So, I know why you’re here … here being the definition page for the word conversate. You heard someone use it the other day, didn’t you? And, now you’re wondering if conversate is a really word …
You might think that conversate is just one of those new ways we’re ruining the English language. Use of conversate has soared since 2000, but we can actually find conversate, for “have a conversation with someone,” in the early 1800s. We can even find evidence for conversate in the late 1500s in a rare sense of the word, meaning “to associate with.”
Here’s the story of conversate. It’s a back formation from the word conversation. A who-in-the-what formation?! Good question! A back formation is a word that is formed from an already existing word from which it appears to be a derivative, often by removal of a suffix, like -ion. We added an -e to make it consistent with other such verbs.
Wait, isn’t there already a verb for conversation? There you go with the good questions again! The answer, is yup! The word converse.
And since conversate has essentially the same meaning and origin as (the more common and frequently used) verb converse, the term conversate has been condemned in some circles as an unnecessary nonword.
But, this part isn’t funny.
Some people have taken conversate to be a sign of being uneducated—which is problematic, because conversate is especially common among black and Latin people, making one’s complaints about conversate less about language and more about race and class.
But, here’s the thing. Back formation has given us all sorts of everyday words no one gets heated about. Like edit from editor, sulk from sulky, and, just like conversate, donate from donation.
So, let’s let conversate serve as an important reminder that discussions about English, should really take into account the different types of English spoken in our diverse culture, rather than fixating on “correct” formal usage. Language changes with times, and so should our attitudes about it. Now that, is something worth conversating about.