"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: "
Courage" 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" (
OED). 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.
The
OED 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".
www.m-w.com tells us that it's from the
Portuguese valorizar, which is in turn from the
Medieval Latin "
valor". 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?)
nouns 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 (
soil banks, 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.