Is this going to be a red lipstick? Orangy? Pink? Purple? Black? Will it be a matte color? Pearlized? Wet look?
Here is the apparent formula. First one takes a perfectly innocent noun, just sitting there representing a person, place or thing, and not bothering anybody. Then one molests it by adding "-ize" to the end. This bastard clone is then used as a verb and begets other bastard children, e.g. NOUN+ization.
The possibilities are limitless!
Baconize = to render pig fat palatable.
Diamondize = to cut a less-expensive stone to look as brilliant as a diamond.
Fictionize = to change the truth into fantasy or lies, esp. by politicians.
Dollopize = to separate a semi-liquid into bits.
Oraclize = to predict.
Poodlize = to breed a useful working dog into a useless show animal.
Where will it ever end!?
The possibilities are limitless! ... Where will it ever end?
It will end when we limitize "limitless".
I'm trying to get orientatized around this, Pop...
I'm trying to get orientatized
You can start by getting your eyes almondized.
BTW occidentalizing one's eyes is a popular surgical procedure in Japan. So almondizing might become a fashion. Who knows?
The earliest citation in the COED, from 1591, is:
Reprehenders that complain of my boystrous compound wordes and ending my Italionate coyned verbes all in ize.
I'd a thunk y'all'd be used to it by now.
First one takes a perfectly innocent noun, just sitting there representing a person, place or thing, and not bothering anybody. Then one molests it by adding "-ize" to the end. This bastard clone is then used as a verb and begets other bastard children, e.g. NOUN+ization.
Cute. Interesting metaphor that sees derivative morphology as molestation and unwanted offspring outside of marriage. Words get coined all the time, as you did in your post facetiously, and like many things in life, some get coined for perfectly good reasons and some don't. Usually people are complaining about zero-derivation where a noun is verbed with no attempt at change, (e.g., to architect, to dog), but it seems that indulgence in normally productive suffixes is also suspect, (e.g., to productize, to stringify). I think it really boils down to who controls the language? People who use it, or people who fetishize it? Should the criteria of judging new immigrant words be aesthetic or eugenic? Or something else entirely?
What is the difference between pearlized and pearlified? In what context was the newly coined word used? Did it make sense? &c.
almondeyesed
When almond eyes are smiling, sure, 'tis like a morn in Yokohama. [Hmm. I guess it loses something in the translation.]
What is the difference between pearlized and pearlified?The same difference as the difference between mummyized and mummified.
Kids get mummyized on Hallowe'en. It's a surface treatment. Mummified is the real thing.
Cultured pearls are pearlified. Nail polish is pearlized.
Are you convertized, Father Steve?
Yep. Useful suffixes those.
In reply to:
BTW occidentalizing one's eyes is a popular surgical procedure in Japan.
Satisfactionizing at its questionable best...
Satisfactionizing at its questionable best...
"Satisfacializing" at its questionable best, Wordwind.
"Satisfacializing" at its questionable best, Wordwind.
Satisfactualizing at its least, grapho.
Wouldn't it be statusfacialized to satisfactize on appearence?
or have i missed the point?
Wouldn't it be statusfacialized to satisfactize on appearence?
There's a slang meaning to facial which I thought might have been being alluded to.
or I have I missed the point?
I think (?) Wordwind was picking up on the "fied" in "pearlified". This led her to "satisfied" and hence to "satisfactionize".
I read Wordwind's post to mean that cosmetic surgery of this type is extreme vanity surgery, meant to satisfy the patient's wildest and most dubious vanities. Hence, "satisfaction".
Since this surgery is performed on the face, rather than elsewhere on the body (eg. rings in belly buttons and elsewhere - you will have to imagine "elsewhere" for yourself), I offered what I thought might be an improvement on Wordwind's coinage by linking the vanity surgery to the face, where, in fact, almondizing occurs.
Hence, "satisfacializing".
Starting from scratch, my own coinage would be artifacializing.
Of course, Wordwind can speak for herself ... and I'm sure she will. (Apologies to Wordwind in advance if I have mongrelized her coinage.)
Satisfactualizing at its least, grapho
In the Walt Disney movie "Song of the South" (1946), Uncle Remus sings the following line:
“Mister bluebird’s on my shoulder
It’s the truth, it’s actual
Everything is satisfactual”
Zip all the doodah!
my, oh my what a wonderful day...
my, oh my what a wonderful day...
