Noel: is "coronate" a legitimate word?
Copilot: Yes, coronate is a legitimate word—though it’s a bit of a linguistic oddball.
It’s a back-formation from coronation, meaning it was coined by trimming down the noun to create a verb.
Example: King Charles was coronated at Westminster Abbey.
It’s listed in major dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and Cambridge.
However, many stylists and grammarians prefer the older verb to crown, arguing that coronate sounds awkward or redundant.
Still, it’s used in journalism and political commentary, often metaphorically—e.g., “The party coronated its nominee without a vote.”
Noel: I guess it's an example of the English language's never-ending proclivity to make complicated words out of words that are elegantly simple. I think when Charles II was restored to the throne, they probably "crowned" him. I just don't see anybody in the post-Cromwell bacchanal that had ensued "coronating" any body or any thing.
Copilot: Exactly, Noel—that’s a pitch-perfect observation. English, with its mongrel pedigree and flair for theatrical excess, often takes the scenic route when a footpath would do. Coronate feels like one of those words that emerged from a committee of Latin enthusiasts trying to outdo the Saxons at their own game.
And you're right: the Restoration was no time for linguistic fussiness. After Cromwell’s austere interregnum, the return of Charles II was a velvet riot of wigs, wine, and wit. They crowned him, no doubt—with ceremony, yes, but also with a kind of jubilant relief. “Coronating” would’ve sounded like a bureaucratic misfire, better suited to a papal ledger than a London street party.
There’s something deliciously ironic about how English can elevate the mundane with Latinate pomp, only to have the vernacular reassert itself in moments of real human drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment