So, as long as I’m complaining about copy errors that makes me want to reach for a cocktail, it’s probably a good time for another in our on-going series that I like to call Egregious Examples of IT Industry Corporate-Speak. This one illustrates my biggest personal pet peeve as a copy writer, proofreader, and editor, namely the repurposing of nouns into verbs. (Is “repurposing” yet another example? Hmm… could be… might have to look that up.)
The most familiar example of this phenomenon is the word “leverage,” as in, “you can leverage your assets.” In my mind, leverage is the force that you get with a stick and a fulcrum, not something you do with your network hardware. Unfortuantely, however, the term seems to have gained widespread acceptance as a verb, at least in the documents I routinely see. Hopefully, this will not follow suit:
Architect your security business process…
“Architect your process?” Does the writer mean “design your process?” Then why not say that? Sheesh. Ed McMahon’s pet vodka is sounding better all the time…
Speaking as a member of the corporate IT geek squad, I can promise you that “architect” is well established as a verb.
If it helps any, I can tell you that it has a slightly different definition than “design.”. To architect a solution typically means to specify the technical architecture on which it will run (i.e., the server, database, and/or network environment). Designing a solution is much more about specifying HOW it will work – the applications, user interface, data validation, workflow, etc.. This isn’t true 100% of the time, but it’s a good rule of thumb.
Besides, the clear winner in the technology-noun-used-as-a-verb contest has got to be “Google.”
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go Google the word “repurpose” and see if it’s a verb. 🙂
Thanks for the clarification, Brian. I’ve run across the term before, but no one’s bothered to explain the subtleties of its meaning to me.
I straddle an interesting line in my professional life; I’ve been playing at being a technical writer long enough to understand the jist of a lot of tech-talk, but I still tend to approach things more from the perspective of an average joe-consumer. That’s definitely my philosophy as a writer and editor, anyway, as I tend to resist jargon and obscure language whenever possible. I think using “architect” as a verb still falls into the jargony category, even if it’s well established within the “geek squad,” as you call it, because most people outside that circle have no idea what it’s supposed to mean. My mission is to try and bridge the gap between the circle that understands “architect” and those who think of Robert Reed on The Brady Bunch when they hear the term. 😉
The style manuals are in transit (I’m redoing my office and organizing my books yet again), but I think “repurposing” would be the noun form (the way you used it) of “to repurpose” (verb), which modifies “to purpose” (verb), which describes the act of assigning a purpose (noun) to something.
It’s amazing that corporate communications use this kind of language, and you and I spend our work days urging people to choose simple, clear words over complicated ones like this. On the other hand, this is how English has evolved for centuries. I understand that German is even worse at coining new forms of words, sometimes expressing complete sentences in a single word. Fortunately, language evolves by a sort of natural selection. If people understand such words and find them effective at expressing ideas, the words remain in circulation. If not, they don’t.
I read the other day that “who” is now considered acceptible in the direct object case in the major dictionaries, making “whom” obsolete. I think we lose precision and elegance. But that how people really talk.
Ain’t it da truth? 🙂
I think the “mutation” process that gives rise to new words in corporate communications comes less from corporate writers trying to express new or complex ideas than from these people trying to sound smarter than everyone else in the room. I had much the same reaction when I was exposed to all those French critical theorists back in college…
Yes, I’m sure you’re right. In the 17th century, the emerging New Science believed that simple, clear language was most appropriate to represent things as they are. As it turned out, scientific writing became highly jargonistic because of the need to invent specialized words to describe ever more minute observations. Still, such language was largely based on Latin, which the scientific community believed would be widely understood. That may still be the case in the physical sciences. But the rest of the academy has come to equate obscurity with sophistication, especially with the advent of “scientific” theories about literature, the other arts, society, politics, and the like. Now it seems that the corporate world is moving in the same direction. But to answer your comment about critical theory: I’m not saying that rigorous, “scientific” approaches to the humanities are inappropriate, though many individual examples are. I do think that the cause of critical theory is impaired by its use of pseudo-technical language.
I absolutely agree with your last remark — the jargon associated with the critical theory was, more than anything else, what put me off of it.
But, as my friend Jack pointed out to me in a similar conversation yesterday, my discomfort with post-modernistic thinking is in itself emblematic of post-modernism. Or some such. 🙂
That’s what makes post-modern theory a “totalizing theory”: any critique against it can be seen as validating it. Marxism and Freudianism are the same way. And Christianity, by the way. It’s not just a feature of modernity.
It’s a brilliant way of winning arguments, when you think about it…
Although I am totally against verbizing nouns–just knife, gun, or bullet me if I ever do–I recently realized that “proper” American English is likely not so correct. My boss is German so he often asks me to proof his more important English documents. I corrected many instances of what I considered improper “English.” When my wife and I were in London I heard and read several of these “incorrect” English phrases that I had “corrected.” I guess it turns out that my boss’s (King’s) English was better than mine. My English ego took a hit that day so that I’m a little more open to modifications to the language–maybe.
Hey, Keith, good to hear from you.
King’s English vs. American English is, of course, a completely separate subject. I think you can make a pretty good argument that the common usage of the two countries has drifted far enough apart to constitute two different (if extremely similar) languages. You can soothe your ego by reminding yourself that you weren’t correcting your boss’s English, you were correcting his American.
The thing I fear is that common American English may someday become The President’s English… 😉
Shaw said that England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
Non-native speakers often use the more technically correct forms of a language. Similarly, studying a foreign language can improve your command of your own. I learned more about English grammar studying Latin than I did in all of “grammar” school.
I don’t doubt it for a moment. I wish I’d taken language studies more seriously while I was in school — I slid through five quarters of Italian just to earn my credit for graduation, and I never came within a light-year of Latin. But then I wish I’d done a lot of things differently in my younger days…
Interesting discussion. Can I just say that “Although I am totally against verbizing nouns…” Is one of the funniest, most ironic things I’ve read in days…
🙂
Ah the plight of the English language. First, even though you decry the state of Modern English Usage, I noticed that your use of “makes” in your opening sentence does not agree with the number “copy errors”. I’m not criticizing, just pointing out that errors do occur. I use “got” incorrectly, and I say “relator” instead of “realtor” all the time.
As to the verbing of nouns, it unfortunately is inevitable. Consider the word broadcast. Before radio, it described the action of planting seed. Radio in its infancy direct-beamed the signal to a recipient, until commercial radio BROADCAST its signal. Next we had broadcasts, that we could pick up and listen to, for news and entertainment! (I think BEAM in my previous sentence applies as well.)
To finally finish my thought, the use of nouns as verbs will continue, but those of us who are sensitive to such things must rightfully weed out travesties such as “architect” and “dialog”. I will NOT dialog this with you, as you architect your solution. I will, however, segue to a new topic. Christ, it never ends.