verb-for-shoe-phonetic.jpg

Sometimes it takes a crazy kind of name to snap a name inspector out of a long dry spell. Verb for Shoe is just that kind of name. It belongs to a computerized, interactive shoe created by MIT-spinoff VectraSense Technologies. Apparently this shoe detects different activities of its wearer and inflates and deflates cushions in its insole to provide custom comfort and support. Part of The Name Inspector thinks “Wow!” and the other, larger, more sensible part is reminded of the old Onion headline: “U.S. Dentists Can’t Make Nation’s Teeth Any Damn Whiter“. Just exactly how comfortable can our feet get? $700 comfortable?

As he writes this, The Name Inspector is wearing a $90 pair of Keens, and his feet are just about as happy as they ever have been. But, to be fair, there’s more to the Verb for Shoe experience, apparently. According to talk2myShirt, these shoes are networked. Just why is a little unclear. Something about interacting with people in virtual and real space at the same time. But why through your shoes? So many questions, which at the time of this writing are not answered on the Verb for Shoe website.

But technology aside, the name Verb for Shoe is not only linguistically and conceptually bizarre, but it makes reference to grammatical categories as well. What could be better than that?

Verb for Shoe is a noun (verb) modified by a prepositional phrase (for shoe). But that prepositional phrase ain’t right. Normally a noun like shoe would be preceded by some kind of determiner: a shoe, the shoe, your shoe, etc. Determiners can be left out only in certain situations, like when the noun is plural (for shoes) or when it refers, concretely or abstractly, to an undifferentiated mass of stuff (for mud, for fun). The word shoe is neither a plural noun nor a mass noun. So what’s going on? When do you encounter a prepositional phrase like for shoe? Well, when you’re talking about words and their meanings, as in “What’s the word for shoe in French?”. In that sentence, shoe doesn’t refer to a shoe–it refers to the idea of a shoe.

So the name Verb for Shoe is about the idea of a shoe, or more specifically, changing our collective idea of a shoe. Why Verb for Shoe rather than Word for Shoe? Because we think of shoes as objects, but VectraSense wants us to think of this shoe as an occurrence. Verbs name actions and processes–hence, Verb for Shoe. You can imagine someone in a namestorming session saying, “What’s a verb for shoe? Whatever the verb for shoe is, that should be the name”. And then everyone realizes there is no verb for shoe, and they just go with the phrase that describes the mythical word they’re looking for. This is a very “meta” name.

A great thing about Verb for Shoe is that it gives The Name Inspector a reason to talk about notional (or conceptual) versus grammatical categories. The popular understanding of grammatical categories is that they express the notional ones. When you first learned about nouns and verbs, you probably learned that nouns are for people, places, and things and verbs are for actions. While the correlation between the two types of category is strong, linguists are always quick to point out that it’s imperfect, and that grammatical categories are best understood in morphosyntactic terms–that is, in terms of the kinds of suffixes that attach to words and the positions that words occupy in sentences.

How is the correlation between notional and grammatical categories imperfect? Well, while many nouns do refer to people, places, and things, there are also nouns, like fun, kiss, game, and trial, that name action- and event-like phenomena. And while many verbs name actions and processes, there are verbs like resemble, remain, and cost that name things less dynamic and/or more abstract.

The situation is actually kind of complicated, because different grammatical categories have different degrees of freedom to name different things. Nouns can name just about anything, because people have conceptual reasons to reify all kinds of phenomena that are not very thing-like. Verbs are more restricted than nouns–they never name people, places, and things, for example.

So how do you define nouns and verbs? You can’t do it right without mentioning things like this: Nouns are preceded by determiners and head noun phrases, which can be subjects of clauses. Verbs are marked for tense and aspect and head verb phrases, which join with noun phrases to make clauses. If this all seems a little circular, it is, in a way. Grammatical description is all about how systems hang together. And if it all seems a little a bit dry, well, it probably is. The strange and lucky subculture of language geeks, of which The Name Inspector is a proud member, is able to delight in this kind of grammatical detail. Others find it hard to stand, even if they’re standing in $700 networked shoes.

[tags]verb for shoe, the name verb for shoe, shoes, wearable computers, wearable computing, wearable electronics, grammatical categories, syntactic categories, verbs, nouns, grammar[/tags]

5 Responses to “Verb for Shoe”

  1. on 09 May 2008 at 2:16 pm Phil

    I think you are right. This is what happens when the technonogy moves beyond the language and one wants us to rethink old objects in a new way. There is no verb for shoe in the language, shoes are nouns, static objects which do nothing. These shoes are active, they know who your are before you get them, they watch how you are moving then adjust the cushioning based on your activity, they can communicate with other shoes like them, and they can interface with your pc. So since there is no word to capture the difference between the old static shoes and these new active ones, the new shoes become the noun “Verb For Shoe” to describe the missing verb which is generated by the new technology.

  2. on 09 May 2008 at 9:09 pm Cranky Kate

    Glad to see you back! A post like this makes it worth the wait.

  3. on 15 Feb 2009 at 5:27 pm akkeb truber

    Shoe is a verb. Shoe the horse.

  4. on 15 Feb 2009 at 7:56 pm The Name Inspector

    Hi Akkeb: Yes, there is a verb “to shoe”, but it means ‘to put shoes on’. It’s not a verb with the same meaning as the noun, and therefore not a “verb for shoe” in the sense discussed here.

  5. on 30 Mar 2012 at 2:15 pm Michael Rader

    This was a very interesting read. I agree the name makes for a good discussion, but in the end, I don’t like the name one bit. It’s probably the reason why I’ve never heard of these shoes. I could expand on that, but this is a very old article and probably doesn’t matter, especially since the product probably went under.

    I mean, how exactly do I find the shoes if I wanted them? Search, “buy verb for shoe shoes?” Ugh, it’s a terrible name.

    And just a note, you have a tiny error in the article where you use “a” twice:

    “And if it all seems a little a bit dry, well, it probably is.”

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply