Short & Sweet
====
Please don’t use *reify* or *reification*. They're
prominent in postmodernist criticism, which is just a bunch of hooey.
They're academic jargon. You can’t apply straight English derivational
morphology — simple stemmming — to figure out what they mean. They
force you to know Latin. It's really irritating.
Better one-word answers include *to express* and *to embody*. Those are hard-working verbs without a bunch of faked-up *-ificationalizing* endings. Those don’t require massive pretence the way *reify* does. I don’t see what is wrong with *to make concrete* — is there saw law forbidding two-word answers?
------
------
------
Why I hate *reify* follows.
One friend of mine exactly echoed my
own sentiments when she said:
> My mind always just "la la la's" out any encounter with reify or
reification, and assumes the rest of the context is going to be
technical jargon in some literary field of little interest, or
pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook designed to make the speaker sound more
intelligent. The speaker probably wears very trendy glasses, or waves
them around by one stem. My internal response to the word is so
negative that I guess I've never even looked it up for a definition.
It’s a “negative flash word” for me: it sets up this huge wave of resentment,
and for the very reasons she states. I feel like I’ve just been cornered by
some poncy postmodernist deconstructivist bent on snowing me with meaningless
garbledygook. He probably smokes clove cigarettes, whines a lot, and is so
cloyingly pretentious with his language that the only word he doesn't
recognize is ostentation.
It’s like a whining drone in my ear; I just want it to go away. Soon.
This anti-*reify* reaction was triggered when I reading the following:
Character is a concept and a glyph is a reification of that concept.
Why on earth that fellow guy he should be saying *reification* instead of *any* of these, I have no idea:
Character is a concept and a glyph is an objectification of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a materialization of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is an exemplification of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a demonstration of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is an actualization of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a manifestation of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is an incarnation of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a formulation of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a realization of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a expression of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a embodiment of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is an instance of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is an example of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a sample of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a demo of that concept.
Character is a concept and a glyph is a form of that concept.
Yes, it really annoys me,
because I hate being trapped in smoky rooms with pseudo-intellectuals
wearing trendy glasses bent on postmodernist deconstruction.
As far as I can tell, the only possible synonym for reification that's
actually *worse* would be ***hylasmus***, and at least that one saves you two
syllables.
Hylasmus also has the advantage of being a real word — sorta — not just a
bazillion little pieces of words all catted together: **RE-IFI-CA-TION**.
(Yes, you *can* break *hylasmus* in two, but please don't, because
nobody knows what a "hyle" is, either.)
Applying basic English derivational morphology to get a simple stem should
not require understanding how to decline Latin nouns. I should be able
stem without that.
So let’s stem. Notice how alone of all these, *reify* dead-ends.
XXXify XXX stem or related word, translation
=============== =====================================
acidify acid
amplify ample wide
beatify beatitutes blessed
beautify beauty
calcify calcium bone
certify certain certs sure
churchify church
citify city
clarify clarity clear
codify code
countrify country
crucify crux crucial cross
dandify dandy
deify deity
dignify dignity
diversify diverse
dulcify dulcet sweet
dullify dull
dummify dummy
electrify electric
exemplify example
falsify false
fortify forte fortis strong
fumify fume smoke
gasify gas
glorify glory
happify happy
horrify horror
humanify human
humidify humid
humify humid hummus moist
iconify icon
identify identity id
intensify intense
justify justice just fair
magnify magnum big embiggen
malignify malign evil
metrify metric meter measure
modify mode style change
mortify mortal dead
mummify mummy
mystify mystique mystery
mythify myth
nastify nasty
nonsensify nonsense
notify note nullify null nil nada niente nihil
nutrify nutrient
objectify object
pacify peace
personify person
plastify plastic
prettify pretty
pulchrify pulchrid embellish
purify pure
reify ???? <======!!!!!!????
revivify revive
rotundify rotund
saccharify saccharine
sanctify sanctum holy
sanify sane healthy
signify sign meaning
simplify simple
smoothify smooth
solemnify solemn
solidify solid
specify species type
speechify speech
stabilify stable
stratify statrum layer
stultify stultiloquy stupid
suavify suave soft
syllabify syllable
terrify terror
testify testament witness
typify type
uglify ugly
unify unity unit one
verify verity truth
versify verse
vivify vivacious revive life
yuppify yuppy
I've put more obvious synonyms for the rarer ones.
Unless you admit ****reity*** or ****re*** as English words — and they most
certainly are not — then there is an obvious problem with the word
*reify*. It’s unnatural.
As for things like *mollify*, *ossify*, *petrify*, yes, you **do** have to use
etymology to figure out what they mean. Some people find those annoying
words, because they have no English stem and so you have no other recourse
but to analyze them etymologically. It isn't fair.
So how should people stem *reify*? Like *deify < deity*, so *reify < reity*?
Yeah right. There is no answer apart from ***re***, and ***re*** isn't English. Of
course it puts people off. Who the heck knows what a “re” is, anyway?
Yeah okay fine so maybe the *re-publica* people (“the public thing”) might,
but note that those folks are Romans. Again.
But how the blazes are any non-(trendy-glasses)-wearing mortals
ever supposed to know what a “re” is?
Answer: **they aren’t.** And that’s my point. I see it as deliberate
obfuscation when a million other words would work better there.
Given all that malarkey, I react to it just like my friend does: **la-la-la.**