Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:37:05 EST
From: Larry Horn LHORN[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU
Subject: Re: two questions: boink and fish shan
According to evidence from undergraduate informant judgments and the
campus papers (as of today's Valentine Day issue), the verbs
boink and bonk are both alive and well in the venereal sense at Yale, and of
course bonk retains its innocent meaning too, with the context presumably
disambiguating the bonk in the head from the bonk in, well, you get the idea.
But I've always assumed the New Yorker's "bunk" to which David Bergdahl
For the use of "bonk" to refer to bumping into someone/-thing
NYC usage of "bunk" with the same meaning.
--is indeed a "corruption" (to use the linguistically incorrect term) of
"bump". Can we assume an evolution of the form bump bunk bonk, or is this
just a case of convergent development?