10

Conversate: To converse, to participate in a conversation.

My parents conversate with me over dinner every night.

Is this a word? Spell check says no, but I have heard it used.

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
Tester101
  • 438

4 Answers4

17

Conversate is a back-formation from conversation, similar to orientate (which is quite common in the UK), administrate, and others.

While some back-formations can even become standard, conversate is decidedly nonstandard. However, it is not surprising that you have heard it used, because it is a word that is employed in some dialects. It is most commonly used in AAVE, a dialect of American English.

Those who use conversate dialectally might be aware of the word converse, but choose not to use it either because conversate carries with it a difference in register/connotation that they want to employ, or because conversate has a slightly different meaning from converse in that dialect.

These -ate back-formations happen because most nouns ending in -ation have a corresponding verb ending in -ate, but not all of them do. At some point in the past 400 years, the suffix -ment, which used to be a common way of converting verbs to nouns (govern -> government), was overtaken by the more productive -ation. There were so many -ate verbs springing up in English that could all be suffixed with -ion, that this -ation string was reanalyzed in English as a separate suffix (in addition to -ate and -ion) that could be attached to verbs that did not end in -ate. Nowadays, -ment is more or less unused, while -ation continues to be popular. For example, all verbs ending in -ize can be converted to -ization, even though there are no -izate verbs at all; verbs ending in -ify become -ification. And so on.

So, with an -ation word, there are always two possibilities to create a verb: subtract -ion and get an -ate verb, or subtract -ation. Sometimes people create an -ate form spontaneously where none existed, either because of a speech error, a lack of awareness of the original verb, or perhaps because the -ate form sounds better prosodically. There is often a resistance to such a change, and so most of these back-formed -ate words don't extend beyond dialectal use, or don't even take hold at all. But very occasionally, the -ate form can become standard, as orientate arguably has in UK English.

Incidentally, this is how many other types of standard words have come into existence: innovation/error/randomness → dialectal use → standard use.

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
Kosmonaut
  • 50,402
  • +1 Great answer. If it is not too much trouble, could you please expand on this: "conversate has a slightly different meaning from converse in that dialect." I would love to learn more. Available sources on the subject do not shed any light on the difference in meaning. – Lumberjack Nov 01 '13 at 13:43
  • 1
    @Lumberjack: I have no knowledge of whether there is actually a difference in meaning between converse and conversate for AAVE; rather, I only meant that it is possible for two words that only differ in their arbitrary morphological baggage to ultimately coexist with different semantics. (For example, the words historic and historical are interchangeable much of the time, and ic and ical are essentially the same thing, yet only historic can be used to refer to an event of historical importance that is happening right now -- historical is restricted to the past.) – Kosmonaut Nov 06 '13 at 19:05
  • @Kosmonaut, There's a lot of claims in this post.... it'd've been good if there are some citations... – Pacerier Sep 23 '15 at 03:24
8

The correct form is "to converse". "Conversate" is incorrect.

Some argue "conversate" it is a back-formation, but it is not a widely accepted one. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-conversate-a-word.aspx

