I have thought a lot about Back Formation lately.
Back Formation is a linguistic term which refers to the formation/creation of a new word by removing affixes, i.e., certain parts of the word. The resulting neologism is called a back-formation.
An example would be the verb 'opine' born out 'opinion.' And 'opine' is a bona fide verb. The following, however, are NOT.
"commentate" - commentary
"orientate" - orientation
"conversate" - conversation
And something from syntax:
"must have 'went' - must have gone
They annoy one. In an appetite-suppressing sort-of-way.
They annoy two as well. (Just kidding!) What some people are doing to this language, it scares me sometimes. You know the theory that says that usage makes language? I am not sure I like it at all.
Right. A healthy marriage of prescriptive and descriptive usage is, indeed, a functional one. One could 'commentate' on this further :-)
this reminds me of an im conversation i had yesterday with a certain someone...
Ah, yes. And it was good, for all intents and purposes :-).
The forms you bring up already have perfectly good verb forms in existence: comment, converse, orient. Maybe that's why the convoluted versions vex? "One of these days, I gotta get organizized." (from "Taxi Driver")
What do you call these extra-constructed words? They're almost a literary trope.
What do you think about "emote" from "emotion" - a back construction? More annoying to me than "opine."
Right. That's exactly why they vex. Completely contrary to 'Oekonomie der Sprache' among other things.
Emote - emotion: I would say it's a case of Back Formation. And entirely vexing at that.
The 'extra' formations I'd generally pin on 'folk etymlogy.'
I like your new pic, btw.
Ah, danke, a lighter color, I thought, was in season....
Post a Comment