# Productivity



## bloop123

I want to know what determines verb productivity in Colloquial English and maybe extend this to Romance languages.

In colloquial English effect we make nouns into verbs often for humourous
Eg instead of 'make nouns into verbs' I could have just have easily said 
Verbify nouns
Verbalise nouns
Verb nouns (this one sounds the least natural but I'm not sure why)

I'm not interested in looking up the 'correct' dictionary definition. The whole point is in the random words we 'create' in speech. Most of my examples are 'wrong' but nonetheless are understandable. That is what I'm getting at.

I recognise there are fixed expressions Eg
I'll verb 'which is usually a noun' you
In a conversation
Person A) 'I hate icescream'
Person B) I'll icescream you in a minute
Usually for humourous effect
It could be a jovial threat to put icescream on someone, but the real meaning is unimportant.

Another example
It is very easy for one to say 'to broom'
Instead of to sweep
But one would never say 'to broomify'
'To broomalise'

I'm sure there are other common productive suffixes which we use but I can't think if any at the moment. Any more examples would be appreciated 

These same suffixes also exist in Italian and French so it would be interesting to see how productive they are in Romance languages and whether they are productive in the same contexts.

Alise = Alizzare = Aliser
Ify= something similar to fare/ficare and faire/fier depending on the word?
To + bare noun (not really a suffix but still productive) =are=er


----------



## Nino83

bloop123 said:


> To + bare noun (not really a suffix but still productive) =are=er



Yes, it is so. In Italian (but probably also in French) only the "are" suffix (the most regular class of verbs) is productive. 
It happens, for example in the language of internet: search on google = googlare [gugo'lare], send/attach a link = linkare, but it happens less often than in English. For example, someone says "fare un selfie", "fare jogging" (not "selfiare" nor "joggingare"). 

In Italian the situation is far more conservative, expecially with foreign loans. Until the verb is admitted it is not used, for example, on TV (for example in advertisings) and, even if the new verb is on the dictionary, we keep using it as a noun. For example "cercare su google" and "mandare/inviare un link" instead of "googlare" or "linkare" (the latter is very rare while the second is used only in very informal speech).


----------



## bloop123

Would you say that native speakers would never form new words with alizzare ( izzare = ise I think is another related form) or ficare?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Alizzare = costruire ali?


I think he meant the combined suffix/ending _-al-izz-are_ as in _form-al-izz-are_.


----------



## Nino83

These affixes are not used with foreign words (as far as I can remember). 

I add one: -izzare

For example: crack = craccare (a software), not cracchizzare/cracchificare/craccalizzare, mail = mailare, not mailizzare/mailificare/mailalizzare. 

Surely these suffixes (ere, ire, alizzare, ficare, izzare) are far less productive than "are". 

P.S. 

I remembered two: computer = computer*izzare*, scanner = scanner*izzare *


----------



## bloop123

I never said they were words. I said they were endings!

Have a look at these links. I mearly googled parole che finiscono con__.  It's not hard to see a pattern with many English words corresponding to those endings.

However I do see that most alizzare verbs come from adgectives ending in 'ale'. It just happened that many of those adgectives had a base nominal form aswell 

http://rima-con.it/parole-che-finiscono/parole-che-finiscono-con-izzare.html

http://www.findallwords.com/wordfin...zare&utitle=Parole che finiscono con alizzare

http://www.findallwords.com/wordfin...ficare&utitle=Parole che finiscono con ficare


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> These affixes are not used with foreign words (as far as I can remember).


The question has never been about *foreign *words.


----------



## bloop123

Nino83 said:


> These affixes are not used with foreign words (as far as I can remember).
> 
> I add one: -izzare
> 
> For example: crack = craccare (a software), not cracchizzare/cracchificare/craccalizzare, mail = mailare, not mailizzare/mailificare/mailalizzare.
> 
> Surely these suffixes (ere, ire, alizzare, ficare, izzare) are far less productive than "are".
> 
> P.S.
> 
> I remembered two: computer = computer*izzare*, scanner = scanner*izzare *



I will take note of this the next time I'm too lazy to use a dictionary and decide to have a go making up a new word


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> The question has never been about *foreign *words.



