"Here comes Johnny M. again,
with the OED
etymology . . ."
-- Iggy Pop, "Lust for Language"
Have a look at Webster 1913
's take on "valor
". Sense 1 is "value
", not "courage
", and it's the same with the OED
" comes in at sense 3. The OED
's sense 1 is "The amount in money, etc., that a thing is worth", and their sense 2 is "intrinsic
worth or merit
". Who knew?
Things change. "To valorize", the verb, is going by sense 1 in both of the above, with some extra specificity tacked on: "To raise or stabilize the value of (a commodity, etc.) by a centrally organized scheme; gen. to evaluate, to make valid"
). Their first print usage of "valorize" is 1921
, just in time for John Maynard Keynes
, and their first print usage of "valorization
" is 1907
. That's close; I doubt that the former is a back-formation
doesn't have much to say about etymology
. They have "valor
" derived directly from Medieval Latin
, meaning "price" or "value". They refer back to that in "valorization
" and "valorize".
tells us that it's from the Portuguese valorizar
, which is in turn from the Medieval Latin
". I don't believe the Portuguese
bit: It's too pat and too far-fetched at the same time. All it's really got going for it is the 'z', which is a standard way of verbizing (see what I mean?) noun
s in English
already. Since the noun
already existed in English
anyway (from Latin
, as advertised), I see no need to drag Portuguese
into it: "Etymologies should not be multiplied beyond necessity
So there we have it: US agricultural policy
s, etc.) is for the most part a gargantuan valorization
scheme, for example. sensei
uses the term more figuratively in his Shinto writeup
. It's a good word. Don't use it.