(Phil) I hope it doesn't replace "woooded". I agree "ornate" as a verb is monstrous when "ornament" already exists as a verb. (SM) How do you tree a cat? Stick a twig up its bum? You'll be lucky. I can see how you can de-cat a tree, though, even if it might need the Fire Brigade.

[Phil] I never saw it before, until I googled it in a spirit of misunderestimation. The OED has it as an obsolete verb, which I suppose is why an antiquarian map dealer might use it to ornate his prose. But as Caxton writes, "Somtyme ornatynge of wordes maketh the proposycion to be withdrawen fro the trouthe."

It's usually mixed up in some way to even both sides out.
Things have quieted down.
Dual the A11!

So is it in fact the case that "ornament" as a verb was monstrous because "ornate" already existed as a verb?

Is the interesting thing about these words simply that they don't appear to have been verbed in the 'normal' way - i.e. by an apparent change in the spelling? After all, it presumably doesn't count in the noun-to-verb category to include the verb "to shelve" since it isn't "to shelf", whereas "to tree" involves no spelling change (although I think some linguists would argue there is a morphological change by virtue of the change of use). In these non-spelling-change cases, it's presumably for some other reason that they appear the same when verbed... You can verb "thick" by spelling it "thicken", whereas "thin" doesn't lend itself to being spelt "thinnen".

(That said, I don't think it would break any intuitive rules of morphology to have "righten" and "wrongen").

[Non-adjective verbings] Saki has an instance of the verb "to sky", meaning the practice of putting the paintings of lesser artists higher up on the gallery wall, above better-regarded work.

Nounish verbings: beach, ship, dog, horse, house, caravan, cup, motor, earwig. "Some to think of it," he umbrella'd, "there aren't many words you can't slip in as a substitute for 'said'."

S C

horse?

[pen] Ever horsed around?

[horsing] I know I have.

(Raak) Or omit it entirely, as in "So I'm like f*** off" and all that edifying stuff.

[Raak] Horse is a strange one... I dog you, you dog her, we dogged them, but do you ever say 'I horse, you horse'? It's usually linked to 'around'. I have no idea what this does to the classification of the nounage/verbage discussion. I'm almost out of my depth!

Maybe it's like goosing, but on a larger scale. Oo-er.

'Horsing' & 'Horsed' have been in common usage in the B&D world for years. So I'm told.

[TMITGS] Meaning what, exactly?

The only other usage than "horsing around" I can find on a (SafeSearch) Google, is the expression "to horse a gentlewoman", which I assume is an historical expression meaning the general assistance of a lady in enabling her to ride out. Then again, maybe I'm being naïve and it has a more Catherine the Great connotation.

I believe it involves a carpenter's sawhorse (suitably reinforced and stabilised), a willing 'victim', a quantity of rope and a good imagination. It might be a good idea to keep a chiropracter on the speed dialer too IMHO.

Earlier today something similar to Projoy's comment on "thicken" occurred to me, although I noted that "enlarge" seems to apply the suffix as a prefix. There are words such as "enliven" which seem to follow the same pattern, except "liven" isn't an adjective (at least now). Anyone know a reason why "enlarge" behaves like that?

[Darren] No idea, but it did make me think of the verb from "bold" is "to embolden", which has both suffix and prefix (though not necessarily in that order).

(Darren) "Enlarge" is from the French enlarger and may just be a copy, so to speak. A more regular formation, reading between the lines of my 1964 COD, would be "largen", (cf thicken) the prefix en- + adjective being rare. En- + noun or verb is common though and explains "enliven" either as "to give life to" or to (intensively) liven.

[Rosie] ...which has both prefix and suffix. As does embolden. But you can't ensticken the affixes on ad lib.

You people scare me a bit sometimes. I love you all, but you scare me mildly.

(Raak) With "embolden" and "enliven" it would seem that in the past someone has done just that. I don't think the rules are particularly well-defined. (nights) Yep, we're a bunch of swivel-eyed fundamentalists. In the beginning was the Word. AND THE WORD SHALL BE SPELT PROPERLY. :-)

P - R - O - P - E - R - L - Y

Is there an opposite for "enlarge" which has the same pattern? There doesn't seem to be an "ensmall" or "enlittle" (although there is "belittle" but then where's the "belarge"?) - the closest in meaning is probably "shrink," which seems to have no connection with any words meaning "small" whatsoever.

Darren] Well, there's the Simpsons' 'debigulator' machine, which rather implies that there's a verb 'to debigulate'

More seriously, since the 'en-' prefix mostly seems to mean 'more of', or 'increase' you wouldn't really expect a word for making smaller to be made up in that way. There is 'decrease', which is a Latinate construction of 'de-' and crescere, to grow.

[penelope] which sense of "dogging" are you talking about?

[Phil] Perhaps it's best we don't ask.

[Phil] In the 'following someone annoyingly' sense. Why, what other senses are there? ;o)

[Irouléguy] Doesn't the prefix 'en-' mean something closer to 'to make'? (Enlarge - to make sth large).
Actually, the example that made me think that was ennoble - to make noble.

