-1

As in "eat > eating", the meaning of the generated word would not make confusion, but if I make a word formation like "lamp(N) > *lamp(V)", it doesn't make sense, unless the generated word is lexicalized.

  • 1
    "Verbing weirds language" -- Calvin – Jeff Zeitlin Apr 24 '18 at 18:23
  • Did you mean "not to verbalize a noun" as in your question's heading, or "it is to verbalize a noun" as your question's text suggests? – Rosie F Apr 24 '18 at 19:42
  • 3
    When you say "to nominalize a verb", do you specifically mean by adding -ing, or do you mean more generally to coin a noun which you derive from a verb? Since you don't give an example usage of your example noun "eating", it is not clear what you expect people to think you mean by it. – Rosie F Apr 24 '18 at 19:45
  • 1
    Your presupposition seems unclear, vague, and possibly incorrect. You can't lamp something but I can guess what it might mean, and you can, in fact, torch something. (And apparently, you can lamp.) – tripleee Apr 25 '18 at 6:26
1

In the first example you give, you're using a standard derivational suffix of English: -ing attached to a verb forms a gerund noun, that is, a noun referring to the action itself.

But in the second example, you don't use any standard verb-forming suffix. You just treat the noun as a verb. If you want to make an understandable verb, you can use a suffix like -ify: while it sounds ridiculous, "lampify" clearly means to turn something into a lamp.

For a less ridiculous-sounding example, shifting a problem to another subfield of linguistics might involve semanticizing or morphologizing it. Both of those verbs (and the gerund nouns derived from them) are clear in their meaning, even though I just invented them on the spot.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.