p>zing: zinged, in all cases.</p>

<p>fling: flung, in all cases.</p>

<p>wring: wringed (pt); wrung (pp)</p>

<p>ring: ringed (pt); rung (pp)</p>

<p>So the <em>inged/</em>ung division only happens when the preceding letter is ‘r’. In all other cases, it&#8217;s either all-<em>inged or all-</em>ung. I&#8217;m inclined to go with “pinged” myself.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.218 seconds -->
