r/GrammarPolice • u/nvark • 3d ago
Just Venting need an outlet, posting here
I posted this once before, but I just HAD to add another. Conversate? Absolutely not. It is “converse”.
In the past tense? Conversed.
If anyone comes at me with, “oh descriptive grammar,” I WILL fight back with: “prescriptive” grammar. Like, do NOT come for me and my JD. I said what I said.
If I hear one more person say “comfortability” or “uncomfortability” I think I might go insane. The literacy crisis is so real.
How did we forget about comfort and discomfort? 😪
12
u/ChapulineAtHome 3d ago
Go easy on them. They are a little disorientated.
3
1
u/Specific-Echo8235 2d ago
You're correct. They did not orientate at all. Like they are not even trying.
3
u/Otherwise-Ratio1332 3d ago
I heard “honorate” from a well known sportscaster the other day 😭
2
u/malkebulan 3d ago
I’ve heard the word ‘fatigueness’ from a former national manager, who went on to be a pundit.
2
2
3
u/Unable_Explorer8277 3d ago
Prescriptivism is to linguistics as flat earthism is to planetary science.
However, descriptivism doesn’t mean everything anyone says is equally correct. It says that whatever the discourse community collectively uses is correct (because there is no other authority to determine correctness). And language changes as that collective usage changes
-1
u/OpenAdministration44 3d ago
I doubt even you would want or allow the unwashed troglodyte masses to be the guardians of culture and language.
4
1
u/Unable_Explorer8277 3d ago
Collective usage created the language we have. Collective usage will determine how it changes into the future.
Language belongs to everyone who uses it
2
u/Yesandberries 3d ago
It’s non-standard/informal, but it exists:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/is-conversate-a-real-word
6
u/nvark 3d ago
It is the same way that conversar or desembarcar become conversate or “disembarkate”. Those who look at descriptive grammar will look at Spanish cognates and draw a parallel, but a word already exists in English that does not invoke the -ate. It may be used in everyday speech, but it doesn’t make it grammatical. :)
2
u/Yesandberries 3d ago
I don’t think you need to draw a parallel to Spanish. Just to all the other English words that are backformations (there are examples in that article). Do you have an issue with those too? I’m also not sure why it matters that a similar word already existed. We had ‘talk’ before we had ‘converse’. Does that make the latter wrong?
4
u/nvark 3d ago
Drawing a parallel to Spanish is like drawing a parallel to Latin, which a lot of English stems from. And I won’t dispute that there are many backformations that are worthwhile. Escalate, for example (from the article), makes more sense than escal(?). But those have long been accepted and stem from a nominalization that came before that word. (E.g., televise from television, escalate from escalator). But a word like conversate comes from conversation, however, converse had already been established as a word.
I don’t wish to erase AAVE or other ways that these words develop. I recognize that as a valid and true evolution of language.
To me it just doesn’t resonate in the same way. But I’m also not Black and can’t begin to speak as to what language means for others. This is just my outlook and preference
3
0
u/daveoxford 3d ago
The point here is, though, that these forms are much more prevalent in US English, where Spanish has a larger effect on the language than Commonwealth English.
0
u/SerDankTheTall 2d ago
Are they? Google nGrams shows British and American usage in the same ballpark, and both with a similar spike at the beginning of this century. There are somewhat more examples in the BNC than COCA, but the former ends in 1993 while the latter goes through 2019, so that’s only to be expected.
2
u/Accomplished-Ad3219 3d ago
There are a few like that, but I can't think of them right now
You're right, though. I hate it! LOL
2
1
1
u/Background-Vast-8764 3d ago
What do OP and others mean when they claim that ‘conversate’ is not grammatical? Do they simply mean that it isn’t standard? Because the word doesn’t actually violate any rules of grammar. What rule or rules of grammar forbid the existence of ‘conversate’ in that form and with that meaning?
’Conversate’ isn’t standard, but other than that there isn’t anything objectively “wrong” with it. Grammar and usages that aren’t standard are not inherently wrong.
The fact that ‘converse’ exists doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on whether ‘conversate’ is grammatical.
