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.
