What is back formation

Back-formation (reversion)

Back-formation or reversion, by which we mean the derivation of new words, mostly verbs, by means of subtracting a suffix or other element resembling it, is a source of short words in the past and an active process at the present time [Kveselevich, 2000: 47; Rayevska, 1979: 96].

The earliest examples of this type of word-building are the verb to begthat was made from the French borrowing beggar, to burgle(совершать кражу со взломом) from burglar(вор-взломщик, ночной грабитель), to cobble(чинить, латать обувь) from cobbler(сапожник, занимающийся починкой обуви), to editfrom editor, to peddle(торговать вразнос) from peddler(коробейник, разносчик), etc. In all these cases the verb was made from the noun by subtracting what was mistakenly associated with the English suffix –er/-or. The pattern of the type to work > worker, to write > writer, to paint > painterwas firmly established in the subconsciousness of English-speaking people at the time when these formations appeared, and it was taken for granted that any noun denoting profession or occupation is certain to have a corresponding verb of the same root. So, in the case of the verbs to beg, to burgle, to cobble, to edit, to peddlethe process was reversed: instead of a noun made from a verb by affixation (as in painterfrom to paint, writerfrom to write, workerfrom to work),a verb was produced from a noun by subtraction. That is why this type of word-building received the name of back-formation or reversion [Antrushina, 1999: 119].

Back-formation or reversion may be found in the formation of words belonging to different parts of speech:

b) verbs made from nouns with the suffix -ing,e.g. kittling > to kittle(детеныш – приносить детенышей); awning > to awn(навес из холста – укрывать навесом); quisling > to quisle(квислинг, предатель – быть предателем, предать родину);

d) verbs made from adjectives, e.g. luminescent > to luminesce (светящийся – светить); frivolous > to frivol(пустой, легкомысленный – бессмысленно растрачивать [время, деньги]);

е) nouns made from adjectives, e.g. greedy> greed; nasty >nast; cantankerous(сварливый, придирчивый) > cantanker(сварливость, придирчивость) [Rayevska, 1979:96-97]. It is to be remarked that the most active type of back-formation in Modern English is derivation of verbs from compounds that have either -er or -ing as their last element, e.g.:

to air-conditon cад; видеть > вид.

7) Reduplication– Удвоение (повторение звукового состава слова)

Reduplication is a very interesting type of English word-building because of its national specificity. It is the most wide-spread type among the semi-productive types of word-formation in Modern English. In reduplication new compound words are made by doubling a stem (often a pseudo-morpheme), e.g. bye-bye, ta-ta, goody—goody (xaнжa), din-din, riff-raff (подонки общества, отбросы), tick-tack (тиканиe; часики; биение сердца), clitter-clatter(болтовня), fuddy-duddy (ворчун), hokey-pokey (дешевоe мороженое), hoity-toity(шум, беспорядок), willy-nilly (волей-неволей), dilly-dally, wishy-washy, tip-top, teeny-weeny, see-saw, etc.

According to D.I. Kveselevich, reduplicative compounds fall into three main subgroups;

1) Reduplicative compounds proper whose ICs are identical in their form, e.g. murmur, frou-frou(шуршание шелка), thump-thump(тук-тук), blah-blah(чепуха, вздор), pooh-pooh(v., относиться с пренебрежением), willy-willy(ураган), etc.

2) Ablaut [ ] (gradational) compoundswhose ICs have different root-vowels, e.g. ping-pong, chit-chat, bibble-babble(болтовня), dilly-dally (v., колебаться), nid-nod (v., кивать), knick-knack (n., безделушка, украшение), zigzag (v.,делать зигзаги), flimflam (n., вздор,ерунда; трюк), tiptop(a., превосходный), fiddle-faddle (n., пустяки), flip-flop etc.

3) Rhyme compounds whose ICs are joined to rhyme, e.g.: helter-skelter(суматоха, беспорядок), walkie-talkie (переносная рация), namby-pamby(сентиментальность), higgledy-piggledy(полныйбеспорядок), holus-bolus(залпом), hanky-panky (обман, проделки), nolens-wollens (волей-неволей), etc.

This type of word-building is greatly facilitated in Modern English by the vast number of monosyllables. Stylistically speaking, most words made by reduplication represent informal groups: colloquialisms and slang, they are stylistically and emotionally colored.

