Nominalisation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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:

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 sayhave visibility ofwhen 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

References

  1. Goedel would be pleased.