<p>I think you're conflating a/o confusing a couple different things here.</p>

<p>First, "cutter" is not "instrumental". (At least in English!) In English grammar, <strong>-er</strong> is (among zillions of other uses) the morpheme that indicates "agent noun"; so, <em>cutter</em> means "thing that cuts". It is the actual agent by which cutting happens.</p>

<p>The <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case" rel="noreferrer">Instrumental Case</a></strong> is a grammatical function that indicates the means by which the agent or subject of the verb does the action:</p>

<ul>
<li>I-subj cut-verb the.box-obj (with.a.box.cutter)-instr.</li>
</ul>

<p>If English had case endings like Latin, you could see the difference easily:</p>

<ul>
<li>Puer-NOM cistam-ACC cultello-ABL secavit-VERB</li>
</ul>

<p>Latin uses the ablative case to denote the instrumental case, due to ancient case syncretism of the old ablative, locative and instrumental cases.</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ize" rel="noreferrer">-ise / -ize</a></strong>, in English, is a grammatical morpheme that indicates the word is a denominal verb. This means that the verb in question is made from a noun. We already know that English weirds. It verbs nouns at the drop of a hat.</p>

<ul>
<li>I will <strong>hammer</strong> him if he attacks me with the knife.</li>
</ul>

<p>Your example, "I will hammerise him if he attacks me with a knife", doesn't actually make sense in context. This is because <strong>-ise</strong> doesn't mean "use something as an instrument", it means "turn something into something else".</p>

<ul>
<li>Immigrants ought to be <em>Americanised</em> through educational programmes.</li>
<li>The machine <em>pulverises</em> large pieces of stone into gravel.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>I think your best bet, as far as "converse" of or "opposite" of the instrumental case, would be the</p>

<p><strong>noninstrumental case</strong>, which I just made up.  It does what the instrumental case does, only in the other direction. Essentially, the speaker denies the instrumentality of the named article.</p>

<ul>
<li>Puer-NOM cistam-ACC cultellei-NONINST secavit-VERB</li>
</ul>

<p>I considered "deinstrumental", but that's already a thing (a noun or verb made upon an instrumental form).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T04:06:54.490Z
"English weirds"—love it. Conflating, yes, but I thought I said as much in my post. English doesn't have distinct grammatical forms for what I was trying to describe, and I don't actually know Latin—just enough to explore Latinate English forms and/or be dangerous and/or get conlang ideas.
Tim Pederick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-18T08:09:24.613Z
Revisiting (much later!) and accepting. I do disagree with you that "-ise" can't be instrumental. I don't recall now what specific example I was thinking of at the time, though I'm sure I had one! But I do have an example now where it's clearly not "turn into the thing", and is *arguably* instrumental: "brutalise". If I brutalise someone, I *use* brutality on them.
Tim Pederick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-17T03:14:44.237Z
2019-04-17T03:27:23.667Z
2019-04-17T03:27:23.667Z
elemtilas
<p>We can make a noun for the instrument of an action, by taking the verb for the action and adding an <strong>instrumental</strong> marker.<sup>[1]</sup></p>

<p>For instance, in English, we can add "-er",<sup>[2]</sup> like so:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I <strong>cut</strong> the box with a box-<strong>cutter</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Conversely, we can make a verb for an action, by taking the noun for the instrument and adding... <strong>what could you call it?</strong></p>

<p>In English, we don't necessarily have an affix, since we can just verbalise the noun, like so:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I will <strong>knife</strong> you with my <strong>knife</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>...but we might use "-ise" this way, at least jocularly:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I will <strong>hammerise</strong> him if he comes at me with that knife.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So is there a term for such a marker, indicating the <strong>use</strong> of an instrument? "Usive"? "Usual"?</p>

<hr>

<p>[1] I was going to call this "instrumentive", on the pattern of "agentive" and "patientive", but the word doesn't appear in any dictionary I checked. It is used in some books on linguistics, though, per Google Books.</p>

