I believe as new invented things more salient, there will be new verbs as well which are used to describe an action involving those things.

For instance, though, it isn't a good example because of my limited vocabulary, the word is memeify. It's a legit word that I took from dictionary.com. Nobody doesn't know what the meme is, I suppose. If we shall notice, it's originated from a noun "meme" and whoever inventing that word add the suffix -ify in order to convert it into a verb. It means, to turn into a meme.

My main question related to the description above, is there any rule as to how to convert a noun into a verb? Or we just put any suffix as long as that will sound natural?

This question comes to my mind when I want to describe that I do "a hate reaction" on a post on Facebook. I know I can just say "I react his post", but when I specify which reaction I do, how to construct it into a sentence with only one verb?

It might be useful when I know the rule, if someday I invent a new thing and by doing something involving that thing, I use a certain word that's easily remembered which is also easier to convey what I'm talking about.

2 Answers 2


There isn't a general rule. That is there is no completely productive way to form a verb from a noun.

Some suffixes follow general rules. So the participle form of a verb is formed by adding -ing. That is a pure grammar rule.

On the other hand, while adding -ify to nouns can create a verb meaning "to make a thing" (the "f" is actually a shadow of the Latin word "facare" meaning make), you can't just take any noun phrase and add "-ify". There is no grammar rule that lets you form "hate-reactionify".

There are lots of verbal suffixes: -ate, -ize, -en for example. And English can form verbs without changing the form of the verb at all. Many verbs have a base form that is exactly the same as the noun.

However this is problematic for learners. When native speakers invent new language it may or may not be accepted. Usually it is ignored and forgotten. But when non-native speakers invent new language, it is treated as a mistake.

A native speaker might get away with "I totally hate-reactioned when her post came up" (Here the speaker has simply used the noun as a verb by adding the past tense ending -ed). A non-native speaker might get called out.

In this particular case, the natural solution is simply to use the verb react. But in general, there is no grammatical modification that turns a noun into a verb.


In reply to this part of your question:

This question comes to my mind when I want to describe that I do "a hate reaction" on a post on Facebook. I know I can just say "I react his post", but when I specify which reaction I do, how to construct it into a sentence with only one verb?

You could simply say:
I reacted to his post with hate.

From a general point of view, as @JamesK explained, there are not many ways in English to turn nouns into verbs using suffixes. And in my view there's a reason for that. English has just grown so good at using nouns directly as verbs that it hasn't had much need for suffixes. Almost any noun or even clause can be used as a verb.

Police?Stop policing on me?
Table? → They tabled a new proposal.
(Harry) Redknapp?He Redknapped his presentation. (= kept stating the obvious)
My dear Mary (you should not...)Don't my-dear-Mary me!

Verb? Well read the example below from Macmillan Dictionary:

The history of English, however, suggests that the language is remarkably flexible in terms of what can be verbed.

Yes, you can use the noun "verb" as a verb.
In other words:
You can verb the noun verb.
Want it more succinct:
You can verb verb.

(I'll get my coat...)

Again as @JamesK has pointed out, doing it is one thing, getting away with it is another!

  • I'm not sure it's a particularly useful verb anyway, but here's another non-native Anglophone getting in on the act: We call it : japajajkanje - hence my all but blasphemous linguistic experimental calque in English : to memeise! At least as credible as to memeify, and maybe if people do start feeling the need for such terms, they might adopt one of those for transitive usages, and the other for reflexive / intransitive contexts. Commented Apr 23, 2022 at 16:02
  • ...but why do we need to include the concept of reacting in OP's context, anyway? I see no obvious reason not to go with plain old I hated it!, as opposed to a neologism equivalent to My reaction to it was one of hate. Commented Apr 23, 2022 at 16:06
  • @FumbleFingers. "I hated it" is not the same as "I reacted to it with hate". Hating is a feeling. A reaction, in our context, is something that happens as a result of that feeling. It can be a change in your facial expression, it can be something you say, it can be downvoting a post or replying to it with fiery words, it can be storming out of the room, etc. OP wondered it there could be a way in English to construct/coin a verb which denotes reacting with hate, Hence JamesK's suggestion: hate-react.
    – PPH
    Commented Apr 24, 2022 at 7:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .