priorize / prioritize

[Vetus Notus]

Both seem to be used. "Prioritize" seems to be more common, but
"priorize" sounds much better (to me). I'd like to use it, especially if
it is becoming increasingly common anyway. Please comment.

I have copied below an article dealing with the topic. It can be found
at:
http://www.usask.ca/communications/ocn/Feb19-99/misc.html

Getting our prioritizes right

Some time ago, someone pointed out to us that our use of the word
priorize was incorrect - that it should be prioritize.

The Random House Webster College Dictionary concurs: it has no entry for
priorize and defines prioritize as follows:

- v.t. 1. to arrange or do in order of priority. 2. to give a high
priority to. - v.i. 3. to organize material according to its priority.

So, duly corrected, we have since been careful not to use priorize.

Recently, however, Doug MacLean, of Mathematics and Statistics, phoned to
take issue with our use of the word prioritize in the January 8/99 OCN in
the following sentence:

"Respectfully reminding the government that $1 million spent on the
operating grant to the University generates a $4.25-million return to the
province's economy while noting that the U of S "has lost substantial
ground over the past 10 years," the 37-page Operations Forecast
prioritizes the University's complex of needs and aspirations into three
'tiers.'"

MacLean referred to an entry in Fowler's Modern English Usage (1996
edition) in which the current editor, R.W. Burchfield, offers the
following:

"prioritize. 'A word that at present sits uneasily in the language', I
commented in vol. iii of OEDS (1982). The comment remains valid except
that I could have indicated that the word has remained locked in the
jargon of business managers, politicians, and other officials, i.e.,
among people who sometimes like to dress up their documents and speeches
with high-sounding words. The word has not been found in print before
1968."

So there you are: priorize is not in the dictionary and prioritize is for
scuzzy politicians and business managers.

Next time we'll reverbicize.

[paulgbut...@gmail.com]

When people use PRIORIZE, I think of PRIOR, being the root of that word and know that is not the intent of the user, therefore it can create confusion.

PRIORITIZE has the root PRIORITY within the word and is congruent in meaning.

I do not think it is bafflegab. I think the use of Priorize is lazy.

BTW, it is the governmental managers that tend to use PRIORIZE in my experience. Just saying.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I find them both nasty and wouldn't use either. However, "prioritize"
is widely used, and I don't remember ever hearing "priorize" -- where
did you come across it?


--
athel

[Don Phillipson]

<paulgbut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeb94cde-fa63-46b3...@googlegroups.com...

> BTW, it is the governmental managers that tend to use PRIORIZE in my
> experience.

Probably so. The only people who need PRIORIZE are those who cannot
remember the verb RANK -- and democratic governments deliberately
avoid RANK because they know people dislike the suggestion insiders
rank higher than outsiders.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Is "priorize" used to mean the promotion of a monk?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Quinn C]

* paulgbut...@gmail.com:

> When people use PRIORIZE, I think of PRIOR, being the root of
> that word and know that is not the intent of the user,
> therefore it can create confusion.
>
> PRIORITIZE has the root PRIORITY within the word and is
> congruent in meaning.
>
> I do not think it is bafflegab. I think the use of Priorize is
> lazy.

If to prioritize means establishing priority, then to priorize
means establishing a priory. It's only logical.

--
Who would know aught of art must learn and then take his ease.

[Peter Moylan]

That is certainly the interpretation that occurred to me.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter T. Daniels]

In the 15-year-old message he responded to.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-04-19 22:01:04 +0000, Quinn C said:

> * paulgbut...@gmail.com:
>
>> When people use PRIORIZE, I think of PRIOR, being the root of
>> that word and know that is not the intent of the user,
>> therefore it can create confusion.
>>
>> PRIORITIZE has the root PRIORITY within the word and is
>> congruent in meaning.
>>
>> I do not think it is bafflegab. I think the use of Priorize is
>> lazy.
>
> If to prioritize means establishing priority, then to priorize
> means establishing a priory. It's only logical.

Yes, but logic isn't much of a guide to meaning.

--
athel

[RH Draney]

I know it's not polite to stare, but you could hardly priorize off her
cleavage....r

[Quinn C]

* Athel Cornish-Bowden:

Cor blimey!

--
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
wait for next year's model.
Andrew Tanenbaum, _Computer Networks_ (1981), p. 168.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-04-20 18:12:37 +0200, Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> said:

> * Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
>> On 2017-04-19 22:01:04 +0000, Quinn C said:
>>
>>> * paulgbut...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> When people use PRIORIZE, I think of PRIOR, being the root of
>>>> that word and know that is not the intent of the user,
>>>> therefore it can create confusion.
>>>>
>>>> PRIORITIZE has the root PRIORITY within the word and is
>>>> congruent in meaning.
>>>>
>>>> I do not think it is bafflegab. I think the use of Priorize is
>>>> lazy.
>>>
>>> If to prioritize means establishing priority, then to priorize
>>> means establishing a priory. It's only logical.
>>
>> Yes, but logic isn't much of a guide to meaning.
>
> Cor blimey!

You don't believe it? Maybe not, as you're German. My first wife worked
in a language school, of which most of the clients were German or
Spanish businessmen. The Germans were constantly complaining that
various characteristics of English were not logical.