In the Russian language there are also words made by reduplication, e.g.: дурак-дураком, чин-чином, давным-давно, кишмя-кишит, ревмя-ревет, нос к носу and so on. These Russian words are also stylistically and emotionally colored.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11 ; Просмотров: 5755 ; Нарушение авторских прав? ;

Нам важно ваше мнение! Был ли полезен опубликованный материал? Да | Нет

Definition and Examples of Back-Formation

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

Image Source / Getty Images

In linguistics, back-formation is the process of forming a new word (a neologism) by removing actual or supposed affixes from another word. Put simply, a back-formation is a shortened word (such as edit) created from a longer word (editor). Verb: back-form (which is itself a back-formation). Also called back-derivation.

The term back-formation was coined by Scottish lexicographer James Murray, the primary editor of the Oxford English Dictionary from 1879 until 1915.

As Huddleston and Pullum have noted, «There is nothing in the forms themselves that enables one to distinguish between affixation and back-formation: it’s a matter of historical formation of words rather than of their structure» (A Student’s Introduction To English Grammar, 2005).

Pronunciation: BAK for-MAY-shun

Examples and Observations

«He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled, so I tactfully changed the subject.» (P.G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters, 1938)

«Here I was maybe forty minutes ago, sort of claustrophobed in the gap between the kickass movie world where Lila dumps the guy with the smarmy mustache and the obvious one where it just keeps getting later.»(Daniel Handler, Adverbs. Ecco, 2006)

«Stripping the in- from inchoate is known as back-formation, the same process that has given us words like peeve (from peevish), surveil (from surveillance) and enthuse (from enthusiasm). There’s a long linguistic tradition of removing parts of words that look like prefixes and suffixes to come up with ‘roots’ that weren’t there to begin with.» (Ben Zimmer, «Choate.» The New York Times, January 3, 2010)

Suffix Snipping

Back-Formation in Middle English

«[T]he weakening of the flexional endings during the early Middle English period, which made possible the derivation from verbs of a multitude of nouns, and vice-versa, was also as essential to the rise of and development of back-formation.» (Esko V. Pennanen, Contributions to the Study of Back-Formation in English, 1966)

Back-Formation in Contemporary English

«Back formation continues to make a few contributions to the language. Television has given televise on the model of revise/revision, and donation has given donate on the model of relate/relation. Babysitter and stage manager have given babysit and stage manage for obvious reasons. More remote was the surprising lase from laser (the latter an acronym for ‘lightwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation’), recorded from 1966.» (W.F. Bolton, A Living Language: The History and Structure of English. Random House, 1982)

Filling a Void

«Backformations are more likely to occur with very strongly entrenched patterns and they have the effect of filling an apparent void. The process has given us common verbs such as afflict (from affliction), enthuse (from enthusiasm), laze (from lazy), liaise from liaison), aggress (from aggression), televise (from television), housekeep (from housekeeper), jell (from jelly), and many more.» (Kate Burridge, Gift of the Gob: Morsels of English Language History. HarperCollins Australia, 2011)

Usage

«[B]ack-formations are objectionable when they are merely needless variations of already existing verbs:

«Still, many examples have survived respectably.» (Bryan Garner, Garner’s Modern American Usage, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2009)

The Basics of Back-Formation

A back-formation is a new word produced by excising an affix, such as producing the verb secrete from the noun secretion. Many back-formations, like that one, acquire respectability, but others, especially more recent coinages, are considered nonstandard, so use them with caution.

Most back-formations eventually take their place among other standard terms, though they are often initially met with skepticism. For example, curate and donate, now accepted without question (and associated with the high pursuits of art and philanthropy, respectively), were once considered abominations.

Newer back-formations that careful writers are wise to avoid include attrit, conversate, enthuse, incent, liaise, spectate, and surveil. These buzzwords are convenient — hence their creation — but they are widely considered inelegant, and in the case of at least a couple of them, concise synonyms are already available. (To spectate is to watch, and to surveil is to observe.)

Sometimes, a back-formation is derived from a noun describing an action, as with attendee from attendance, or from a noun describing an actor, as with mentee from mentor. Many people consider such terms aberrant, and they are also ill advised in formal writing.

