[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Richard Meyer

Isn't that grand! Angelo dukes it! A striking example of a noun used as a verb.

Richard,

I take your point, but would like to add another. Note that the scene is in prose. In other words, this is 'low' speech, employed for comic relief (note also the setting, and the characters' names).

The audience was invited to mock the usage, and the usage marks the speaker as a member of the, um, well, a particular class.

Note also John's objection. By objecting, he marks himself as a member of the educated class. Verbing nouns is decidedly Non-U...

It's hard to think of any linguistic practice that is devoid of cultural markers. We mark ourselves as soon as we open our mouths...

Thanks,

Bill

[Janice D. Soderling]

What a depressing way to start the new year.

Laurel, warm welcome to the Sphere. I can appreciate the "goodwilling", in fact I admire the inventiveness.

I have evidently been standing behind the barn door a long time if Louella Parsons used it. Not that she is my literary lodestar, but it indicates that it is not recent usage. And yes, I have seen it used before, but it surprised me to see it in P&W which I hold to higher standards.

I can accept "gifted" in the sense

1 : to endow with some power, quality, or attribute : INVEST <the Lord gifted him with the power of forceful speech>

I ask myself why I don't like "I gifted her a diamond ring". Or should that be "I gifted her with a diamond ring." Never mind which, I'll never gift anyone in print or orally.

But why, I ask myself, (getting back on track), don't I like it? Apart from small-minded curmudgeonry? I think it is because "I've gifted something to someone", smacks of "bestowing" and in some curious way (in my small mind) draws attention to the giver in a rather self-aggrandizing and ungracious way. Edited in: Which is roughly what David said. Gimme five. Dave!

As an item of curiousity, and to divert attention from my linguistic ignorance, I can tell you that "gift" in Swedish means both "poison" and "married" and Strindberg, that old misogynist, used that coincidence to literary advantage.

Thank each and all for prompt input. That'll teach me to opine publicly! (Actually it probably won't.)

[Janice D. Soderling]

What a lot of activity while I've been thinking.

Lucio says, "Lord Angelo dukes it well in his absence."

I think that is expressive, and it seems very modern.

I also was full of admiration of Mike Cantor's recent "I will arrive the town," though many were not. And Laurel's "goodwilling", I repeat, was inventive.

Yes, I think the reason I don't like "I gifted her" is because it foregrounds the giver (IMSM) in an ungenerous way. Compare "God's gift of musicality", or "God's gift to women", "He is gifted (understood, "He is gifted because he has received the gift from God.")

[David Rosenthal]

Originally Posted by Janice D. Soderling

But why, I ask myself, (getting back on track), don't I like it? Apart from small-minded curmudgeonry?

I'm usually the one accusing others of curmudgeonry, but I think what is unlikeable here is that "to gift" in the sense of "to give" adds nothing interesting to the language. If we didn't already have "to give" and someone wanted to make a verb out of "gift," I wouldn't have a problem, but "to give" is already the verb etymologically (and sonically!) related to "gift." It is like making a movie of a musical that was based on a movie. But they do that too these days, so what are we to do? I guess it is just the postmodern cycle of destabilized referents. Or something like that.

David R.

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by W.F. Lantry

Richard,

I take your point, but would like to add another. Note that the scene is in prose. In other words, this is 'low' speech, employed for comic relief (note also the setting, and the characters' names).

The audience was invited to mock the usage, and the usage marks the speaker as a member of the, um, well, a particular class.

Note also John's objection. By objecting, he marks himself as a member of the educated class. Verbing nouns is decidedly Non-U...

I assumed John W.'s comment was made in jest. As Gregory D. pointed out, we use nouns as verbs all the time in English. If John is indeed serious, then he's full of stuffing.