Plenty of sunshine, plenty all day ...
A splendid intermezzification, Father Steve.
I like poodlize. I know it was meant sarcastically but it works!!! Sometimes her Grandparents try to poodlize my niece.
bastard children..The possibilities are limitless They are, indeed, but natural selection limits the survivors to well-adapted ones. It's amazing how Darwin's scheme can be extended even to words. I'm actually reading "The Origin of Species" in the original text.
but natural selection limits the survivors to well-adapted ones.
except when interfering humans keep dodgy foetusses alive in intensive care units.
(Often quite justifiably, of course, granting life to viable humans who would otherwise not make it - but there are some occasions when one feels that a little less iknterference would be better for all concerned. I speak from experience of teaching badly disabled young adults.)
and, just bye-the-bye. jheem said, "]and unwanted offspring outside of marriage.""
I would dispute that all - or even most - children born outside wedlick are unwanted.
Intensive care units are part of the environment.
I'm going to ignore your 'wedlick' comment (although I disagree with it) for fear of exposing my pun-blindness (unless it was just another of your lovely typoes).
Oops (edit) misread your 'wedlick' comment. I would certainly dispute the notion that *all children born out of wedlock [sic] are unwanted. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to say whether *most are.
I would dispute that all - or even most - children born outside wedlick are unwanted.
Having known a few bastards in my day, I'd certainly agree with you, but we were discussing words as unwanted and illegitimate.
I much more gladly suffer the people in my life who are bastards than I suffer bastard words.
Come to me all ye little words bar sinister;
fear not the strict father;
nuncle will nurture and treasure you.
>>>and unwanted offspring outside of marriage
Funny, eh, how where you live affects the way you think. People living together is such a common thing in Québec, that you no longer have that stigma of being born our of wedlock.
I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to say whether *most are.That's a step in the right direction, Faldage.
we were discussing words as unwanted and illegitimate.
I think the analogy stands, jheem? Many words that we use happily are amalgams, extensions - bastardisatons even! I am unhappy to try to apply any general rule to the English Language and prefer to look at each case as it arises, making my judgement as much on aesthetic as on logical or linguistic grounds.
... making my judgement as much on aesthetic as on logical or linguistic grounds.
I don't have a problem with that. On logical grounds usually doesn't work. Why prefer bastardization? Logical bastardify and bastardification make more sense, as one makes a bastard. On linguistic grounds, both -ize and -ify are productive derivitive suffixes and so one should be able to use them with any verb one wants to. On aesthetic grounds, here one's on one's own. Bastardization sounds better than bastardification? Not for me. (All those alternating stops and fricatives or liquids.) So, it boils down to: I like this word better than that word. OK. So everybody's free to coin words ad libitum, and nobody gets to squawk.
There might be other reasons, too. I can get behind that. Since we don't have an algorithm for determining a word's acceptability, when you say pearlize is a bastard of a word. Prove it and cite your criteria. That's all I'm saying. It seems to me that most of the grounds used by most of the squawkers are historical and conservative: that word doesn't exist, never has, and I don't like it. Nosireebub!
It seems to me that most of the grounds used by most of the squawkers are historical and conservative: that word doesn't exist, never has, and I don't like it. We seem to be in total agreement, jheem - how boring!!
Whether we like it or not, words are coined and the acid test is whether they pass into the language or not (and, to some extent, how long they remain in use, I s'pose)
Trouble is, folk salute some pretty weird flags that get run up the flagpole.
the acid test is whether they pass into the language or not
This is not the acid test, Rhub. It's not a "yes" or "no" situation.
Some words pass into the language and some do not. Still others pass into the language, and then pass out.
This is not the acid test, Rhub. It's not a "yes" or "no" situation.I think the term "acid test" is quite appropriate here: There are weak and strong acids, dilute or concentrated, corroding slowly, or dissolving quickly
There are weak and strong acids, dilute or concentrated, corroding slowly, or dissolving quickly
I see your point. Some comments are more acidic than others.
I remember a radio station used to boast about so and so's "acidic commentary".
Those who create acid seem to get more respect than those who dissolve it. At least they get better ratings.
Some words pass into the language and some do not. Still others pass into the language, and then pass out.
- which is, more or les, what I mean. I guess I didn't exress my self as clearly as I might.
I guess I didn't express myself as clearly as I might.No need to nibble, it's only a quibble.
- aas such it's perceptible - and I'm highly susceptible.