"ised" vs. "ized"
The Devil's Advocate©
realisation or nationalised, how did Americans come to change ths "s"
to a "z?" Therefore regionalized, realization and nationalized. The
old world spellings seem to be more consistant, since American English
has no general rule of thumb as to the appropriateness of an "ised" or
"ized." Americans say "improvisation" instead of "improvization,"
"revise" instead of "revize."
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
Currently Under Revitalisation
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
Bob Newman
> Since old world English uses the affix "ised" as in regionalised,
> realisation or nationalised, how did Americans come to change ths "s"
> to a "z?" Therefore regionalized, realization and nationalized. The
> old world spellings seem to be more consistant, since American English
> has no general rule of thumb as to the appropriateness of an "ised" or
> "ized." Americans say "improvisation" instead of "improvization,"
> "revise" instead of "revize."
I think either form is justifiable from the etymological point of view (at
least in some cases). Modern Greek verbs still have both a form in -iso
and a form in -izo; these are known as the present tense and the
indefinite tense (not necessarily in that order).
The widespread (but by no means universal) British preference for -ise at
least gives consistency, which -ize could not. ("Surprize"? Never! Though
I have seen "defuze", and even found it in a dictionary.) Besides, all
those zeds would look so flashy and, well, American!
Bob Newman
Albert Marshall
>The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
>
>> Since old world English uses the affix "ised" as in regionalised,
>> realisation or nationalised, how did Americans come to change ths "s"
>> to a "z?"
<...>
>The widespread (but by no means universal) British preference for -ise at
>least gives consistency, which -ize could not. ("Surprize"? Never! Though
>I have seen "defuze", and even found it in a dictionary.)
Presumably to differentiate the act of disabling a fuze from that of
disabling a fuse. A munitions expert would possibly recognise the
different meanings.
--
Albert Marshall
Visual Solutions
Kent, England
01634 400902
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>I have seen "defuze", and even found it in a dictionary.) Besides, all
>those zeds would look so flashy and, well, American!
>
>Bob Newman
>
Even there 'diffuze' might cause a protest, except perhaps in some
advertiZing circles.
The OED did the language dirt on this issue.
Brian M. Scott
> The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
> > Since old world English uses the affix "ised" as in regionalised,
> > realisation or nationalised, how did Americans come to change ths "s"
> > to a "z?"
They didn't: both spellings were already in use in England. A quick
scan of the OED entries for several of these words suggests that in
general the <-ize> spellings originally predominated in England.
> > Therefore regionalized, realization and nationalized. The
> > old world spellings seem to be more consistant, since American English
> > has no general rule of thumb as to the appropriateness of an "ised" or
> > "ized." Americans say "improvisation" instead of "improvization,"
> > "revise" instead of "revize."
This last is irrelevant, since it doesn't contain the suffix in
question: it's <re-> + <viser> 'to look at'.
> I think either form is justifiable from the etymological point of view (at
> least in some cases).
It depends on the word. Those formed from Greek etymologically have
<-ize>. Those taken from French have in the first instance <-ise>. The
OED s.v. <-ize> says:
Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in
French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words
formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize
for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself,
whatever the element to which it is added, is in its
origin the Gr. -izein, L. -izare; and, as the pronunciation
is also with z, there is no reason why in English the
special French spelling should be followed, in opposition
to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this
Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize.
> Modern Greek verbs still have both a form in -iso
> and a form in -izo; these are known as the present tense and the
> indefinite tense (not necessarily in that order).
> The widespread (but by no means universal) British preference for -ise at
> least gives consistency, which -ize could not. ("Surprize"? Never! Though
> I have seen "defuze", and even found it in a dictionary.) Besides, all
> those zeds would look so flashy and, well, American!
These last two are of course irrelevant, since they don't contain the
suffix in question.
Brian M. Scott
Eric
soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
> Since old world English uses the affix "ised" as in regionalised,
> realisation or nationalised, how did Americans come to change ths "s"
> to a "z?"
