Wordsmiths, I Think the English Language Needs More Verbs.

Is it just me or is the English language lacking in the number of verbs we have at our disposal?

Need an adjective?
No problem – Roget’s Thesaurus is literally brimming with them.

Verbs?
Well they’re another story altogether. Maybe it’s an intentional design and a matter of practicality. It’s got to be hard work coming up new words. To make matters worse, verbs not only require a present tense root, but also 3rd person and past tense version – forcing the originator to come up with 3 words for every one required.

Our language is so fluid, so evolving…yet verbs always seem to get the short end of the stick.

Mankind started riding horses centuries ago. Along came buggies, wagons, elevators, bicycles, trains, escalators, carousels, trolley cars, roller-coasters, skateboards, automobiles and spacecraft. I guess the wordsmiths decided ride was still a perfectly adequate way to describe the action. I’ll concede they all involve movement, but that’s where the similarities end. Nowadays the word ride just means too much. Sometimes it involves animals, sometimes it involves machines. It pertains to horizontal, vertical and circular motion. It’s too general a word. If we had more new, specific verbs we’d need a lot fewer adverbs.

Speaking of new words, why is it whenever a new noun hits the proverbial language market, no one sees fit to create a new verb for that noun. When the facsimile machine became the fax, were people just too lazy to come up with a word that described the act of faxing? The first person to utter the words, “Fax me the fax,” (find me a find, catch me a catch…) probably cringed and took it upon themselves to revert back to the word send.

And dial, (with the exception of my grandmother in Queens with her circa 1920 AT&T rotary model), who the hell still dials a phone?

We’re a creative people, why do we stand for this lack of descriptive verbs? Subcultures throughout our society are constantly coming up with new verbs. Surfers, rappers, teenagers, et al. have no problem coming up with new words, why does society on a whole continue to drag its feet? There’s got to be over 500 words that describe the act of sex, but we’re all fine using single verbs such as do or feel to describe such a multitude of acts?

The more I think about, the more I’m convinced English Scholars from around the world should convene a conference to remedy this problem and erase the shortcomings. On the upside, our language would be more descriptive and colorful. On the downside, from a student’s point-of-view, there would be quite a few more words in the dictionary…but at least there wouldn’t be so many definitions for each word. I’m no scholar, but I’d love the job. In the interest of full disclosure, I think I’m the only in the history of civilization to actually send resumes out to all the paint companies throughout the country seeking a position in the naming of all the new colors they invent.

So, I ask my fellow IMHO forum readers, do you have any verbs you’d like to create, modify the definition of or eliminate altogether? Perhaps there’s another lunatic out there who sees things the way I do. But dear God, I hope not!

But you can verb any word in the language! :slight_smile:

Verbing wierds language, though.

Well… just don’t verb my verb… if you know what I mean.

First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I nothing because I no verbs.

Newscaster: In this evening’s broadcast, no verbs! The reasons, the consequences…after this.

I’m sure we can solution this if we just brain it enough. Clearly, adverbing the present verb-stock won’t par, so let’s really excess the situation. Are we obligationed to neologism it, or just metamorphosis what we already chattel? Hard to verbal, but perhaps a review of the present vocabulary will insight.

As a former English scholar myself, I can definitively statement that this will only clusterf*ck the problem.

And Flymaster, your post giggled me.

In the evolution of language, verbs tend to be the words that change the least. They also (along with pronouns) tend to be the simplest in terms of sounds. Go. Eat. Things of that nature.

Verbs are more heavily used (I would argue) than nouns or adjectives. Furthermore, new nouns and adjectives must adapt to new technologies. (A point I believe you hinted at.) Verbs, IMHO, change less frequently because they represent a more fundamental aspect of language. For instance, one might very well get through life quite fine without using the word, say, Robotics. (Since I just recently learned that Asimov created that word for the first time in print.) It would be much more difficult to get through life without using the verb “to be” (and all it’s forms).

Nouns and the like may be able to change more quickly because smaller percentages of the population may require the word in question on an everyday basis. Verbs, on the other hand, require more universal usage, understanding, and hence, a clarity of communication that can only come with unchangingness.

Grok that. grin

But we do have varied words for travelling in those things.

Buggies, wagons and cars are driven

Elevators are simply ‘taken’

Bicycles are ridden but they are equally pushed or pedalled. Interestingly ridden is replacimg these terms, which suggests we don’t need more words coz we ain’t uin’ what we got.

Trains are most commnly caught rather than ridden.

Escalators dunno, never heard anyone descirbe escaltor travel as anything but ‘used’.

Carousels are ridden because they are horses.

Spacecraft are piloted.
The thing is that 'ride has a very specific meaning for most of those things, and that is of passive travel. If you actually control the thing the word becomes different.

Well, yes, but you’re picking battles carefully; one could very well get through life without using the verb “defenestrate,” but would be hard-pressed to go without using the noun “food.”

It’s a slight nitpick; your points are well-taken.

Sorry… didn’t know there was any other way to pick battles. grin It’s all simply a matter of how specific a word you wish to use. Most nouns are associated with a specific object or idea. Many verbs are actionable to multiple nouns (go Blake). It would seem to imply that there will always be more nouns than verbs… because otherwise every noun would have it’s own unique verb. (And they do… if you use them correctly)

Oh… I ride escalators… if anyone’s interested. And for trains, I much prefer the verb “derail.”

English phrasal verbs are difficult constructions for a non-native speaker to learn.

That said, I use the verb “garbagify” instead of “throw away/out.” As in, “please garbagify your chewing gum rather than sticking it on the underside of your desk.” It gives a better indication where the chewing gum is supposed to go.

For a Brit, the noun “bin” meaning “wastebasket” could be verbified instead of the Americanism “garbage”.

Well, speaking as a Brit, I’m fairly sure that people over here already quite frequently talk about “binning” something…

jackelope, I’ve totally said that something “giggles me” in normal conversation before! Too funny…in any case I enjoy wordsmithsmanship a great deal. :wink:

And we all know it’s alot better to be giggled than cracked-up

a funnying thread, giggles me also, delighting in the topic and…

therwise, just Straight Dope™-ing around. :wink: