This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Applied Linguistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Other than the lead, this article is very messy and not very accurate linguistically. We need some historical comparison and references. Anyone? --Mark (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The suggestion that the presence of a superhuman has inclined the world more towards peace is refudiated by the sharp increase in both Russian and American nuclear stockpiles since the advent of Dr. Manhattan." -- Watchmen, Chapter IV, last page (numbered "III"), DC Comics, 1987, Seventeeth Printing, ISBN 13: 978-0-930289-23-2. I don't know where else in any wiki to put this juicy little tidbit of information. It belongs on my own website, certainly, but I thought I'd give it to the great Wikipedia, too. Maybe it's a word after all, and maybe it's not so humorous now? 70.112.186.143 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Isn't refudiate a portmanteau, not a conversion? "Refute" and "Repudiate" are both verbs.

Youre right. Most of the examples – including the ones you mention – are incorrect. (Most the article should be scrapped, actually.)

I've just reinstated the Verbification section (pasted back into the current version, so that none of the edits since then have been lost). A considerable amount of work by a number of users went into writing that material, and I would ask that it not simply be removed without prior discussion. That is not only unhelpful, but contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is also quite inappropriate to base such action purely on the lack of "Google Books" hits for "verbification" and "verbing". "Verbify" is actually the relevant search term, and Google Books is by no means exhaustive. There is a mountain of material it does not contain, and may never contain.

In support of retaining this section - aside from its obvious and unmissable presence in film, TV and internet media, *all* of my recent dictionaries contain the term 'verbify'. That alone is sufficient reason to refute claims of OR. I believe it is by far the most recognisable form of linguistic conversion in English, and one that almost everyone in English-speaking countries will have come across or be aware of.

To keep this constructive, the material *does* need sourcing and improvement. However, that is an ongoing process. Verbification is an emergent cultural phenomenon, and literature is always slow to reflect linguistic trends. Wikipedia will never be finished, but it will be even further from completion if large swathes of informative text are arbitrarily deleted without consensus.

Dan Pope (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ancient examples such as sleep, talk &c. are examples of verbification, but nominalization. Generally, derivational patterns in languages tend to go from concrete to abstract or from directly perceivable to non-perceivable because that's how our brain conceives of events and things. Verbal meaning in these cases is thus the primary one and nominal an abstract derivation. Anyhow, the distinction between nominal and verbal roots is universally fuzzy in languages so conversion as a distinct type of derivation exists only in languages with a rich array of productive derivational affixes. 88.192.73.218 (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, a zero derivation involves no change in form, but how is this considered with regard to languages that have inflectional morphology? Consider for example the Dutch verb drogen (to dry), which is derived from the adjective droog (dry). The infinitive has the ending -en here, but this ending can be replaced with other endings as needed, and some of the verb forms have no endings, such as the first-person singular form ik droog (I dry). Clearly, the stem of the word hasn't changed, it is only the dictionary form (infinitive) that gives the impression that there is a suffix. So I wonder if this would also be considered zero derivation.

The Esperanto example given in the entry has the same problem as well. The -i is the infinitive ending, analogous to the Dutch -en, and can be swapped out for other verb endings like -as, -os or -u. The stem of the word has not changed, but the article claims that the form of the word has changed due to the change in the ending. How strict should this be taken? CodeCat (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conversion (word formation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430100146/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu:80/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html to http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word have same form but defferent prononciation 154.121.51.40 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What word? Nardog (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]