OSNews

Iggy Drougge: Sorry, my mistake. Generic has an intransitive use as well, forgot about that.

Null pointer: That would make rajan r's sentence pure nonsense, for you are now saying that he is making the non-existant object of the sentence more generic.

Eh? I'm saying that Rajan uses the verb "generic" in the intransitive sense. Intransitive verbs have no object, that's their nature.

...my screen name is never to be capitalized.

Then it can't be a name.

As for the brick example... No-one is forbidding you from making a verb out of the noun "brick". Its meaning isn't all that apparent, though. But that is a cultural thing. The English grammar certainly doesn't prevent you from doing it. It could be useful amongst violent demonstrators, for example. Brick the pigs! Doesn't that sound like an efficient use of your new verb?
The English language doesn't have any infinitive suffix for regular verbs. Nor does it have any suffix in present tense, apart from third person singular. Or, one could argue that it's got a "zero suffix". A null pointer, so to say.
This makes the noun/verb distinction a bit fuzzy, but English does nevertheless follow much the same verb creation rules as other Germanic languages.
After all, we've got "stone", which is both a noun and a verb, so why not "brick" as well?
Another good example is Bill Gate$. He was "caked" in Belgium a few years ago. The Belgian cakers love caking famous, stuck-up people. IOW, they throw cakes at them.

BTW, smileys often fly below my radar, but rest assured that my replies have been in a humourous nature as well.