I've seen the word 'communication' as a verb. Going by the provenance of the document, I'm reasonably sure that the author meant to use it in this context and that it wasn't a typo. E.g.:
How should we communication this?
I'm a British English speaker, and the author of the document is American. I'm used to seeing Americans use words in ways that seem 'novel' to me.
- There are some AmEng words that, as far as I can tell, have been invented where the equivalent word already existed, and are similar to that word. E.g. 'normalcy' vs 'normality', 'specialty' vs 'speciality'.
- There are some occasions where similar words have been re-purposed and the meaning conflated. E.g. 'utilize' vs 'use'.
- There are occasions words where words have been invented but which have a subtly different meaning (or not, depending who you ask). E.g. 'competency' vs 'competence'.
- Good old fashioned verbing. But surely this only happens when the word doesn't already exist? We already have 'communicate'.
Of course, sometimes we use a word in a way that no-one else ever has (to put it euphemistically).
Has anyone else seen 'communication' as a verb? I'm pretty sure the author has heard of the word 'communicate' so I doubt it's option 1 or 2. It could be option 3, in which case, what does 'communication' mean when it's a verb?
EDIT: I know that in standard AmEng 'communication' is a noun and 'communicate' is a verb. I'm not here to ask what the correct usage is, rather to see if anyone can shed light on the neologism by providing positive evidence.