With native words, I'd say that the most productive (from the most to the least productive) are: "are", "izzare" (cinesizzare, craxizzare), "alizzare" (clericalizzare, costituzionalizzare), ficare. 

There is also "aleggiare" (for example, cicaleggiare). 

here there is a list of _neologismi_.


----------



## bloop123

berndf said:


> The question has never been about *foreign *words.



The question is also about the reasons one chooses one form over another. I find it interesting that Italian makes this distinction. Does English make this distinction in regards to native vs foreign origin?

I guess in my examples only the latinate words used alise/ise/ify

but the germanic? Word 'broom' used a bare infinitive.

Just how the native and latinate words could use alizzare/izzare 

But the foreign but 'germanic' (even if they were originally from a Latin language but reimported) English words tended to use 'are'


I don't want to make a generalisation with such limited examples though

Do you think there could be a link in this regard between the languages?

My God my reasoning is convoluted haha


----------



## berndf

bloop123 said:


> Just how the native and latinate words could use alizzare/izzare


In Italian, "latinate" words *are* the native ones. There is no suffix _-alizzare_, it's two *independent *ones. In _formalizzare_, _formale _is an adjective derivation from the noun _forma _and _formalizzare_ is a verb derivation from the adjective _formale_.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> There is no suffix _-alizzare_





(I didn't think about it).


----------



## bloop123

berndf said:


> In Italian, "latinate" words *are* the native ones.



What :O So Italian doesn't come from protogermanic?


----------



## berndf

bloop123 said:


> What :O So Italian doesn't come from protogermanic?


So you are fully aware that





bloop123 said:


> Just how the *native and latinate* words could use alizzare/izzare


contains a meaningless distinction. Could you explain what you really meant?


----------



## francisgranada

I feel _grosso modo _the following differences in meaning:

googlare - to use Google (to search/find using Google)
*googlizzare - to make something "googlish"
*googlificare - to provide something with Google (or like the previous)
*googlalizzare (not possible/probable, as the adjective *googlale does not exist)


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> *googlizzare - to make something "googlish"
> *googlificare - to provide something with Google (or like the previous)



In reality, these words don't exist in Italian (more precisely they are not recognized). 
"Dopo aver googlato" (scusate, non riesco a non ridere) there are "142" results for the former and "4" results for the latter. 

I must add that, often, the "fic" in "ficare" is part of the stem, so the real suffix is "are" and not "ficare". 
Some example: riappacificare (pacifico), edificare (edificio), classificare (classifica) and so on.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> In reality, these words don't exist in Italian (more precisely they are not recognized)...


Yes, that's why I put the asterisk at the beginning.  


> I must add that, often, the "fic" in "ficare" is part of the stem, so the real suffix is "are" and not "ficare".
> Some example: riappacificare (pacifico), edificare (edificio), classificare (classifica) and so on.


You are right, however -ficare is nowadays often intended as a suffix. See e.g. (from Treccani):

*quantificare* v. tr. [comp. di quanto1 e -ficare, sul modello del fr. quantifier e dell’ingl. (to) quantify] ...

(as we are speaking about non existent words, we can suppose also the adjective *_googlifico_  ...)


----------



## bloop123

berndf said:


> So you are fully aware that contains a meaningless distinction. Could you explain what you really meant?



You are right. The distincting is a bit off. I was just trying to draw a parallel
that these words in both languages came from the same source. Also that after English imported so much vocabulary from latin languages we also inherited a distinction between words from a latin source and words that felt 'native' from mostly germanic sources.

Italian and English seem to form words the same way if we view izzare to be analogeous to ise and 'are' as analogeous to a bare noun

Latin sources regardless whether the language is English or Italian can create words with 'izzare' 'ise'  but can also use 'are' or a bare noun

Other words from a different, often germanic source use 'are' or a bare noun

This distinction could be quite old.

