The first time I heard this word 'wrongly' used was some years ago when my son's friend told me he liked 'to gym'. Since then, I have seen 'gym' used as a verb with all its inflections by mainly youngish people. Although I must confess I absolutely detest such an abominable conversion, I cannot turn a blind eye to how rich the English language has become through this process of verbing over the centuries. There are many examples of fairly recent verbs that originated from nouns and we use them every day without batting an eyelid. One such verb which I use liberally is ‘text’ which today can only be used in the context of sending a message on the mobile phone. It has the advantage of brevity. 'Texting a friend' is much shorter than 'sending him a text message' but brevity alone does not guarantee acceptance of the usage of a word, especially when the usage sounds suspiciously modern. Why then do I (and presumably you too) find ‘text’ more acceptable than ‘gym’ when both words are used as verbs?
What will ensure our acceptance of any particular usage is legitimacy or more accurately, what we perceive to be legitimate. 'Text' used as a verb is accepted in respectable dictionaries; 'gym' is not. Let me make it clear from the start that 'gym' is not currently recognised as a verb in either the Oxford dictionaries or that American dictionary Merriam Webster. But quite apart from dictionary recognition, you may rightly ask if 'text' as a verb is a little too recent for comfort. The history of a word does play a part in determining its legitimacy. The longer it has been in existence, the more acceptable it is to most of us.
You are not totally wrong if you think 'text' as a verb only came about with the advent of the mobile phone. In the context in which we understand the verb to mean today, 'text' certainly has a very short state of existence. But ‘text’ as a verb isn't all that recent even though its current phone-related meaning is. It is really a revival of a formerly obsolete word which of course had a different meaning.
Shakespeare used it in Much Ado about Nothing in the scene where Claudio and the Prince are teasing Benedick. Claudio suggests that they should ‘text’ Benedick as a married man. I can’t remember the exact words but I’m sure a simple Google search will reveal the precise quotation (I'm using my phone to type this blog post besides doing some texting and a Google search is too disruptive). Shakespeare was by no means predicting the invention of the mobile phone. In his day, to text simply meant ‘to write in large bold capital letters’.
Although the meaning was slightly different then, ‘text’ has been used as a verb since the 16th century. Because it has been so used, it’s less likely to attract the same disapproval as ‘gym’ which apart from being a pure noun, has also the added misfortune of being an abbreviated word. We tend to treat abbreviated words with less respect, especially in a formal setting.
But ‘gym’ as a verb is never used in a formal context. The Urban Dictionary gives a few examples of its use and they are all, without exception, incredibly informal to the point of being hideously so, if I may give voice to what I'm sure is the silent opinion of most of my readers:
Yo, you gymming today?
When we gymmin' dude?
I cannot pretend that I do not view ‘gymming’ with some disapprobation but we have to be realistic - our tastes have no bearing on the progress and evolution of English words. If enough people choose to use ‘gymming’, however repulsive it may be to some of us, it's only a matter of time before you see ‘gymming’ accepted in respectable dictionaries.
The history of the English language is replete with countless examples of verbing. History also tells us of many detractors of verbing whenever nouns began to be bent into verbs. Many spoke of ‘the collapse of the tongue that Milton spoke’ but it’s now the 21st century and we have seen no collapse. There were calmer heads too: not everyone thought verbing would pose a threat to the tongue that Milton spoke.
Henry Alford who wrote The Queen’s English in the mid-1800s observed quite correctly that instead of destroying the language, verbing served to enrich it:
I do not see that we can object to this tendency in general, seeing that it has grown with the growth of our language, and under due regulation is one of the most obvious means of enriching it.
Although not quite in the same category as verbing, there is another category of words that appear to have been derived from existing nouns. Offhand, I can only think of 'administrate' but it is a very good example. At first blush, it appears to have come from 'administration'. 'Administrate' is a word that repulses most pedants and self-styled usage gurus among whom Bill Bryson is one. Bryson insists that only 'administer' will do and the English language has no room for 'administrate'. Many of the detractors of 'administrate' mistakenly think it's a new coinage that lacks the backing of antiquity (remember what I said earlier about what constitutes legitimacy for most English speakers) and that it comes from a mistaken back formation of 'administration' but they are mistaken. Both words have different origins - 'administer' from French was first recorded in the late 14th century and 'administrate' which derives directly from Latin has been around since the early 16th century. Corpus evidence tells us too that both words are not used in exactly the same way. If two words do not bear identical meanings and have been around for centuries, only an ignorant pedant will decry the use of one of them.
The process of verbing has been going on since time immemorial but at every stage of the process, we see resistance from pedants. It is easy to dismiss 'gymming' as illiterate and inelegant but the gangling youth who says, ‘Yo, you gymming, dude?’ and his skateboarding friends will be the linguistic trendsetters of tomorrow and the rest of us can tut-tut all we want but we will fade into oblivion.
No comments:
Post a Comment