I have on my lap a big Chambers Dictionary:

en- prefix
1) in words derived from Latin through French (a)used to form verbs with the sense of in, into, upon; (b) used to form verbs with the sense cause to be; (c) used intensively or almost meaninglessly;
(2) in words derived from Greek used to form verbs with the sense of in.

I can't think of any for sense (c)...

(Knobbly) I think enliven could fall into your category (c). Liven would do on its own ( = to make lively).

The Simpsons also introduced "enbiggen", iirc.

[CdM] Wasn't that EMbiggen? As in, "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" or something to that effect?

[penelope] "To hold or fasten with a mechanical device", apparently. >-]

It's so nice to see grammaticalisation and form-function reanalysis in progress. Errr... I think.

House news - we now have a phone, the main delay caused by the engineer not knowing where a big pipe of wires came out. Broadband apparently appeared first thing this morning, but since I had to come into work to read my email I didn't know about it then. (Actually, given that we've just had a system "upgrade" here, it might have been better to have stayed at home in any case). First major disaster was the downstairs neighbour complaining of water coming through our ceiling. We had a plumber/odd-job-man come out Saturday morning and spend three hours under the bath fixing the makeshift repair that the previous owner must have done about, oh, three or four days before moving out. Nice welcome present for us, oh yes. Anyway, should be fixed now; no all we need is for someone to plumb the gap that subsequently appeared in my bank account.

+w

Knobbly] I must admit i didn't look it up - I just went off the sense of most of the 'en-' words I could think of. I still can't think of an example for making smaller, though.
Another contender for your sense c) is 'tangle' and 'entangle', though according to Webster-Merriam Online 'tangle' is an Anglo-Saxon shortening of an old French verb 'entangler'.

*waves red rag* Can I argue for 'to Google' as one useful example of verbification? I can't think of an alternative that isn't a clunky noun-phrase - to look up on Google, to research on Google, to scope (out) on Google, etc.

I think "to Google" as a verb for "to search on Google" is OK, but only informally. I use it myself. However, it has become synonymous with "to search on the Internet, regardless of search engine used" which plays into the hands of those evil corporate types.

It has, of course, an friend in "to hoover."

Right on cue, Slashdot reports that "Google Sends Legal Threats to Media Organizations" over the use of its name as a verb for internet searces. See here.

...and in case you didn't scroll all the way down, here for some wonderful derivations from the Japanese verb 'guguru'.

That story suggests that 'to Google' becoming a generic verb doesn't necessarily benefit them, though, because they lose their exclusivity.

To be more specific, potentially they could lose their trademark (at least in the US) if it becomes an ordinary word ("google" isn't an English word yet, although "googol" is), as once a word has become a generic term, it becomes impossible to enforce trademark rights on it.

Ditto for "to Dyson", which used to be used in my household.

Darren] The OED listed it as a verb in June - see here - which surely counts as a word becoming 'officially' English.

Are there other brand-name verbs? I can only think of 'to Xerox' (American for photocopying), which I don't think is current any more.

[Irouléguy] It would only become a generic if "to google" meant "to search on the internet on any search engine." As long as it's defined to mean "to use Google" it shouldn't present them with any problems. There are plenty of brand names which have become generic nouns, applied regardless of brand (escalator, tannoy, biro, etc.) but not many verbs ("to rollerblade" is another, though).

[Darren] "Escalate" (he tannoyed, then biroed it in on his list of brandname verbs).

I don't think "escalate" quite counts as it predated "escalator." The thing which makes "escalator" a generic is the way it's use for any moving staircase, with no regard for whether it's an Otis "Escalator" model. If, however, you say, "I'm just going to escalate to the third floor, darling," then yes, "escalate" qualifies as a generic verb. Personally I've never heard it used that way.

"Escalate" no longer reads as a word to me, as a result of the previous paragraph. I just see a bunch of meaningless letters. It's annoying when that happens.

Talking of meaningless letters, I've developed this annoying habit of leaving letters out of my posts: "it's use for" indeed.

(Darren) Stare at any word long enough and it begins to look mis-spelt or foreign. Either way you think you're going slightly barmy. I can assure you you're not unless I am as well.

