Proper Verb/Noun Usage:
An Observation from Ranger Wordsmith,...
Proper Verb/Noun Usage:
An Observation from Ranger Wordsmith, Monitor of Sapient Vocabulary (IE: The Modern Lexicon and Public Vernacular)
— By Ray Palla
Current social media discussion trend is to use a NOUN in the traditional place of an ACTION VERB. It is, by all literary experts, considered to be a faux pas or blunder, but is it really a vernacular carnal sin?
Here’s an example: “John consistently sharks his competition.” If you take it another step further you could end up with a sentence like: “An explosion in the Mid-East today could impetus World War tomorrow.”
On one hand the critics all agree that poor linguistics can kill an author, especially a burgeoning newcomer on the block. The argument from them is that the reader becomes uncomfortable with the dialogue and ultimately bored from the persistent mental translation required by the writer. All the rule books tend to admonish the use of local vernacular, even within fiction works. The ultimate rule book mandate is that all usage of common local phrasing be, at least, kept to the discourse of characters (rather than within the dialog of the protagonist), and confined to a “very minimum” treatment.
On the other hand I submit the examples of Mark Twain’s — “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” and its sequel, “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” the latter often called “The Great American Novel.” Or consider Pulitzer Winner Ernest Hemingway’s — “The Old Man and the Sea” or anything written by famous satirist Will Rogers. Without the keenly woven usage of local phrases and colorful catchy words, would any of those works today be considered great? I submit that the answer to that question is a resounding, “No.” I argue that without the astute insight and flair of the vernacular and esoteric lexicon, these books would fall short of conveying a truthful representation of the factual places and times. I further submit that the characters and protagonists alike would appear parched, tired, and perhaps even lifeless.
Today’s phrasings like, “She skanks her way through the high school hallway,” paint a graphic that imposes on the mind’s eye. The communication is much faster than the literally approved option, “She looked like a skank as she sashayed through the high school hallway.” I suppose the shortening of things is the result of quickened lifestyle paces and perhaps the use of Twitter and other short-fast methods of interaction. I further suppose that it may be just an inconsequential phase in the development of human nature, but I can’t help finding it entertaining and a livelier approach to attention and interest harvesting.
That said, I submit to you the question, “Within a professionally written work, would you rather smell old-school prose as you read, or nose a fresh aroma?”
VERNACULAR?
- Use it. □
- Loose it! □
RPalla.com
COMMENT:
To reply to your question, I don’t mind “a nose of fresh aroma” provided that I can understand it. The problem, as I see it, is you have to know your audience and if they will be able to understand what a character is saying or what a description means. Often times when reading a novel, I haven’t a clue as to what the character is saying as I am unfamiliar with the local vernacular. I have seen authors trying to address this by including a brief list of terms used.
Regards,
Norm Goldman, Publisher & Editor of Bookpleasures.com
EDITOR COMMENT:
In common parlance, “Ah’s just messin’ with ya!”
You began your blog with referring to the recent common usage of nouns for verbs. That may be a new common way of expression finding its way into speech patterns and is usually, I believe, recognizable as restricted to few words which are then picked up and repeated which increases their general recognition. To extrapolate from that common occurrence to assume that using nouns for verbs is acceptable for general usage in writing is, I believe, a stretch. Your example of impetus is not recognizable as a common idiom and to use it as a separate unrelated part of speech will just make your readers think you do not understand the meaning of the word and are not familiar with it.
Do you equate this with the literary technique of writing fictional dialogue by using the common speech patterns of the characters—-in other words —the vernacular of your subjects? As I think you were trying to say, this is acceptable as a literary technique. How else can a writer effectively draw the reader into the setting, geographical, historical, or contemporary? Agreed! But, as Norm noted, these idiomatic expressions need to be recognizable to the reader who needs to have some understanding. For example when I wrote above, “Ah’s just messin’ with ya” you had no difficulty recognizing it, because you had heard it before.
Anyway, all this is just to caution you against being too free and easy with mixing parts of speech where they do not belong. It’s generally not a good idea.
Regards;
Dr. Anonymous, Editor
