On a recent question asking if acronymize is a word, a comment caught my attention:
Why bother to acronymize? If I'm going to take such liberties, I might as well just acronym the text.
This really got me thinking. I am quite certain I've never used either verb. But I am just as certain that if I had to verb acronym, and do it quick, my brain would not so much as consider to acronym. There's just something about it that doesn't quite feel right. To acronymize, on the other hand, sounds perfectly natural. So not only would I go with the latter, but I'd do so without giving it a second thought. On complete autopilot. Instinctively.
Why would that be? That instinct has to come from somewhere.
My first and only guess right now is that -nym is the perpetrator here. That it outright attracts the -ize rather than the null morpheme. Just like -(o)log- attracts -ical over -ic, that kind of thing. But is that really true, or is there something else at work here?
And as a bonus question: are there other morphological domains in which -ize is especially productive? For a suffix that common, I suppose it's not too unlikely that someone actually went to the trouble of compiling a handy list of them all.