Excuse me for a second...
Dear I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue Mailing List Member,
We are now in a position to reveal the dates of the Autumn series of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.
TICKETS WILL GO ON SALE FROM 10AM ON THE MORNING OF WEDNESDAY 16TH AUGUST.
Tickets to these recordings sell extremely quickly, so you are strongly advised to book early.
The first recording will take place on the evening of Sunday 22nd October 2006 at the Southport Theatre (capacity 1631). Tickets are priced at £10.50, £8.50 and £6.50, with a £2.25 transaction charge. There would normally be a £1.50 per ticket service charge as well, but we have absorbed this for you. You can either book tickets online at www.LiveNation.co.uk/southport , via the telephone by calling Ticketmaster on 0870 6077560, or in person at the theatre between the hours of 10am and 6pm, Monday to Saturday.
The second recording will take place on the evening of Sunday 12th November at the Victoria Palace Theatre (capacity 1525). This is the theatre showing the musical Billy Elliot. Tickets are priced at £11.50, £9.50 and £7.50, with a £2.50 transaction charge. We have absorbed a 6% per ticket service charge. You can book tickets online by calling 0207 834 1317 which will ring at the box office direct and if not answered (either due to being busy, ringing too many times or outside the hours of 10am to 8.30pm Monday to Saturday) it will trip through to Ticketmaster.
The third recording will take place on Sunday 26th November at the Sunderland Empire (capacity 1875). Tickets are priced at £10.50, £8.50 and £6.50, with a £2.25 transaction charge. There would normally be a £1.50 per ticket service charge as well, but we have absorbed this for you. You can either book tickets online at www.LiveNation.co.uk/Sunderland or via the telephone by calling the theatre's box office on 0870 602 1130 (phone trips to Ticketmaster either due to being busy, ringing too many times or outside of hours), or in person at the theatre box office between the hours of 10am and 7.45pm (6pm when there's not a show on), Monday - Saturday.
Doors open to each recording at 7pm, and the recordings will begin at 7.30pm. They are scheduled to finish between 10.15-10.30pm and include a twenty minute interval.
We are very concerned that tickets to these shows (which are already subsidised) are being touted for money, so in an attempt to remedy this, SALE OF TICKETS WILL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN FOUR PER APPLICANT. Should you find yourself unable to use your tickets, please telephone the relevant theatre's box office. They will keep contact details for the first thirty applicants unable to get tickets, and will re-sell the tickets for you. Under no circumstances should you buy or sell tickets on eBay. If a recording has to be cancelled, anyone who has a ticket that has not be purchased legitimately will not get their money refunded, as Ticketmaster and the theatre box offices can only refund the original cardholder.

So here's a question: how do you find out a ballpark figure for how much one should be expected to pay for replacement windows? There seems to be a pact between fitters to give no indication of costs whatsoever, presumably so you can be royally ripped off when it comes to ordering them.

[rab] Try calling fitters and replacement window companies in a completly different town to escape the geographical fixed-price cartel. And I'm sure some of the national companies (Everest, Staybrite, Penicuik) have websites that might calculate it for you, once you have the approximate measurements. There's a glaziers' regulatory body I think - is it Fensa? Maybe they have a list of reputable ones.

Thanks. No-one seems to offer an on-line quote; I'm not even after anything as scientific as that, just an estimate of how many thousands of pounds it's likely to be so we can budget for it. Very frustrating.

[Darren] According to the online dictionaries I just consulted, "escalate" is a back-formation from "escalator".

[rab] How many windows do you want replacing? I have a ballpark figure of £5K for my flat, which would be 4 windows replacing, including patio doors. But then I am in the London area.

[Projoy] By that token, anyone outside London should be able to have it done for £1.50, then.

[Raal] Nice to see a new face here. You look a bit like Raak, if I may say so. Anyway, that's interesting because the ones I checked showed the reverse!

[Projoy] We have seven windows in total: three of them quite large (about 2m²), two medium sized (1.25m²) and two wee ones (less than 1m² apiece). We're not in a listed building, or a conservation area, thank goodness, so they can be made out of anything we like, as long as we respect the astragals etc. 5K was the kind of number that was floating around my mind, for some reason, but from what you say it might be a bit more than that.

I paid 3.5k a few years ago for a ground floor flat; four large windows (3+m² and one medium (1.25m²) plus a front door and a back door. It's the doors that add a lot to the expense; several hundred pounds a pop. And of course small windows are disproportionately costly for their size. I'd hope your requirements would be cheaper than Projoy's - I bet patio doors incur a double expense, once for being doors, and once for being large windows. I admit, I'd still anticipate a cost of well over 4k.

Do you have to do them all in one go? I know there are 'do the front, get the back for free' offers every now and again... but don't panic, that's the main thing.

I spose not - but all but two of them really need to be done if not by the winter then next summer at the latest, so we may as well have them all done in one go. We'll try not to panic - I'm just not keen on the whole "salesman" thing...

My regular customers include a window salesman, and a window surveyor (goes round after the salesman has done his bit and actually measure the windows etc). Unfortunately, the latter is on holiday this week, but I'll check with the former this evening if I remember. He's an ex-salesman as of last year, so should be honest about it. From conversations with him, I can advise you to beware of all the "pay for the front, get the back free" deals etc, as those sort of companies will be ripping you off anyway. The salesmen are amongst the most highly-trained, aggressive-style of any trade. You do not get a bargain from them, even though you will think you do. Some of the techniques he explained to me were quite scarily akin to military interrogation. I'll let you know what he says either tonight, or tomorrow morning.
There is another way, though. If they are standard sizes, the window units themselves do not cost much (think 10% od what you get charged) and a pair of competent builders/handymen should be able to fit them.

[rab] Everest claim to be the best, but are probably the most expensive. They did six floor-to-ceiling windows and a door for me years back for 4k. How long do you plan staying at the address? You don't want something that will need replacing again in less than 20 years.