Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: The Use of "Flunk"
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DoI2t0.Ht2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <4igskf$21r@thingol.esoterica.pt> <DoGxn2.FoK@midway.uchicago.edu> <4ik2gq$l3i@clarknet.clark.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 05:48:35 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <4ik2gq$l3i@clarknet.clark.net>,
Harlan Messinger <gusty@clark.net> wrote:
>Daniel von Brighoff (deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:

>: Although I occasionally hear "flunk" at UoC, my peers more often
>: "blew" or "blew off" the exams.  I think our predecessors were more
>: likely to "crash (and burn)" or "tank" on them.
>: 
>
>Wouldn't you say that "blew off" means more like "didn't bother preparing 
>very hard for the exam and therefore didn't (or, anticipatorily, probably 
>didn't) do very well on it"?

Strictly speaking, yes, and that's how I used it (to the best of my
knowledge).  But many of my peers used it interchangeably with "blew"
to mean simply "didn't do well on".




-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
