Grammar that makes you cringe

[citoyen]

I can verb any noun.

The real challenge is verbing adjectives. If you can master that, a career in writing advertising slogans is yours.

[ian]

What about verbing nouns that have been adjectived?

[Jaded]

In my view, a sentence using "favorite" as a verb is already clunky and inelegant - and American.  However, I can see you are in a difficult editorial position if you are going to use articles which contain internet-speak.

I don't see it as a difficulty. Many nouns become verbs through common use and eventually take hold in more formal language despite resistance.

Ask yourself this: are you resisting the usage on strong grammatical grounds, or simply because it's a neologism?

Wouldn't 'bookmark' be a more appropriate verb for the context?

QED. Once upon a time, using bookmark as a verb would have been similarly reviled.

(And the answer is no anyway: bookmarking applies to web pages, while favouriting applies to individual posts on social media sites.)

Top post. I think you just medalled.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Bronzed, anyway.

(And I think that might just technically be a noun turned into an adjective turned into a verb – in letter if not in spirit.)

[Peter]

In my view, a sentence using "favorite" as a verb is already clunky and inelegant - and American.  However, I can see you are in a difficult editorial position if you are going to use articles which contain internet-speak.

I don't see it as a difficulty. Many nouns become verbs through common use and eventually take hold in more formal language despite resistance.

Ask yourself this: are you resisting the usage on strong grammatical grounds, or simply because it's a neologism?

Neologisms are inevitable in a developing language, which English is.  However, I don't think that means that because a neologism exists that I am required to approve of it.  And that is not Luddite but love of a language I feel is usually perfectly adequate already for most purposes; not only adequate but beautiful.  "Favorite" isn't even English, but even if it was, its use is a distortion: how can you have any number of favo(u)rites?  (I must confess I'm only making an assumption about how it is used, as I don't use FB, twitter and so on.)

But my original post just said I find it clunky and inelegant.  I'm perfectly happy with that!

[citoyen]

Neologisms are inevitable in a developing language, which English is.  However, I don't think that means that because a neologism exists that I am required to approve of it.

Well, no - our approval or disapproval is strictly irrelevant. I'm interested in the reasons for disapproval though, as it may affect my opinion of the person doing the disapproving.

how can you have any number of favo(u)rites?

OK, if you're bothered by the use of a superlative when a comparative would be more appropriate, rather than the verbing of a noun, that's another matter. I hadn't considered that objection, probably because I do use social media and have thus become oblivious to it.

Reminds me - I saw an ad on the underground the other day for a personalised gift service with the slogan, "For a gift as unique as he is."

 

But my original post just said I find it clunky and inelegant.  I'm perfectly happy with that!

Fair enough!

[Peter]

All good stuff!  Talk about language is usually fascinating.

Verbing of nouns (to use the shorthand completely understandable and totally inelegant phrase!) exists and communicates in its way.  I wonder how much of it is an improvement on what went before.

[red marley]

However, I don't think that means that because a neologism exists that I am required to approve of it.

For me, approval/disapproval (probably too strong a sentiment, but you know what I mean) depends on whether a new use of language tends to add precision and richness or whether it introduces ambiguity and diminishes its descriptive power:

'favourite' as a verb because it relates an activity not easily described in so few words.

'literally' for emphasis because it removes the ability to specify 'not metaphorically' so precisely.

'friend' as a verb in a social media context rather than reusing the more grammatically conventional 'befriend'

'phenomena' singular because it removes the ability to distinguish one from many alien visitations.

[jsabine]

'phenomena' singular because it removes the ability to distinguish one from many alien visitations.

I *think* I have been fortunate enough to have avoided seeing "phenomena" singular: "criteria," on the other hand ...

[drossall]

I came across "medias" recently

[Wowbagger]

I came across "medias" recently

Did everything turn to gold?

[Ian H]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

[hellymedic]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

Uh?

[pcolbeck]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

Uh?

Technically "children" is a double plural as originally "child" was one or more small peeps. The same as "sheep" where the singular an plural are the same.

[Jaded]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

Uh?

Coming across children is very much frowned upon nowadays.

[clarion]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

Uh?

Technically "children" is a double plural as originally "child" was one or more small peeps. The same as "sheep" where the singular an plural are the same.

Isn't it more that the plural of child is childer, and children pluralises the plural?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Wot Clarion sed. Child, childer, childeren. I wonder if this came about in a joke way, like saying "eggses", or maybe at some time in the past we had a distinction between a small number of childer and a larger number of childeren? Sort of like dual number. Or maybe childer in a family, childeren in general. Or maybe not.

[pcolbeck]

I came across "medias" recently

Can't be any worse than 'children'.

Uh?

Technically "children" is a double plural as originally "child" was one or more small peeps. The same as "sheep" where the singular an plural are the same.

Isn't it more that the plural of child is childer, and children pluralises the plural?

Your right childer is a survivor of a middle English plural (cildru) in Northern dialect

cild = singular and nominative plural (old english)
cildru = plural (someone wanted to make the plural form clearer about 975, drifts to cildre in Middle English)
children = re plural (1200s the plural gets re pluralised)

So is this a double plural or triple plural ?

[clarion]

That is an interesting question, as, in checking this out, I find that childer is also recorded as being used as a singular

I expect it comes up the same way Torpenhow Hill or the River Ouseburn got their names.

[Peter]

Torpenhow - pronounced Trapenna!

[Nuncio]

And Pendle Hill.

A slight shift sideways but when learning basic Welsh it always threw me that

plant = children
plentyn = child

To my English-speaking mind it seemed as if they should be the other way round.

[Peter]

Lake Windermere, etc.

[clarion]

Is it true that there is only one lake in the Lake District?

[Peter]

Pretty much!

[L CC]

I had no idea childer was a real word. I thought it was just fboab family lore that the loinfruit of my parents are collectively known as childers.