Is it just me?

[Alex De Kok]

Or do other readers/writers find the increasing tendency to use nouns as verbs irritating, when there are perfectly acceptable ways to say things? I know language is a living thing and mutates with use, but still . . .

What prompted this? I'm reading Stephen King's Dreamcatcher at the moment. I reached a gory scene this morning and, deciding not to spoil my breakfast, turned to the Author's Note at the back, to read this -

" . . . , who edited the book, and to A_____ G______, who agented it."

I know there's a verb to edit, but to agent? Give me a break! Why not just say " . . . and to A_____ G______, my agent?

Do I protest too much?

Alex

 

[KenJames]

I think it's irritating too.

 

[Stefan_J]

Knowing Stephen King he probably inserted it as a joke, a play on words since he'd writen 'edited' for the previous person...

 

[OldnotDead]

Hello, Alex,

Well, it was only a matter of time. Since we've been 'nounalizing' verbs for years, I'm not surprised to see the 'reversal' of the trend.

I would go along with the observation that King was doing that one a little tongue in cheek.

 

[Pure]

Hi A,

I don't like the trend, but it's hard to fight. The most recent example I've seen is 'bottom line.' "OK, will you bottom line it for us?"

J.

 

[OldnotDead]

Hi A,

I don't like the trend, but it's hard to fight. The most recent example I've seen is 'bottom line.' "OK, will you bottom line it for us?"

J.

OH, boy, oh BOY!! Could I think of a couple of former business associates whom I wish had sent me such a request. Faster than a patriot missile launching to defend a target, I would be astride the copier in order to fax a copy of MY vertical smile.

Sad part is they probably would not get it,

 

[gauchecritic]

Do I protest too much?

Alex

Someone texted me the answer to this and when I googled it there was no such word!

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Do I protest too much?

Absolutely not, Alex. Shame on Mr. King whether he was intent or not, and particularly because he is a popular writer, and more so among youth.

In the main I believe the trend only shows up how widespread a somewhat paradoxical (if you will) illiteracy is becoming among English speakers, including those who consider themselves literate. I think turning nouns into clunking verbs somewhat parallels other outcomes of a media-driven society. Statistics may at present say something about literacy in our countries but the insidiousness that is peeling away at it may not be known for some time.

Perdita

 

[Quint]

Doesn't bother me. I may blink a few times but I find it almost endearing--as long as I'm certain that the author in question DOES have control of a more orthodox grammar and vocabulary and thus has the ability to choose how they write. (Can't rebel against technique one does not know, etc.) I find it much less appealing in professional writing than poetic, and never in technical.

 

[Guest]

That's the rub, Quint. I do not presume the certainty you note, especially not in the workplace, any public arena, nor on writing sites such as Lit.

I think I might only find such usage endearing among literate children (depending on circumstance ).

Perdita

 

[Angeline]

I hate it!

Tis a great ugliness in my opinion. I agree that language, being a human invention, changes and I see change as a good thing generally, but this seems devolutionary to me.

And the worst, worst, worst example imho is "impact," which has been around for a while because people confuse it with "have an impact" (which is also ugly, but at least correct). I freelance edit (poetry being a notoriously bad way to pay the rent), and see this all the time: "They will be impacted seriously by this." Haha! That puts a *very* different image in my head than what I know is intended. (And I edit for authors being published in academic journals and for university presses who theoretically ought to know better. It's depressing.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm dead set against the canonization of the English language. I'm of the opinion that language belongs to the human beings who use it, not linguists or purists, and the power of English is in its adaptability and flexibility.

At the same time I think your reaction to 'agent' as a verb was perfectly appropriate. It's like seeing someone wearing formal dress and a baseball cap. If he's aware of his dress, well, okay. Maybe he's making a fashion statement or expressing himself. If he's unaware of his gaffe, then he's just ignorant and he's showing it.

I think the language is like any other art medium. You put in your apprenticeship and master its classical use, and then you go out and do with it what you will, bending or breaking whatever rules you like in order to achieve the result you want.

