We've probably talked before about how nouns often sprout a verb-form. Over the weeks, perhaps we can spot some that are in the process of sprouting. These two from the papers are new usages, at least to me.
quote:Take the rule to impose a 2% redemption fee on investors who redeem their shares within five days of purchase. This fee would whammy innocent investors who have unexpected liquidity needs or even experience a change of mind.
This provision of the statute ... could not pass Congress without an agreement that it would sunset on Dec. 31, 2005, and so unless that provision is changed, come Jan. 1, 2006, we will be back to the rules that prevailed in August 2001.
Odd you should restart this thread at this time. I heard something on the radio which was going to inspire me to do the same.
It was reported (on NPR, yet!) that someone specifically said he had been brought to Iraq to "Guantanimize" the prisoner interrogation process. The meaning of this very ugly word involved making the process more streamlined as it is at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
My vote is for this nasty little neologism to go directly to the Worst Words list.
This may be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Found just this morning, in today's paper:
quote:The baying of the hounds reached its peak over the weekend when even Britain's Economist magazine bannnered "Resign, Rumsfeld" on its cover.
Like the expedition, this exhibit [of the Lewis & Clark expedition] is ambitious and well executed. Curated by the Missouri Historical Society, it brings together about 450 artworks and artifacts from more than 60 institutions.
quote:Originally posted by arnie: We have a perfectly good word in "crown" already. Why use an ugly back-formation from "coronation" instead?
I feel the same about this as I do about "burglarize" instead of "burgle".
I got involved in this discussion once at snopes and it seems that burglarize is actually the earlier word and that burgle is a back formation from burglar. I don't have the references at hand right now but I can probably find them later.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
I hadn't heard this one until today: "hyperbolizing." However, it is listed in Dictionary.com, so I assume it is used, and I just haven't heard it. It read it in this delightful sentence (about the Governor of Illinois):
"Their hyperbolizing, fudging and propensity to preen and pander have undermined their credibility."
I hadn't heard this one until today: "hyperbolizing." However, it is listed in Dictionary.com, so I assume it is used, and I just haven't heard it. It read it in this delightful sentence (about the Governor of
Neveu, you have excellent precedent for that word. From Gilbert & Sullivan, Pirates of Penzance:
quote:When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling (Not a-burgling) When the cut-throat isn't occupied in crime, ('Pied in crime,) He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling (Brook a-gurgling) And listen to the merry village chime. (Village chime.) When the coster's finished jumping on his mother, (On his mother,) He loves to lie a-basking in the sun. (In the sun.) Ah, take one consideration with another, (With another,) A policeman's lot is not a happy one.
Ah, When constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, A policeman's lot is not a happy one. (happy one).
I'm a firm believer that evolution is endemic to languages. As an avid practitioner of, shall we say, "word enhancement", I regularly tread over established linguistic boundaries, though usually for amusement. As "verbized" nouns become more widely used, they seem a natural extension of usage.
However, some of the more prevelant back-formations (notably "orientate") drive me crazy.
I think it's because words like orientate and coronate seem to me to be obvious mistakes, while other new coinage comes across as creative.
Maybe it's just elitism. "When is a mistake a neologism? When a smart guy like me makes it!"
Perhaps it's appropriate that Merriam-Webster online lists the following two definitions for neologism:
1 : a new word, usage, or expression 2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic
I'm a firm believer that evolution is endemic to languages.
I agree but cannot understand why you see your enhancements as evolution, and other's as devolution. As Szmuel Gelbfisz (aka Samuel Goldwyn) said: "Include me out!" Just what English needs: a Language Academy!
Hi jheem - I'm afraid I've once again fallen victim to my somewhat obtuse sense of humor. I'm actually every bit as accepting of other's coinage as my own. There are, however, some things that still seem to me to be mistakes, as opposed to expansions of the language.
Orientate is actually a good example. In reality, it's used synonymously with orient, and I really do think it's often reflexively formed on the spot from orientation. One could assume that such a speaker was unaware of the correct word, but that would be unfair (though true in some cases, I assume).
I believe that while speaking, many people will construct a word that is logically consistent by one of the many rules extant in English and use it without thinking particularly hard about it. Whether that's an error or not can get pretty subjective.
It is a curious subject. vis-a-vis orientate, I think of orient as the 'correct' word. Given that 'orientate' is so close to 'orient', I have trouble viewing it as an option as opposed to an error. In the case of e.g. 'scapegoat' used as a verb, I'm more tolerant of it as an alternative to 'blame'. Now if orientate does come into common usage, especially with a particular and distinct meaning, I expect that I'll accept that (albeit possibly grudgingly.
Well, yes, as you say, Eric, orientate is probably a back formation from orientation. But to me, orientate is interesting because many verbs of Latin origin come from the past participle which ends in -tus, e.g., placate, educate, etc. Funny thing is the actual past participle of orior 'to rise' is ortus 'risen'. But, it is interesting how folks get all agitated by orientate (which has been around for more than 150 years), but not by orientation. Same thing with coronate and coronation. (At least coronate is morphologically accurate for Latin.) It is also interesting that not many people are trying to back-form [sic] words like formate (from formation). What is it about orientate that lends itself to being used by people instead of orient? Rather than fighting words like orientate or irregardless, perhaps we should try expanding the vocabulary. Problem is that most prescriptivists hesitate, for some of the reasons you state, to be creative with the language.
Language is rather plastic and resilient, and I doubt that how we feel about words will have much of an impact on the language. It's always hard to know where the cut-off point for errors as opposed to expansions. For example apron and adder, instead of napron and nadder, or amiral instead of admiral.