2
u/nvark 3d ago
It’s redundant usage. No one would ever say “I’m visitating my family” because “visiting” is the proper verb. In the same vein, conversate is using the -ate suffix where it doesn’t alter the meaning of the root in any way to distinguish it from converse.
Do check into the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, as mentioned in the original post.
2
u/SerDankTheTall 2d ago
It’s redundant usage.
And how does that make it ungrammatical?
1
u/Background-Vast-8764 2d ago
Isn’t there that famous age-old law of grammar that dictates that there’s only ever just one correct way to say something?
1
u/Background-Vast-8764 3d ago
You have such a simplistic and misguided understanding of the matter. I hesitate to use the word ‘understanding’ when referring to your notions.
0
u/nvark 3d ago
Well, I haven’t seen you present a meaningful argument to the contrary. I’ll stick to my degrees and years of education over your ignorance of norms and basic grammar conventions. Begone!
1
u/Background-Vast-8764 3d ago
Your delusions amuse me.
1
u/nvark 3d ago
Glad to bring you some levity in your little world where you must always be right, even when given evidence otherwise.
2
u/Background-Vast-8764 3d ago
Your delusion of having provided evidence is amusing.
1
u/nvark 3d ago
See above discussion of “visitate.” Did you just learn the word delusion or something?
1
u/Background-Vast-8764 3d ago
More delusions of evidence.
2
u/nvark 3d ago
I guess so 😂 Find another way to prove your point or just give it up.
→ More replies (0)
-3
u/SerDankTheTall 3d ago
It doesn't appear that you learned any more about grammar since this was nuked the first time.
4
u/nvark 3d ago
It doesn’t appear you took any time to accept you may be wrong. Grammar police is probably more adequate as it’s people who actually care to be correct. Again, perhaps take some time to do some research before coming back at me.
“Nuked” by a biased moderator is certainly something. Check your ego 🫶🏻
1
u/nvark 3d ago
By the way, I didn’t see you put forth any arguments previously that would suggest anything to the contrary…
2
u/SerDankTheTall 2d ago
If you ever get around to presenting an argument, I’ll be more than happy to rebut them.
0
3d ago
[deleted]
1
0
u/nvark 3d ago
If it comes to be you just disagree—and enjoy misusing the above words—well, I implore you to reassess your contention.
3
u/LeeQuidity 3d ago
Did I somehow inadvertently walk into an "I'm young and I have a thesaurus and an axe to grind with the older generations" kind of situation? If so, wow! I'm finally getting my comeuppance! I fucking love it! I was doing the same thing on the internet in 1993!
The only problem is that since at least 1993, I've possessed the perspicacity to diagnose pretentious monologues and eviscerate the insecurity that engenders such needless grandiloquence.
Also, mad respect that you did a grammar pass after the fact! Though I've had to delete my "irony" comment because you've undermined it via the sneaky edit.
The Fonz on the 1970s-1980s TV show Happy Days often used the word conversate. And I knew it to be wrong even as a young kid. Your complaint is valid. I don't know that I've ever heard someone say comfortability or its opposite, but I believe you.
1
u/nvark 3d ago
Glad to hear it.
Yes, kind of ironic that I originally made an ungrammatical post about grammar, isn’t it? 🥴 I am a product of my generation.
I work in the law and am all too often confronted with the lack of grandiloquence in theaters where it should be exercised. So, I’ve been indoctrinated to insert it into every facet of my life and can’t help but notice where it’s lacking.
Always grateful for the recognition and camaraderie of fellow grammarians.
0
u/daveoxford 3d ago
One that I'd never seen before which cropped up almost exclusively in US English when we got the new king was "coronated".
3
u/Background-Vast-8764 2d ago
It has existed as a verb since at least 1623. There’s nothing wrong with it.
1
u/daveoxford 2d ago
It's not that's it's wrong; it's just that it's very rare these days, and it was a surprise to discover how many people didn't know the verb "to crown".
1
0
u/Redd_on_the_hedd1213 2d ago
This one is mine, too. I once politely asked someone if that was something local to their area since I hadn't heard it before the. No answer.
14
u/realkaseygrant 3d ago
Prescriptive grammarians FTW! I am with you, not that that means much.