The Italian word 'guardare' is Germanic in origin and doesn't use izzare

When looking at google ngrams the word started being used in the 1500s but gained ground in the late 1600s. So it is quite established

'Guardare' is related to the word 'ward' in English which doesn't use ise


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> You are right, however -ficare is nowadays often intended as a suffix. See e.g. (from Treccani)



Not only nowdays (personificare (persona), esemplificare (esempio) and so on).


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> Not only nowdays (personificare (persona), esemplificare (esempio) and so on).


Yes. It would be interesting to know, which is historically the "older",  -_ficare_ or _-fico/fica_ as they both come from the same stem as the verb _facere_ (words in -_ficus/fica_ might also be deverbal nouns originally).


----------



## bloop123

francisgranada said:


> Yes. It would be interesting to know, which is historically the "older",  -_ficare_ or _-fico/fica_ as they both come from the same stem as the verb _facere_ (words in -_ficus/fica_ might also be deverbal nouns originally).



Do you mean nouns ending in fico/fica or the inflection of ficare?


----------



## berndf

bloop123 said:


> Italian and English seem to form words the same way if we view izzare to be analogeous to ise and 'are' as analogeous to a bare noun


It is not only analogous, it really is the same suffix. _-izare_ < Greek _-ίζειν_ became a productive Suffix already in Latin. The gemination of _-izzare_ is a specifically Italian development.



bloop123 said:


> but can also use 'are' or a bare noun


Just for clarity, it should be noted that _-[a]re_ (strictly speaking, the a isn't part of it) is an verb *form *(infinitive) *ending *and not part of the verb itself, i.e. it is not a *suffix*.


bloop123 said:


> The Italian word 'guardare' is Germanic in origin and doesn't use izzare


_Guardare _is not noun-derived but a loaned verb. The etymon is the Germanic verb _wardon_.


----------



## francisgranada

bloop123 said:


> Do you mean nouns ending in fico/fica or the inflection of ficare?


Not an inflection, rather a derivation. E.g. the noun _classifica_ is derived from the verb _classificare_, not the other way round.


----------



## bloop123

berndf said:


> It is not only analogous, it really is the same suffix. _-izare_ < Greek _-ίζειν_ became a productive Suffix already in Latin. The gemination of _-izzare_ is a specifically Italian development.



So is the origin Greek? How would you pronounce ίζειν? Using some sort of transliteration that would make sense to me. I'm not great at the phonetic alphabet...

What was this suffix in Latin?


----------



## berndf

bloop123 said:


> So is the origin Greek? How would you pronounce ίζειν?


[-ize:n] in Classical Greek. In Koine Greek [-izi:n]. Classical Greek ζ actually wasn't exactly our modern [z] but probably either [dz] or [zd]. We don't know the exact pronunciation.



bloop123 said:


> What was this suffix in Latin?


_-izare_, as I said. _-ειν_ is the Greek infinitive ending and _-are _is the Latin one. Otherwise it is the same.

BTW: The American spelling _-ize_ is therefore historically more "correct". Oxford spelling therefore still prefers spellings like _formalize_ over _formalise_ but _analyse _over _analyze_ since _analyse _has nothing to do with the _-ίζειν_ suffix. It only looks similar.


----------



## bloop123

berndf said:


> BTW: The American spelling _-ize_ is therefore historically more "correct". Oxford spelling therefore still prefers spellings like _formalize_ over _formalise_ but _analyse _over _analyze_ since _analyse _has nothing to do with the _-ίζειν_ suffix. It only looks similar.



English spelling is such a pain! I remember my English teacher  used to drill everyone into using 'ise' over  the ' American' 'ize'. There is an eternal struggle. I hypercorrect, leaning to my teacher, thinking I am Australian I have to use ise, (not saying it works) or should I follow spell check, that red squiggly line constantly taunting me. However I'm not sure whether my setting is Brittish or American. 

