This linguistic reverse-engineering is a fascinating process known as back-formation. It’s a word-creation mechanism where a shorter, simpler word is born from a longer, more complex one because speakers mistakenly assume the longer word contains an affix (like -er, -or, -ion) that can be removed. It’s like looking at a sculpture and carving away stone to find the “original” block underneath—except the block was never there to begin with.
What is Back-Formation, Exactly?
Typically, English forms new words through affixation. We take a root word and add a prefix or suffix. For example:
- act (verb) + -or → actor (noun)
- create (verb) + -ion → creation (noun)
- happy (adjective) + -ness → happiness (noun)
Back-formation flips this script. It occurs when speakers analyze a word incorrectly. They see a word like editor, recognize the -or suffix that usually means “one who does something”, and work backward by an assumed analogy: “If an actor is one who acts, then an editor must be one who edits.”
This process isn’t a mistake; it’s a testament to the pattern-seeking nature of the human brain. We see a rule and we apply it, even to words that were originally exceptions. The result is a brand-new word that often fills a convenient gap in the language.
The Classic Case: From Editor to Edit
Let’s return to our star example. The noun editor entered English in the 17th century, borrowed directly from the Latin editor, which means “one who brings forth, producer, or publisher.” For nearly 200 years, the word existed in English without a corresponding verb. If you were preparing a manuscript for publication, you might say you were “revising”, “correcting”, or “preparing it for the press.”
Then, in the late 1700s, the verb edit popped into existence. Writers and publishers, likely tired of the wordy phrases, simply clipped the “-or” from “editor” to create a slick, efficient verb. Despite being born from a “mistake” in analysis (the “edit-” root didn’t exist in English), the new word was so useful that it stuck. Today, it’s impossible to imagine the worlds of writing, film, or publishing without it.
More Back-Formations in the Wild
Once you start looking for back-formations, you see them everywhere. They range from the universally accepted to the fiercely debated.
From Diagnosis to Diagnose
The word diagnosis has a long and respectable history, coming to English from Greek via Latin. In Greek, diágnōsis meant “a discerning or distinguishing.” It was, and is, a noun. For a long time, the proper verbal phrase was “to make a diagnosis.”
But by the mid-19th century, the efficiency of back-formation struck again. Doctors and scientists began using the verb diagnose, created by removing the -is/-osis ending. Why say four words when one will do? Like edit, diagnose filled a lexical gap so perfectly that we rarely question its origin story.
From Television to Televise
Back-formation isn’t just an artifact of centuries past; it’s an active process. The noun television was coined in the early 20th century to describe the new technology. It wasn’t long before people needed a verb to describe the act of broadcasting via this medium. The logical solution? Chop off the common -ion suffix to create televise. The same process gave us donate from donation and emote from emotion.
The Controversial Case: From Liaison to Liaise
Not all back-formations are welcomed with open arms. The verb liaise is a prime example of one that still grates on many ears. The noun liaison was borrowed from French in the 17th century, where it means “a binding or linking.” In English, it came to signify a connection or channel of communication, especially in military and corporate contexts.
In the 1920s, military personnel started using liaise as verbal shorthand for “to establish or maintain liaison.” To its proponents, it’s a useful, concise term. To its detractors, it’s an ugly piece of jargon—a clumsy verbification of a graceful French noun. This ongoing debate perfectly illustrates how language change is often a social battleground. Words have to fight for their place, and acceptance is never guaranteed.
Other common back-formations include:
- Burgle (from burglar)
- Babysit (from babysitter)
- Sculpt (from sculptor)
- Enthuse (from enthusiasm)
The Curious Case of a Single Pea
Perhaps the most charming back-formation is the story of the word pea. The word originally entered English from Latin (pisum) as pease. Crucially, pease was a singular, uncountable noun, like “rice” or “corn.” You would have one pease, or a bowl of pease.
Over time, English speakers heard the “s” sound at the end and mistakenly assumed it was a plural marker. So, if one has many “pease”, what is just one of them? A “pea”, of course! They back-formed a new singular, pea, and in the process, made the original singular form, pease, into the new plural. This type of reanalysis is a beautiful, if illogical, quirk of how languages evolve in the mouths of their speakers.
A Language That Builds Itself
Back-formation reminds us that language is not a static set of rules dictated from on high. It is a living, breathing system that is constantly being shaped, tweaked, and even reverse-engineered by the people who use it every day. It’s a process driven by a desire for efficiency, a love of patterns, and the creative spark of the human mind.
So the next time you hear a strange new verb that sounds like it was hacked off a longer noun, don’t be so quick to judge. You might just be witnessing the birth of the next “edit”—a new word, born backward, that is ready to move the language forward.