Language desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 13

Verbing weirds the language

"Verbing weirds the language" according to Calvin and Hobbes. I'm not a linguist. Is there a linguistic term for converting a noun into a verb like this? Is there some concept of acceptable versus unacceptable "verbing"? -Arch dude (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Conversion (word formation). "Conversion" or "zero derivation" is the creation of a word from another word without any change in form, while "verbification" or "verbing" is the creation of a verb from another word with or without change in form. That article even mentions the Calvin and Hobbes example, in the "Humor" section. Also note that weird is an adjective rather than a noun. --Theurgist (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a particular instance of verbing is acceptable is dependent on the usefulness of the conversion, context and individual taste. The process of acceptance of verbing is idiosyncraric. Take animal names, for example. "Fish" (noun) and "fish" (verb) are an old pair (I don't know, but I suspect the verb derived from the noun), and similarly, one of the meanings of "to rabbit" is to hunt rabbits. I draw a blank, however, at forms such as "to tiger" or "to moose". - Donald Albury 11:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also ferret, though that means to hunt with ferrets; and whaling: dictionaries support "to whale" as a verb, but I think it must be quite rare in that form. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gerund form is another matter. There are many English nouns that appear to be a present participle of a verbalization, but the form without the "-ing" ending used as a verb feels very awkward. For instance, "truffling", the act of hunting for truffles, is acceptable to me, but I am very uncomfortable with "to truffle". Another recent usage has been "wilding", meaning to make wild, or the act of making wild. but I don't recall seeing "to wild" in use ("rewild" is another matter, however). I don't think "truffling" is a verbification, as it (and other words) appears to be creating a new noun with no intermediate usage of a verb derived from a noun. - Donald Albury 12:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We used to form verbs with the prefix be-, it seems a pity we don't still do it. "We shall bewild the land!" DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that fish (noun) preceded fish (verb).[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the natural order of things. Off the top of my head, the Latin word cathedra becomes (via French) the English noun "chair". After a while the verbal expression "to chair" somebody arises. 86.132.186.246 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. It's clear the Calvin verbed "verb". It's likely that he verbed the adjective "weird" instead of the obscure noun "weird", but with Calvin, you can never know for sure. It would be great if we could re-introduce the use of the "be-" prefix. Now that I know that verbing is a subset of the more general process of "conversion", I'll raise the issue of "reveal". I am seeing "reveal" used as a noun a lot recently. Its meaning is distinct from "revelation, as the "reveal" focuses on the moment the "reveal" occurs, ("the big reveal") while "revelation is more about the information, I think. -Arch dude (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples of this going in the other direction, what I would describe as "nouning". Example, the neologism "It's a big ask!" 2A00:23C0:8601:4501:980A:A922:1FFF:F590 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nouning adjectives, such as "It's my bad!" {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a counterbalance to merchandise described as "goods". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as "singling"? I refer to the loathsome practice of referring to multiple items as "product". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English nouns can move between countable and mass. English "peas", plural of "pea", derives from French "pease", a mass noun like English "rice". Many nouns have both countable and mass uses. Cf. hair v. hairs, fish v. fishes, etc. - Donald Albury 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]