XP: Written Word/English Language&Reading Material

P

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Given the level of interest here in words and syntax, perhaps this subject deserves its very own thread. Some of its abuses and and some of the false claims about same are so egregious.

I often use "dialogue" as a verb as it is very handy (and acceptable)...and perhaps irreplaceable given the meaning that is intended.

Here are some words suggested by thefreedictionary.com in its entry for dialogue:

negotiation, talks, discussion (but one specifically intended to produce an agreement), give-and-take, word, parley (but specifically between enemies), bargaining and mediate (which implies at least three parties).
Click to expand...

I can't think of another verb that will convey the essential meaning(s) of dialogue used as a verb.

. . . . Pete
 
I have to say that I cannot recall using dialogue as a verb, either transitive or otherwise. I would use discuss or negotiate, depending on meaning.

Mark Lipton
(Who has also never {figuratively} impacted or finalized anything)
 
From wikidiff...

negotiate is to confer with others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement while dialogue is to discuss or negotiate so that all parties can reach an understanding.
Click to expand...

Pretty close, but my interpretation is that to negotiate is directly between the affected parties while to dialogue can be by an intermediary on behalf of the affected parties. This is why to dialogue works best for me.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
why not simply say "have a dialogue"?
Click to expand...

Well, exactly. We already have to hear such intolerable usage on the national stage on a daily basis. Discuss or confer get the job done.

In the same way "to give a gift" is perfect. No reason to torture "gift" until it becomes a verb.
 
Dialoguing with someone suggests working with them toward a desired end result, often involving a third party.

As mentioned before negotiating is close except that it suggests the parties interacting directly with each other.

I understand that some people might not favor dialogue used a verb. Even so, there is a long history of using dialogue as a verb, some say even as far back as during Shakespeare's time.

. . . . . Pete
 
You know you can use more than one word in a sentence to convey your intended meaning, right? You could even, you know, mention the third party or the desired end.
 
It's impossible to argue your point in the abstract, Pete. Offer a sentence in which you think dialogue as a verb can't be replaced. You will find out it can, of course. No word is irreplaceable. The measure of a neologism that works is that one feels that it has somehow created a new concept, one that replaces circumlocution, even if that feeling is a delusion. By that measure, I think using dialogue as a verb fails. The number of words in English that can replace "said" in a sentence are astonishing. They used to be listed on the wall of a newspaper I wrote for. None of them were "he dialogued."
 
Even so, there is a long history of using dialogue as a verb, some say even as far back as during Shakespeare's time.
Click to expand...
Well, Shakespeare used it, but then he did make up words and phrases, so not sure if that counts :)

However it probably merely meant converse, rather than what seems to be the modern American meaning that is closer to negociate.
 
originally posted by Steve Slatcher:
Even so, there is a long history of using dialogue as a verb, some say even as far back as during Shakespeare's time.
Click to expand...
Well, Shakespeare used it, but then he did make up words and phrases, so not sure if that counts :)

However it probably merely meant converse, rather than what seems to be the modern American meaning that is closer to negociate[sic].
Click to expand...

I seem to have misplaced my blue pencil.
 
Jonathan, I see dialogue used as a verb most commonly when someone is acting in an agency relationship between owners/landlords and buyers/renters trying to steer the parties to an agreement. The agent is dialoguing with the parties whereas if the parties were communicating directly with each other they would be negotiating.

On what is perhaps another slant someone said, "After you dialogue with someone you can then task them with the deliverables." (I say "perhaps" because I'm not totally sure what to make of this slant.)

I don't think anyone has said that Shakespeare was responsible for using the verb format; rather, that it was begun long ago even in Shakespeare's time period.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Steve Slatcher:
Even so, there is a long history of using dialogue as a verb, some say even as far back as during Shakespeare's time.
Click to expand...
Well, Shakespeare used it, but then he did make up words and phrases, so not sure if that counts :)

However it probably merely meant converse, rather than what seems to be the modern American meaning that is closer to negociate[sic].
Click to expand...

I seem to have misplaced my blue pencil.
Click to expand...

Steve must have meant it in the sense of running a négoce.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Steve Slatcher:
Even so, there is a long history of using dialogue as a verb, some say even as far back as during Shakespeare's time.
Click to expand...
Well, Shakespeare used it, but then he did make up words and phrases, so not sure if that counts :)

However it probably merely meant converse, rather than what seems to be the modern American meaning that is closer to negociate[sic].
Click to expand...

I seem to have misplaced my blue pencil.
Click to expand...

My proofreader husband uses two pencils: a green one to indicate mistakes and a red one to indicate what must be fixed.

Not that anyone fixes anything, of course. Even with the little "edit" link down at the bottom of the message, Steve.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

"After you dialogue with someone you can then task them with the deliverables."

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Here's a clear case where both words are being used as mealy mouthed euphemisms. What that sentence really means is that after you've explained the terms of employment to someone, then you can give them orders. The verb "dialogue" is used to make the conversation sound more like a two way affair, but if you said "negotiate," it would mean something that couldn't normally lead to "tasking," a word which should never be used for telling someone what to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top