Civilized or Civilised?
The Devil's Advocate
civilized. I heard that civilised was archaic and it is now spelled
with the "z." If anybody knows for sure, please let me know. Thanks.
Remove NO-JUNK to email
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
-=The Devil's Advocate=-
http://surf.to/advocate
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
The Devil's Advocate
The Devil's Advocate
StuFin10
Parliament) seems to use the spelling with a z.
Also, web searches in Britain/ Europe for the two spellings seem to indicate
the z is five times more common.
The OED lists the 's' spellings as a variant of 'z', while Chambers prefers
's'.
And the final factor in favour of 'z' is that MS Word spell-checker goes for
-ised.
This is interesting, because it's one of the few words where the 'z' is clearly
more popular in British English, while writing for instance 'realize' instead
of 'realise' would be judged an americanism.
Stuart Finlayson
(stuart.f...@usa.net)
Tabbie
up using civilised but then I'm Australian not British.
The Devil's Advocate wrote in message
<35c0039f...@news.earthlink.net>...
Daniel James
wrote:
> I am wondering if the modern British spelling is civilised or
> civilized. I heard that civilised was archaic and it is now spelled
> with the "z." If anybody knows for sure, please let me know. Thanks.
>
The -ise form is the result of spelling 'reforms' in British English
during the last century, and comes from a (usually mistaken) assumption
that words with that ending have come into English from French. So, if
"civilise" is taken to be from the French "civiliser" it must be spelt
thusly.
On the other hand, most words having that ending came originally from
Greek, where the Greek ending -izo is spelt with a zeta not a sigma,
and would normally transliterate to 'z' rather than 's'. This suggests
that we should use the spelling "civilize".
In America the 'z' form seems to be universal, but in Britain 's' is
found at least as often as 'z', though the justification for 's' is
weak (as is the justification for the 'u' in colour, but that's another
story).
There are, however, a few words that owe nothing at all to Greek, and
in these words there is no justification for the 'z' spelling (on
either side of the Atlantic). Words such as "devise", "surmise", and
"surprise" fall into this category, and should always be spelt with an
's'.
One excuse for using -ise in all words - even those that would be
better spelt with -ize - is that it saves having to learn enough Greek
to know which words do /not/ require the 's' spelling.
Another word to ponder on is "analyse" (which is from Greek, thought it
is does not have an -izo ending) which should always be spelt with an
's', but is often, if not always, spelt "analyze" in the United States.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Stephen Wilson
> In America the 'z' form seems to be universal, but in Britain 's' is
> found at least as often as 'z', though the justification for 's' is
> weak (as is the justification for the 'u' in colour, but that's another
> story).
I, for one, want to hear the story about the justification for the u in
colour. Does it apply to harbour and favour as well? Frankly, I had
always assumed that we Americans had just dropped a letter to save time
and ink.
Steve
the jungle kitty
I grew up with the understanding that Americans used "z" and dropped the
"u" as to distinguish ourselves from the English. This going back to
the American Revolution and post-war propoganda.
JUST AN H
sides of the Atlantic, just as English continues to evolve differently within
the States. To say that Americans write "civilize" and "honor" to distinguish
ourselves from the British is like saying that midwestern Americans say "soda
pop" to distinguish themselves from New Englanders, who say "soda" or "tonic."
Daniel James
> I, for one, want to hear the story about the justification for the u in
> colour. Does it apply to harbour and favour as well? Frankly, I had
> always assumed that we Americans had just dropped a letter to save time
> and ink.
>
"colour" (and, yes, "harbour", "favour", "honour", and the like) was an
affectation on the part of soi-disant intelligentsia of eighteenth and
nineteenth century England, who believed that the words originated in
French, and should therefour have a 'u' in them somewhere (as in
"couleur" - which is clearly spelt /exactly/ the same as "colour"). It
was also my understanding that as these changes were applied after the
initial influx of English-speaking settlers to North America the language
in that part of the world had not been affected.
I'm glad I looked it up before I said that, though, as it seems that I
was wrong. The justification for spelling these words with a 'u' is
stronger than I thought.
The OED lists a variety of changes and spellings - such as "colure" and
"culler" - between the Latin "color" and English "colour", and notes that
"colour", corresponding to late Anglo-French practice, has been the
normal spelling in England from the 14th Century; but that "color" has
been used, chiefly under Latin influence from the 15th Century and is now
the prevalent spelling in the US." The OED has much more to say on the
subject - under "colour" as well as other entries such as "honour" - and
is well worth a look if you're interested.
I note also that Fowler (Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2nd Edition
(revised by Sir Ernest Gowers); Oxford University Press, 1983; ISBN
0-19-281389-7) - one of my favourite references - refers to "The American
abolition of /-our/ in such words as /honour/ and /favour/ ...", and
suggests that the 'u' may one day also be dropped from the English
spelling.
