Nominalisation: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Nominalisation (view source)

Revision as of 22:54, 24 June 2022

1,076 bytes added , 24 June 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{plain|issue a notification to|notify}}
+{{a|drafting|}}{{tag|Nominalisation}} — itself, a nominalisation of the verb to “nominalise”<ref>[[Goedel]] would be pleased.</ref> — is the act, as adored by [[mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] as it is loathed by anyone who cares for the English language, of gutting a precise {{tag|verb}}, by converting it into a {{tag|noun}} and jamming a general {{tag|verb}} in front of it.
-{{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.
+Or should I say:
-But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
+:''[[Nominalisation]] is the act, which induces adoration in [[mediocre lawyer|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 {{tag|verb}} by effecting its conversion into a {{tag|noun}} (or {{tag|adjective}}) and ensuring the jammery of a general {{tag|verb}} in front of it.''
-''This clause '''applies'''.'' <br>
+So, where one on the [[Clapham omnibus]] might say,
-''This clause '''is applicable'''.'' <br>
+{{quote|“Last night I shot an [[elephant]] in my pyjamas.”}}
+An nominaliser might say:
+{{quote|“Last night the shooting was carried out by me, in my pyjamas, of an [[elephant]]”}}
-===[[Effect]]ing a nominalisation: grammatical cross-dressing===
+Now we should concede at once that the nominalised version forces on us a more disciplined grammar: it is beyond doubt that it is me, and not the elephant who is wearing my pyjamas. That ruins it as a setup for Groucho Marx’s punchline, of course, and it comes at the expense of energy and elegance. In this case, too, it is punctiliousness not really needed given the ''context''. And, if you really wanted to be ''that guy'', there is always the stilted, but unambiguous, “last night, in my pyjamas, I shot an [[elephant]].”
-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]].
+Dead give aways:
+*the string “''[[ion of]]''”
+*[[gerund]]s
+*[[infinitive]]s
+*simple verbs: to ''be'', to ''have'', to ''do'', to ''make'' or, most hideous of all, to ''[[effect]]''.
+===Examples===
+:{{plain|[[have visibility of]]|see}}
+:{{plain|issue a notification to|tell}}
+:{{plain|have a discussion about|discuss}}
+:{{plain|we are supportive of|we support}}
+:{{plain|have the appearance of being|seem}}<br />
+===[[Effect]]ing the worst 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]]:
+:{{plain|effect the conversion of shares|convert the shares}}
+{{sa}}
+*[[Adjectivisation]]
+*[[Of]] - a dead giveaway.
+*[[To be]] - the feeblest of all verbs.
+*[[Obligated]]
+{{ref}}