Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:37:05 EST From: Larry Horn 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 refers-- >For the use of "bonk" to refer to bumping into someone/-thing >cf. the >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? --Larry