It is worth noting that even in Britain, where "colour" and "honour" are
the normal spellings of those words; "coloration" is normally used rather
than "colouration"; and "honorary" and "honorific" rather than
"honourary" or "honourific". Some words, such as "hono[u]rable" may be
spelt with or without the 'u'.
Cheers,
Daniel James
CaseyKCKC
>"u" as to distinguish ourselves from the English. This going back to
>the American Revolution and post-war propoganda.
It is my understanding that Noah Webster, in creating the first American
English dictionary, used "...or" and "...ize" in an attempt to rationalize,
standardize and simplify the spelling of words (he was a reformer but somewhat
more realistic than reformers who came along later, such as G.B. Shaw, who
wanted the spelllings of all words to reflect their pronunciation).
However, there can be no doubt that nationalistic pride contributed to
Webster's zeal -- and to the American public's ready adoption of his
dictionary as the standard reference.
And I suspect the shrewd Webster was not unaware of the marketing advantages of
differentiating American spelling from British. His only competitors, at first,
were British.
Karen
Tabbie
Not while I'm around it won't. Nor will metre become meter or modelling
modeling etc.
I read 1984 while I was still young enough to understand its warning. I am
not going to let my culture and heritage be concealed by sloppy spelling.
christopher larsen
>Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> > In America the 'z' form seems to be universal, but in Britain 's' is
>> > found at least as often as 'z', though the justification for 's' is
>> > weak (as is the justification for the 'u' in colour, but that's another
>> > story).
>>
>> colour. Does it apply to harbour and favour as well? Frankly, I had
>> always assumed that we Americans had just dropped a letter to save time
>> and ink.
>>
>
>
>I grew up with the understanding that Americans used "z" and dropped the
>"u" as to distinguish ourselves from the English. This going back to
>the American Revolution and post-war propoganda.
Webster was a great supporter of American English and the development of a
national idiom seperate from the British. However there is more to it than the
anti-brit feelings in the US in the post-revolutionary perieod. I believe the
differences in spelling were codified by Webster as the first step in a much
much much more ambitious plan completely revise all English spelling along
*purely phonetic lines*. That is why the French "re" ending as in centre were
changed to er. THe U from honor, and favour was removed as being superflous
while ize was adopted as being more phoneticly correct. Had Websters entire
system been adopted, we in the US would spell the same phoneme the same way
in every word. The "ite" sound in right, write, sight, height, site, would be
spelled the same. The spelling of Gaol was changed to jail so that it would
match hail and mail in phonetic terms. This was felt to be in line with the
political changes which occured. Just as we had taken the traditional English
liberties and improved upon them, it was felt that we should do the same with
language. Many prominant Americans such as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and
Madison all supported spelling reforms because it would greatly rationalize
the language. Indeed Franklin had a competing set of proposed reforms to
standardize and rationalize English spelling and grammar. Rather than being
the result of us benighted, rebellious, ungrateful ex-colonials not knowing
any better, it was actually due to a rather elaborate set of
preconcieved rational refoms to improve English. However, only the first few
changes were instituted. For some reason the rest of Websters or Franklin's
proposals never were accepted.
Daniel James
wrote:
> It is my understanding that Noah Webster, in creating the first American
> English dictionary, used "...or" and "...ize" in an attempt to rationalize,
Interesting. In which words that might otherwise have been spelt differently
did Webster use "...or"?
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> A ready contrast between Canadian and U.S. spelling would have disabused
> you of that notion.
>
I daresay. Please enlighten me. How do Canadian and U.S. spellings differ?
Cheers,
Daniel James
JR Pelland
For instance, we usually spell centre, metre and litre, but we never
spell tyre, aluminium and kerb.
We also distinguish between the verb license and the noun licence(same
thing with practise/practice). We write cheques and check our mail.
Canadians usually prefer to maintain the u in words such as neigbour and
labour, but some printed media use the "or" spelling.
As far as pronunciation, we usually call the last letter f the alphabet
zed not zee. In the military the rank of lieutenant is pronunced
leftenant. Of course, people in the military work for national defence.
JR Pelland
>
> Daniel James wrote:
> > I daresay. Please enlighten me. How do Canadian and U.S. spellings differ?
>
> British spelling. And it's in constant flux.
>
> Newspapers here seem to have dabbled with 'color', 'humor', 'center' and
> 'meter'; and now they've switched back to 'colour', 'humour', 'centre' and
> 'metre'. The use of 'lite' and 'nite' for 'light' and 'night' is rarely
> seen, except in brand names, like 'lite beer'. As for '-ise' vs. '-ize',
> I'm not even sure any more which form is used in Canadian spelling.
> Single words which don't fall into a common pattern are usually spelt U.S.
> style (e.g. 'tire' not 'tyre', 'jail' not 'gaol').
