Everyone posting on the original thread seems to agree that the verbification of nouns should not be seen as the end of the world as long as it's not overdone. No argument here.

My question: What about those times when it is? I recently heard a radio reporter turn the perfectly good noun "liaison" into one of the most awkward verbs I've ever been assaulted with. The usage was something like "He had to liase (pronounced LEE-AZE) with the colonel." BLAUGHHHH!!!

Any other good examples of words that really don't make the transition well from one part of speech to another?

(Note: This is not a challenge, a contest, or any other sort of competition. Than being said, all newcomers to this board posting on this thread receive double credit and R.E. starts off with a minus two.)

Although it is, indeed, a back formation from liason, OED is quite happy with the word liase and it is very common over here.

Richard English

And I was all set to say Richard got 2 points!

But since according to Cambridge International Dictionary of English and several other sources, it is correctly spelled liaise and is an accepted verb meaning: "to work closely with more than one group in order to communicate information between them as in: His job is to liaise with other similar organizations and to plan a joint campaign."

I hereby set CJ back one point for spelling it wrong, and one point for not doing a simple search on the word. I give Richard only one point for verifying it's usage but remove that point for not correcting the spelling. I hereby take one point for correcting the spelling, and one point for providing the information herewith!

Score at the end of round one:

CJ Strolin............-2
Richard English.....-2
Morgan...............+2

So there!

quote:

---

I give Richard only one point for verifying it's usage but remove that point for not correcting the spelling. ... Richard English.....-2

---

CJ's initial handicap to Richard being unsupportedo we must deduct from Morgan 1/2 point for poor addition, as well as 1/2 point for poor apostrophizing.

Award to hic: 1 point for verbifying "apostrophe" (in the sense of a punctuation mark); 1 point for corrections; -1 point for pedantry

Score at the end of round two:

CJ Strolin..............-2
Richard English......+1
Morgan.................+1
hic et ubique.........+1

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a horserace! So there!

"CJ's initial handicap to Richard being unsupportedo we must deduct ..."


Say what?

OK, 1 point back to me since "liase" wasn't a misspelling seeing as how I didn't believe it was an actual word. The minus point for not checking, well, yes, you got me there. I also rate 2 more minus points for starting this and believing that my non-contest (specifically identified as such) would not turn competitive.

Two more points to the hicMeister for coining "unsupportedo," a new Spanish adjective. Never let it be said I don't appreciate imagination.

One more negative point to R.E. for asserting (boasting, even!) that "liaise" is commonly heard over there. The whole point of this thread was that it's an ugly sounding word!

And 1 7/8 more points to Morgan for no reason in particular.

Seeing as how, according to the official rules I'm making up as we go along, the non-winner of this non-contest is the first person to reach 3 points, the FINAL standings are:

hic et ubique - +3
Morgan - +2 7/8
R.E. - 0
my humbled self - -3

Returning to the original purpose of this thread, I heard another example of a truly ugly neologism in a radio news story reporting that a sheriff would not be available to the public on a certain day because he had to (are you sitting down?) "funeralize a deputy."

There's no trace of it on Dictionary.com and if R.E. reports that this aberration is commonly heard over there the sun will have officialy set on the British Empire.

I assure you, CJ, no English-speaking country would ever use that ludicrous term!

Here is one that I found. While it doesn't sound as bad as "funeralize", I believe it is wrong. I found it on the front page of the newspaper:
"Meanwhile, federal agents are ramping up their investigation concerning former.....". "Ramping up"...as in using a ramp? Now, "ramp" can be used as a verb, but when it is, it means to "rage". I am sure that was not their meaning.

Whereas we could perhaps agree that we all think that some words are intrinsically less attractive than others, I doubt whether we would agree as to which they are.

I believe the word "serendipity" to be attractive but only because I like its meaning and I also love the Island of Serendip, whence it came.

I suggest that, in most cases, it is the meaning of the word that offends, not its construction. Thus, few of us like the sound of swearwords, but use, without problem or comment, the many similar-sounding words whose meaning is different.

Liaise has been in common use in the UK for many years and, as I said, Oxford is quite happy with it. It is an example of a word that has become popular since it conveys a useful concept for which there is no exact simile. The nearest is, perhaps, "meet". However, as a liason means something more than a meeting so does liaise mean more than meet.

I have to say find find neither the concept nor the word ugly.

