I keep hearing journalists use the word "inaugural" as a noun instead of "inauguration." After looking it up online, I noticed that the second definition of inaugural is a noun. Doesn't this sound clunky? Am I the only annoyed listener?
"Inaugural" as a synonym for "inauguration," rather than meaning the speech given at the ceremony? Seems like a mistake.
The more I think about it, the more I find all words related to "inauguration" clunky. (This may be why words like "inaugurative" and "inauguratory" are listed as rare or obsolete.)
It's a case where the following word is dropped -- the inaugural address, the inaugural ball, the inaugural celebration, etc. -- which may actually be more appropriate for journalists who are taking an overview of the whole inaugural event, rather than just the moment where the President-Elect actually takes the oath (the inauguration).
"Isn't 'inaugural' an adjective? Sure it is. But many a noun has been, now and again, forced into adjectival use. How, then, can we say things can't go the other way? Isn't the way we use the language the final arbiter? This suggests how it is that reference works generally rely on published usages -- this being paired with the assumption that anything published has undergone some editing. And that isn't to say that editors have some holy charge to rule over language. Nope, only that they are people who've given the various issues some thoughtful consideration. Not even William Safire, I'd bet, would claim infallibility. So editorial opinions are hardly unanimous. Often, however, they're worth thinking about. ---ed