innovate

The word 'innovate' entered English in the mid-sixteenth century from Latin 'innovātus,' the past pa‌​‍​‍​‌​‍​‍​‍​‍​‍​‍​‍​‌​‍​‌​‍​‍​‌​‍​‍​‌​‌​‍​‌​‌​‌​‍​‍​‍​‍​‌​‌​‍rticiple of 'innovāre,' meaning 'to renew,' 'to alter,' or 'to change.' The Latin verb combines 'in-' (into) with 'novāre' (to make new), from 'novus' (new), descended from PIE *néwos (new). To innovate is, at its etymological root, 'to make into something new.'

The PIE adjective *néwos is one of the most stable words in the reconstructed proto-language, appearing with barely altered form across every branch. Latin 'novus,' Greek 'néos' (νέος), Sanskrit 'návas,' Old English 'nīwe' (modern 'new'), German 'neu,' Russian 'novyj,' Welsh 'newydd,' Lithuanian 'naujas,' and Hittite 'newas' all descend from the same source. The word has been in continuous use for at least six thousand years.

Through Latin 'novus': 'novel' (both the adjective meaning 'new' and the literary genre — a 'new' form of prose fiction), 'novelty' (something new), 'novice' (a newcomer, one new to a role), 'renovate' (to make new again), 'nova' (a star that suddenly brightens — apparently a 'new' star), and 'November' (originally the ninth month in the Roman calendar, not directly from 'novus' but from 'novem,' nine — a coincidence of sound). Through Greek 'néos': 'neon' (the 'new' gas, so named because it was newly discovered in 1898), 'neologism' (a new word), 'Neolithic' (new stone age), and 'neonatal' (pertaining to newborns).

The cultural history of 'innovate' is one of the most dramatic semantic reversals in English. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 'innovation' was overwhelmingly negative. To innovate meant to dangerously alter established customs, traditions, or institutions. Religious conservatives accused reformers of 'innovation' as a charge — innovating in matters of faith was tantamount to heresy. Political conservatives used 'innovation' as an accusation: Edmund Burke wrote of 'a spirit of innovation' as a destructive force. Francis Bacon, while more sympathetic, noted that 'it is good also not to try experiments in states, except the necessity be urgent or the utility evident.'

The positive reversal began in the nineteenth century with the Industrial Revolution, accelerated through the twentieth century, and reached its zenith in the twenty-first-century technology industry, where 'innovation' became perhaps the single most valued corporate virtue. The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) was influential in reframing innovation as the engine of economic progress through his theory of 'creative destruction.' By the late twentieth century, 'innovate' had completed its transformation from a term of suspicion to one of the highest compliments in business, technology, and public discourse.

The word now appears so frequently in corporate and political language that critics have noted its dilution. When every product update and organizational reorganization is called an 'innovation,' the word loses its force. The linguist Steven Poole included 'innovation' among the examples of 'unspeak' — words whose positive connotations are exploited to sell ideas that might not withstand scrutiny.

The native English cognate 'new' has never undergone this semantic roller coaster. 'New' has been consistently positive (or neutral) throughout its history. The Latin borrowing 'innovate,' by contrast, had to fight through centuries of negative association before achieving its current status — a journey that itself illustrates how attitudes toward newness and change have shifted in Western culture.