Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
Rationalize is perfectly acceptable, being an older English version of rationalise.

 

I stand corrected :)

 

In English, ~ise is the accepted spelling.

 

This is interesting on the subject:

 

AskOxford: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?

 

The main advantage of the modern -ise habit? Lazy spellers do not have to remember that there are several important words which cannot properly be spelt with -ize. These include words which are not formed by the addition of the -ize prefix to a stem, but by some other root which happens to end in the same syllable, such as -vise (as in televise), -cise (as in incise), and -prise (as in comprise).
Edited by elsiegee40
grammar :o
  • Thanks 1
Posted
I stand corrected :)

 

In English, it ~ise is the accepted spelling.

 

This is interesting on the subject:

 

AskOxford: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?

 

I can't beleive that you checked up on me. ;) Thanks for the reference. It has made me think. I would spell organize with a z, but not privatise, similarly with analyse I couldn't bring myself to use the letter z in place of s, though I know not why. That's probably why I find myself reluctant to join the Pedantic Geeks, though my heart did rise when I noticed the group had been formed. It may be that I'm just a lazy git.

Posted

Hmm maybe I should start a "mi engrish s l33t" group :D

So I shouldnt be wasting my time looking for spell checking/grammar checking software for el'geek? I really have been looking for it too :)

Posted
I can't beleive that you checked up on me. ;) Thanks for the reference. It has made me think. I would spell organize with a z, but not privatise, similarly with analyse I couldn't bring myself to use the letter z in place of s, though I know not why. That's probably why I find myself reluctant to join the Pedantic Geeks, though my heart did rise when I noticed the group had been formed. It may be that I'm just a lazy git.

 

Not checking up on you... checking up on me... I wanted to find out why I was wrong, and I was! :o

 

Failed... and I founded the group! :p :getmecoat:

Posted (edited)

@elsiegee40

The problem is consistency. Depending on who you speak with at OED or OUP they will tell you -ize is correct for all examples but -ise can also be correct for greek derivations.

American and British English spelling differences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia goes into this in some more detail, and I have emailed BBC news to see what they use.

 

Most of my school text books, or at least those which I can remember, used -ise but we did have one science reference book (from a Dutch publisher) which used -ize and it was pointed out to us, by our teachers, that this was incorrect.

 

Now, I will accept both, but I try to be consistent in using -ise ... and it is only when my spell-checker goes into overdrive it is missed.

 

It is also worth mentioning that the ubiquitous hyphen, used to concatenate many words, is now frequently removed. Within the National Curriculum this is deemed suitable for most examples, but you need to apply common sense. In other words, it needs to be readable, it needs to be able to be spoken clearly and it needs to be applied consistently.

 

We also need to remember that some of the differences in language between GB and US english (the correct term is 'British English', not 'UK English' ... if you see it down as "English (UK) it merely indicates you are UK based ... not a derivation of language) are down to the influence of France.

Edited by GrumbleDook
Posted

@Grumbledook

 

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.

Posted
When I first got on the net almost 20 years ago, the still significantly academic consensus said grammar/spelling pedantry in forums i.e. largely conversational places, was bad netiquette.
Perhaps, until we get to the point at which it is very difficult to understand what others are trying to convey, given their lack of said grammar and spelling! :)

 

Given that the net was significantly academic when these "rules" were crafted I suppose there were far fewer sins compared to what happened after it reverted to mean, but since then it's usually been the messages (what people are saying, assuming they're saying anything) rather than the medium (quality of english grammar) that have annoyed me.

Posted

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..

Posted
But as Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the massage".

 

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.

 

If you want a useful concept, especially in tech-design, try "less is more".

 

[Cue ye olde less v. fewer debate]

Posted
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.
Posted
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?

Posted
Yes, whenever I speak to someone from Birmingham....

 

Perhaps you're confusing an apostrophe with a translator?

 

[i routinely get to decrypt some older gen. Black Country "I ay|bay|day" stuff.]

Posted
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.

 

If you want a useful concept, especially in tech-design, try "less is more".

 

[Cue ye olde less v. fewer debate]

 

Though I was mainly being mischievous, it's been 37 years since I last read it and I need to remind myself of the arguments. I've been trying to locate the book for several days now. I know it's somewhere in the house but I can't lay my hand on it. Unfortunately, not being Woody Allen, and McLuhan being dead (bummer), I can't pull him out from behind my wireless router to refute your argument.

[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.

Posted
The written language is based in the idea that it helps us develop speech patterns, with some punctuation to denote pauses and others to denote emphasis. Without a good understanding of this then we lose so much.

 

I saw a sign on a hospital fridge today. It said:

 

Food in this fridge should be:

  1. Unopened

  2. Labelled and

  3. Not in a carrier bag

 

Why would all the food be labelled with the word "and"?

  • Thanks 2
Posted
I saw a sign on a hospital fridge today. It said:

 

Food in this fridge should be:

  1. Unopened

  2. Labelled and

  3. Not in a carrier bag

 

Why would all the food be labelled with the word "and"?

 

Like it :D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...