Excuse me if this has come up before but is it my perception or is the transitive verb ‘invite’ being used increasingly as a noun? Example: “Shauna, when are you going to send out the wedding invites?”
When was it deemed acceptable to shorten ‘invitation’ to ‘invite’ and, sweet mother of pearl, why?
IMO, the verb ‘invite’ is not being used as a noun. I think it’s being used, as you say in your second paragraph, as a shortened version of the noun ‘invitation’. That the verb ‘invite’ and the shortened version of the noun ‘invitation’ are spelled and pronounced the same is a coincidence.
When and why was it deemed acceptable? Who can say? Why is it OK to say ‘Cite?’ instead of ‘Citation?’, or ‘perq’ instead of ‘perquisite’?
I remember my Dad complaining about ‘wedding invites’ about 28 years ago. Everyone else agreed (out of his hearing) that it didn’t matter. So, from my personal experience, about 30 years. I still associate it with more of a US usage for some reason.
It’s still informal but it’s an unsurprising linguistic evolution, whether it’s nouning a verb (which seems to be a current trend in English) or shortening a longer verb (likewise).
Probably at about the same time that citation changed into cite on this message board. 
It’s shorter, and it seems to anglicize these Latinate words a bit. It makes them more cozy. (I’m sure a linguist will be along soon to tell me why this is all wrong. . . .)
First of all, the noun and the verb are not pronounced the same, at least not by me or anyone I know. The verb is inVIte and the noun is INvite. However, as, in both cases, the i between the v and t is long (=eye), whereas in “invitation” it is short, suggests to me that the noun “invite” does indeed derive more directly from the verb that from the longer, more formal noun.
As far as the OP’s concerns go, however, I agree with the others that this ship sailed a long, long time ago.
And what’s up with “advert?” Can’t you Brits just say ad?
I got told off at work for using it in the context of a meeting - “I’ll add you to the invite”.
Saying “I’ll add you to the invitation” sounds wrong to me unless you’re talking about a social event of some sort.
I guess it’s OK, since you just verbed a noun. 
mmm
Actually, I think it’s more of a gerund. The verb in that sentence is “is” (in “it’s”).
Thank you. I’ve learned something today. I thought at first you had misspelled prerequisite, but then looked it up. I had always seen that spelled as perk. (or are they different words?)
You’re not alone.
This is another of my peeves; yes, I have many. Almost everyone I know misspells it PERK, and most don’t know that it is short for anything.
ETA: I’ve even been corrected when I spell it ‘PERQ’. :rolleyes:
I read “Cite?” here as “What do you cite to support this?”
I’m surprised you’re only just noticing this. It’s been used this way at least since I was a kid.
Well, according to the OED, since 1659:
There really should be a law that posters should actually look up the meaning of a word before complaining it’s being used incorrectly.
I remember a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is “verbing” words. He is taking nouns and using them as verbs. Kind of the opposite of the OP questions but it still shows how far advance Calvin was in his thinking
Uh-huh. The editors at M-W disagree.
There really should be a law against unnecessary snark.
I didn’t question the meaning of the word, but its usage. Of course I know people use ‘invite’ when they mean ‘invitation’. I also understand that it has gained increasing acceptance, hence my perception. I simply wanted to get a feel for its ubiquity, as invite as a noun sounds strange to me, and as I’ve not lived under a rock all my life, it seemed appropriate to ask the question.
When I think of “perk” of a job, though, I’m not thinking of prerequisites but benefits. Are you sure people are trying to say “prerequisite”?
No, the word is perquisite. Perq (or perk) comes from this. And this is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about words and usage, even taking into consideration inevitable migration.