-1

Saying things like "rain rains"

"thunder thunders"

etc

need-not-kNow
  • 17
  • 2
    Rain doesn't rain, it rains. It also thunders. Some people would call saying "rain rains" an error, some would call it a mistake, and some would call it bad English. But maybe you are looking for something else. Please give us some more information about what you are looking for. – oerkelens Jan 28 '15 at 13:01
  • 1
    Cooks cook [food], pens pen [livestock], fingers finger [private parts], lights light [dark areas], clothes clothe [people], etc. – FumbleFingers Jan 28 '15 at 13:32
  • I'd call it a "sentence". – Hot Licks Jan 28 '15 at 13:46
  • 1
    It's called a "cognate subject construction" by some. The intransitive version of the "cognate object construction" (shout a shout, dance a dance, walk a walk, etc). – John Lawler Jan 28 '15 at 19:26
  • This has nothing to do with the previous question, which addressed contrastive focus reduplication (eg 'coffee coffee' {as opposed to the stuff they serve in ...}). Here, the juxtaposition of intercategorial polysemes (noun + verb) for subject + verb is being asked about. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 30 '15 at 01:02

2 Answers2

2

Rain does not really rain. Something else is doing the raining, and this is the "it" in "it rains". So "it rains" really means something like "the atmosphere rains". But the rain itself does not rain.

Similarly with thunder. Thunder is the actual sound that results from lightning. So thunder nevers thunders – a sound cannot make a sound, it is the sound. It is the lightning that thunders – or makes the sound of thunder.

Jesper
  • 139
  • Yes, the examples aren't correct, but you're not answering the basic question. Fumblefingers provides better examples (and John Lawler provides the answer). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 30 '15 at 01:06
  • Funny how different people read different meanings into a question that is not clearly stated. :-) I see three different interpretations of what that question meant. :-) But seeing the three different interpretations, I believe your interpretation is the most probable one. – Jesper Jan 31 '15 at 13:44
-2

Verbing is so common. A probably recent very popular one is google.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/25#mutable_48899

Raghuraman R
  • 762
  • But does Google google? – FumbleFingers Jan 28 '15 at 13:33
  • It should. The company Google should google for the future - to add a bit of metaphor. – Raghuraman R Jan 28 '15 at 13:35
  • I don't see how the OP's sentences could be considered "verbing" (at least not in the neo sense). The verbs "rain" and "thunder" have existed on their own for hundreds of years, at least. – Hot Licks Jan 28 '15 at 13:48
  • Google indexes. We then google. – mplungjan Jan 28 '15 at 14:01
  • @HotLicks we are looking at modern English usage, in which verbing has become more common. Rain and thunder existed for long indeed, but whether 'Rain rains' or 'thunder thunders' would have been enough thought of, forget being used/spoken, is very much debatable. Reg 'Google indexes', apart from yet another 'verbing' here, 'Google should google itself' could be a metaphor (say 'soul searching'!). – Raghuraman R Jan 28 '15 at 16:13
  • OP is asking about the juxtaposition of (noun and verb) intercategorial polysemes, not just intercategorial polysemes. Conversion is not the issue here. 'Is Does a cook cook? acceptable?' Not 'Can we verb lava / verb / lightning / Mr. Shiny and New 安宇?'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 31 '15 at 15:43