verbiologising

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
so, what do you think when people take a noun, and use it as a verb? like, i mean, nouns that you havent heard used in this new context.
haviing joined the world of work, i havent notcided the linguistic oddities that exist in the office, and as such am stuck on 'impact', as ourt boss keeps opn saying ' this wont impact on blah blah blah'.
then i noticed mary using it in a post. so it seems that it may be being used generally. which is a bit mental seeing as how i hadnt ever heard it a month ago. for some reason i dont like it. but thats beside the point.

what nouns do you like to use as verbs that are shall we say...non-standard/jargon? do you use some that only you use? what ones piss you off? do you find this process exciting? does it onyly happen in the office-world?

etc.

ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd like to use "Andrew WK" as a verb.

Ally (mlescaut), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

But Ally he smells funny!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, I think that the English language is kinda mutating very rapidly nowadays, especially in these regards. A decent example: the word "google". Once not too long ago it meant something totally different than it's general usage presently, but now google (thanks to the .com phenomena) is a verb, a multiple-use noun, an adjective, adverb, yadda yadda.

Personally, I love hearing language manipulated forcefully into new forms. It's like hearing tomorrow's languages being born in real time.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I wanted to quote Calvin and Hobbes here, but then I realised that I only know the quote from Mr. Skidmore's interventions on this very subject. So I'll leave it to him.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

One of our clients at work has a habit of ringing up and saying: "have you actioned my change request yet?" I am always tempted to reply "I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me," which is probably one of the reasons I'm not expected to answer the phone.

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Small note: Google is only a few years old. You're thinking of googol (which was never exactly a household word anyway).

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

D'oh!

I done Homer Simpson'd something up once again.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah theres a wicked calvin and hobbes strip about this. cant remember which annual its in otherwise id run and have a look.

can i make it clear that my rational opinion on this p[rocess it utterly neutral, or more towards nickalicious' view. just 'impacted' grates slightly on a silly personal level, but i dont know why.

i think the paradigm of 'noun = stress on first syll., verb = stress on second' that works for a lot of of these maybe a reason why people get so angry about it. like, 'they cant even say it right!'

ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Now see, there's two different angles on this:

1) Using a noun as a verb when it's used to express something that no previously existing verbs could properly express (such as: "I had to google your name to get your email.").

2) Using a noun as a verb in lieu of an actual properly modified verb-form of the word (fr'instance saying "actioned my change request rather than enacted my change request).

The second one sometimes bugs me a little, like someone's too lazy to bother with using words that already exist, whereas I get a kick out of the first one, where someone uses a newly created word form to express a phenomenon not easily expressed in already existing words.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 29 May 2003 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Nickalicious is OTM. You have to know the rules to break them creatively. See also: cinnabutt.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 29 May 2003 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

You don't have to know the rules to break them creatively, you have to know them in order to break them without too much disdain from English majors. Most of the rules that're talked about aren't really there, and vice versa. It's more about the ear, and what sounds right, than anything else. Hardly anything sounds right to everyone.

For instance -- impact was a verb first. The noun was derived from it. We're used to hearing the noun more often, probably because both were originally used only for physical things (not "the impact of prescriptive grammar on dialect formation" but "the impact of a meteor on the surface of the Earth"), and the verb has more simple synonyms like "hit" and "strike" (one of the weird unwritten "rules" of English is that usage tends to cluster around words with many different meanings, rather than the one word which can mean only what you want to say).

(Don't ask me for my source on that last bit, because the only linguistics book I haven't packed is Saussure -- but if you're bored today, pay attention to what people around you are saying, and what words they're using. Once you notice this thing, you can notice it a lot. It's one of those weird counter-intuitive bits of English: it has not only the largest vocabulary of any language, but in many linguists' view, the largest active vocabulary, i.e. the most words which are in frequent use and understood by a majority of the native speakers; and yet with all those words we're using, we still skew towards ambiguity.)

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 29 May 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

(Don't get me wrong, either: actioned is dumbarific.)

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 29 May 2003 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)

re: nickalicious
dunno...seems a bit strange to 'enact' a request. 'carry out' maybe...this is where i see it being used. viz 'impact on' instead of 'having an impact on'. it does mainly seem to replace a slightly more difficult or lomnger phrase, which follows theories about language change etc.

ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 29 May 2003 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

verbing weirds language

Ferg (Ferg), Thursday, 29 May 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

thats the one!

ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 29 May 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Doesn't Chinese do this routinely? Maybe English and Chinese will merge into one big language in 500 years? Assuming there is still human civilization on this planet, which is a pretty bold assumption to make.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

If google wasn't already a verb, what was it that all those stick on googly eyes were doing?

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.giantgenius.com/features/anthro/tractor.jpg

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

The new hit children's program (recommended for ages 3-6)...it's Tina Tractor and Her Adventures in Dirt!

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

To verb is the word for this, thanks to Calvin & Hobbes, and it's great because now the word verb is a verb, thanks to having undergone the very operation it describes, i.e. it has been verbed! What more can one ask of a word?

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 29 May 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

If google wasn't already a verb, what was it that all those stick on googly eyes were doing?

Engaging in optogyration.

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 30 May 2003 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.