<p>[2] This is also the agentive suffix in English, but I'm imagining a scenario where the agent and the instrument are clearly distinguished.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T14:39:15.127Z
I have never come across a specific term for this -- generally it is a verb derived from a noun, in the sense that it is the action associated with that noun. So you could call it _verbalisation_, or _verbification_, as _verbalisation_ also means to put something into words. I would also guess that this is fairly specific to English, as it's got a somewhat fluid word class system.
Oliver Mason
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-14T14:50:55.287Z
@OliverMason: Yeah, I had "verbalise" already, but was hoping for something more specific. And as it happens, I had this question while pondering a system inspired by Latin: verb → -atus (past participle used as verbal noun) → -ator (agentive noun) → -atory (noun for place or practice of the agent)
Tim Pederick
<grammar><terminology>
Term for the converse of "instrumental"
# Term for the converse of "instrumental"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-13)

We can make a noun for the instrument of an action, by taking the verb for the action and adding an **instrumental** marker.[1]

For instance, in English, we can add "-er",[2] like so:

> I **cut** the box with a box-**cutter**.

Conversely, we can make a verb for an action, by taking the noun for the instrument and adding... **what could you call it?**

In English, we don't necessarily have an affix, since we can just verbalise the noun, like so:

> I will **knife** you with my **knife**.

...but we might use "-ise" this way, at least jocularly:

> I will **hammerise** him if he comes at me with that knife.

So is there a term for such a marker, indicating the **use** of an instrument? "Usive"? "Usual"?

---

[1] I was going to call this "instrumentive", on the pattern of "agentive" and "patientive", but the word doesn't appear in any dictionary I checked. It is used in some books on linguistics, though, per Google Books.

[2] This is also the agentive suffix in English, but I'm imagining a scenario where the agent and the instrument are clearly distinguished.

**Tags:** grammar, terminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I have never come across a specific term for this -- generally it is a verb derived from a noun, in the sense that it is the action associated with that noun. So you could call it _verbalisation_, or _verbification_, as _verbalisation_ also means to put something into words. I would also guess that this is fairly specific to English, as it's got a somewhat fluid word class system.  
> **username_0**: @OliverMason: Yeah, I had "verbalise" already, but was hoping for something more specific. And as it happens, I had this question while pondering a system inspired by Latin: verb → -atus (past participle used as verbal noun) → -ator (agentive noun) → -atory (noun for place or practice of the agent)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-04-17. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

I think you're conflating a/o confusing a couple different things here.

First, "cutter" is not "instrumental". (At least in English!) In English grammar, **-er** is (among zillions of other uses) the morpheme that indicates "agent noun"; so, *cutter* means "thing that cuts". It is the actual agent by which cutting happens.

The **[Instrumental Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case)** is a grammatical function that indicates the means by which the agent or subject of the verb does the action:

* I-subj cut-verb the.box-obj (with.a.box.cutter)-instr.

If English had case endings like Latin, you could see the difference easily:

* Puer-NOM cistam-ACC cultello-ABL secavit-VERB

Latin uses the ablative case to denote the instrumental case, due to ancient case syncretism of the old ablative, locative and instrumental cases.

**[-ise / -ize](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ize)**, in English, is a grammatical morpheme that indicates the word is a denominal verb. This means that the verb in question is made from a noun. We already know that English weirds. It verbs nouns at the drop of a hat.

* I will **hammer** him if he attacks me with the knife.

Your example, "I will hammerise him if he attacks me with a knife", doesn't actually make sense in context. This is because **-ise** doesn't mean "use something as an instrument", it means "turn something into something else".

* Immigrants ought to be *Americanised* through educational programmes.
* The machine *pulverises* large pieces of stone into gravel.

---

I think your best bet, as far as "converse" of or "opposite" of the instrumental case, would be the

**noninstrumental case**, which I just made up. It does what the instrumental case does, only in the other direction. Essentially, the speaker denies the instrumentality of the named article.

* Puer-NOM cistam-ACC cultellei-NONINST secavit-VERB

I considered "deinstrumental", but that's already a thing (a noun or verb made upon an instrumental form).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "English weirds"—love it. Conflating, yes, but I thought I said as much in my post. English doesn't have distinct grammatical forms for what I was trying to describe, and I don't actually know Latin—just enough to explore Latinate English forms and/or be dangerous and/or get conlang ideas.  
> **username_0**: Revisiting (much later!) and accepting. I do disagree with you that "-ise" can't be instrumental. I don't recall now what specific example I was thinking of at the time, though I'm sure I had one! But I do have an example now where it's clearly not "turn into the thing", and is *arguably* instrumental: "brutalise". If I brutalise someone, I *use* brutality on them.  

---

