Chris,
I usually say "sunk" only when chemically distracted (I'm never impaired, you
know). It's kinda like dive, dove, diven, or swing, swang, swung.
And I am an enthusiastic supporter of "ain't." No more "I AM not," "you ARE
not," "he IS not," and all that complicated foolishness. Instead, we have the
simple, "I ain't," "you ain't," "he ain't," which frees those scarce brain
cells to remember other, more important stuff -- like our address and telephone
number and the Sunny 16 Rule.
Walt
-------------- Original message from Chris Barker : --------------
>
> Walt, I agree with you about the timing; I am about to go out and cook
> a nice little piece of lamb which has been marinading for a while. It
> will take a couple of Carlsbergs I reckon... ;-). No, it is not warm
> here in England, but the sun is shining, intermittently at least.
>
> By the way, I just know that you will be grateful for my pointing out
> that the past of "sink" is "sank" ? just like "stink" and "stank".
>
> No thanks necessary, I insist :-).
>
> Chris
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|