Sure there’s precedent. “stuck”, “dug”, “flung”, “hung”, etc. It’s just usually on words with “short i” rather than “long e”, but those two vowels are very closely related and famously malleable across accents…
strike -> struck
Great, so that’s the past tense of “snike” all ready for when someone invents that word 
It is acromulent.
Chicolini: Now I aska you one. What has a trunk, but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds and lives in a circus?
A walking clock.
[del]Speaked[/del] [del]Spoken[/del] Spuck like a true disirregardlessmentarian!
[sub]…or is that a true antidisirregardlessmentarian? I always get [del]confused[/del] [del]confusen[/del] confu…you know what I mean.[/sub]
I agree with what you said 100% but I was responding to the claim that the *in *prefix is “superfluous,” which it’s not. The prefix was not added to the word flammable, as was implied by the post I responded to.
Groucho: I asked her it if that was her hippopotamus and she said it was irrelevant.
What her hippopotamus was doing in my pajamas I’ll never know.
“Superfluous” means unnecessary; it does not mean added on later. Since inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, “in-” is superfluous.
What superirfluous?
I feel it embiggens my vocabulary.
My vocabulary has certainly been biggified.
Inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think it means he can’t get pregnant.
That’s impregnable.
I thought that was a pause. An impregnable pause.
Isn’t impregnable = able to impregnate? Then not able to get pregnant should be inimpregnable?
Irimpregnable