Beyond “-Ize”: Why 19th-Century Word Snobs Hated “-Ate” Verbs

Modern linguistic complainers love to target words ending in -ize—such as incentivize, prioritize, or finalize—labeling them as modern corporate jargon. However, word-snobbery is hardly a modern invention. In the 19th century, self-appointed guardians of the English language directed their wrath at a completely different target: verbs ending in -ate.

If you are looking for a unique, historical pet peeve to impress (or annoy) language enthusiasts, the classic complaints against -ate verbs offer plenty of inspiration.

The 19th-Century Campaign Against “-Ate”

During the Victorian era, prominent style guides and usage commentators frequently attacked multisyllabic -ate verbs as pompous, unnecessary, or downright vulgar.

• Alfred Ayres (1881): In The Verbalist, Ayres mocked words like effectuate (“to cause or bring about”), eventuate, and ratiocinate, condescendingly describing them as favorites among “the rural members of the Arkansas legislature.”
• Henry Alford (1864): In A Plea for the Queen’s English, the Dean of Canterbury singled out eventuate as a “horrible word” spreading rapidly through provincial newspapers.
• Richard Grant White (1880): In Words and Their Uses, White launched a scathing attack on militate, claiming it belonged to “a bad family” of words alongside necessitate, ratiocinate, effectuate, and eventuate that ought to be excluded from “good English society.”

Ancient Origins vs. Modern Scorn

The main irony of these 19th-century complaints was that most targeted words were far from new. Many had been part of the English lexicon since the 16th and 17th centuries:

Word	Earliest Recorded Use	Original Context / Example
Effectuate	1577	Used in Antonio de Guevara’s A Chronicle regarding Emperor Hadrian’s funeral plans.
Militate	1598	Featured in Thomas Rogers’s poem Celestiall Elegies (“Her vertues that did militate on earth…”).
Eventuate	1697	Appeared in Timothy Manlove’s theological treatise The Immortality of the Soul Asserted.

Despite centuries of established usage in published literature, critics rejected them simply because they felt overly complex or inflated.

Why Do These Verbs Trigger Language Critics?

Linguistic critics usually object to -ate verbs for three main reasons:

1. Verbosity: Words like effectuate or orientate say in four syllables what cause or orient says in one or two.
2. Back-Formation: Terms such as conversate (formed by stripping the suffix from conversation) often trigger strong criticism from traditionalists.
3. Pretentiousness: Longer Latinate verbs are frequently used by speakers trying to sound academic or formal, often achieving the opposite effect.

Where Are They Today?

The fate of these disputed verbs varies significantly across dialects and formal contexts:

• Militate: Successfully integrated into modern standard English, particularly in the common phrase “militate against.”
• Orientate: Widely accepted in British English as standard usage, whereas American English speakers generally consider it redundant compared to orient.
• Effectuate, Eventuate, & Ratiocinate: These remain grammatically valid but are often flagged by modern style guides in favor of simpler alternatives like cause, result, or reason.

Key Takeaway

If you are tired of hearing the same old complaints about irregardless or finalize, resurrecting a 19th-century critique against -ate verbs offers a refined alternative. While few people today will share your concern over effectuate or ratiocinate, you can take comfort in carrying on a long-standing tradition of linguistic nitpicking.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Why did 19th-century language critics dislike words ending in “-ate”?

A: Victorian linguistic critics viewed many -ate verbs (such as effectuate, eventuate, and ratiocinate) as overly long, pretentious, and redundant. They argued that these words were unnecessarily verbose when simpler, shorter alternatives like cause, result, or reason were available.

Q2: Are “-ate” verbs like “effectuate” and “militate” modern inventions?

A: No. Despite 19th-century critics treating them as tacky new coinages, most of these words date back centuries. For example, effectuate appeared in English as early as 1577, militate in 1598, and eventuate in 1697.

Q3: What is the difference between “orient” and “orientate”?

A: Both mean to align or adjust to a situation. However, usage varies geographically:

• British English: Orientate is widely accepted as standard English.
• American English: Orient is strongly preferred, while orientate is often viewed as redundant or overly formal.

Q4: What is back-formation in English linguistics?

A: Back-formation is the process of creating a new word by removing an imagined suffix from an existing word. For instance, the verb conversate was created by stripping the suffix from conversation. Back-formations frequently trigger criticism from prescriptivist language critics.