Gilead
  • 708
  • 2
    But then you could Conversatalize and conversatalization. – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 16:36
  • "Conversate" is a back-formation, by definition. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 16:44
  • 2
    @Kosmonaut: I think what you mean is "Conversate" would be a back-formation if it existed (by any normal definition, which it doesn't). – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '11 at 16:57
  • @FumbleFingers: Of course it exists. It may be dialectal, but it exists. Why else would we be talking about it? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conversate . And no, I mean it is a back-formation, even if it didn't exist. Back-forming is a process; elephanthouse is still a compound of elephant and house, even though it doesn't yield a word in this case. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 17:18
  • @Kosmonaut: Ooops. Point conceded. But if there were an "Academie Anglaise", and if I were on its voting panel, I wouldn't be supporting the word! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '11 at 17:22
  • @Fumble: Neither would the esteemed Bryan Garner who calls it a nonword in GMAU and tells a humorous story of witness in a high-profile case who received anonymous hate mail for using the word several times on the stand. He then adds, parenthetically: A serious breach of decorum: proponents of good English should always remain civil. Hate mail isn't the way. In the same entry (@Martin) he labels conversationalize and its ilk "bureaucratic mumbo jumbo." – Callithumpian Jun 15 '11 at 17:47
  • @Kosmonaut: Bryan Garner is now even more esteemed than he was, since I'm obviously his latest convert! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '11 at 17:51
  • 2
    Conversate is indeed a back-formation; I've seen it in print. With all due respect to Mssr. Garner, if it is spotted in the wild, then it's a word. A loathesome, detestable, needless word, but his prescription cannot make it unexist. – The Raven Jun 15 '11 at 17:55
  • @Callithumpian - "mumbo jumbo", so presumably giving the stamp of approval to that phrase? – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 17:57
  • 2
    @Callithumpian: Garner is making a subjective argument in declaring it a "nonword". Even in your example he acknowledges its use; he is just saying he doesn't like it. The thing that bothers me most about prescriptivism is not the idea of wanting standards, it's the fact that prescriptivists intentionally try to put forth their opinions as facts. "Nonword" indeed. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 18:07
  • @Martin: Presumably. He has no entry for mumbo jumbo :) – Callithumpian Jun 15 '11 at 18:17
  • @Kosmonaut: But Garner is open about the subjective nature of his work. From his preface: As you might already suspect, I don't shy away from making judgements. I can't imagine that most readers would want me to. Linguists don't like it, of course, because judgement involves subjectivity. It isn't scientific. But rhetoric and usage, in the view of most professional writers, aren't scientific endeavors. You don't want dispassionate descriptions; you want sound guidance. And that requires judgement. – Callithumpian Jun 15 '11 at 18:24
  • 2
    @Callithumpian: I just said I understand the idea of wanting standards — just like anyone, I have my own subjective ideas about what words sound good and bad; on the other hand, I really, really dislike the deliberate choice of terms like nonword for something that clearly is a word. "WWhjsdfkhj" is a nonword. "Conversate" is simply a nonstandard, often stigmatized word that appears in some dialects. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 18:33
  • @Kosmonaut there is a difference between the pedants that decide on some arbitrary rule (prepositions at the end of a sentence) and objecting to words where people have added some extra suffixes to make them sound more important. I'm happy to split infinitives but don't want an ongoing dialogalization about it! – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Martin Beckett: "objecting to words where people have added some extra suffixes to make them sound more important". This isn't how a back formation is created; your "dialogalization" example is not a back-formation. If you are going to fabricate a reason that people use the word and object to that straw-man, then you should at least try to fully understand the process. The word isn't formed by adding extra suffixes. It is done by not removing enough. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 18:42
  • @Kosmonaut - Is conversate a back formation of "conversation"? I imagined it was an attempt to extend "converse". Back formation generally create a new useful word where one didn't exist (eg. edit from editor), conversate doesn't mean anything more than converse does. – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 18:47
  • @Kosmonaut: I agree with you. In Garner's defense however, his entry on conversate seems a bit tongue-in-cheek and the use of nonword is in all-caps, leading readers to another entry where he admits, the lesson is that in any age, stigmatizing words is a tough business—no matter how good the arguments against them might be. He even points out that nonword used to be a nonword. I think your point about the dangers of denouncing dialectal words that may have their own connotations is valid. (For the record, I upvoted your answer and think it deserves many more.) – Callithumpian Jun 15 '11 at 18:48
  • @Martin Beckett: does "converse with" really mean anything more than "talk with"? Words can distinguish themselves by more than just semantics — the use of one word over another can mean a difference in register, or signal group membership. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 18:58
  • @Kosmonaut talk->converse->ongoing process of dialogalization! I just wondered if conversate was somebody who knew conversation but didn't know about the rarer converse and made a reasonable back formation, or if someone thought that converse was 'better' than talk and so conversate was even better. – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 19:12
  • And of course if English didn't have this depth of complexity we would all have to do some work instead of wasting time on EL&U ! – mgb Jun 15 '11 at 19:13
  • 1
    @Martin Beckett: If I say "I talked with my friend", it would certainly imply an ongoing process, or even if I say "My friend and I talked". In any case, I assume you get my point about the different domains that synonyms can occupy. – Kosmonaut Jun 15 '11 at 19:19
  • @Callithumpian: In fact, I stopped following Garner on Twitter because I felt his line of thinking could have a corrosive effect on my own editorial perspectives. Like John McIntyre, I'm "centrist, leans prescriptivist." – The Raven Jun 15 '11 at 19:29
  • Nonword is a word? It was first used in 1961, far too young. Conversate was first used in 1973 (both according to Merriam-Webster). Winning by 12 years in language is not that big a deal. –  Apr 24 '13 at 21:30
  • And yet MW Online doesn't have an entry for "disputate," even though the great Charles Dickens uses it in his novel Martin Chuzzlewit (1844):

    "Mr. Co and me, Sir," observed Chollop, "are disputating a piece. He ought to be slicked up pretty smart, to disputate between the Old World and the New, I do expect?"

     – Sven Yargs Apr 24 '13 at 22:27
  • Also worth noting: Notwithstanding the scant 12-year difference in earliest print occurrence that MW reports for "nonword" and "conversate," "nonword" has had its own entry in print versions of the dictionary since the Ninth Collegiate (1983), whereas "conversate" doesn't appear in even the most recent Collegiate, the Eleventh (2003). – Sven Yargs Apr 24 '13 at 22:28
0

Some of these back formations mentioned above are useful as they have a slightly different meaning than the original verb: Commentate (from commentator) indicates a formal role that the subject is performing (that is, providing opinions as a recognized authority) that comment does not. In the same way, orientate (from orientation) implies going through a formal orientation program that orient does not. I don't see any difference in the meanings in converse and conversate. But maybe I'm missing some nuance?

Deri
  • 1
0

Conversation is a common word, and the matching verb is to converse, not *conversate.

Still, it is not used very much compared to synonyms.

Unreason
  • 12,446