Nominalization through back-formation or unclear formation

[Lusus Naturae]

Wiktionary says vigia is "back-formation from vigiar".
Is the derivation in instances such as Sforza < sforzare the same type of nominalization? How common is it in Romance languages?
Is the derivation in instances such as scherzo < scherzare the same type of back-formation?

Wiktionary says pappardella is "derivative from pappare, of unclear formation". Is -ardella<-are just one of the many types of irregular formation? Could you help me gather some of those types?

 

[symposium]

Hi, Lusus! I am no linguist, but I've always thought that making verbs out of nouns was a common thing in almost every language. You have a noun and you can turn it into a verb, some way or the other. In English for example you add "to" to a noun and it becomes a verb; in Romance languages you usually add -are, -ar, -er to a noun in order to create your verb. It's quite common and easy in all languages I have a smattering of; possibly Chinese doesn't work that way...

 

[Dymn]

Is the derivation in instances such as Sforza < sforzare the same type of nominalization? How common is it in Romance languages?
Is the derivation in instances such as scherzo < scherzare the same type of back-formation?

It's quite common. Back-formation can either lead to a masculine or a feminine noun, although my feeling is that masculine nouns are way more common here. I also think French makes less ample use of this mechanism, maybe because adding a suffix usually takes less syllables and often due to final consonant dropping back-formation words would become undistinguishable. Comparing it to Spanish: avortement-aborto, paiement-pago, destination-destino, amélioration-mejora, citation-cita, etc.

Wiktionary says pappardella is "derivative from pappare, of unclear formation". Is -ardella<-are just one of the many types of irregular formation? Could you help me gather some of those types?

I think so. This kind of words tend to be colloquial in meaning. In Spanish: escupir>escupitajo, pisar>pisotón,... And I can't think of any more at the moment.

 

[Swatters]

I also think French makes less ample use of this mechanism, maybe because adding a suffix usually takes less syllables and often due to final consonant dropping back-formation words would become undistinguishable. Comparing it to Spanish: avortement-aborto, paiement-pago, destination-destino, amélioration-mejora, citation-cita, etc.

Suffixless deverbal nouns are rather productive in Contemporary French actually.

In older vocabulary strata (some of them had a suffix that eroded away, but they form the model for the modern stratum):

Payer - la paie
Appeler - l'appel (m.)
Envoyer - l'envoi (m.)
Couper - la coupe
Marcher - la marche
Nager - la nage
Courir - la course (< an old form of the past participle of courir)

Modern stratum (all the nouns are feminine):

Arracher - à l'arrache (to tear off - hurriedly)
Gagner - la gagne
Lecher - la lèche (to lick - flattery)
Bouffer - la bouffe
Aguicher - L'aguiche (seduce - seduction)