Nominalisation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(36 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|drafting|}}[[Nominalisation]] — itself, a nominalisation of the verb to “nominalise”<ref>[[Goedel]] would be pleased.</ref> — is the act, as adored by [[mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] as it is loathed by anyone who cares for the English language, of gutting a precise [[verb]], by converting it into a [[noun]] and jamming a general [[verb]] in front of it. | ||
Or should I say: | |||
:''[[Nominalisation]] is the act, which induces adoration in [[mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] as much as it effects a sensation of loathing in anyone having a fondness for the English language, of ensuring the evisceration of a precise [[verb]] by effecting its conversion into a [[noun]] (or [[adjective]]) and ensuring the jammery of a general [[verb]] in front of it.'' | |||
So, where one on the [[Clapham omnibus]] might say, | |||
{{quote|“Last night I shot an [[elephant]] in my pyjamas.”}} | |||
An nominaliser might say: | |||
{{quote|“Last night the shooting was carried out by me, in my pyjamas, of an [[elephant]]”}} | |||
Now we should concede at once that the nominalised version forces on us a more disciplined grammar: it is beyond doubt that it is me, and not the elephant who is wearing my pyjamas. That ruins it as a setup for Groucho Marx’s punchline, of course, and it comes at the expense of energy and elegance. In this case, too, it is punctiliousness not really needed given the ''context''. And, if you really wanted to be ''that guy'', there is always the stilted, but unambiguous, “last night, in my pyjamas, I shot an [[elephant]].” | |||
===[[Effect]]ing | Dead give aways: | ||
The worst kind of nominalisation goes a step further: not only must the poor | *the string “''[[ion of]]''” | ||
*[[gerund]]s | |||
*[[infinitive]]s | |||
*simple verbs: to ''be'', to ''have'', to ''do'', to ''make'' or, most hideous of all, to ''[[effect]]''. | |||
===Examples=== | |||
:{{plain|[[have visibility of]]|see}} | |||
:{{plain|issue a notification to|tell}} | |||
:{{plain|have a discussion about|discuss}} | |||
:{{plain|we are supportive of|we support}} | |||
:{{plain|have the appearance of being|seem}}<br /> | |||
===[[Effect]]ing the worst kind of nominalisation=== | |||
The ''worst'' kind of nominalisation goes a step further: not only must the poor [[verb]] dress up as a noun; an equally unsuspecting [[noun]] must behave like a verb. “[[Effect]]” is this kind of [[nominalisation]]: | |||
:{{plain|effect the conversion of shares|convert the shares}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Adjectivisation]] | |||
*[[Of]] - a dead giveaway. | |||
*[[To be]] - the feeblest of all verbs. | |||
*[[Obligated]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
{{nld}} |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
The JC’s guide to writing nice.™
|
Nominalisation — itself, a nominalisation of the verb to “nominalise”[1] — is the act, as adored by solicitors as it is loathed by anyone who cares for the English language, of gutting a precise verb, by converting it into a noun and jamming a general verb in front of it.
Or should I say:
- Nominalisation is the act, which induces adoration in solicitors as much as it effects a sensation of loathing in anyone having a fondness for the English language, of ensuring the evisceration of a precise verb by effecting its conversion into a noun (or adjective) and ensuring the jammery of a general verb in front of it.
So, where one on the Clapham omnibus might say,
“Last night I shot an elephant in my pyjamas.”
An nominaliser might say:
“Last night the shooting was carried out by me, in my pyjamas, of an elephant”
Now we should concede at once that the nominalised version forces on us a more disciplined grammar: it is beyond doubt that it is me, and not the elephant who is wearing my pyjamas. That ruins it as a setup for Groucho Marx’s punchline, of course, and it comes at the expense of energy and elegance. In this case, too, it is punctiliousness not really needed given the context. And, if you really wanted to be that guy, there is always the stilted, but unambiguous, “last night, in my pyjamas, I shot an elephant.”
Dead give aways:
- the string “ion of”
- gerunds
- infinitives
- simple verbs: to be, to have, to do, to make or, most hideous of all, to effect.
Examples
- Why say “have visibility of” when you mean “see”?
- Why say “issue a notification to” when you mean “tell”?
- Why say “have a discussion about” when you mean “discuss”?
- Why say “we are supportive of” when you mean “we support”?
- Why say “have the appearance of being” when you mean “seem”?
Effecting the worst kind of nominalisation
The worst kind of nominalisation goes a step further: not only must the poor verb dress up as a noun; an equally unsuspecting noun must behave like a verb. “Effect” is this kind of nominalisation:
- Why say “effect the conversion of shares” when you mean “convert the shares”?
See also
- Adjectivisation
- Of - a dead giveaway.
- To be - the feeblest of all verbs.
- Obligated