Nominalisation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
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.
{{plain|issue a notification to|notify}}
{{plain|have a discussion|discuss}}


But at what cost to the reader:
[[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).


*This clause ''applies''.
But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
*This clause ''is applicable''.
 
''This clause '''applies'''.'' <br>
''This clause '''is applicable'''.'' <br>


{{plain|issue a notification to|notify}}
{{plain|have a discussion|discuss}}


===Effecting a nominalisation===
===[[Effect]]ing 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.
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 14:37, 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.