 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / June 2005intialise, criticise, realize ....
Hello. The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the subject (and alike) with z. As for the British spelling I seem to have seen both variants. For example, realize, as I know, is spelled with z. I don't think I've ever seen another word with z rather than s by British authors. But who knows... Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? > Hello. > The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? There was no simple rule: the z-form was previously used quite extensively. But now, as America's moral standing in the world continues to plummet, we increasingly leave the z-form to them and use the s-form only :-)  SignatureJohn Briggs > Hello. > The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? These days, Brits generally used "s" and Yanks use "z" but, at one time in Britain "s" was the Cambridge spelling while "z" was the Oxford spelling, at least for certain words such as realise. About 5 years ago when I was working for a different company (in Cambridge) one of our new recruits (an Oxford graduate, IIRC) used "realize" on a marketing stand, but he was soon made to see the error of his ways and the display was changed before the show. So you see, even the Brits can't decide. I suspect that in these days of mobile phone text messages, "z" is gaining the upper hand among teenagers, but I'll stick to "s", being middle-aged. > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? Etymologically, most -ise words derive from Greek -izein, with a zeta. So the z form would be truer to the origin. But 'z's are considered ugly in England, so have been quietly ushered out, like an alcoholic uncle at a wedding. Paul Burke > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? > > Etymologically, most -ise words derive from Greek -izein, with a zeta. > So the z form would be truer to the origin. But 'z's are considered ugly > in England, so have been quietly ushered out, like an alcoholic uncle at > a wedding. A funny enough comparison :) And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used exclusively or not? > And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > exclusively or not? To me, programming a computer is an international activity, and I use 'program'. I also use 'disk' out of weariness, and 'analog' because I think the -ue form is silly. For the TV or radio, I seldom write it down, but I think I would use 'programme' normally, in the hope that they would turn out to be British TV programmes rather than American. Paul Burke >> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >> exclusively or not? > > To me, programming a computer is an international activity, and I use > 'program'. I also use 'disk' out of weariness, and 'analog' because I > think the -ue form is silly. But a CD-ROM (or DVD) is a 'disc' - the Americans having failed to invent it. And my laser disc player says "LaserDisc" on it :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > >> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But a CD-ROM (or DVD) is a 'disc' - the Americans having failed to invent > it. And my laser disc player says "LaserDisc" on it :-) The distinction that was explained to me was "disk" for magnetic media and "disc" for optical media. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >>>> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The distinction that was explained to me was "disk" for magnetic media > and "disc" for optical media. Yes, but that's only because the Americans invented the "disk" (and "diskette"), but failed to do so for the 'compact disc'. (The videodisc - later laser disc - was an analogue predecessor of the compact disc.) SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >>>>> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"diskette"), but failed to do so for the 'compact disc'. (The videodisc - >later laser disc - was an analogue predecessor of the compact disc.) Way back in the 1960s, there were two US manufacturers of fixed disc/disk drives. The disks were 2 to 3 feet in diameter. The makers were Control Data (Control Data Corporation, CDC), and Data Products (Data Products Corporation, DPC). CDC used the spelling Disk; DP used Disc. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >>>>>> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >CDC used the spelling Disk; DP used Disc. Ahem. IBM was making fixed disk drives back in the 1950s, and ever since. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/650/650_tr2.html "The following is the text of an undated IBM Data Processing Division press technical fact sheet. It probably was distributed in 1959. The IBM RAMAC 650 electronic data processing system combines the capabilities of the world's most widely-used computer with the flexibility of random-sequence data availability. Two basic elements make up the RAMAC 650- --an IBM 650 data processing system and an IBM 355 magnetic disk memory file." SignatureRobin >>>>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >>>>>>> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Ahem. Ahem also. I did not intend to imply that there were only two US manufacturers of fixed disc/disk drives. I would never underestimate IBM's production of anything. I recall being told (in the 1980s?) that IBM was the largest semiconductor maker in the world, but that this fact never appeared in published statistics. IBM didn't sell semiconductors - they went straight into blue boxes of various sizes. > IBM was making fixed disk drives back in the 1950s, and ever >since. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >make up the RAMAC 650- --an IBM 650 data processing system and an IBM >355 magnetic disk memory file." SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>>>>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used >>>>>>>> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >statistics. IBM didn't sell semiconductors - they went straight into blue >boxes of various sizes. That was true. But two developments, in the early 1980s, of products which could be sold in the millions rather than the tens of thousands caused IBM to have to farm out some semi-conductor manufacture (to TI for the token-ring LAN chipset), and both manufacture and development (to Intel for the PC family). SignatureRobin >>>>>>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter >>>>>>>>> used exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > for the token-ring LAN chipset), and both manufacture and development > (to Intel for the PC family). Not exactly - they bought an existing microprocessor off the shelf for the PC. (The Intel 8088, a derivative of the 8086, for the PC, and