Talk:Verbification

message: I have merged the "verbing" article into "verbification," for they are the same thing, and I have deleted it from the duplicate page listing. --  Mac Davis ญƛ. 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree since Zero derivation is specific to certain morphological theories. I think there should also be a descriptive, theory-neutral characterization of the phenomenon. But nevertheless there should be pointers from Zero derivation to this entry... -- Mumpitz 11:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ARTICLE MERGE

message: I asked my English Linguistics Professor today, and she said "verbing" is not what linguists would use as proper term. Maybe rename it to conversion (linguistics)? (clem 16:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also never read the term 'verbing' in linguistic books or articles before, but I've mostly read stuff on Morphology and not so much on English morphology... *shrug* As to your suggestion to rename this article to Conversion (linguistics), I've started another discussion on this issue below. -- Mumpitz 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree - it's exactly the same topic. I've listed them on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles -- 61.149.181.66 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbing... 

message: There is a redirect from conversion to this article. I think this is not quite correct: 1) 'conversion' is more specific than 'verbification' (as described here). This article defines verbification as a process which transforms a word to a verb by any means. This includes, but is not restricted to, conversion which is usually defined as a morphological change of a word (usually changing its word-class) without any (overt) change of its form (I take this as the essence of the definitions provided in the morphology textbooks Haspelmath 2002, Booij 2005, Plag 2003, Matthews 1991, and Crystal's "Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics"; but maybe there are other uses of 'conversion' as well). Examples like mail / (to) mail could thus be regarded as cases of conversion but certainly not examples like enthusiasm / (to) enthuse (back-formation) or verb/(to) verbify (some instance of suffixation). 2) 'conversion' is more general than 'verbification' since it doesn't make any assumptions about the "source" and "target word-class". But it's not a superordinate of 'verbification' either because of 1). A correct superordinate might be 'transposition', but I'm not sure about that. -- Mumpitz 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion 

message: Anthimeria and derivation are not the same thing; the former refers to the use of a word as though it belonged to a different word class, and the latter refers to the creation of a new word from an old one. Now, one could argue that there's no such thing as anthimeria, that to use a word as a different word class is actually to create a new word; but insofar as anthimeria exists, it's not a form of derivation.
It seems to me that verbing, at least as this article describes it, straddles the two; it refers both to the (anthimeric) use of non-verbs as verbs, and to the creation of verbs from non-verbs. So, "verbing weirds language" (where weirds is an example of anthimeria) and "she salted her potatoes" (where salted is an example of derivation) are both verbing.
(Similarly with verbification, except that I don't know the term for non-derivational verbification, as in "verbification weirdizes language". I don't think anthimeria applies in this case.)
Ruakh 03:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthimeria or derivation?