This holiday season of stress seems an appropriate time to talk about angst and whether that noun can be used as a verb, which I once allowed in the pages of National Geographic.

Pressing nouns into action as verbs is a perfectly good tradition in English. For instance, the noun mill according to Merriam-Webster's dates from before the 12th century, whereas the verb to mill from 1511.

Sometimes the process is the reverse, as in the case of swim. The verb dates from the 12th century, the noun from 1599, and the adjective (as in "a swim meet") only from 1924.

One of my favorite usage guides, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, says, "Many nouns have lately been pressed into service as verbs. Not all are bad, but all are suspect." It then goes on to mention gift, host, chair, headquarter, and debut. Of these examples, only gift as a verb raises my eyebrow (sorry, fund-raisers); the others seem entirely natural and correct as verbs.

If either Strunk or White were writing today, I’m sure impact would be included as a particularly suspect verb. Although the use of impact as a verb is ubiquitous, I am resisting the impact of popular use and will continue to use the word only as a noun.

Which brings me to angst, an English noun dating from circa 1942 (borrowed from German) and definitely not natural and correct as a verb.  When I let it be used that way in National Geographic, it was with a certain amount of hand-wringing, but also with a sensitivity to the writer's style. It appeared in an article on poisons, by Cathy Newman, one of our staff writers, and read: "As if everyday poisons are not enough to angst over, there are nature's more exotic hazards."

Ms. Newman now asks, "Is it time for 'angst' The Verb, to take its place in the Official StyleMaven Lexicon of Usage?" I think not. But it may happen some day.

Comments