I was rather alarmed, while perusing a recent work on archaeology, to come
across the word “neolithisation” . It is new to me, and I am half
expecting to come across “palaeolithisation” before long.
The process by which one word,
phrase or sentence is formed by adding syllables to an existing word is called
by lexicographers derivation, and it sounds harmless enough. According to the
language experts, in building up a new word, the limit is set by whether the
new derivative is useful, comprehensible and pronounceable. For example, the
atrocious word “antipurificationalistically” has been denounced as
“well formed but not very useful”.
When I was at school, many years ago, we used to quote the accepted dictionary
word “antidisestablishmentarianism” as the longest in our native tongue,
but such a simple derivative has long been outflanked by worse. In our everyday
talk today we have “prioritisation”, “generalisability”,
“institutionalisation” and “globalisation” bandied about
in documents. And when we have devised a top-heavy noun we can easily extend
it by adding an adjectival ending, and then one stage further with an adverbial
syllable.
It is reminiscent of the German tongue, where adding elements together is commonplace.
We have, to take an extreme example, that word once printed on tickets for travellers
on a Danube excursion — Donaudampfschiffarhtegesselechaft. I find French
far more civilised.
Meanwhile, we should become more critical of how we maltreat our mother tongue.
It is the bureaucrats and spin doctors who are most to blame.