Other back-formations derive from confusion about a base word. Cherry and pea both developed from the assumption that the original terms cherise and pease are plurals. More recently, biceps (and triceps) and kudos have been misunderstood as plurals, resulting in bicep, tricep, and kudo. Although cherry and pea were accepted without reservations into English long ago, bicep, tricep, and kudo are still considered nonstandard.

Another class of back-formations are those shorn of their prefixes for humorous effect, such as gruntled from disgruntled and kempt from unkempt; rarely do such truncations enter the general lexicon.

Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily!

Keep learning! Browse the Spelling category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:

Stop making those embarrassing mistakes! Subscribe to Daily Writing Tips today!

16 Responses to “The Basics of Back-Formation”

“concise synonyms are already available!”

Yes, indeed, and the failure to use such well-established words is a sure sign of having a poor vocabulary and not much of an education.

Use “watch”, “observe”, “look at”, or “perform reconnaissance on” instead of that ugly backformation that I won’t even write here.

Many of the ugly backformations come from a military or police background, and those do not reflect on the educations of such people. Why can’t they emulate Eisenhower, who was a very literate man. Try reading his book CRUSADE IN EUROPE. Such others as Washington, Robert E. Lee, George C. Marshall, and Sir Winston Churchill also knew how to write well. I have never read the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, but they sold well and they were widely read, which reflects well on them.

Another ugly backformation is the word “to task”, used as a verb, when we alredy have the well-established verbs “to assign” and “to order”. There is nothing wrong with the example sentence “Task Force 24 was ordered [or assigned] to guard the Gulf of Alaska against pirates,” hence ugly backformations like “task” are not and will not be necessary.

Boy, do I hate “conversate” and “enthuse.” But to me, the worst is: “ideate.” Ugh!

By the way, the noun “backformation” does not need a hyphen.

Just glue it together like these:

Whoever thought that these needed hyphens?

However, I think that back porch and back yard should be left as they are.
D.A.W.

“bicep, tricep, and kudo are still considered nonstandard.”

Just a quick note: Merriam-Webster treats the singular “bicep” and “kudo” as standard. They do consider “tricep” incorrect, however.

Oh, Jen, I agree with you completely.
Whoever wrote “conversate” never heard of “converse” or “talk”, adn whoever wrote “ideate” never thought of THINK.
D.A.W.

Not that I endorse them, but I believe that “enthuse” and “liaise” may be slowly gaining some ground, based on more or less widespread (corporatese) use. As to the others, the paper basket seems an apt repository.

I think “surveil” looks kind of terrible, and the look of it begs mispronunciation. Obviously coming from chopping off the rest of the French word, in which the double L is pronounced as a Y. So do people who use “surveil” pronounce it like sir-VAY or sir-VALE? It’s not really quite the same as observe or watch, or even survey, because it has overtones of doing so clandestinely, so that whoever is being observed doesn’t know it. So what I’m saying is, I see the utility of such a word, but I don’t really like how it looks, and I am not sure how it should be pronounced. I guess one would have to pronounce the L at the end, so that it’s not confused (almost correctly) with survey.
I think “enthuse” has a place in the language.
“Conversate” is disgusting but might be appropriate in the setting in which it may have been created; for example, the bulls*** guys talk when they go clubbing or partying and are just trying to lure women to their, uh, “cribs.”
“Ideate,” meh. Not sure what to do with that word. Don’t really understand what it means.
“Liaise,” eh, maybe. We do have other words for this concept, though; get together, collaborate, hook up (the OLD meaning), meet…but maybe there’s a slightly different connotation with liaise that the other words don’t hold.
Bicep/tricep/kudo are abominable, and the ignoranti could be cured with education. Imagine my surprise when I was playing “Words With Friends” and “kudo” was accepted as a word. Ewwww!

As a fitness instructor, I hear quite a few back-formations of body parts, including tricep and bicep and glut (‘gloot’). I also hear questionably made-up body parts like toe mound and rib joint or neck hinge. I suppose it could be considered nicknames or shop talk, but when it’s actually found in a published book on exercise, I’m worried the formality of the English language may be fading into oblivion.

Many of the ugliest seem to come from that malodorous swamp of capitalist double-speak known as Business Management.

@ D.A.W
‘Task’ as a verb is not a back-formation, so much as a transfer of function, rather like ‘to oversight.’ Both grate on the ear, IMO.

As an aside, the practice of verbing nouns seems to alternate with that of nouning verbs in the history of English.

