Leave morphological derivation to the professionals.
In too early, I note that Chris quoted and used the word “securitisation”, which I’ve never ever seen before. I did a search via Google and found, to my surprise, 574K hits for it, and 1.38M if you spell it with a “z”. It’s obviously one of those pretentious, contrived Americanisms, a bit like the loathsome and odious “weaponize”, which, I assume, has been coined by someone trying to devise a term which sounds formal where the extension of some existing word would probably do. In this case, “securing” would seem to be adequate.
Nonetheless, from what I can tell, the word does have a meaning which “securing” may not be specific enough to encompass without the meaning being uncertain or ambiguous (although there’s no reason why “securing” couldn’t have gained a specialised sense of which the rest of the world would remain blissfully unaware). It seems to be principally used in the world of finance in the matter of loans, but is also used in international relations where it seems to mean the use of security concerns as an excuse for a particular undertaking.
I think my biggest problem with the word is how artificial it is as a blend of “security” and “-isation”. In my English, the suffix “-ity” is the end of the line. After that, it’s not possible to add any further derivational morphemes. I can pluralise it and, er, that’s it. The word “secure” is both a verb (e.g. “I secured the loan”) and an adjective (e.g. “The loan is secure”). There seems to be no need to add “-ify” or “-ise” to make the adjective factitive since the verb already does that. Strangely, I find that while “securification” sounds odd, I’m less bothered by “securisation”, which gets 272K hits via Google. Spelling the word with a “z” gets a mere 11K and gets a message “See results for: securitization” at the top of the page, whereas the former gets much the same message (but the s-spelling) a little further down. Of course, “securisation” does not necessarily imply “securise” or “securisate”. A non-native speaker with a sufficient knowledge of English might guess that “derivation” and “renovation” come from “derive” or “derivate” and “renove” or “renovate”, but could not be certain without consulting a dictionary. It’s one of the numerous quirks of the English language.
Let securitisation stay in the world of banking where, no doubt, it does a good job as part of the obfuscatory gibberish of high finance. But I’d rather not be exposed to such morphological Frankenstein’s monsters myself.
[09.11.13. I also note such morphological mutants as “monetize” as some means of avoiding the phrase “make money” or the verb “profit (from)”. The word also sounds aggressive and military. Since I wrote this entry, I’ve never seen “securitisation” again. Perhaps “surety” might also have been a better choice.]