Nominalisation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
*[[To be]] - the feeblest of all verbs. | *[[To be]] - the feeblest of all verbs. | ||
*[[Obligated]] | *[[Obligated]] | ||
{{ref}} |
Revision as of 09:47, 14 December 2018
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.
Dead give aways:
- the string “ion of”
- gerunds
- infinitives
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.
Not that there’s anything wrong with cross-dressing, mind.
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”?
See also
- Adjectivisation
- Of - a dead giveaway.
- To be - the feeblest of all verbs.
- Obligated