Spellings
Paul Coxwell
help clarify some of the points raised.
-ize / -ise The original form is -ize. The -ise form is a later
spelling adopted earlier this century by Britain when
French-looking words were considered fashionable.
(i.e. -ize is NOT an American corruption)
Analyze/paralyze are on more shaky ground, as the
original British forms were analyse/paralyse.
-or / -our A couple of centuries ago words such as color / colour
were both in common usage in Britain. The -or form is
from the original Latin (coloris) and the -our form is
influenced by French (which itself came from the Latin).
With many of these words it was simply the case that
America, under the direction of Noah Webster, opted for
the -or form and Britain went for -our. Webster's
versions are really more logical in many respects (look
at the British spellings colour, coloured, coloration,
for example).
-er / -re There is a little more validity to the claim that -er is
an Americanism here, as once again Webster figured that
the -er form was more logical when -re was perhaps the
more common form in Britain. Nevertheless, you will find
that the -er forms were sometimes used in Britain in
centuries past.
Many words which a lot of Brits now assume are American corruptions are
not. In fact, if blame for corruption is being dished out, it should go
to Britain!
Take tire / tyre as an example. The word is a shortening of "attire,"
and tire is the original spelling. For some reason, again at the
beginning of this century, Britain started using tyre instead while
America kept to the original. I understand that "The Times" kept on
using tire until the 1920s.
The same applies to "gotten." Why do so many Brits think this is an
American corruption? We happily use forget / forgot / forgotten, so
what is wrong with get / got / gotten ? Once again, it's simply a case
of "gotten" falling out of use in Britain and being retained in America.
(Oh yes, how many Brits criticize gotten as an "ugly Americanism" and
then quite happily use the phrase "ill-gotten gains" ?)
Finally (for now <G>), how about zed / zee ? Both were in common usage
in Britain in the 17th century. Over time, zed fell out of favor in
America and zee fell out of favour in Britain, so in reality both are
equally correct. (Note the careful use of favor & favour to keep
everyone happy.....)
Sorry if this posting is a little long, but I hope it clears
up a few queries.
Regards,
Paul.
* OLX 2.1 TD * paul.c...@ooh.dircon.co.uk
Gordon Harris
l...@ooh.dircon.co.uk> writes
>Re: Recent debates over British vs. American spelling, the following may
>help clarify some of the points raised.
>
>-ize / -ise The original form is -ize. The -ise form is a later
> spelling adopted earlier this century by Britain when
> French-looking words were considered fashionable.
> (i.e. -ize is NOT an American corruption)
> Analyze/paralyze are on more shaky ground, as the
> original British forms were analyse/paralyse.
>
Does this mean that ize really does matter? :-(
--
Gordon
Media Goddess
Gordon Harris wrote:
Only if you're Godzilla.
-Rae
Paul Kinsler
s/z/C/, surely?
--
#Paul.
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
Inst Microwaves & Photonics, University of Leeds, UK. (ph) +44 113 2332089
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
David Reid
uk>, Paul Coxwell <paul.c...@ooh.dircon.co.uk> spake thusly:
<Scythe>
>
> Sorry if this posting is a little long, but I hope it clears
>up a few queries.
>
So basically we moved with the times and they didn't. We're still right.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
Removal of this .sig voids waranty.
chaz1
David Reid wrote in message ...
>In outpouring of consciousness known as <99010606...@ooh.dircon.co.
>uk>, Paul Coxwell <paul.c...@ooh.dircon.co.uk> spake thusly:
>
><Scythe>
>>
>> Sorry if this posting is a little long, but I hope it clears
>>up a few queries.
>>
>So basically we moved with the times and they didn't. We're still right.
It look more like you moved with the Frogs.
Simon Brooke
> In article <99010606...@ooh.dircon.co.uk>, Paul Coxwell <paul.coxwe
> l...@ooh.dircon.co.uk> writes
> >Re: Recent debates over British vs. American spelling, the following may
> >help clarify some of the points raised.
> >
> >-ize / -ise The original form is -ize. The -ise form is a later
> > spelling adopted earlier this century by Britain when
> > French-looking words were considered fashionable.
> > (i.e. -ize is NOT an American corruption)
> > Analyze/paralyze are on more shaky ground, as the
> > original British forms were analyse/paralyse.
> >
>
> Does this mean that ize really does matter? :-(
You melpist 'sise', Gordon. HTH. HAND. MYA
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
Paul Coxwell
DA>>up a few queries.
DA>>
DA>So basically we moved with the times and they didn't. We're still right.
English has always borrowed heavily from other sources as it has
evolved. I'm not saying that the British variants are wrong, just
different. Are you implying that the "American" versions are wrong?
The main point I was trying to make is that REALIZE, COLOR, GOTTEN, etc.
are not corruptions of the language by the Americans, which seems to be
what many Brits believe.
Gordon Harris
<si...@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>Gordon Harris <Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Does this mean that ize really does matter? :-(
>
>You melpist 'sise', Gordon. HTH. HAND. MYA
^^^
Mind Your Arse? Missing You Already?
STY in either case.
--
Gordon
mid...@gtepacifica.net
Steve Trawley
<Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes
My Yak Aches?
--
Steve T
Special this week! Bos Grunniens, only GBP5 for 2. Good selection of other
Bovines at popular prices (well we like 'em). Old Russian aircraft a speciality.