Today's Wall Street Journal, on poker, the word and the game.

The purpose of this meeting," said Harvard University Law School professor Charles Nesson, kicking things off beneath the dusty visages of long-dead Harvard poets and divines, "is to legitimate poker." To do that, Prof. Nesson and his fellows hope to show, statistically, philosophically, legally and otherwise, that poker is a game in which skill predominates over chance. Under U.S. common law, games that are predominantly chance are considered gambling, while those that are mainly skill are not.

Poker's name most likely derives from an ancient French bluffing game called poque, from the antiquated French verb poque, which meant "to bet."

quote:

to legitimate

What's wrong with the proper word, legitimise? Or legitimize, if you prefer.

If a Harvard professor says it, I suppose it must be right, but it sure doesn't sound right to me. The dictionies are with the professor, but I won't be going there.

The quick definitions do suggest that "to legitimate" is a verb - but the dictionary entries themselves do not always agree. It does not appear in COED as a verb - and if COED does not support its use that way then neither do I. As Arnie says, there are other verbs that mean "to make legal" - why not use them?

Of the three definitions of legitimate as a verb in the OED1, the earliest citations are from 1593, 1531, and 1611 respectively. The entries are: (1) to render a bastard legitimate; (2) to render lawful or legal; and, (3) to affirm or show to be legitimate. The 2nd and 3rd meanings are quoted into the 19th century. Perhaps Professor Nesson was just going for that old-time feeling.

Could just be the antipathy that some of the upper crust have toward the -ise or -ize suffix; especially when another word exists.

quote:

It does not appear in COED as a verb

Oops! It's there after all.

It looks like Richard will have to legitimize its use. As to arnie's reason, well, many words have 2 or more synonyms. That's never been a problem before. Wouldn't it be boring if we only had one word everything or situation? I love using the word "balderdash" for "nonsense" or "dolt" for "stupid person," for 2 examples. Additional words add color to the language.

So, I say we should legitimize legitimate.

quote:

Additional words add color to the language.

It's not actually a different word as are your other examples. It's simply a different use for a formation of an existing word.

It's rather like suggesting that, for example, rather than saying "he goes" we now use the same conjugation as for the second person singular and say "he go" - but do it for the verb "to go" only.

I know it happens but I don't see that it's a necessary trend.

Okay. So you see various forms of words as being the same word? I don't. If it's the same word with different definitions I would, but not if it's a different word.

I thought either being in, or not being in, the COED was your test for a word. I guess not.

quote:

So you see various forms of words as being the same word? I don't.

It's a nice distinction but I believe that different forms of the same word (when they are simply different cases or declensions for instance) do not qualify as completely different words.

I am, you are, he is, we are, you are, they are - are all different forms of the verb "to be", not different words. But to be, to exist, to subsist; to comprise; to live - are all quite different words that have similar meanings.

I guess you don't agree with the COED on this one.

quote:

I guess you don't agree with the COED on this one.

I don't quite get your drift. It isn't in my COED but, even so, that's not really my point. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing, it's simply a question on the use of a form of a word in a particular sense (that few dictionaries seem to support). I suggest it's unnecessary; others obviously feel differently.

I queried the use of legitimate as a transitive verb without checking any dictionaries. OneLook gives 20 online sources for the word. Of these I couldn't access two, and Wikipedia gives only an articale on legitimacy. The Online Etymology Dictionary does not give separate definitions. Of the remaining sixteen, only one, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, does not give a definition for a verb form. The others, including COED online, define it as a verb as well.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the verb as "US formal", but none of the others gives a particular type of English.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,