---dr.M.

 

[Icingsugar]

Yes, whan I think about it, it is probably a horrible abomination. But on the other hand, that will probably not stop me from using is. I'm already a big excessive user of turning verbs into adjectives via the dreaded "ing" and turning verbs into nouns via the "er" and "or". Nouns to verbs? Does it rock the cradle? Then, although I know it's probably wrong, I'll be all over it before I can stop myself.

Mab said it in the post above. If you master the language, than, by all means, use it as a tool to shoot gramattical bullets in any way desired. Grammar is not matural laws. You can break them and get aaway with it, if you know what you're doing.

I however, don't. So if you see me going out on too many limbs, feel free to slap me around a bit.

 

[Guest]

I don't believe anyone is advocating a "canonization" of English (certainly not on this site, guffaw, har har). Not even the English managed it after the French established their academy for the "purification" of their language in the early 17th c. In the late 18th c., about 150 years after the first published English dictionary, Samuel Johnson produced his with the intent of "fixing" the English language. Now we have the OED with regular supplements. (And how many Lit. people know about "The Great Vowel Shift", besides Ogg?)

So I do not advocate a canon or purity of English words and grammar, but crap is crap and I know when I read it and you'd better be an extraordinarily educated user of English before you start spewing shit varieties of nouns and verbs.

That was addressed to the royal 'you' in case anyway is moved to arms.

Perdita

 

[Angeline]

Mab said it in the post above. If you master the language, than, by all means, use it as a tool to shoot gramattical bullets in any way desired. Grammar is not matural laws. You can break them and get aaway with it, if you know what you're doing.

This reminds me of something my college Shakespeare professor said that I never forgot--If you want to submit a critique hypothesizing that King Lear is floating in space on an umbilical cord (she was given to broad gestures in her examples, lol), fine, but you better be able to substantiate it with analysis and examples from the play.

We all use language in unorthodox ways--I sure do--but they're mostly born of ignorance, not breaking new ground. To me, it seems sad in a way, indicative of devaluing of critical thought and down the slope to more illiteracy....

P.S. for Ms. Perdita--I don't think anyone in my class tried to make that particular argument about Lear.

 

[Angeline]

crap is crap and I know when I read it

yup.

And what a quotable line, too

 

[Guest]

P.S. for Ms. Perdita--I don't think anyone in my class tried to make that particular argument about Lear.

Ha ha. I remember being awed at my Sh're prof's patience and tact when a boy in class started to go on about Macbeth's basic problem having to do w/really low self esteem.

Perdita

 

[kylewhitney]

Yeah, and I hate it went painters paint blue and yellow checkered daisies - that's not how those colors are supposed to be used.

And I hate when filmmakers use home video shots in their movies, it's supposed to be a movie they're not allowed to use video.

And writers should know that the English language is inviolate and has been since the beginning of time. They must not arbitrarily violate its arbitrary rules simply because they have mastered their craft. If all artists went around trying to be contemporary, or worse yet innovative, instead of following the rules set down by all-knowing seventeenth century monks there would be chaos in the streets. Chaos, I tell thee!

In other words, embrace the changes in our language as you would embrace the latest upgrage to Microsoft Word. These scary new words add to the writer's pallette, they take nothing away. If it's still just too much to bear, put away the books and turn on the TV. The great one-eyed god is never wrong!

- K

 

[Guest]

Erm, kylewhitney, your corollary simply doesn't work, in fact I couldn't think what else to call your extremely faulty logic.

Perdita

 

[Seattle Zack]

Occasionally, verbing a noun becomes so accepted that it makes it into the lexicon. Bowdlerize refers (somewhat disparagingly) to the practice of editing by omitting or modifying parts considered indelicate. "Bowdlerize a novel," for instance.

