Do we have any cases where the Romans intentionally conjugated a noun or adjective into a verb? This is common in English and other modern languages, so I'm assuming it is a natural concept. However, it seems that the Romans didn't often think of their grammar, as there do not appear to be native words for verb, noun, etc.
There are at least some cases in which this can be done, with different shades of meaning.
graecisso (-izo), āre, v. n., = Γραικίζω, to imitate the Greeks, to adopt a Grecian manner or tone: atque adeo hoc argumentum graecissat; tamen Non atticissat; verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 7; v. Ritschl ad h. l.: graecizat, Consent. 1063 P.
atticisso, āre, v. n., = ἀττικίζω, to imitate the Athenian manner of speaking: hoc argumentum graecissat, tamen non atticissat, verum sicilicissitat, Plaut. Men. prol. 12; App. Flor. n. 18, p. 362, 12.
sicilisso or sicelisso, āre, v. n. Siculi, to imitate Sicilian manners: hoc argumentum graecissat: tamen Non atticissat, verum sicelissat, Plaut. Men. prol. 8; v. Ritschl ad h. l.
And then there are some in -or:
cornīcor, āri, v. dep. cornix, to caw like a crow (very rare): quid grave secum inepte, Pers. 5, 12; cf. Prisc. p. 828 P.; Hier. Ep. 125, n. 16.
rhētorico, āvi, 1 (ante-class.), and rhētoricor, āri, v. dep. (post-class.) [rhetoricus], to speak rhetorically or like an orator, Novat. ap. Non. 476, 6 (Com. Rel. p. 216 Rib.); act. form, Tert. Res. Carn. 5.
(Though I'll note that there's also rhētorisso, āre,.)
My understanding is that this tendency is more common in ancient Greek than in Latin, but that's just from something my first Greek teacher said ten thousand years ago, so it could be totally wrong.
In any case, it seems to be fairly rare; then again, it's fairly rare in English too—we might talk about somebody "Clinton-izing" something or "Coulter-izing" something (sorry, politics on the brain), but not very often.
EDIT: An explanation from a different angle from 1841's Linguæ Grammaticæ Rudimenta:
A noun can be turned into a verb in Latin. But since both nouns and verbs have endings — quite incompatible ones one might add — an adjective cannot work as a verb as such. Instead, slight modifications are needed.
In other words, verbs can be derived from nouns. In English nouns and verbs can look alike, and the derivation need not do anything to the word, other than reinterpreting it as a verb.
Consider these derivations with minimal changes to the word, for example:
laus, thank > laudare, thank
vulnus, wound > vulnerare, wound
liber, free > liberare, free
finis, end > finire, end
We can see how miles, -itis was adapted in milito, militare, and I seem to recall that corinthio, -are was "to work in Corinthian brass", so the short answer would be "yes".
I think that, with a bit of imagination, you could conduct a simple search to find or verify other examples.
There are certainly expressions for verb, recorded in some of the best writers, distinguishing verba agentia, verba neutra and verba patiendi. A proper noun is simply nomen propria, and so on.
These are just denominative verbs and are quite common. From Allen & Greenough 258 (q.v.): "Verbs were formed in Latin from almost every from of noun-stem and adjective-stem."
purus adj 'pure' (more simply than other examples given) becomes puro (rare) ritually purify.
And vivus, lifegiving, becomes vivo, I live, So therefore:
butyro melleque vivo puro
can be (Gilgamesh) "I purify with life-giving butter and honey;" or (Winnie ille Pooh) "I live off pure butter and honey."