Richard English

This is an example of the unnecessary conversion of a noun to a verb. What they meant is that they are "...intensifying their investigation..." and that would have been a perfectly clear expression to use.

Of ocurse, when faced with a journalist demanding a quote, we are not always ready with a well-chosen riposte and may easily use an expression that we would not necessarily have chosen had we been given the time to prepare.

Richard English

Richard's observation that "we are not always ready with a well-chosen riposte" can be applied to another context as well:

Oft in the stilly night,
Err slumbers chains have bound me,
I think of what I might have said
When others were around me.
At such a woeful waste of wit
Contructively, I weep,
And often, in the stilly night,
I kick myself to sleep.

I recently heard a lecture on the balanced scorecard where they used "branding" as a verb. I hadn't heard it use this way before, have you? They defined "branding" as, "the activity of creating an indelible mental and emotional connection between the customer's otherwise unmet need and that which fulfills it."

The "brand" in the usage of "branding" refers to a brand name. "Branding," in this sense, is crucial for many companies.

For example, Bayer Aspirin repeatedly stresses the benefits of BAYER aspirin to suggest that it is infinitely better than the generic variety when it's definitely not. Aspirin is aspirin and the Bayer variety, at maybe twice the cost, is identical chemically to "Shop & Save Aspirin," "ABC Aspirin," Dirty Bertha the Whip Lady's Aspirin," or whatever.

Most the world's best known brands are American and worth millions to their owners.

I have not been able to find a list I trust but most seem to agree that Coca Cola and Macdonald's come very near the top. I have also heard that the world's most well-known car brand is also one of the rarest with only around 150,000 units made in its first 100 years of production. It is, of course, Rolls-Royce, recognised by almost everyone but ridden in by very few and owned by even fewer.

Richard English

This topic's just fine as it stands
It fulfills our simple demands
But before we are through
Let's take a quick view
At the History of Cattle Brands

[This message was edited by jerry thomas on Wed Jul 16th, 2003 at 10:14.]

Jerry, that was a great site. I loved looking at all the "typical brand designs." Your limerick was fun, as well!

I began writing to our educators about a forum I am starting to help them to network. Then I became queasy about using network as a verb. However, here is one of the definitions from dictionary.com: "To interact or engage in informal communication with others for mutual assistance or support." That is of course just what I mean. Does this use of network sound right to people here?

The meaning hasn't spread as far as OED2 yet, but I know what you mean.

Modern-day bizspeak.

We use the verb "to network" very commonly in the UK these days.

Richard English

Richard, I see "networking" used, but "to network" just didn't sound right to me. However, I used it anyway to explain how our members should use the electronic bulletin board.

By the way, it amazes me how very little most people know about electronic bulletin boards. Having posted here so much, I just took this knowledge for granted. However, I find myself teaching our IT Department (which runs our electronic bulletin boards for several departments) about the use of these boards. Our Webmaster was amazed to find that I could pull up our electronic bulletin board from home; she didn't think that could be done. And, the members! They are scared to death to log in; IT developed a detailed 12-page paper about posting on these boards! As I have said many times, I am rather computer unsavvy, but the average American is worse!

Maybe the answer is to find a selection of boards, covering various interests, and then get those involved to become members of one that they like.

Once they get used to posting (and they will be encouraged to do so as they will want to reply) then they will soon gain the skills and will be able to use your own board with confidence.

Richard English

I can't cope with this computer-age term which seems as happy doing duty as a verb as a noun. Fortunately, however, I've yet to hear my grilfriend say, in a serious tone, "We've got to interface..."

Just be careful what you wish for, Asa. I looked up "interface" on dictionary.com's thesaurus, and one of the synonyms is "wed".

I can just see it: Some over-anxious young lady who wants to marry a rather reluctant man (it always seems to be that way!), says, "Darling, we must 'interface'"! He of course is delighted! She says, "Great, let's call my parents now, and I'll call the wedding planner in the morning!"

"Ah, the beauty of the English language", she says.

I looked up "interface" on dictionary.com's
thesaurus, and one of the synonyms is "wed".
---------------------------------------
It don't say that in any of MY dickshunairies.
I think the lexicographer for yours probably hears with a lisp, and he meant that when a Catholic marries a Protestant, that's "intefaith."