@thebluebird11
I totally agree on ‘surveil,’ ‘conversate’ and ‘ideate.’

How I loved reading the comments on this one! But my main reason for today’s comment is Nicks post on the 18th, Compound Words in Technological Contexts, which kinda ties in. I just had no time to respond to it then.

The subject word is “cation.” When I first saw it, I made the pronunciation from the last part of, vacation, which works, as written. Alas! the word really should be written, cat-ion! That addition of the hyphen is critical to a proper pronunciation, for that is the way it is spoken in the industry.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this one! Am I out to lunch, or not?

With the current trend toward “text speak” and the like, this is a very timely post.

This is also a great place for writing tips. I wish you had a G+ Share icon. It would be easier to share with the nearly 2000 people who have me circled there, many of them writers, freelancers, authors etc.

@Art,
The oppositely-charged ion is an anion — which looks like it should rhyme with canyon, but it doesn’t. Engineering jargon; it’s like an inside joke.

@Kate: It’s not just formality that makes biceps, triceps and gluteus correct. However, for the record: the biceps muscle looks “plural” because it comprises two “heads.” ONE muscle made up of TWO parts. The triceps contains three parts. Like “moose,” which is singular and plural, biceps and triceps are both singular and plural (I don’t think anyone says “tricepses”). Not so for gluteus; one gluteus, two glutei! It has been shortened to glute at the gym (or glutes, for plural). I never heard of a toe mound or a neck hinge. A rib joint is a possibility, maybe referring to the costochondral area (where the rib ends in the cartilage that joins the sternum), or maybe the costovertebral areas (where the ribs meet the vertebrae in the back). My impression is that a joint has some kind of movement, and these areas have very little movement, certainly in the back, a bit more up front. But we’re not talking as much movement as, say, a knuckle or a shoulder joint.
I would guess that books on exercise are aimed at an audience that understands toe mounds and neck hinges and such!

@Curtis,
Thank you for your note.

I suppose every industry has such. I am in construction and in building we use studs, a 2 inch by 4 inch by 8 foot long board, all the time. But in a group of girls a stud is something far different….

I quite like spectate as a noun, although in quite a specific context: that of attending an event as a spectator when one would normally be expected to enter as a competitor. So:

“I’m going to Goodwood this weekend?”

“Which car are you taking?”

“For once, I’m not driving. I’m just going to spectate.”

Maybe it’s a British thing.

Of course what I meant to say was ‘ as a back-formation from the noun’ in the comment above. That’ll teach me to post early on a Sunday morning while rushing to catch up with a week of blog posts.

Back-Formation

Back-formation is one of several methods by which new words are added to the language. An often-quoted example is the word pea. Before pea was created by back-formation, English had the singular noun pease. Here are two examples of its early use from the OED, (some spellings altered):

All this world’s pride is not worth a pease.
As like as one pease is to another.

The plural was peasen:

The leaves of beans and peasen
Cherries, gooseberries, and green peasen

Over time, as -s shoved out -en as the sign of the plural, speakers came to feel that pease was a plural; thus was born our singular pea and its plural form peas.

Back-formation is especially frequent in the creation of new verbs. Some writers use the verb “to back form,” a back-formation of back-formation; so far, this coinage hasn’t made it into either the OED or M-W.

Sometimes the coinage is intentionally jocular, as with the verb buttle from butler: “Nobody could buttle like James…” Sometimes the new verb formed from a noun fills a need and is quietly absorbed into the language, like the verb edit from editor.

At their first appearance in the language, back-formations often stir feelings of revulsion. Test your own reactions to the following sentences:

I hate it when people enthuse too much over food.

I’ve met him twice, but never had the chance to conversate.

To what extent…did the US intelligence community surveil the anti-apartheid movement in the United States?”

Now I would never dis my own mama just to get recognition.

Britain’s most senior police officer is liaising with US law agencies….

Have you accepted the legitimacy of the back-formations that have created the verbs enthuse, conversate, surveil, dis (also spelled diss), and liaise? Or do you get that fingernail on the blackboard feeling when you see them or hear them?

Conversely, gauge your reaction to these verbs: diagnose, donate, eavesdrop, evaluate, kidnap, manipulate, proliferate, and vaccinate.

