-ise vs -ize

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Bristollad
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Bristollad »

The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Malcolm »

Bristollad wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention
User avatar
Mantrik
Former staff member
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Mantrik »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm
Bristollad wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention

Go back a couple more centuries and the language of England was then apparently closest to modern day............American English! The rhotic pronunciation taken to American took root there and changed far less than in England over the centuries. Spelling conventions are, as you say, just whatever was commonly agreed, for example when printing really took off.
http://www.khyung.com ཁྲོཾ

Om Thathpurushaya Vidhmahe
Suvarna Pakshaya Dheemahe
Thanno Garuda Prachodayath

Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ (मिच्छामि दुक्कडम्)
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Simon E. »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm
Bristollad wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention
Indeed. And was not standardised in English English until relatively recently. There are for example, at least four authenticated different spellings of Shakespeare's name..in his own hand!

Which is one reason I couldn't be bothered to engage with MiphamFan et al on the subject.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Bristollad
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Bristollad »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention
Very true - and the spelling we've been lumbered with due to the tyranny of the dictionaries doesn't reflect modern pronunciation a lot of the time. But I have a liking for English spelling foibles nevertheless :smile:

From what I've read actually both burgle and burglarize are back formations from burglar, from around the second half of the 19th century.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
MiphamFan
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by MiphamFan »

Mantrik wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm
Bristollad wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention

Go back a couple more centuries and the language of England was then apparently closest to modern day............American English! The rhotic pronunciation taken to American took root there and changed far less than in England over the centuries. Spelling conventions are, as you say, just whatever was commonly agreed, for example when printing really took off.
Not really, American English prosody at least developed on its on path, quite different from England.

Like Darwin's finches, all languages change over the centuries, all are innovative in different ways and conservative in others: American English did conserve rhoticity but in General American they merged the vowel in the father and bother and now pronounce God as GAHD -- I find it very jarring in ESL learners who pronounce words like that.

I think "General American", i.e. a standardized dialect based on mid-Western English, was influenced a lot of by German prosody. For example when Brits ask questions the prosody is like the Latin-Italian penultimate stress pattern while Americans just raise the tone on the final syllable. I think West Country accents probably preserve both rhoticity as well as the older prosody -- IIRC, most early American colonists from England were from around there.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Simon E. »

I still don't care. I was taught to use the 's' form. As were my parents. as are my chidren and their children and every Brit I know.
Someday that might change or revert or whatever. And I won't care.
I'll do what the prevailing norm is, because it the wider scheme of things it doesn't matter.
Last edited by Simon E. on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by DGA »

Mantrik wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm
Bristollad wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm The use of -ize in British English is referred to as “Oxford Spelling” and claims to be more etymologically correct. It is regarded as an affectation that is used by the “properly educated” by many people (whereas the American tendency to add -ize etc. to everything is seen as just wrong e.g. burglarize hence burglarizer instead of burgle and burglar). Strangely enough according to Wikipedia, Oxford University recommends using -ise for its public relations material because it is more accepted by the public.
Read anything from the 17th century...spelling is merely a convention

Go back a couple more centuries and the language of England was then apparently closest to modern day............American English! The rhotic pronunciation taken to American took root there and changed far less than in England over the centuries. Spelling conventions are, as you say, just whatever was commonly agreed, for example when printing really took off.
I've lived in the US my whole live and never heard anyone use the word "burglarizer" in the way bristollad describes. If someone did, that person would sound really weird, like an idiot trying to sound intelligent by making up big words. But to Mantrik's point:

It depends where you go in the States, because our vowels vary widely geographically (some of that has to do with migration and immigration patterns from Britain. There's a funny inversion: the Southern colonies wound up with linguistic traits you would associate with Northern England, and the reverse for the Northern colonies, where the hard "r" sound you observe is less pronounced. (Bostonians don't appreciate Modern Art, but they do like Mahden Aht.)

Meanwhile, in the mid-South and parts of Appalachia to the present day, you will find some vowels that Spenser or Shakespeare would recognize. Consider the vowel sound in the words "caught" and "sought." In my part of the world, the vowel sounds are identical to "cot" and "sot." They are indistinguishable. In New York, those the "au" and "ou" vowels are an open "o" sound that is hard to describe but you'd know it if you hear it because it's exaggerated in tough-guy movies and rap albums. But in Tennessee... it's almost Chaucerian. The vowel sound in "caught" corresponds more or less to how it is spelled. Similarly for "sought" (if that word is still in anyone's lexicon there). Like this: "I CAWt chlamydia from Melania Trump." or "I SOWT medical attention for the chlamydia I got from Melania Trump," where I would have COT it and a Vinnie the Stereotypical New Yorker would have CWOT it.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Norwegian »

Interesting video on Bernie Sanders' accent:
phpBB [video]
MiphamFan
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by MiphamFan »

I like the New York accent and New England accents in general more than "General American". Pity they are dying.
Bristollad
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Bristollad »

DGA wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:42 am
I've lived in the US my whole live and never heard anyone use the word "burglarizer" in the way bristollad describes. If someone did, that person would sound really weird, like an idiot trying to sound intelligent by making up big words.
I’ve only heard it once, by Judge Judy on her courtroom programme, and yes, it struck me the way you suggest.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by DGA »

Bristollad wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:48 am
DGA wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:42 am
I've lived in the US my whole live and never heard anyone use the word "burglarizer" in the way bristollad describes. If someone did, that person would sound really weird, like an idiot trying to sound intelligent by making up big words.
I’ve only heard it once, by Judge Judy on her courtroom programme, and yes, it struck me the way you suggest.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Judge Judy is the picture of what a dumb American thinks a clever person must be. Trump too.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Malcolm »

DGA wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:42 am
I've lived in the US my whole live and never heard anyone use the word "burglarizer" in the way bristollad describes.
I have heard the term "burglarize" in gangster movies from the 1930's. But never in modern language. Must be a cop term:

"Three Stooges Burglarize Cell Phone Store"
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Simon E. »

However, Captain Beefheart wants to Booglarize Ya Baby....
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by DGA »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:43 pm
DGA wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:42 am
I've lived in the US my whole live and never heard anyone use the word "burglarizer" in the way bristollad describes.
I have heard the term "burglarize" in gangster movies from the 1930's. But never in modern language. Must be a cop term:

"Three Stooges Burglarize Cell Phone Store"
Burglarize, sure, but burglarizer? Someone who burglarizes is a burglar, a thief, &c.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by DGA »

Simon E. wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:15 pm However, Captain Beefheart wants to Booglarize Ya Baby....
It works best on West German TV. "a right burlesque title..."



IMO it's the weakest track on what must be Beefheart's strongest album.

I can and sometimes do listen to this crap all day long.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by Malcolm »

DGA wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:13 pm
Simon E. wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:15 pm However, Captain Beefheart wants to Booglarize Ya Baby....
It works best on West German TV. "a right burlesque title..."



IMO it's the weakest track on what must be Beefheart's strongest album.

I can and sometimes do listen to this crap all day long.

I believe it. I have seen your facial hair.
amanitamusc
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: -ise vs -ize

Post by amanitamusc »

Just wondering.Did you ever sprort a beard Malcolm?
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”