Cath is frustrated with variant spellings. This, actually, is something I come across a lot in Australia, where they seem to want to follow the Francophone world (beats me why).
Let me explain.
In English (‘English’. Not ‘British’ English or ‘International’ English: English_) if you form a verb by adding a suffix to a noun, you use "_-ize":http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50122648. Many people get this wrong, and add -ise. I have a theory why this state of affairs persists.
Once upon a time the -ize was standard. Then, when personal computing started taking off, certain software developers thought it would be a good idea to include spell checkers with word-processing software. Most of these people were in the US, and one of them realized that across the Atlantic we quaintly used -yse at the end of certain verbs, whereas he (unlikely to be a ‘she’) was used to -yze. So, this got lumped in with the ‘u’ deficit and the f/ph switch as a simple variation in English spellings1. So far so good. However, he made the mistake of assuming that all verbs in English outside of the US ended -se.
Note the mistake. It is quite subtle.
So a generation of Microsoft Word users outside of the US grew up believing that there was such a thing as ‘British’ English, and that verbs end with -ise, and not the correct -ize.
Australia, with its devil-spawn Macquarie Dictionary, perpetuated this error, following the French:
This practice prob. began first in French; in mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. 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. (—ize)
But all this nonsense about Greek and Latin words is irrelevant. As the One True Dictionary says,
(T)he suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. (-izein), L. -izre; 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.
Scandalized? You bloody well should be.
But the Oxford Guide to World English , which was temptingly within arms reach (arm’s? arms’?), says in their section on British vs. American English: “The suffix forms -ise and -ize are systemic non-exclusive variants in British: either is possible, but only -ize is normally possible in the US.”
That’s because there’s no such thing as ‘British English’ (rant on parochialism saved for another day). ‘British’ is not a language.
As the OED says, -ize is phonetic: why not use it?
If I had my way we’d completely delete Z from the language. It would be so much easier when I went to the soo.
And I’d come from New Sealand? Much more accurate really.
I’d have to cross the road at a Sebra Crossing and in the morning shave off my fuss.
If one is going to be a purist about such things, one should
I think you’re missing the point, Henry.
I’m maintaining that ‘z’ is a much better way of doing things phonetically, as well as etymologically. It’s not purism, it’s pragmatism.
Fowler points out that “ize” is only ever pronounced one way, whereas “ise” may be pronounced as in promise or in chemise. He argues therfore that “ize” is clearer in terms of pronounciation.
Fowler FTW. Yeah.
My version of OED lists -ize, and -ise together under -ize. Under -ise it states see -ize.
This does not really help but suggests that they are alternative spellings. This is confirmed by entries for standardize -ise and mercerize, -ise (amonst many others).
However, look out for pitfalls to any universal rule in English, e.g. merchandise, n and v.
My 8th edition (1991) of the Concise says
Seeing as Americans spell those examples with s, and that there is no such thing as ‘British’ English, I think the case for -ize as a verbified noun is unassailable. The exceptions, Brian, are really quite simple in this case.
I mean, come on: you see ‘ise’ and it has to be pronounced ‘ice’. ‘-ize’ is unequivocal.
OK Richard but that extract does not explain merchandise as a verb.
Fowler points out that “ize” is only ever pronounced one way…
Belize?
zzzzz.
Not ‘Belice’.
1991 was a very long time ago. Interesting to see if later editions start to give more ground.
ach, ’91 is my latest printed edition. The online copy (above) is more hardline. That 20 quid looks pretty secure.
hm, I just wrote a comment on Cath’s blog about this thing… As you state in the beginning; So a generation of Microsoft Word users_[English learing students] outside of the US grew up believing that there was such a thing as ‘British’ English, and that verbs end with -ise, and not the correct -ize_
I got it from my school education that -ise was BE and -ize was AE. Then again, I was taught that there was a thing called British English…. it’s all very confusing this early in the morning…
Poor baby.
haha, really ;)
I guess it does complicate things for me… but then again, what’s fun with simple things?
Matt, I don’t think Belize was discovered when Fowler wrote that.
there is no such thing as ‘British’ English…
As an American having written a novel in British, and being in the process of seeing it translated back into American, I can say that any attempts to state that there is not a British and an American form of the English language is just stubbornness (or semantics). Really and truly. It goes far beyond spelling. There are clear-cut difference in spelling, grammar, vocabulary, syntax and turns of phrase, and it has taken me many years to get a grasp of the finer distinctions (and I’m still learning things that surprise me).
