This is the forum for Traditional STRING Instruments. I haven’t seen a single post about twine, for example.
Dale, please give us a new forum for Traditional String_ed_ Instruments so we can rectify this glaring oversight.
My apologies to all for having offended.
It’s ok, Nano. It’s like saying ‘‘hammer dulcimer’’ instead of ‘‘hammered dulcimer.’’ I think we’re safe. 
As corruptions of the English language go, it isn’t as bad as most. My pet peeve (ok, one of many! 
) is the transformation of nouns into verbs. I was recently at a meeting where the leader kept saying ‘‘We’ve been TASKED with . . .’’ That one really grates on me for some reason.
Once I had an ole banjo
It was strung with twine
The only song it ever would play
Was Trouble on my Mind.
You’ll want to stay away from the Chinese languages, then.
The verbification (I don’t dare say “verbing”) of nouns is pretty common in English, too, though.
Would you never chair a meeting, table a discussion, fish for your supper, host a party, sandpaper a board, knife a friend in the back, ax a suggestion, dog an enemy, cat around town, worm your way out of a tight spot, vacuum a rug, string popcorn, paper a room, tile a floor, bomb a bunker, ship a package, cart firewood, truck vegetables to market, water a plant, number someone among your friends, finger a squealer, hand someone a napkin, eye a cutie pie, head a group, arm your forces, elbow (or shoulder, or nose) someone aside, book a suspect, tower over a child, lord it over a subordinate, shoe a horse, flour a countertop, light a lamp, gun down a rival, tongue a trumpet, trumpet your name to a crowd, fiddle while Rome burns, needle an opponent, cement a driveway, tar a road, score an opera, frost a cake, sugar your coffee, milk a cow, telephone a friend, poison an enemy, radio for help, skin a deer, ski down a mountain, circle the block, hammer a nail, or nail a board?
What’s funny about “task” is that it derives from the Medieval Latin verb taxare, “to tax”, so it’s actually a noun that is derived from a verb.
Its use to mean “to assign a task to” appears in my 1969 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, so it’s not exactly new. This is not to say that the sample you quoted is not obnoxious bureaucratese, just that it’s perfectly good English.
(That list was hard to come up with, although any English dictionary will show thousands of words that are both verbs and nouns. My American Heritage seems to show many more nouns derived from verbs than the other way around.)
As long as we’re really being OT, now…
All very well and good, dear Darwin (mind you, I agree wholeheartedly), BUT: I give you the nounal (is that a word?) verb “impact”. Originally in use especially in dentalese as an intransitive verb, it’s now gotten a transitive usage, which was born of businessspeak as lore has it. I think I ought to have removed an “S” from that trio, there. Anyway, whenever I hear something like, “This will impact our sales,” or the like, I still get the image of something all jammed together in an ugly fashion and requiring some sort of dire intervention like the Jaws of Life.
I’m getting over it. Sort of.
I just keep reminding myself that that sort of thing is evidence that our language is still alive and dynamic. As are “phat”, “bling”, and “televangelize”. 
I know that tune!!!
I couldn’t agree more.
I’ll be sure to write this down while journaling. 
Just imagine if I couldn’t string my cittern, reed my pipes, or stopper my flute.
I’d just sit here mousing.
Not that this particular topic had much hope of a long, fruitful existence…
All very well and good, dear Darwin (mind you, I agree wholeheartedly), BUT: I give you the nounal (is that a word?) verb “impact”. Originally in use especially in dentalese as an intransitive verb, it’s now gotten a transitive usage, which was born of businessspeak as lore has it. I think I ought to have removed an “S” from that trio, there. Anyway, whenever I hear something like, “This will impact our sales,” or the like, I still get the image of something all jammed together in an ugly fashion and requiring some sort of dire intervention like the Jaws of Life.
Well, good old Webster’s Ninth gives a date of 1601 for the transitive use of the verb, with one entry being:
2 a: to have an impact on : to impinge on
On the other hand, the use of “impacted” to refer to teeth only goes back to 1831. (I’ve been neglecting my little Webster’s, not realizing until now that it incuded earliest use dates.)
I’m getting over it. Sort of.
I just keep reminding myself that that sort of thing is evidence that our language is still alive and dynamic. As are “phat”, “bling”, and “televangelize”. >
And “hopefully”–but, hopefully, NEVER “irregardless”.
Nano, y’re off topic with that. Take it to the Apologies forum, if you will.
The observations on this thread could be impactful.
That’s irreliphant! Irregardless of the impactfulness or Clouseauesqueness of any such parcieved noshuns, it’s cromulence and assal horizontology are strictly based in the principles of Dorkus Malorkus.
According to the book Electromicide For Dummies, this kind of prattle can only embiggen and introubulate the already dangerized knowitallism of you average human ego!
Down with the Knowledgeum!
I’m floored.
OK, then go whistle a tune, or tune a whistle, or something.
My goodness. I honestly never heard the the transitive usage in my day until but some twentyish years ago, and it was decried by many’s the anal-retentive Anglophone who bothered to hold it up as an example of The Decay of English. So much for scholarship.
This must have been one of those full-circle things.
reminds self to Webster first, then blather
Or impactious, impactive, impactory, impactile, impactoid, and impactworthy.
I’ve taken to verbing “cittern”. It’s easier that way.
Well, to be honest, quoting dates doesn’t really tell us anything about how the word has come to be perceived in modern usage. I don’t think I’ve heard the transitive form used much, myself.
We all experience discomfort when we hear words used in ways that we, ourselves, wouldn’t use them. The problem is that, as you pointed out, living languages change and grow, and there’s no holding them back, so it’s best to be somewhat flexible.
I have my own pet peeves where my flexibility is challenged. I find substituting “I could care less” for “I couldn’t care less” particularly grating. On the other hand, in spite of my distaste for “irregardless”, double negatives don’t bother me none. Must be on account of how I was raised.
Yesterday I even stooped to correcting my granddaughter when she said, “I’ve already tooken a shower.”
There’s a fellow who typically describes another fellow as “mercurical”. No way am I going to correct him.
So… when I finally get my wash-tub bass finished, I’ll be on topic!?
There’s a tradition for it, so I suppose we’ll have to reluctantly say yes.