As a contemporary poet who writes in English I have been thinking a lot about this. While we use different parts of speech with similar frequency the number of options available to us to use of one kind or other varies drastically.
It possibly says something about how we see the world that we are more exact in our ability to label something, rather than to describe what it does. Not to be tedious or jump off the bus here, but it could also pose problems as we shift to a paradigm where identity is primarily performative. (We are what we do, not what we appear to be.)
I recently went on an interview where I was asked to describe various scenes from an action movie to create a script that would be read between dialogues for the visually impaired. When faced with such a limited number of ways of defining a mode of attack, I realized that we frequently turn an action (with a high degree of physical specificity) into a noun.
Consider a word like haymaker. We throw a haymaker. This is a big muscle movement with tons of power and commitment behind it. We could force it to act as a verb through syntax... "I haymaker you," but we will more than likely meet resistance from readers and critics.
Transferring a word from noun to verb energizes it and sets it closer to the heat of a kinetic exchange. Reversing this process pulls us back from the primary experience into a more reserved/language/observational state. We suck energy out of the word (the only way to put it back in is to then create a value statement about the word/subject... but I don't want to jump that thread here).
My argument would not be to create new verbs, but to be more open minded about using nouns as verbs. Prescriptivists are probably cringing right now, but creative writers are already jumping this direction instinctively-it will probably spread into common use.
Thank you for your time, I hope you find a more solid answer to your question.