My guess is that the second list raised nobody’s blood pressure. Yet, each of the verbs in this list is a back-formation from a pre-existing noun: diagnosis, donation, eavesdropper, evaluation, kidnapper, manipulation, proliferation, and vaccination.

Time and usage will determine whether back-formations like surveil and conversate will prevail. The determining factor will be usefulness. If the coinage is felt to fill a gap in the language, speakers will eventually embrace it.

Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily!

Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:

Stop making those embarrassing mistakes! Subscribe to Daily Writing Tips today!

13 Responses to “Back-Formation”

Enthuse as a verb has been here for a long, long time. I often hear it more as: He was not enthused by the …

Conversate? That grates on my ears and in my part of the country is noted mostly by demographic groop. But then, I don’t say converse, meaning to talk, either. I pretty much stick to talk or chat.

Surveil doesn’t bother me as a back-shaping. It does bother me in that it is a 50-cent word for ‘watch’.

Diss as a shortening of disrespect doesn’t bother me.

Again, liaise doesn’t bother me as a back-shaping but as as unneeded, snooty word in the first place … “Britain’s most senior police officer is working with US law agencies….” is much clearer and shorter.

For that matter, ‘linkman’ is better, clearer word than liaison.

Making a noun from a verb or a verb from a noun is wonted and not to be fear’d.

I love to hear about language history. Great post, Maeve. I quibble with “conversate” as an example of back formation. This strikes me more as just poor “word choice.” The word converse fills the need. “Conversate” belongs in a class with “orientate.” There’s got to be a word for that …

First, let me thank you for not using disqus.

Do we not already have a verb that fills the perceived need for “conversate”? Do we not converse? Is that not the verb form, already?
“Converse” is a verb, already, in the romance languages group: “conversar” in Spanish.
On the other hand, with “kidnap”, “-nap” is an alternate for “nab” making “kid-nab” a verb for nabbing or snatching children? Webster has it as a verb from antiquity…
Ah well.
Mostly I get the fingernail reaction, really.

The one I tend to hear a lot is “administrate” when to “administer” would seem to be appropriate.
Using “surveil” as a verb really grates on my ears. However, other verbs like to “survey” (the root, I believe), watch, or track actually may not provide a truly accurate description. To spy on someone implies a more sinister, but also a pre-emptive, intent. Sometimes the word “bird-dog” is used as a verb (more back formation), but that has more of a sporting or informal management connotation. “Surveil” may catch on as a verb, but eventually (and hopefully) a better word for discreetly watching or following someone for an extended period of time may evolve.

……but something less obsessive than stalking.

Danny, the word you are looking for is “wrong.”

The forces of ignorance and ambiguity have their champions in the form of deluded politically correct pseudo-egalitarians. We “purists” should not hesitate to call them out.

Danny,
“Orientate” is a word Americans love to hate, but it is the preferred form for British speakers. To us, “orientate” sounds hopelessly clumsy; to them, “orient” as a verb sounds unfinished.

Maeve, that article you linked mention an interesting counter-example to “administrate ” and “conversate” in the form of “demonstrate.”

Also interesting to note that my browser’s spell checker complains about “conversate” but is OK with “administrate.”

(Sorry about any typos. My eyes aren’t focusing well today.)

Watch implies “visually.” Survey implies a one-time observation. Surveillance denotes a continuous act that includes not only visual observation, but also audible and indirect means such as intercepting communications. Surveil, therefore, has a distinct and useful meaning that fills a need. (I notice that ieSpell does not recognize the word.)

Conversate, on the other hand, duplicates converse; so a person who uses it sounds pretentious.

Dis, as a shortening of disrespect, is slang. It raises another subject. We have some euphemisms that originate from the culture (or lack thereof) of Prohibition-era organized crime. We generally recognize those terms as slang. Current urban music has popularized the language and fashions of criminal, urban culture. Dis is a prime example.

Whereas surveil has a distinct meaning and meets a need, dis duplicates the meaning of disrespect and serves only as a counter-cultural statement. In its original cultural context, it accompanied a counter ethic that raises accidental slights to the level of offenses worthy of violent responses.

Yes, dis grates on my ear; not only because it is unnecessary, but also because it makes an antisocial political statement.

Interesting article. The only one that grates on my ear is “conversate,” which as others point out may be because it seems less due to back-formation and more due to poor word choice.

