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.
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.”
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.
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. Also notice the “bubble gum” example, which fits in perfectly with the others cited above.
Probably about the same time it was deemed acceptable to shorten “prescription” to “script,” a practice which has my irrational and indefensible hatred.
