# Invite as a Noun **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 1, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047 "2010-11-01T03:40:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/21 "2010-11-01T22:17:35Z")
The underlying assumption to the OP is that words are static, that language should never evolve other than to add new words to describe new things. The truth is that clever people like Dopers are forever creating new words from old ones, and everyone knows just what they mean. In this thread I see the word “snark,” which (given the context) is a nounification of the word “snarky.” Merriam-Webster recognizes “snarky” but not “snark”; however, the Urban Dictionary suggests that “snark” is a conflation of the words “snide” and “remark”, which fits the definition–if it’s true, then “snarky” evolved from “snark” but the original disappeared and is now being revived. That’s not to suggest that Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” is a sign of great intelligence–she obviously didn’t realize she was combining two similar sounding words with similar meanings. But there’s nothing wrong with the word. I knew instantly what she meant. And in recent years I have used the word “misunderestimate” on several occasions. Someday I may use it unironically. ---
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/22 "2010-11-02T00:33:03Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > 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. :smack: I kept reading “perrequisite” as “prerequisite.” Thanks for straightening that up for me. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/23 "2010-11-02T01:17:49Z")
> [@andrewm](#): > > Actually, I think it’s more of a gerund. The verb in that sentence is “is” (in “it’s”). I’m not so sure of this; anyone else want to weigh in? (for reference, the original sentence was “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).”) mmm ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/24 "2010-11-02T01:33:34Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I’m not so sure of this; anyone else want to weigh in? > (for reference, the original sentence was “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).”) > mmm He’s right. The gerund phrase “nouning a verb” is a subject complement. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/25 "2010-11-02T03:13:00Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 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. I stand corrected on the pronunciations. However I still believe the noun ‘invite’ is a shortening of the noun ‘invitation’. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/26 "2010-11-02T03:35:42Z")
> [@Gestalt](#): > > :smack: I kept reading “perrequisite” as “prerequisite.” Thanks for straightening that up for me. p-e-r-q-u-i-s-i-t-e ---
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/27 "2010-11-02T04:09:01Z")
Okay, now the making-fun-of- **Gestalt’s** -incompetency-with-English game is just becoming cruel. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/28 "2010-11-02T04:29:03Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I’m not so sure of this; anyone else want to weigh in? > > (for reference, the original sentence was “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).”) > mmm The verbs in that sentence are “is,” “is,” “is nouning,” and “is shortening.” For there to be a gerund, one of the present participlea would have to be used as a noun. Instead the participles are both acting as verbs, with “is” acting as a helping verb to indicate the present progressive tense. To get gerunds, you’d need something like “…whether it’s **the** nouning **of** a verb or **the** shortening **of** a longer verb.” ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/29 "2010-11-02T12:36:32Z")
From Wiki: > [@](#): > > In linguistics, gerund (abbreviated ger) is a term used to refer to various non-finite verb forms in various languages: > > ``` > As applied to English, it refers to the usage of a verb (in its -ing form) as a noun (for example, the verb "learning" in the sentence "Learning is an easy process for some"). > > ``` This seems opposite of what was written (using a noun as a verb vs. using a verb as a noun). I’m not trying to be a Richard, just trying to understand. mmm ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/30 "2010-11-02T14:18:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The verbs in that sentence are “is,” “is,” “is nouning,” and “is shortening.” For there to be a gerund, one of the present participlea would have to be used as a noun. Instead the participles are both acting as verbs, with “is” acting as a helping verb to indicate the present progressive tense. > > To get gerunds, you’d need something like “…whether it’s **the** nouning **of** a verb or **the** shortening **of** a longer verb.” Nope. It’s a gerund phrase. “It is still informal but it [is]s an unsurprising linguistic evolution, whether \*it [is] nouning a verb (which seems to be a current trend in English) or shortening a longer verb (likewise).” \*”It” redefines the noun phrase “an unsurprising linguistic evolution”. Thus, substituting: “The (other) unsurprising linguistic evolutions are nouning a verb (gerund phrase), or shortening a longer verb (another gerund phrase).” The evolutions don’t “noun” or “shorten” the verb. The gerund phrases refer to/rename the subject “It,” by virtue of following the linking verb “is.” You can reverse them and get “Nouning a verb [now a gerund phrase used as a subject] is another unsurprising linguistic evolution.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/31 "2010-11-02T22:34:15Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > Nope. It’s a gerund phrase. “It is still informal but it [is]s an unsurprising linguistic evolution, whether \*it [is] nouning a verb (which seems to be a current trend in English) or shortening a longer verb (likewise).” > > \*”It” redefines the noun phrase “an unsurprising linguistic evolution”. Thus, substituting: “The (other) unsurprising linguistic evolutions are nouning a verb (gerund phrase), or shortening a longer verb (another gerund phrase).” The evolutions don’t “noun” or “shorten” the verb. The gerund phrases refer to/rename the subject “It,” by virtue of following the linking verb “is.” You can reverse them and get “Nouning a verb [now a gerund phrase used as a subject] is another unsurprising linguistic evolution.” I disagree that a gerund phrase has anything to do with whether the verbs themselves are gerunds. In order for the -ing verbs to be acting as nouns, a preposition would be needed to connect them to their direct object. Just because we are dealing with noun clauses doesn’t mean the words themselves function as nouns. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/32 "2010-11-03T02:21:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Just because we are dealing with noun clauses doesn’t mean the words themselves function as nouns. Noun phrase, not noun clause. Big difference. In any case, it’s still a gerund phrase and a gerund [is always used as a noun.](http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/gerundphrase.htm) Also notice the “bubble gum” example, which fits in perfectly with the others cited above. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047/33 "2010-11-03T16:29:35Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > When was it deemed acceptable to shorten ‘invitation’ to ‘invite’ and, sweet mother of pearl, why? Probably about the same time it was deemed acceptable to shorten “prescription” to “script,” a practice which has my irrational and indefensible hatred. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invite-as-a-noun/559047.md?page=1)