Roberta B. — Your mention of “bird-dog” made me chuckle. Where I am from (hills of North Carolina), bird-dogging is when one male sets out to take away another male’s girlfriend. The Everly Brothers 1958 song “Bird Dog” uses the term as a noun — perhaps the verb was back-formed.

Cygnifer – Ha! I haven’t heard that one for a long time. “Bird Dog, you better leave my lovey dove alone!”

The one I hear that makes me turn blue is from the military ever since the Gulf War: attrit. As in, “we will cut off their supply lines and attrit the enemy.” God that is awful. Even written it looks bad, like a strange non-English word.

Interesting one I stumble on was “burgle”, as in to commit burglary. I figured it was either very old, or else a very new product. Neither, it turns out. It is a back-formation from burglar, but only a fairly old one, circa the 1860s and not much if any younger than burglarize, also back-formed. Evidently before the 1860s there was no verb form of burglary, so you just had to “commit” it, no shortcuts!

Venqax,
Well, durn! I’m working on a post about “burgle.” It is used quite seriously by British speakers,

As for “attrit,” I agree. It looks like something that crawls around on the page when the lights are out.

Sentence first

Back-forming back-formations

Back-formation (or back formation or backformation) is a term that describes the way certain words are formed. It also refers to the words themselves, so back-formations result from back-formation. If affixation means forming a word by adding an affix (e.g. frosty from frost, refusal from refuse, instrumentation from instrument), then back-formation is essentially this process in reverse: it adapts an existing word by removing its affix, usually a suffix (e.g. sulk from sulky, proliferate from proliferation, back-form from back-formation).

Sometimes a back-formation arises through the assumption that it must already exist, and that its source word is the derivative term. Such an assumption, while misguided, is altogether reasonable, being based on a summary analysis of the source word’s morphology. Consider donation. You might think it derives from donate, but the noun is several centuries older; donate is the back-formation. You are unlikely to recognise a back-formation just by looking at it.

Another everyday example is burgle, a back-formation from burglary. In U.S. English, burglarize (or -ise) is by far the more common verb, but burgle dominates in British English. That burgle has failed to take hold in U.S. English may be partly a result of its lowly origins as a back-formation, as well as its funny phonetic blend of burble and gurgle. But whatever the reasons, I wouldn’t call it “hideous”. Back-formations are not inherently wrong, but they can be redundant; before you use one that seems new or gimmicky, check if there is a standard alternative. [Image: burgling tools. Or are they burglarizing tools?]

Back-formations are frequently made by dropping -tion or -ion from a noun, and adding -e when appropriate, to form a new verb, such as donate from donation. From evolution we get evolute, which has technical meanings as a noun in mathematics and as an adjective in botany, but as a verb meaning the same as evolve, it is a needless variant. Similarly superfluous are cohabitate for cohabit, interpretate for interpret, and solicitate for solicit. Solicitate has a standard adjectival use; it is only its unnecessary use as a verb that I advise against. Last week I heard someone on the radio say installating, as if he had forgotten all about install. But some of these may eventually become standard, even installate.

In most of the examples I’ve included so far, the change has occurred at the end of the word, i.e. the removed affix has been a suffix. Back-forming by removing prefixes is less common, except in humorous contexts such as Jack Winter’s “How I met my wife”, which boasts a litany of deliberately malformed terms like chalant, ept, and peccable.

Regardless of how back-formations are formed, they are often initially considered to be irregular, even ignorant, and suitable only for informal use in slang or jokes. Sometimes, as we have seen, there is no need for them because the semantic niche they purport to inhabit has already been filled. Other back-formations, such as enthuse and liaise, inhabit a grey area of acceptability. And then there are many that serve a useful purpose and have become standard. Here are some I haven’t mentioned already:

automate from automation
beg from beggar
diagnose from diagnosis
drowse from drowsy
edit from editor
execute from execution
free associate from free association
grovel from grovelling (or -l-) (adj.)
injure from injury
intuit from intuition
kidnap from kidnapper
orate from oration
pea from pease
peddle from peddler
reminisce from reminiscence
resurrect from resurrection
scavenge from scavenger
self-destruct from self-destruction (from destroy, destruction)
sleaze from sleazy
statistic from statistics
surveil from surveillance
televise from television
vaccinate from vaccination
window-shop (v.) from window-shopping