Nominalisation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{plain|have a discussion|discuss}} <br /> | {{plain|have a discussion|discuss}} <br /> | ||
[[Nominalisation]] is the act, as adored by solicitors as it is loathed by anyone having any kind of fondness for the English language, of emasculating a perfectly usable verb by making it into a noun and jamming a more boring verb in front of it. The ''cause célèbre'' of nominalisations — an attorney’s very favourite — is “to be | [[Nominalisation]] is the act, as adored by solicitors as it is loathed by anyone having any kind of fondness for the English language, of emasculating a perfectly usable {{tag|verb}} by making it into a {{tag|noun}} and jamming a more boring {{tag|verb}} in front of it. The ''cause célèbre'' of nominalisations — an attorney’s very favourite — is “to be [[applicable]]”. Here the very respectable noun “[[apply]]” is saddled with a ghastly suffix and made to give up its exciting role as a “doing” word, for the comparative lassitude of being a person place or thing — an abstract thing, at that — while that irregular catchall “to be” has all the fun (as it so often does — or does not; for ''that'' is the question). | ||
But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite: | But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===[[Effect]]ing a nominalisation: grammatical cross-dressing=== | ===[[Effect]]ing a nominalisation: grammatical cross-dressing=== | ||
The worst kind of nominalisation goes a step further: not only must the poor {{tag|verb}} dress up as a noun; an equally unsuspecting {{tag|noun}} must behave like a verb. “[[Effect]]” is this kind of nominalisation. | The worst kind of nominalisation goes a step further: not only must the poor {{tag|verb}} dress up as a noun; an equally unsuspecting {{tag|noun}} must behave like a verb. “[[Effect]]” is this kind of [[nominalisation]]. | ||
Revision as of 18:07, 13 September 2016
Why say “issue a notification to” when you mean “notify”?
Why say “have a discussion” when you mean “discuss”?
Nominalisation is the act, as adored by solicitors as it is loathed by anyone having any kind of fondness for the English language, of emasculating a perfectly usable verb by making it into a noun and jamming a more boring verb in front of it. The cause célèbre of nominalisations — an attorney’s very favourite — is “to be applicable”. Here the very respectable noun “apply” is saddled with a ghastly suffix and made to give up its exciting role as a “doing” word, for the comparative lassitude of being a person place or thing — an abstract thing, at that — while that irregular catchall “to be” has all the fun (as it so often does — or does not; for that is the question).
But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
This clause applies.
This clause is applicable.
Effecting a nominalisation: grammatical cross-dressing
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.