My teachers, like yours, were very definite on the use of ~ise as a suffix not ~ize. Until now, I had not really questionned what they said. I find it interesting that both are grammatically correct, but common practice has made the standard to which we adhere.
Last term our head of English broke her wrist at a critical point in the report-writing cycle. I stepped in as typist so that she could dictate the reports. I'm sure it took twice as long as we ended up debating the grammatical accuracy of what was being written. I'm blaming her, she kept asking me if I thought it was correct. Normally, I would defer to her; her written English is well nigh perfect.
elsiegee40 (25th March 2010)
But as Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the massage".
I don't think Americans are lazy with spelling, I was taught that they went down a different route. I found this:
"In the early 18th century, English spelling was not standardized. Differences became noticeable after the publishing of influential dictionaries. Current British English spellings follow, for the most part, those of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755), whereas many American English spellings follow Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828.
Webster was a strong proponent of spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic. Many spelling changes proposed in the US by Webster himself, and in the early 20th century by the Simplified Spelling Board, never caught on. Among the advocates of spelling reform in England, the influences of those who preferred the Norman (or Anglo-French) spellings of certain words proved decisive. Subsequent spelling adjustments in the UK had little effect on present-day US spelling, and vice versa. While in many cases American English deviated in the 19th century from mainstream British spelling, on the other hand it has also often retained older forms."
Language is always evolving - after all, we only have spellings like 'Queen' because the French said so after 1066. Original spelling was probably 'Cwene' which makes a bit more sense.
I think that we have to accept evolving language, as Bill Bryson says in 'Mother Tongue' and 'Made in America'. Some of our rules are just down to one person saying, in times gone by, 'that's wrong!' Starting a sentence with a preposition for example, or splitting an infinitive.
But spelling and basic grammar - now that's a different thing altogether..
Yeah, but was he in charge of the universe? I think that concept .. which only works from a distance, fails in lots of places and most people appear to parrot rather than comprehend .. is overrated.But as Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the massage".
If you want a useful concept, especially in tech-design, try "less is more".
[Cue ye olde less v. fewer debate]
I'm in! Thank goodness for this thread. I know that it's becoming more and more acceptable to ignore the confusing apostrophe but omitting it, or misplacing it, really gets under my skin.
Have you ever missed an audible apostrophe in a real, spoken, conversation?I know that it's becoming more and more acceptable to ignore the confusing apostrophe but omitting it, or misplacing it, really gets under my skin.
Perhaps you're confusing an apostrophe with a translator?Yes, whenever I speak to someone from Birmingham....
[I routinely get to decrypt some older gen. Black Country "I ay|bay|day" stuff.]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs"]YouTube- Annie Hall Marshall McLuhan Scene (short edit) Woody Allen[/ame]
I don't follow your "in charge of the universe" line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)