As concerns Shakespeare's use of nouns as verbs, I do not think the practice is as restrictive with him as you indicate. In the mid-1980s The Story Of English by Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil was published. PBS ran a companion television series based on that marvelous book. Here's an interesting passage from the third chapter ("A Muse of Fire") which details some of the great language transformations that came out of the Elizabethan period:

…the emergence of a language, to quote Logan Pearsall Smith, "of unsurpassed richness and beauty, which, however defies all the rules." Almost any word could be used in almost any part of speech. Adverbs could be used for verbs, nouns for adjectives; nouns and adjectives could take the place of verbs and adverbs. In Elizabethan English you could happy your friend, malice or foot your enemy, or fall an axe on his neck … And no Elizabethan wrote with greater boldness than Shakespeare. He could out-Herod Herod, he could uncle me no uncle, he used expressions like how she might tongue me, and he wrote that Lord Angelo dukes it well in his absence.

Perhaps I'm misreading your comments, Bill, but you seem to be suggesting that Shakespeare was some sort of language conservative who only broke the rules when poking fun at the vulgar classes. If such is your point, it's an untenable position.

Richard

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Richard Meyer

Perhaps I'm misreading your comments, Bill, but you seem to be suggesting that Shakespeare was some sort of language conservative who only broke the rules when poking fun at the vulgar classes.

Richard,

Thanks for your note. No, I didn't mean that at all, just meant to point out a particular case. Like most others, he seemed to use language to indicate social class in his characters, though... just look at his Gallicisms when he's writing speeches for the ruling class characters. The best examples (and best philological contrasts) are probably in the history plays, like Henry IV, both one and two.

Was he a conservative in his use of language? Yes, I do think of him that way. I don't think he requires any special pleading, he's just a playwright, like all the rest. And Dante's just a poet, not some kind of unquestionable god. Was he conservative in his language as well? Yes, I think he was...

Thanks,

Bill

[Allen Tice]

If you have gifted a book that was not authored, you are in the wrong classroom. Please report to the principal or headmaster, who will gift you with a note for your mother. If your gifted book was a co-authored one, you may remain here if you behave, and as long as you create; but do not write, compose, or the like. If your gifted book was a novelization, you must leave the school entirely.

[Chris Childers]

I don't get the problem here. "To gift" is not an exact synonym of "to give." You can give someone something without "gifting" it to them, e.g., a hard time, or herpes. "UConn didn't gift Stanford the streak-ending win tonight, they earned it." I like it. "On the other hand, the referees did gift Syracuse a win with an atrocious 'excessive celebration' call late in the game against Kansas State." In that last sentence, I don't think "give" is an adequate synonym. They didn't "give" them the win, they gave them a call and gifted them the win. Thanks though to Janice for gifting us all such savory food for thought.

Chris

Q. Guess what I was watching while writing this post.
A. SportsCenter.

Edit.: A ref can give someone a win, e.g., when Serena Williams got a point penalty on match point against Kim Clijsters at the US Open. The chairperson gave Kim the match. In the Pinstripe Bowl, the refs didn't give Syracuse the win, they gifted it to them. I say.

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by W.F. Lantry

Was he a conservative in his use of language? Yes, I do think of him that way. I don't think he requires any special pleading, he's just a playwright, like all the rest. And Dante's just a poet, not some kind of unquestionable god. Was he conservative in his language as well? Yes, I think he was...

Bill:

You are correct. There is no need for us to deify Shakespeare, or Dante or Homer or others of their stature. Genius generates its own apotheosis. But to say that Shakespeare is "just a playwright, like all the rest" is astoundingly silly. But then there is something wonderfully advantageous about your assessment. It allows you and me and anyone else to say with firm conviction that we are poets, just like those other guys.

Regards,

Richard

[Andrew Frisardi]

Bill, in what meaningful way can the adjective “conservative” be applied to the language-use of those few poets who created worlds and epochs out of language? I’m sure you realize, for instance, that Dante’s decision to write an epic in the vernacular was roundly disapproved by a lot of learned literate types, and for centuries at that? I don’t get your point, other than as a tongue-in-cheek dismissal. Please gift me with an explanation.