Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Verbifying nouns Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted
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.
 
Posts: 2621 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Chris J. Strolin
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 681Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Oh, CJ, that is a terrible neologism, I agree. Plus, since the Supreme Court is getting into the Guantanamo Bay fiasco, I can't imagine calling it "streamlined."
 
Posts: 24258 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
Just today I saw a new verb coined from a noun. But although the coiner is extraordinarily erudite, clever, and prominent, I somehow doubt that his word will catch on. (See last sentence of link.)
 
Posts: 2621 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 2621 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Chris J. Strolin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by shufitz:
Just today I saw a new verb coined from a noun. But although the coiner is extraordinarily erudite, clever, and prominent, I somehow doubt that his word will catch on. (See last sentence of https://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=441607094&f=932607094&m=498106244&r=122102574#122102574.)

Technically, "Spam" is a noun, "deSpamify" is the verbed form, and "deSpamification" is yet another new noun.

Isn't the English language fun?!
 
Posts: 681Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
Still more today.

With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They were sentenced to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Arizona Republican has long favored spending more on Defense, while the Michigan Democrat helped to midwife the steep spending cuts of the 1990s.

Faculty and others who whistleblow are marginalized.
[concerning colleges that ease the paths of their star athletes]
 
Posts: 2621 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this forum's hallowed past, but I've heard a chat-show host say that they've been 'coronated the king of late night' (or words to that effect).
 
Posts: 25Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
'coronated'
Ugh! Red Face


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Chris J. Strolin
posted Hide Post
Why "Ugh"?? "Coronate" is listed in several dictionaries as "to crown" etc. Now, "The King will be coronationiated" would get an Ugh from me but "coronated" seems perfectly inoffensive.

You're more than welcome to add an editorial comment on this word in the OEDILF as soon as we get to the "Cor-" words.
 
Posts: 681Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
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".


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by arnie:
I feel the same about this as I do about "burglarize" instead of "burgle".


...and 'orientate' instead of 'orient'?! Wink
 
Posts: 334Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 8544 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Graham Nice
posted Hide Post
What about induct and induce
 
Posts: 382 | Location: CambridgeReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
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."
 
Posts: 24258 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
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
 
Posts: 24258 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:

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.


No! We need burgle! Because...it...because it's the only word that rhymes with 'gurgle'!

I don't want to speak English anymore if I can't say 'burgle'. I'm serious.
 
Posts: 1242 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Hic et ubique
posted Hide Post
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).
 
Posts: 1204Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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
 
Posts: 30 | Location: Massachusetts, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of jheem
posted Hide Post
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!
 
Posts: 1218 | Location: CaliforniaReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Welcome, Eric, and it is good to see you posting above the equator here (i.e. outside of the OEDILF forum)! Smile Big Grin Wink Cool

I surely agree with you about "orientate," though I have to say I haven't heard "coronate." Another coinage I hate is "irregardless."

Now, we have had this sort of discussion here many times: What makes a word a word? Just because people use it (i.e. "orientate"), does that make it a word?

I doubt any linguist will ever be able to answer this question, and surely we haven't been able to on this board.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
 
Posts: 24258 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 30 | Location: Massachusetts, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of jheem
posted Hide Post
Orientate is actually a good example.

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.
 
Posts: 1218 | Location: CaliforniaReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright © 2002-12