"I can't access the fingerprint files," Phil said.
Sally fisted her hair. "Oh, no! That could negatively impact our investigation!"
Should I contact the lieutenant?" Fred asked.
"I'm efforting that right now," Phil assured him.
In this brief but thrilling bit of dialogue, I have verbed five nouns.
That is, I have taken five words once firmly ensconced in the language
as nouns, and I have used them as verbs. This sort of verbing
seems to be going on a lot these days. We read newspaper articles about
the benefactor who gifted the museum with a valuable painting, about the county office transitioning to a new computer system. And of course almost all of us speak of texting people and friending people. Some of
us say we Facebook.
Should we accept the verbing trend as inevitable, perhaps desirable? Should we resist it? Does resistance make sense in some cases but not in others?
Writers, including mystery writers, probably have some influence on the
ways in which language changes, perhaps more influence than we realize.
So maybe, before we let ourselves slip into following a linguistic
trend, we're obliged to examine it carefully, to think about whether
it's a change for the better.

Obviously, there's nothing unusual or improper about a word functioning as more
than one part of speech. "He decided to turn off the ceiling light and
light the candles, while his wife, wearing a light blue dress, fixed a
light supper." Here, in one sentence, "light" serves as noun, verb,
adverb, and adjective--repetitive, but not ungrammatical or unclear. And I think we'd all agree language is a living thing that needs to change
to meet new needs. Many would argue (and I'd agree) that the English
language, especially, is vital and expressive precisely because it's
always been so flexible and open, so ready to absorb useful words from
other languages and to adjust to changing conditions. Sometimes, change
means inventing new words to describe new things--telephone, astronaut,
Google. Sometimes, it means using existing words in new ways--text,
tablet, tweet. These sorts of changes in the language reflect changes in reality. Some of them may enrich the language; some may make it sillier or less euphonious. Either way, trying to resist them is probably pointless.
I'm not so sure about "fist." I've been seeing it used as a verb more and
more lately, especially in erotic scenes. Usually, it's a man who does
the fisting, and it's a woman's hair that gets fisted--"Lance pressed
his body against Desiree's and fisted her hair, declaring he could not
bear to leave her that night." Well, gosh. First of all, I have trouble
picturing exactly what Lance is doing to Desiree's hair. He's grabbing
hunks of it, I guess, and forming his hands into fists around the hunks. If that's what he's doing, couldn't we just say "clutched"? I have a
feeling some writers choose "fist" because they think it sounds sexier
and more forceful, because it hints at a trace of coercion, a smidgen of violence. If that's the appeal of "fist," maybe it's a verb we can do
without. Let's have Lance stroke Desiree's hair while keeping a
respectful distance from her and suggesting they discuss their plans for the evening. If we want to get sexier, he can always finger a tendril.
Is verbing such a change? In some cases, I think, it probably is. Consider the first sentence in the opening dialogue. "Access" used to be a noun
and nothing but a noun.
Fowler's Modern English Usage (I've got
the second edition, published in 1965, inherited from my English
professor father) draws careful distinctions between
access and
accession, showing scorn for those who "carelessly or ignorantly" confuse the two. Fowler doesn't even consider the possibility that anyone might use
"access" as a verb. One might need a key to gain access to the faculty
washroom, but the idea that anyone might access the washroom--no. Today,
though, when almost all of us use computers and often have trouble
getting at what we want, using "access" as a verb seems natural. Yes,
Phil could say he can't gain access to the fingerprint files, but the
extra words feel cumbersome here, an inappropriate burden on a process
that should take seconds. Old fashioned as I am, I think using "access"
as a verb might be a sensible, useful adjustment to change.
Back to the opening dialogue: Sally fears not being able to access the
fingerprint files "could negatively impact our investigation." I think
some writers use "impact" as a verb because, like "fist," it sounds sexy and forceful, sexier and more forceful than "affect" or "influence."
But does it convey any meaning those words don't? If not, I'm not sure
there's an adequate reason for creating a new verb. And if we have to
modify "impact" with an adverb such as "negatively" to make its meaning
clear, wouldn't it be more concise to choose a specific one-word verb
such as "hurt" or "stall"--or "end," if the negative impact will in fact be that bad? Again, I'd say "impact" is a verb we can do without. It
answers no need our existing verbs fail to meet. It adds nothing to the language.
What about "contact"? In the opening
dialogue, Fred asks if he should "contact" the lieutenant. Like
"access," "contact" was once a noun and nothing else. Is there a problem with using it as a verb as well? Strunk and White think so. In the
third edition of
Elements of Style (a relic from my own days as
an English professor), they (or maybe just White) declare, "As a
transitive verb, [`contact'] is vague and self-important. Do not
contact anybody; get in touch with him, or look him up, or phone him, or find
him, or meet him." Or, in this situation, Fred might ask if he should
inform the lieutenant, or warn her, or ask her for advice. "Contact" is
pretty well established as a verb by now, but I think the argument that
it's "vague and self-important" still holds. "Contact" is a lazy verb.
It doesn't meet a new need--it just spares us the trouble of saying
precisely what we mean. Even if few readers would object to using
"contact" as a verb these days, writers who want to be clear should
still search for a more specific choice.
Then there's "effort." What possible excuse can
there be for transforming this useful noun into a pretentious verb? In
the second edition of
Common Errors in English Usage (a wonderful resource), Paul Brians declares such a transformation "bizarre and
unnecessary": "You are not `efforting' to get your report in on time;
you are
trying to do so. Instead of saying `we are efforting a
new vendor,' say `we are trying to find a new vendor.'" Maybe some
people think "efforting" will make it sound as if they're working
harder. If so, they can always say they're "striving" or
"struggling"--but those words will be obviously inappropriate if not
much work is actually involved, if they're just making a phone call. Is
"efforting" appealing because it lets us get away with making simple
tasks seem more arduous than they really are? If so, we should
definitely resist the temptation to inflate the importance of what we're doing by using a fancy new verb.

By now, some may be wondering if any of this matters. If we want to dress
up our sentences by turning some nouns into impressive-sounding new
verbs, so what? Where's the harm in that? George Orwell provides an
answer in his classic "Politics and the English Language." I can't
summarize his subtle, complex argument here; I can only offer a
quotation or two and urge anyone who hasn't already read the essay to do
so. Just as ideas can influence language, Orwell argues, language can
influence ideas. The English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate
because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language
makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." Nor should we
surrender to damaging trends in language because we assume resistance is
futile. "Modern English, especially written English," Orwell says, "is
full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if
one is willing to take the necessary trouble." As writers, perhaps we
have a special responsibility to protect the language by setting a good
example. At least we can effort it.
Oops. Sorry. At least we can try.