Date:    Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:16:32 -0400
<br>From:    Beverly Flanigan <flanigan[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OAK.CATS.OHIOU.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: "incent"
<br>
<br>At 01:03 PM 6/25/98 -0400, Bethany Dumas wrote:
<br>>On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Beverly Flanigan wrote:
<br>>
<br>>> Comments for both Mark and Bethany:  Backformations, like incentive, n. -->
<br>>> incent, v. are common.
<br>>
<br>>Of course. I don't think anyone has questioned that.
<br>>
<br>In fact, someone did question that, hence the comments by Peter McGraw and me.
<br>
<br>>> Nor is 'grow' as tr. verb new.
<br>>
<br>>I suggested that it is "relatively new," and teh evidence that I have
<br>>seen suggests that it is. I don't recall any instances in the 50s or 60s
<br>>or even 70s. I associate its use  with Clinton's term in office. Can
<br>>anyone provide decades-earlier examples? I would be interested.
<br>
<br>Well, my memory bank goes back to 1940 (I haven't checked the OED), and I
<br>know that 'grow' + vegetation is at least that old.  The specific term
<br>'grow the economy' is apparently recent, and I too associate it with
<br>Clinton (though a colleague here thinks that Greenspan originated it).
<br>Perhaps you meant to apply "relatively new" to this term but not to the
<br>transitive use of 'grow' in other contexts.  I'll look for my notes on
<br>other contextual uses of the term.
<br>>
<br>>Again, the problem I have with these terms is strictly semantic.
<br>>
<br>>Bethany
<br>>
<br>It's interesting to speculate on the logical extension of the semantic
<br>range of the word:
<br>grow vegetables, grow animals, grow concrete things, grow abstract notions....
<br>