Nominalisation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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 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).  
[[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.