Thomas Bowdler was an English physician who edited a children's edition of William Shakespeare, "The Family Shakespeare," in which he "endeavoured to remove every thing that could give just offence to the religious and virtuous mind." In other words, everything but the title.

kylew's analogy is nonsense; a better one would be to expect a bricklayer to start using spherical bricks when constructing a wall. A writer had better have a superb command of the English language to start making up words and expect The Reader to buy it. Anthony Burgess and Lewis Carrol were able to accomplish it, but I have difficulty coming up with another example offhand.

--Zack

 

[Angeline]

In other words, embrace the changes in our language as you would embrace the latest upgrage to Microsoft Word. These scary new words add to the writer's pallette, they take nothing away. If it's still just too much to bear, put away the books and turn on the TV. The great one-eyed god is never wrong!

- K

If you read my posts, you'll see that I said every time that I think change is good. I think innovation is necessary and wonderful; it's ignorance that I find disturbing.

P.S. You'll get no arguments about TV from me. I haven't watched it at all in over a year, and hardly ever for years before that.

 

[Guest]

A writer had better have a superb command of the English language to start making up words and expect The Reader to buy it. Anthony Burgess and Lewis Carrol were able to accomplish it, but I have difficulty coming up with another example offhand.

How about Shakespeare, Zack? We take dozens of his inventions for granted, e.g.,

academe, accused, addiction, advertising, amazement, arouse, assassination, backing, bandit, bedroom, beached, besmirch, birthplace, blanket, bloodstained, barefaced, blushing, bet, bump, buzzer, caked, cater, champion, circumstantial, cold-blooded, compromise, courtship, countless, critic, dauntless, dawn, deafening, discontent, dishearten, drugged, dwindle, epileptic, equivocal, elbow, excitement, exposure, eyeball, fashionable, fixture, flawed, frugal, generous, gloomy, gossip, gust, hint, hobnob, hurried, impede, impartial, invulnerable, jaded, label, lackluster, laughable, lonely, lower, luggage, lustrous, madcap, majestic, marketable, metamorphize, mimic, monumental, moonbeam, mountaineer, negotiate, noiseless, obscene, obsequiously, ode, olympian, outbreak, panders, pedant, premeditated, puking, radiance, rant, remorseless, savagery, scuffle, secure, skim milk, submerge, summit, swagger, torture, tranquil, undress, unreal, varied, vaulting, worthless, zany.

And: not budge an inch, green-eyed jealousy, to play fast and loose, to be tongue-tied, to be a tower of strength, to knit your brows, make a virtue of necessity, insist on fair play, stand on ceremony, too much of a good thing, seen better days, living in a fool’s paradise.

I copied these off a site, but there are books on Sh're's coinage.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The language is not inviolate, but that isn't an excuse to butcher it either. If you have command of the standard form and for whatever reason you feel the need to create a word or modify it to suit your purpose, thats acceptable. Occasionally there is enough need for a bastardiztion that it will make it into the standard at some point in the future.

New words come into common usage all the time, while old standards go out of popular usage at a similar rate. When was the last time you said Swell, Groovey or Rad? Or addressed someone as Thee?

Language does change over time, but it would seem to me that the agent for that change should be a need to adapt the spoken and written word to fit new conditions. Haphazardly making verbs of nouns seems a trend that we could all do without. It is however with us, like Fox news, and I doubt the trend will change until it runs out of steam under it's own weight.

-Colly

 

[Angeline]

I don't mean to do anything inappropriate by posting this, but the following may help illustrate the point many here are trying to make--that there is a distinction between innovation that builds on prior knowledge and sloppiness.

I wrote this yesterday, but am not sure yet whether I want to submit it here or send it elsewhere. It is an Elizabethan sonnet, so it follows the proper meter and rhyme scheme set for the form 500 years ago. (If posting this is an etiquette breach, tell me nicely and I'll remove it--wasn't sure. )

[poem gone...no one complained, but decided to submit to jazz journal...]


It's full of made up words and other unorthodoxy, but it follows the form.

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

"Verbing weirds language."

Hobbes (of Calvin and Hobbes, not the English philosopher).