"Searchability" is correctly formed, although not common. The Google Ngram Viewer shows some minor usage in recent years (the rate of increase seems to grow a bit with the advent of search engines in the 1990s).
The suffix -ability is reasonably productive in modern English, which means that it can be used to form new words. It is used to derive ...
There was a noun (synonymous with refutation), but it was never very popular, so it died out. For example:
We finde no concurrent determination of ages past, and a positive and undeniable refute of these present, the affirmative is mutable.
Yes, you can say "a Chinese" but yes, it sounds at least a little weird to many people most of the time. This is discussed in Why can we say 'an American' but not 'a British'? I'd recommend using the adjective "Chinese" instead it in situations where it is easy to do so, but the noun "Chinese" can be used when necessary. You can see this use listed in a ...
It's not an idiom (meaning not inferable from the parts) or a set phrase (a special phrase that people have used often, usually literal or obvious metaphor but has more to it). It is a new turn of phrase putting two things together that are not common or common together so it stands out.
'Basket' is used as a metaphor/metonymy of 'grouping', like 'a bunch'. ...
The New York Times article from which you quoted offers several examples and a definition:
Take an adjective (implacable) or a verb (calibrate) or even another noun (crony) and add a suffix like ity, tion or ism. You’ve created a new noun: implacability, calibration, cronyism. Sounds impressive, right?
What the writer is saying is that these so-called "...
No, it is not missing. This particular "the" is optional and the sentence could be written as either of these:
This guide equips you with a strategy to ease adoption of a new technology within your organization.
This guide equips you with a strategy to ease the adoption of a new technology within your organization.
Perhaps the related gifting might be preferred, but that has another more usual sense.
You're right; there does seem a lack of an ideal noun here.
'Donation' (sense (1) below) works (as Janus suggests it might):
an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
a gift, as to a fund; contribution.
That part of the phrase in quotes is a citation. Citations can have the same function in sentences as noun phrases do and can also appear as the Heads of their own noun phrases too:
"Would if I could" is an annoying phrase. (Citation as Subject)
Your quiet "don't" was much more effective than my aggressive "DON'T YOU DARE!". (Citations as heads of noun ...
"Lived" here means "lifed," or given a span of life, so it's really an "adjectified" noun.
Yes, the comma should be omitted, since it's a modifier of the quotation. The comma should be present if the phrasing were that of an appositive:
That is as morally dubious as Toyota’s short-lived slogan, "Feeling
bored? Hit someone with your car!"
Be fair, ...
A subset of this type of word would be nominals.
In linguistics, the term "nominalize" means "to convert into a noun." A common example uses the adjectives "good," "bad," and "ugly," which can become nouns in the phrase, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Lest I get called out, I'll add the caveat that ...
No, I don't think so.
This is just a short attempt to present some ideas; I would recommend that anyone interested in delving into the grammar of these structures look for literature, since I have the impression that this is an area that has been studied a fair amount and I'm not familar with it.
First, a minor terminological (or perhaps not?) issue: I ...
It's very awkward at best. Chinese is an adjective ("he is Chinese") or a collective noun ("the Chinese won the medal in 1996"). The singular noun corresponding to American or Frenchman is "Chinaman". However, "Chinaman" is not considered acceptable for use pretty much anywhere in 2020, which leaves "Chinese person" (in which Chinese functions as an ...
I read from an article about this confusing sentence.
since Chinese is both adj and noun,I suppose "I am a Chinese" is grammatically correct just like "I am an American"?
Do native speakers prefer to use "I am Chinese"?
There are two issues here Grammar and Asian vs America
Personally I would go with the fact that Chinese is non countable so therefore no ...
Every word ending with -ness is a noun and can be used as such
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state): Source
In a comment BillJ wrote:
In your examples, "Japanese" is an adjective in a 'fused-head' construction. "The Japanese" is then a noun phrase used generically and determined by "the", where the head and the modifier "Japanese" are 'fused' into the single word "Japanese". We understand it to mean the inhabitants of Japan.
Other commenters have mentioned the ...
Nominalized adjectives can be used as nouns. Two types of nominalization are found in English. One type requires the addition of a derivational suffix to create a noun. In the second case, English uses the same word as a noun without any additional morphology. This second process is referred to as zero-derivation1. An example of zero-derivation is the noun ...
I am a native English speaker, and I find "course responsible" flat-out ungrammatical. In general, English doesn't allow the use of adjectives as singular nouns denoting people (except for some adjectives having to do with geography, ethnicity, and such) to the extent that other Germanic languages do.
I've seen "course head" used in American universities, ...
Your school should be responsible for any translation of that school's terminology.
Given that you dislike the official translation, you can only attempt to change it.
Compound words in Germanic Languages can be a pain to translate, and sometimes impossible to properly translate by translating the separate parts and joining them.'
Here are some possibilities:...
Is there a nominalized form of "to give"?
There are three; give, gift and completely separately, give.
Of the sense of the verb meaning "to transfer to another person, to donate" we have the noun give referring to the actual thing donated from Old English until around the early 14th century then dying out. We also have it used for the ...
Well, I have seen words on here for non-native English speakers which I have never heard of in all of my studies, reading, or education, so I rather expected someone to know this off the top of their head... I was not 100% joking in my comment -- I've always been curious.
It turns out that these are compound morphemes or other variants as described in quite ...
Overreach can be a noun. It's not a common one, but it can function as one.
Thanks to governmental overreach, the citizens were wary of any new initiative no matter the good intentions behind it.
I believe it is a noun in that sentence. Again, it may be a mildly awkward noun, but still a noun.