What’s the point of not allowing them to be put into two separate sub-species? I don’t get it.
Too right, Jenny. And sometimes, oh big-headed Brits, the US version is almost certainly better. Just last night I observed this while watching the generally pretty awful X-Files movie, when Scully said she wanted to ‘speak with’ Billy Connolly’s character. That’s much better than the British English ‘speak to’, which sounds like hectoring rather than discussing.
What about “can you just speak to the funding situation”? Where did that creep in? And why? I always feel like turning around and saying “well, funding situation, you and I need to have a chat”.
As regards Richard’s original hypothesis: I didn’t start regularly using a word processor until I was about 20. I hand-wrote all my essays for school and university until then, as did most of my peers. And I’ve always, always used -ise. I think my terrifying English teacher with the glass eye would have killed me otherwize.
Two interesting examples I’ve found are the UK phrase ‘meant to’ and the word ‘reckon’.
A Brit would say (with one blip, in hono(u)r of Brian), ‘That film is meant to be great.’
To an American, this sounds really strange (we’d say something like “is supposed to be” or “I’ve heard that it’s…”). Meant to implies some sort of predestination or imperative that doesn’t make sense in context.
The difference in the word ‘reckon’ really trips me up back home. Here in the UK ‘I reckon’ is a perfectly acceptable, cultured way of saying ‘I think’ (with the slight connotation that you’re taking a bit of a gamble with your opinion). It’s highly contagious and I use it all the time. But I was at a scientific conference in Denver last year and got thoroughly ridiculed by American colleagues, who started parroting “She reckons! She reckons!” in a very pronounced hillbilly drawl. Meanwhile, throughout my most recent trip to the States, my British traveling companion kept drawing blank looks asking for ‘salad’ on his sandwich, and most Brits have probably experienced the look of embarrassed horror when asking American waitstaff where the ‘toilet’ is.
Here in TDS (=hereinafter and in perpetuity the recognised abbreviation for SEffrica, aka The Deepest South) we try to use -ise rather than -ize in all cases.
Or at least I do. I ruthlessly autocorrect all mss passing through my hands….
We are also confused as to the meaning of “momentarily”, thanks to too much US TV programming coming our way, and people are starting to say “likely” instead of “probably”.
And – my abomination – “scary” instead of “frightening”.
All in all, a hybrid dialect. But one where we have many meanings associated with the word “now”.
Like: now, as in immediately
Just now, meaning shortly.
Now now, meaning not just now.
And “cooldrink”, meaning soft drink or soda.
Fascinating topic, I reckon….
Bah. I just edited the word “pediatric” in a letter, to make it read “paediatric”, which is rather more Canadian and less United States of American. As I was doing it, I was thinking “how can this possibly be a good use of my time”?
That said, I’ll use American spellings (labor, favor, analyze) every time when I’m writing things for those south of the border, provided that they’re paying me for the service. If not, they get all the extra u’s and spurious s’s as punishment.
Oh it’s fascinating, these differences. And they’re fun to play with.
But to say “this is British English and you over there should use it, but this is American English and…”
Well. Silly. Especially seeing as there are more Chinese than both of us.
I don’t think it’s silly. Languages are for groups to use as they see fit. Why not have a regional difference and rejoice in it? This is how thing evolve.
It’s the evolving I’m actually worried about, Jenny. Survival of the fittest. I wonder what people think of Australian science when they see this weird insistence on strange spellings at international conferences.
I say, you can’t fight it – just let people do what they do and the language will cope.
Ah, it’s so frustrating when I see things that are neither sensible nor pretty being clung to. That’s all.
I have to say that in similar to the ‘scary’ vs ‘freightening’ I have found that “horrid” is not something you use here in the US south ;) It might be terrible… and aweful but never ever horrid and almost never horrible.
I think it is kind of charming (although I understand the difficulties of cowriting grants etc) with differences between regions. i guess the main thing is to be consistent within a region, and I guess that is one of the big problems??
Ah, it’s so frustrating when I see things that are neither sensible nor pretty being clung to.
I would have thought the monarchy would have given you some practice.
Richard, it looks like the -ize have it.
Ya. Ize saw that.
I think I should finish with the following extract from the online OED
" -ISE a frequent spelling of -IZE, suffix forming vbs., which see. "
I have posted on whether the OED can be used to settle such argument.
One can fantasise about a world where spelling is logical and consistent..until then, Ise shall just adaptise to my marginalised status as an insufficiently Anglicised African, and proseletise my favourised usage. ises.
Bloody Frog.