>
> The U.S. spelling system was subject to deliberate attempts at reform
> (Webster, Franklin), which Canadian spelling never was. Also, the larger
> presence of French in Canada may have had some influence in retaining
> '-our' and '-tre' endings.
While this may be true to some extent, some Canadians recognise the "re"
endings as French and then assume that "er" is English. This is
especially true of francophones in Quebec. The French influence may also
partially explain the well maintained distinction between cheque and
check.
It should also be noted that education is a provincial responsibility in
Canada, which could account for some of the regional differences.
Jean-Richard
>
> "Canadians spend half their time trying to convince the British that
> they're not Americans, and the other half trying to convince the Americans
> that they're not British." -- (sorry, can't remember the source)
>
> --
> Bill Donovan / bd....@gtn.net
JUST AN H
kid growing up in New England, I took it for granted that the French influence
predominated. (Lots of French Canadian tourists visited in Summer, and pocket
change invariably contained Canadian coins, which was fine because most stores
accepted Canadian money.)
My first exposure to real British influence on Canada occured years later, here
in Colorado. I was working my first job at a law firm, and a law firm in
Saskatchewan mailed us some legal documents. The jurisdiction on the documents
was styled, "THE QUEEN'S BENCH." That was so fascinating to an 18 year old
American that I never forgot it.
After that, I've often wondered if it's an issue among the Quebecois
(especially among Separatists) to have their cases heard before The Queen's (or
King's) Bench.
Daniel James
> We also distinguish between the verb license and the noun licence(same
> thing with practise/practice). We write cheques and check our mail.
>
It's odd that these words should cause so much difficulty to
USA-type-Americans who seem, nevertheless, to manage "devise" and
"device" correctly.
Thanks for your quick run-down on Canadian spellings. How do you spell
"kerb" if not thusly?
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> I've not seen tyre for a long time.
>
Really? Which country have you been visiting?
Actually my car has "tires" (that's what the rubber things on the
wheels have written on them, anyway) but they came from the local "Tyre
and Exhaust Centre". Either they're imported or I've been sold the
wrong thing!
I don't think I've never seen "tire" used by a British writer - or if I
have I assumed incorrectly that the writer was foreign.
Cheers,
Daniel James
JR Pelland
We spell it curb, the same as the Americans.
Jean-Richard
janelaw
>
> JR Pelland (jrpe...@cyberbeach.net) wrote:
> > Daniel James wrote:
> > >
> > > I daresay. Please enlighten me. How do Canadian and U.S. spellings differ?
> > >
> > For instance, we usually spell centre, metre and litre, but we never
> > spell tyre, aluminium and kerb.
> >
>
This made me wonder. Do Canadians say, "I've not...," or "I
haven't...?"
Daniel James
> We spell it curb, the same as the Americans.
>
Hmm. Interesting. We (in the UK) use kerb specifically to mean an
(often stone) border; especially the border of a raised pavement (i.e.
sidewalk) but also the border of, for example, a flower-bed.
We use the spelling "Curb" for the verb, and also for the noun
indicating a limiting factor or a restraint, as in "The Chancellor
wants to put a curb on public spending" (you probably knew this). I
hadn't thought of using that spelling for the pavement edge.
Cheers,
Daniel James
JUST AN H
because it prevents (curbs) rainwater and street debris from sloshing up onto
the sidewalks.
Pk2222
pk
American, nevertheless, a devoted follower of T.S. Eliot across the waves.
matthew...@gmail.com
> In article <35c0039f...@news.earthlink.net>, The Devil's Advocate
> wrote:
> > I am wondering if the modern British spelling is civilised or
> > civilized. I heard that civilised was archaic and it is now spelled
> > with the "z." If anybody knows for sure, please let me know. Thanks.
> >
>
> The -ise form is the result of spelling 'reforms' in British English
> during the last century, and comes from a (usually mistaken) assumption
> that words with that ending have come into English from French. So, if
> "civilise" is taken to be from the French "civiliser" it must be spelt
> thusly.
>
> On the other hand, most words having that ending came originally from
> Greek, where the Greek ending -izo is spelt with a zeta not a sigma,
> and would normally transliterate to 'z' rather than 's'. This suggests
> that we should use the spelling "civilize".
>
> found at least as often as 'z', though the justification for 's' is
> weak (as is the justification for the 'u' in colour, but that's another
> story).
>
> in these words there is no justification for the 'z' spelling (on
> either side of the Atlantic). Words such as "devise", "surmise", and
> "surprise" fall into this category, and should always be spelt with an
> 's'.
>
> One excuse for using -ise in all words - even those that would be
> better spelt with -ize - is that it saves having to learn enough Greek
> to know which words do /not/ require the 's' spelling.
