I have a worry with the Oxford here - there are too many related wr.. words -
wrought, wreak, wrung - all to do with a physical action. I suspect that work
once existed as 'wrok' in some form and places, just as 'bird was once 'brid'.
There are many letter switches like this. There is no reason to have such an
irregular past particle for 'work'. Language tends to simplify - except in
America of course.
Pedant note of the week -
I've been puzzled by the rise of 'impact' as an active verb - as in "Queensland
has been severely impacted by floods." An ugly form, easily avoided. Then the
penny dropped. The correct term should be 'affected' but of course, who knows
the difference between affect and effect these days? Thus a pusillanimous
substitution is born.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 28/01/2011, at 12:35 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> I beg to differ.
>
> No, dammit, I'm not going to beg in this matter. How about assert !
>
> Andrew wrote ( nothing to do with wrought)
>>>
>>> You sure - got to break it to be certain! :-)
>>> And yes, 'wrought is the the past tense of to wreak.
>
> Wrong ! It's the past tense of " to work", I always thought.
>
> Confirmed by my 1949 "Little Oxford Concise Dictionary" :-)
> ( So I must be correct ! )
>
> And yes it's as brittle as hell, especially when cast as fine filigree. But
> it rusts
> only slowly.
>
> Brian Swale.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|