Isn't -ize the older form? I think the British adopted the French
spelling (as with many other words) while the Americans were
afraid of the Frenchization of the language...
> Therefore regionalized, realization and nationalized. The
> old world spellings seem to be more consistant, since American English
> has no general rule of thumb as to the appropriateness of an "ised" or
> "ized." Americans say "improvisation" instead of "improvization,"
> "revise" instead of "revize."
(True, but even the British write "size" and "capsize".)
The British argument for using -ise because of consistency
would be more compelling if it weren't for the greater
consistency of most of the American spelling differences:
-or instead of -our, -er instead of -re, "program" instead
of "programme", when to double the final L (traveling but
controlling).
Robert Cunnew
<na...@somewhere.sam> writes
>
>Isn't -ize the older form? I think the British adopted the French
>spelling (as with many other words) while the Americans were
>afraid of the Frenchization of the language...
Like many choices of this kind I think it's often "just" an aesthetic
thing. I think "ize" looks rather vulgar next to the gentler,
understated "ise". There is a perverse subtlety in spelling which
doesn't reflect pronunciation, particularly if we can dredge up some
long-dead etymological argument for it. Others (I won't make
geographical distinctions) might be more attracted by the strength,
vigour and directness of "ize".
--
Robert Cunnew
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<rob...@cunnew.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Others (I won't make
>geographical distinctions) might be more attracted by the strength,
>vigour and directness of "ize".
>--
>Robert Cunnew
Right! Snakey damn things those Esses, what? Not like the quick, clean
Zorroing of that geographical distinction.
Scott J Nieto
Nova Scotia. I don't know why? Just the way it is! Very strict country
America. Very very
strict!!!
Robert Cunnew wrote:
> In article <name-ya02368000...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Eric
> <na...@somewhere.sam> writes
> >
> >Isn't -ize the older form? I think the British adopted the French
> >spelling (as with many other words) while the Americans were
> >afraid of the Frenchization of the language...
>
> Like many choices of this kind I think it's often "just" an aesthetic
> thing. I think "ize" looks rather vulgar next to the gentler,
> understated "ise". There is a perverse subtlety in spelling which
> doesn't reflect pronunciation, particularly if we can dredge up some
> long-dead etymological argument for it. Others (I won't make
Fred Louder
Scott J Nieto wrote in message <363AA806...@ppp.kornet.nm.kr>...
>If you write "ise" in America you lose your citizenship and have to move to
>Nova Scotia.
Actually, in Canadian spelling -ize largely prevails, though most of us
still prefer colour, manoeuvre and so forth.
Fred Louder
Jon Robert Crofoot
vowel, and quit screwing with colour/color/culler, meter/metre,
theathre/theater, etc. and make it colr, metr, theatr, and so forth?
[Because it's WRONG, you illiterate ox!]
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<Bob.C...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Fred Louder wrote:
>> Actually, in Canadian spelling -ize largely prevails, though most of us
>> still prefer colour, manoeuvre and so forth.
>>
> Speaking of that sort of thing, why don't we just admit that R is a
>vowel, and quit screwing with colour/color/culler, meter/metre,
>theathre/theater, etc. and make it colr, metr, theatr, and so forth?
> [Because it's WRONG, you illiterate ox!]
He babbles; he froths; he married a lawyer and the muscular strength
it has given his jaw will last him the rest of his menacing life. But
the OED and Gage have fertiliZed him. And perhaps the Old Testament
too.
Fred Louder
>
>He babbles; he froths; he married a lawyer and the muscular strength
>it has given his jaw will last him the rest of his menacing life. But
>the OED and Gage have fertiliZed him. And perhaps the Old Testament
>too.
It gibbers; it squeaks; it's out of its grave a day too early, and can but
tap out gageless wraiths of words unwedded to sense. What a testament
indeed.
FL