Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
So I can't for the life of me remember where I heard it (probably from one of the yammering divas on ESPN, which I usually have on in the background when I'm doing work at home at night), but I heard the word "conversate" used as a verb in place of converse. Then, the next day, my girlfriend used it, facetiously, while we were talking. I pointed it out, and then we got into a discussion about the "word" (I know, we are a non-stop party, my girlfriend and I). I surmised, and I think this is true, that "conversate" is simply a back-formation of conversation. And other words, such as rehabilitate or liberate, have the "-ate" endings as verbs, though they may be back-formed themselves. A little online research seemed to suggest that it has origins in black American English, but it is still nonstandard. That may be a discussion point in itself, but my question was more about the origin of the "-a-" injected between the root and the "-tion" ending.
The words converse, when it means to talk among others, conserve, and observe take "-ation" endings (dropping the "e" of course) when used as a noun. But why? My sense is that it's because the words would be otherwise difficult to pronounce — try saying "observtion" and not sounding like you've been one too many times to the eggnog bowl. Also, in English, three consonants that don't form a diphthong (or two, as in diphthong), such as "-rvt-" in the previous example, generally look jarring together. However, those are the best reasons I could concoct. I also failed to come up with any examples, either during that conversation (Hey! There it is!) with my girlfriend or in the two hours since. Any help?
Well I think "orientate" is itself nonstandard, back-formed from orientation. It does no work that orient doesn't already do. I would say that preventative is another example of that which I was questioning, though not with the "-tion" ending. The verb form there is prevent, and the noun form is prevention, but an accepted form for the adjective is preventative. However, the adjective preventive, without the "-a-", means the same thing. I don't know for sure, but I'll wager the latter is the older version. Preventative seems widely accepted these days, though, so maybe that gets to my first implied question: Is "conversate" gaining currency?
Oh, sorry, Ron Draney, I didn't answer the question you were actually asking, that of my idea of difficulty of pronunciation. I suppose "oriention" sounds awkward to us, where orientation does not. But the word act ends with a "-t", too, and we seem to have no problem with the word action, rather than "actation." Perhaps "oriention" would not sound odd if it were standard, but, you're right, it does not really serve my argument. Then again, I never really claimed my theory was good -- it was just all I had.
Preventative is a particular bugaboo of mine; I always want to ask the person using it just what they're trying to preventate. That, or parody it as preventatatative (with the second of three "ta"s stressed and with a long A).
It may be significant that I've never run across anyone trying to preservate anything, or to use a preservive on it.
I'm with Ron on "preventative"; I tend to wince and shout "PREVENTIVE!!" at the radio. But when I try to formulate a rule about it, I find counterexamples that defeat me.
I even found a defense for "dilitation", which I see only in obstetrics. It is, of course, the French version of "dilation", and a number of French terms came into English obstetrics because of the influence of LaMaze in the '50s and '60s, so that when my wife and I were reproducing most nurses still said "SAHNtometer" instead of "SENTometer". But that doesn't make it right in English; I still prefer "dilation".
I recently saw (in writing) the word "legitimated": I assume he/she meant "legitized." (Sorry, don't have the source so can't provide context.)
Similarly, I have heard theological discussions using "predestined" and "predestinated". I think the intended meaning is the same, but when speakers are splitting hairs about some point, I would appreciate consistent and precise language.
Bob Bridges said:
Not the same thing, but I just read the instructions for a tower-defense game that insisted that I "defense" the attackers. That's right, I couldn't even defense my own yard, it was the attackers.
You show those attackers, Bob! Take their fence away from 'em! (Are you sure it wasn't spelled "defence" in the British fashion?)
johng423 said:
Similarly, I have heard theological discussions using "predestined" and "predestinated". I think the intended meaning is the same, but when speakers are splitting hairs about some point, I would appreciate consistent and precise language.
Your observation is most likely caused by the Bible translation that the person prefers. Predestinate, and not predestine, appears consistently in the King James translation (Authorized version) of the Bible, whereas most modern translations use predestine and never predestinate. Some people feel very strongly about a particular Bible translation but, even if you use multiple versions, your choice can have an impact on your word selection when discussing theological topics.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)