Such questions arise

Who am I to doubt the wisdom of spell check? 

I still wouldn't say it's more historically correct. In French the ending is iser, with er being the infinitive ending. Our spelling is massively influence by the French but it doesn't really mean anything esses and zeds are quite interchangeable when comparing languages.


----------



## irinet

francisgranada said:


> Not an inflection, rather a derivation. E.g. the noun _classifica_ is derived from the verb _classificare_, not the other way round.



Hi, 
 That "classificare"  sounds to me more like a blend word of two Latin words or etymons -  since we are dealing with etymological solutions for a couple of neologisms ("googlizzare"?!) - : 'classis/es/em'  + 'aedi*ficare*'. More,  this transitive verb (I) -  'aedi*fico*' - has figurative meaning and could also blend in time with 'persona' or 'exemplo/um'.


----------



## berndf

irinet said:


> Hi,
> That "classificare"  sounds to me more like a blend word of two Latin words: 'classis/es/em'  + 'aedi*ficare*'. More,  this transitive verb (I) -  'aedi*fico*' - has figurative meaning and could also blend in time with 'persona' or 'exemplo/um'.


_Aedifico _just happens to have the same productive suffix -_fic(i)o _(from _facio_). This doesn't mean that _classify/classifier/classificare_ has anything to do with _aedifico_.


----------



## irinet

I cannot follow 'classify' on the Latin path,  though. On a second thought,  what proof does someone have for "facio"  in favour of "aedifico" which is stronger in meaning ('architect', 'build', 'foundate')? As I know and read,  there's no  precise science when dealing with such things because opinions are extremely 'divided'.


----------



## jmx

bloop123 said:


> In colloquial English effect we make nouns into verbs often for humourous
> Eg instead of 'make nouns into verbs' I could have just have easily said
> Verbify nouns
> Verbalise nouns
> Verb nouns (this one sounds the least natural but I'm not sure why)


Could you make a phrasal verb for that? Like "to verb a noun up" (or 'down', 'on', 'in', etc.)


----------



## bloop123

jmx said:


> Could you make a phrasal verb for that? Like "to verb a noun up" (or 'down', 'on', 'in', etc.)



My intuition is that phrasal verbs are quite productive. It seems like a lot of the neologisms from phrasal verbs are made by analogy with other phrasal verbs so that the 'out' in my example or insert other particle in that verb would have a similar meaning to another one.

To geek out is attested from 1996

Perhaps by analogy with the more common 'to go all out'?

This can be applied to many words

You could have to meat/icescream out to signify to go all out eating meet/icescream

It is also quite common to turn phrasal verbs into nouns

Eg a Breakdown

A build-up


----------



## bloop123

Some more fun creations playing mario today, showing the productivity of phrasal verbs

I'm all itemed out (said when arguing with my brother, I had a lot of items and didn't want anymore)

Probably in analogy with to be worn out


I need to health up (I was almost dying and desperately wanted a mushroom ) 

Probably in analogy with to level up

Hopefully I will start a trend!


----------



## Gavril

bloop123 said:


> In colloquial English effect we make nouns into verbs often for humourous
> Eg instead of 'make nouns into verbs' I could have just have easily said
> [...]
> Verb nouns (this one sounds the least natural but I'm not sure why)



If a noun is made into a verb without using any suffix (_to house_, _to nail,_ _to blanket_, etc.), the resulting verb doesn't normally mean "to make [object] into X".

E.g., _to house someone_ means to give someone a house/shelter, _to nail something (down)_ means to hammer nails into it, _to blanket something _means to cover something as a blanket does (or with a blanket-like thing), _to knee someone _means to hit someone with your knee, and so on. 

The semantics of these verbs may not fit into a perfectly predictable pattern, but "to [noun] something" generally seems to involve an interaction between [noun] and the object, rather than a transformation of the object into [noun].


----------