>
> Another word to ponder on is "analyse" (which is from Greek, thought it
> is does not have an -izo ending) which should always be spelt with an
> 's', but is often, if not always, spelt "analyze" in the United States.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel James
Regards,
Matt
occam
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Not reading all relevant messages:
"s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Mr. Man-wai Chang
>
> You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> Not reading all relevant messages:
>
> "s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
>
> You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
>
major difference in pronunciation.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Straightly speaking, "z" and "s" should sound a little bit differently.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> On 18/1/2018 23:44, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 January 2018 14:25:30 UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> >> Not reading all relevant messages:
> >>
> >> "s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
> >> You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
> >>
> > Do we? The letters are named differently but I don't think there's any
> > major difference in pronunciation.
>
> Pronunciation or meaning?
>
> Straightly speaking, "z" and "s" should sound a little bit differently.
>
There is no difference in pronunciation or meaning between
'sympathise' and 'sympathize' and both would be considered correct
spellings in UK though there is a tendency to prefer '-ise'.
semir...@my-deja.com
>Not reading all relevant messages:
>"s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
>You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
1 As other posters have written "-ise" and "-ise" have the same pronunciation
because the letter "s" is sometimes unvoiced and sometimes voiced.
2 the letter "z" is called "zed" in Britain and "zee" in America.
3 "are pronouncing" is not the best English for your question, "pronounce"
is better.
(reference present simple tense vs. present continuous tense.)
4 Are you asking "how?" or "why?"
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 2:25:30 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> >Not reading all relevant messages:
> >"s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
> >You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
>
> This is a 20 year old thread from 1998!
>
> 1 As other posters have written "-ise" and "-ise" have the same pronunciation
> because the letter "s" is sometimes unvoiced and sometimes voiced.
> 2 the letter "z" is called "zed" in Britain and "zee" in America.
> 3 "are pronouncing" is not the best English for your question, "pronounce"
> is better.
> (reference present simple tense vs. present continuous tense.)
nothing wrong with continuous.
> 4 Are you asking "how?" or "why?"
be as well to learn to read with full comprehension! This is quite
plainly a rhetorical "You know?" in which the 'how' is not an
interrogative at all!
semir...@my-deja.com
>On Saturday, 20 January 2018 13:37:11 UTC, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 2:25:30 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>Not reading all relevant messages:
>>>"s" vs "z" is usually a USA vs Britain problem, which always puzzles me.
>>>You know how Britain and Americans are pronouncing "z" differently? :)
>>This is a 20 year old thread from 1998!
>Well yeah. They would!
>>2 the letter "z" is called "zed" in Britain and "zee" in America.
>Really? Well stap me sideways and knock me down with a brick!
>>3 "are pronouncing" is not the best English for your question, "pronounce"
>> is better.
>> (reference present simple tense vs. present continuous tense.)
>Matter of opinion! Presumably they still are pronouncing it that way so
>nothing wrong with continuous.
>>4 Are you asking "how?" or "why?"
>Clearly neither. If you're going to get all superior about things it might
>be as well to learn to read with full comprehension! This is quite
>plainly a rhetorical "You know?" in which the 'how' is not an
>interrogative at all!
Underlying question - clue "puzzles"
Anton Shepelev
As far as I know from reading, English did not have
the -ize suffix until relatively late, so why not
stick with the original -ise, which looks softer and
is more pleasing to the eye? For what is 'S' if not
the line of beauty of William Hogarth?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Mr. Man-wai Chang
> 2 the letter "z" is called "zed" in Britain and "zee" in America.
In Cantonese, "2" is pronounced as "yee"!
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
which is also the earliest occurrence of the word.
"Baptize" goes back to 1297. The truth is that both
"-ise" and "ize" co-existed quite happily in BrE for
many centuries and even Johnson's Dictionary did
not attempt to standardize/standardise the spelling.
It has 'civilize' but also 'civilised' and 'civilisation'.
semir...@my-deja.com
>>2 the letter "z" is called "zed" in Britain and "zee" in America.
>In Hong Kong, TVB pronounces it as "yee-zed"! ;)
>In Cantonese, "2" is pronounced as "yee"!
>--
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Mr. Man-wai Chang
>>
>> If "2" is "yee" what then is "1"?
>
> "1" is "yat"!
Glenn Knickerbocker
> As far as I know from reading, English did not have
> the -ize suffix until relatively late, so why not
> stick with the original -ise, which looks softer and
> is more pleasing to the eye?
spelling reforms in the US. It also included some spectacularly
unsuccessful ones, as seen here:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53723/26-noah-webster
¬R
Athel Cornish-Bowden
in the 1970s.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Re: Civilized or Civilised
>
> As far as I know from reading, English did not have
> the -ize suffix until relatively late, so why not
> stick with the original -ise, which looks softer and
> is more pleasing to the eye? For what is 'S' if not
> the line of beauty of William Hogarth?
went as far as writing "surprized" around 1800.
--
athel