--
athel

[mfw...@gmail.com]

Actually, if you go way back in time, or at least back to when I was in Grade School in the 1960's, there was no such word as PRIORITIZE. If a student used that word the teacher would respond stating "There is no such word as PRIORITIZE. You can either set your PRIORITIES or you can PRIORIZE what you are going to do. But you cannot use the word PRIORITIZE, it is not a word." At that time you would not find the word PRIORITIZE in the dictionary, you would find the word PRIORIZE. However, as we know English is a fluid language, and over time this common mistake that we as children frequently made got accepted and the word priorize not only fell out of favour, it fell out of the dictionary.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 18:42:59 UTC, mfw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually, if you go way back in time, or at least back to when I was in Grade School in the 1960's, there was no such word as PRIORITIZE. If a student used that word the teacher would respond stating "There is no such word as PRIORITIZE. You can either set your PRIORITIES or you can PRIORIZE what you are going to do. But you cannot use the word PRIORITIZE, it is not a word." At that time you would not find the word PRIORITIZE in the dictionary, you would find the word PRIORIZE. However, as we know English is a fluid language, and over time this common mistake that we as children frequently made got accepted and the word priorize not only fell out of favour, it fell out of the dictionary.

You had a teacher who wasn't keeping up with the times, then.
OED citations begin with the Reno Evening Gazette in 1954 in
an article noting how the word was firmly established amongst
government workers.

[Don P]

> On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 18:42:59 UTC, mfw...@gmail.com wrote:

>> . . . If a student used that word the teacher would respond stating "There is no such word as PRIORITIZE. You can either set your PRIORITIES or you can PRIORIZE what you are going to do. But you cannot use the word PRIORITIZE, it is not a word." At that time you would not find the word PRIORITIZE in the dictionary, you would find the word PRIORIZE. . . .

On 16/01/2018 4:50 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:

> You had a teacher who wasn't keeping up with the times, then.
> OED citations begin with the Reno Evening Gazette in 1954 in
> an article noting how the word was firmly established amongst
> government workers.

This seems twice appropriate.
(1) All government workers are notoriously vulnerable to
technical-sounding jargon. (The theory of good public administration
includes the assumption that "science" is always correct and
personalities do not count -- as if none of us had ever seen the
difference between a good and a bad team captain, chairlady, manager,
etc.)
(2) "Prioritize" (verb) means rank -- but most Americans dislike the
word rank because of its hint that one man can be better than another
man. For whatever reasons, other cultures see no such implications in
ranking (ranger in French), thus do not need the word prioritize.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

In my experience "prioritize" is used in BrE to refer to assigning
relative importance to tasks, targets, etc, rather than to ranking
people by their importance.

As here:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prioritize

1 Designate or treat (something) as being very or most important.
‘the department has failed to prioritize safety within the oil
industry’

1.1 Determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or
tasks) according to their relative importance.
‘age affects the way people prioritize their goals’

[David Kleinecke]

IMO "prioritize" means "assign priority" and relates to "prior"
only through the etymology of "priority".

Once upon a time assigning priorities meant arranging things in
the order in which they should be done. As a corollary if a worker
were somehow blocked from doing their first priority task they
should work on their second and if the second were also blocked
the third, etc.

Then came the notion - silly but widely used - of multiple
first priorities. Now the "first" have been drop and nothing
remains of "priority" except "important task".

The original idea of "priority" is a useful concept and I
hope the later deplorable developments will wither and vanish.

[snide...@gmail.com]

Only after a new term appears to capture the old concept.
Maybe "timelying".

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 6:53:39 PM UTC-5, Don P wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 18:42:59 UTC, mfw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> . . . If a student used that word the teacher would respond stating "There is no such word as PRIORITIZE. You can either set your PRIORITIES or you can PRIORIZE what you are going to do. But you cannot use the word PRIORITIZE, it is not a word." At that time you would not find the word PRIORITIZE in the dictionary, you would find the word PRIORIZE. . . .
>
> On 16/01/2018 4:50 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>
> > You had a teacher who wasn't keeping up with the times, then.
> > OED citations begin with the Reno Evening Gazette in 1954 in
> > an article noting how the word was firmly established amongst
> > government workers.
>
> This seems twice appropriate.
> (1) All government workers are notoriously vulnerable to
> technical-sounding jargon. (The theory of good public administration
> includes the assumption that "science" is always correct and
> personalities do not count

You've clearly never met the Republican Party.

[J. J. Lodder]

Google flags it as an error,
the Oxford on American usage flags it as a Canadianism.
Perhaps it has fallen southwards?

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Does it suggest when "priorize" went out of use? If I were to see that word somewhere, I'd
take it to mean either 'organize a monastery as a priory' or 'make someone a prior, i.e. the
head of a priory'.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

On the face of it, it looks like 'priorize' never really gained currency
at all despite the insistence of the aforementioned teacher. OED has
no entry and does not mention it in the entry for 'prioritize'.
Moreover onelook.com produces zero results from its range of
dictionaries. It seems more than possible in fact that priorize was not
after all prior to prioritize but that it is a later shortening or
misremembering.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The OED has this in entry for the prefix "de-":

de'priorize v.
1860 A. De Morgan Let. 18 Dec. in R. P. Graves Life Sir W. R.
Hamilton (1889) III. 562 You cannot give him, or let him take,
any licence which can damage or de-priorise anything you choose to
write on your own subject.

In that, "de-priorise" seems to mean reduce in importance or esteem.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

The Oxford Canadian Dictionary lists prioritize, and has no entry
for priorize.

bill

[Jerry Friedman]

I think it might literally mean reduce or remove the priority of.
De Morgan is warning Hamilton or whoever not to let some guy claim
priority for anything Hamilton is planning to write.

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Saw it in
<https://books.google.nl/books?id=z_VmtjAU01YC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=pri
orize+canadianism+oxford&source=bl&ots=6IaO6j1_A3&sig=bYHUDQBoAKP4RYu5F9
vyUuSp-dc&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjesPnts-HYAhWMPFAKHUA7AscQ6AEIITAC#v=one
page&q=priorize%20canadianism%20oxford&f=false>

Jan