saluton!

i was reading some Calvin & Hobbes comics when i came across this strip:
http://www.unmemorabletitle.co.uk/wp-content/uploa...

it made me think about how that's so not an issue in Esperanto, but i couldn't help but attempt a translation. so here it is. i think i did it well, but perhaps you can think of alternatives.

C: mi ŝatas verbigi vortojn.
H: kio?
C: mi prenas substantivojn kaj adjektivojn kaj uzas tiujn kiel verboj. ĉu memoru kiam "aliro" estis aĵo? nun ĝi estas io kion vi faras. ĝi verbiĝis. verbigi strangigas lingvon.
H: eble ni povos fine fari lingvon kiel kompleta malhelpaĵo por kompreni.

any feedback is welcome.

C: Mi ŝatas verbigi vortojn.
H: Kio?
C: Mi prenas substantivojn kaj adjektivojn kaj uzas tiujn kiel verbojn. Ĉu vi memoras kiam "parko" estis agrabla loko? Nun "parki" estas io kion aŭtomobilisto faras. Ĝi verbiĝis. Verbigi strangigas la lingvon.
H: Eble ni povos fine fari lingvon malhelpilo por kompreni.

There are, of course, very few instances in Esperanto where verbigo of a headword noun 'strangigas'.

Another example perhaps where the verb has acquired an independent meaning is 'pirati', now meaning the action of reproducing something without respecting the copyright.

"aliro" isn't good word, it is a noun made of verb.
"parko"/"parki" isn't good also - we don't see any autos at the picture, they go somewhere at the last picture.
"access" is "way to the place", "vojo al la loko" in Esperanto, but we need one word, so let's use "vojo", "voji" means "to be on the way".

About "pirati": One of the first things "piratos" had stolen, is "Hamlet". If they didn't do it, we didn't know the text of the work.

Vojo/voji is a clever idea for the translation. Voji has strangeness. You can find survojas in the Tekstaro but no instances of 'voj' in verbal use.

However the perfect solution would be a word which has a history of being only used as a noun in Esperanto and then subsequently started being used a verb.

The small boy says 'Remember when 'access' was a thing? Now it's something you do'.

Ahh yes! What about "krokodilo" --> "krokodili?"

There are perhaps two separate ways in Esperanto in which verbigo may be strange.

There are of course quite a few cases where in the real world there is no action associated with a concept. So tabli, mari, glasi etc would - outside poetry with its abandonment of common sense - be strange for this reason.

But they do not undermine any principle of Esperanto, and if a common action in the real world became to be seen as being associated with tablo, maro, glaso, then tabli, mari glasi, would immediately be legitimate forms.

This is arguably the case with the noun verb pairs fumo/fumi, lumo/lumi, floro/flori, planto/planti.

This seems to be different to the strangeness of parko/parki where the meaning link between noun and verb is somewhat tenuous, and where some uncertainty is created as to further derivation. Should one say aŭtoparko or aŭtoparkejo?

The history of krokodilo is that at first it was a reptile, then it became also a person, then krokodili became the action of the person. Currently there is some uncertainty as to whether someone who krokodilas is a krokodilanto or a krokodilo.

Again, can one speak of the pirato of a book (tiu kiu piratis libron) or must that be piratanto?

Maybe the issue here is the extent to which uncertainty is subsequently created as to the meaning of further derivations and perhaps the distinction I opened with in this post is not so clear cut at all.