These always strike me as odd:

burgle (v) -> burglar (n) -> burglarise (nonsense v)
induce (v) -> induction (n) -> induct (nonsense verb)

In each case the third word seems an unnecessary coinage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham Nice:
These always strike me as odd:

burgle (v) -> burglar (n) -> burglarise (nonsense v)
induce (v) -> induction (n) -> induct (nonsense verb)

In each case the third word seems an unnecessary coinage.

---

I raised the first of these some time ago (I can't recall if it it was here or elsewhere) and was soundly chastised for it. "Burgle" is in fact a back formation from "burglar" and not the root of it. Hence the US "burglarize" is just as legitimate a coinage as the UK "burgle".

(Concise Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins even lists it as a "jocular back formation".)

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Asa, here is the link for "wed" being a synonym of "wed"; go down to the third entry under "combine".

OK, Kalleh, it does, inded, say that. It also gives "plug into" and "slap on" as synonyms. While "plug into" usually follows "wed," or more commonly these days precedes it, this entire line of definition seems somewhat screwball. Does anybody else think this thesaurus has gone off the deep end?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
OK, Kalleh, it does, inded, say that. It also gives "plug into" and "slap on" as synonyms. While "plug into" usually follows "wed," or more commonly these days precedes it, this entire line of definition seems somewhat screwball. Does anybody else think this thesaurus has gone off the deep end?

---

No. See my detailed remarks in the Men Vs Women thread.

For now I'll just point out again that two words which are synonyms of a third word are not necessarilly synonyms of each other.

In this entry I can think of circumstances where all the listed words could possibly substitute for "combine" - the head word - but that doesn't mean that "tag on" can ever substitute for "coalesce" or that "pool" could replace "fuse".

It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding/ misapprehension/ misconception/ mix up/ discord/ dissension/ quarrel/ rift/ rupture/ variance about what a Thesaurus is for and what it does creeping/ crawling/ squirming/ approaching unnoticed/ stealing/ slinking across the board.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

I agree. I still use Roget's Thesaurus and find it better than the MS Word thesaurus.

However, I do not use a thesaurus to find synonyms, only suggestions for ways of alternative expression (which is a different task)

It is unfortunate that many dictionaries seem to suggest that a thesaurus is simply a synonym-finder. It is not even that, but it is more than that.

Richard English

BH and RE, I'll have to concede that point.

Asa, whose pride is wounded because he's lost (inter)face

And, I hope all of your realize that, of course, my original post here making "interface" and "wed" synonyms was a joke, guys! Of course, I my husband and I didn't interface years ago.

However, it is illustrative that thesauruses (what is the plural?) need to be used with care, as Bob suggested in the Women vs. Men thread.

Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel laureate, propounds a barbarism when discussing the recent electricity blackout. "Impulsive proposals to incentivize transmission investment," he says in today's paper, "without retail demand response, puts the cart before the horse."

Putting aside the "puts," let us shake our heads sadly at "incentivize." Well, what can you expect from a laureate in economics?

In fact, although I would prefer not to create a new verb just for the sake of it, I can't think of an existing verb that conveys the meaning, "...to persuade by promising an incentive..."

If there's no verb that will do the trick, then incentivise is surely legitimate.

Richard English

Given that the context is legislative action, would "encourage" do the job of "incentivize"?

Hmmmm.... Seems to me that "incent" ought to be a word.

The Word Detective doesn't much care for "incent". The only dictionary I've found it in is the AHD. M-W dates "incentivize" to 1970. The OED (Online) doesn't list either word.

Tinman

quote:

---

If there's no verb that will do the trick, then incentivise is surely legitimate.

---

This could be one of those words that is about to be added to OED. However, it brings us back to that question I've asked long ago: What makes a word a word? Because 2 dictionaries carry "incent" and "incentivise", should we consider them words?

>>What makes a word a word? Because 2 dictionaries carry "incent" and "incentivise", should we consider them words?

remember that words get into dictionaries due to reaching some threshold of printed usage; and if a word is in print that much, people will want to look it up. there, I've related words to dictionary use (circularly), and neatly evaded your question. <g>

Why? Incentive is a noun (and sometimes an adjective). There is no rule that says all nouns must have been formed from a verb.

A magazine (in all its senses) is a noun but there is no verb "to mag".

If we need a verb that relates to incentive then we need to create one. I prefer "incentivise" to "incent" but time will doubtless decide which one wins.

Richard English