Nominalisation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{plain|issue a notification to|notify}} | {{plain|issue a notification to|notify}} | ||
{{plain|have a discussion|discuss}} <br /> | {{plain|have a discussion|discuss}} | ||
{{plain|we are supportive of|we support}}<br /> | |||
[[Nominalisation]] is the act, as adored by [[mediocre lawyer|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 — a solicitor’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 — whilst leaving that irregular catchall “to be” to have all the fun (as it so often does — or does not; for ''that'' is the question) as the verb. | [[Nominalisation]] is the act, as adored by [[mediocre lawyer|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 — a solicitor’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 — whilst leaving that irregular catchall “to be” to have all the fun (as it so often does — or does not; for ''that'' is the question) as the verb. | ||
Revision as of 10:05, 12 October 2016
Why say “issue a notification to” when you mean “notify”?
Why say “have a discussion” when you mean “discuss”?
Why say “we are supportive of” when you mean “we support”?
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 — a solicitor’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 — whilst leaving that irregular catchall “to be” to have all the fun (as it so often does — or does not; for that is the question) as the verb.
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.