then the 80286 for the AT). They seem to have chosen that one because they already had the rights to manufacture it... SignatureJohn Briggs >> That was true. But two developments, in the early 1980s, of products >> which could be sold in the millions rather than the tens of thousands [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > PC. (The Intel 8088, a derivative of the 8086, for the PC, and then the > 80286 for the AT). I think the 80186 was in there too, XT? SignatureDave Clarke > I think the 80186 was in there too, XT? No. You could only make 'not quite compatibles' with the 80186. IBM's PC, XT and AT BIOSes trampled on IRQ vectors described as 'Intel reserved' in the documentation for the 8088/8086. These vectors were later used by Intel in the 80188/80186 in order to manage the integrated peripherals on those devices. You could write *a* BIOS for the 80186 and you could hack MS-DOS to run on a machine with such a BIOS. But the BIOS could not be IBM PC compatible and nor could the hardware interface to software (no hardware virtualization on PCs in them days). Any software which drove the hardware directly (and a lot did then) would quickly notice the difference and go off into never-never land. That's why MS Flight Simulator used to be a popular PC-compatibility testing tool. Giles >> I think the 80186 was in there too, XT? > > No. You could only make 'not quite compatibles' with the 80186. Ah, maybe that's what I remember, one of the 'compatables'. > IBM's PC, XT and AT BIOSes trampled on IRQ vectors described as 'Intel > reserved' in the documentation for the 8088/8086. These vectors were > later used by Intel in the 80188/80186 in order to manage the > integrated peripherals on those devices. I remember thinking the whole interrupt setup for PCs was a bodge. I'd just moved up from little 6809 systems, to 68000 on VME, which seemed so easy to write FORTH/assembler on. Then I had to work on the PC/XT. Yuk. SignatureDave Clarke >>>>>>>>>> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter >>>>>>>>>> used exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >80286 for the AT). They seem to have chosen that one because they already >had the rights to manufacture it... "Farmed out" was not exactly the right expression for the PC, I agree. I got myself to several of the planning meetings that took place around 1977/78, when the subject of designing some sort of intelligence into a dumb display was discussed. Several microprocessors were mentioned - I remember that many people were keen on the Motorola 650X series because it was faster than the 8086 - but I don't remember anyone seriously suggesting that IBM should try to build the chips. Our previous foray into the personal computing market - the 5100, which, with IBM chips and mainframe-quality engineering, cost over 14,000 dollars in 1976 - was not exactly a sales success. I doubt that we could have built a PC down to the price of the 5150 other than by using off-the-shelf components. Getting the contract for the 8088 made Intel's fortune. The IBM chip plants were running at full capacity then, too, and that's why the manufacture of the token ring was subcontracted. SignatureRobin On Friday, in article <d8uj57$aqa$1@softins.clara.co.uk> > > >> And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > > >> exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The distinction that was explained to me was "disk" for magnetic media > and "disc" for optical media. That might be apparent distinction, but it's not the complete story. The optical media (firstly LaserDisc, then Compact Disc, and nowadays Digital Versatile Disc) were all created by consortia in which the Dutch company Philips were involved. Philips is a powerfull presence in electronics in Europe, and has been for more than a century. They originated in the Netherlands, but have either subsidiary copmpanies or partners in many other European countries, especially the UK. So when they *patented* the aforementioned technologies, they not only patented them with the spelling "disc", but made it a condition of production under licence from those patents that the spelling "disc" shall be used exclusively. Which is why that spelling appears on any CD that you pick up. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > But a CD-ROM (or DVD) is a 'disc' - the Americans having failed to invent > it. And my laser disc player says "LaserDisc" on it :-) I'm old enough to remember floppy disks or 'diskettes'. While I used to prefer the 'disc' spelling, I am uncomfortable with 'discette', so nowadays I stick with 'disk'. It has to be better than the 'disc -> disquette' alternative. Giles >> But a CD-ROM (or DVD) is a 'disc' - the Americans having failed to >> invent it. And my laser disc player says "LaserDisc" on it :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nowadays I stick with 'disk'. It has to be better than the 'disc -> > disquette' alternative. But the point is that the Americans invented the diskettes, so got to name them. SignatureJohn Briggs > But the point is that the Americans invented the diskettes, so got to name > them. IBM (an American manufacturer of machines supposedly designed to aid business administration) also invented a direct access storage device called the 'IBM 350 Disk Storage Unit' in the mid-1950s. See http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_350.html Quote: The 350 Disk Storage Unit consisted of the magnetic disk memory unit with its access mechanism, the electronic and pneumatic controls for the access mechanism, and a small air compressor. Assembled with covers, the 350 was 60 inches long, 68 inches high and 29 inches deep. It was configured with 50 magnetic disks containing 50,000 sectors, each of which held 100 alphanumeric characters, for a capacity of 5 million characters. Disks rotated at 1,200 rpm, tracks (20 to the inch) were recorded at up to 100 bits per inch, and typical head-to-disk spacing was 800 microinches. The execution of a "seek" instruction positioned a read-write head to the track that contained the desired sector and selected the sector for a later read or write operation. Seek time averaged about 600 milliseconds. Not a 'disc' in sight. Only disks. Modern hard disks are direct descendants of IBM's disk-based DASDs, in particular the 'Winchester' disk system introduced in the early 1970s. In the early 1980s, the rare and expensive hard disks available for microcomputers (that for the Rair Black Box in 1981 consisted of a 14-inch platter with a capacity of 8 Megabytes unformatted, 5 Megabytes formatted under CP/M, and cost around GBP 20,000) were still referred to as 'Winchester' disks in publications such as Personal Computer World in the UK and Byte in the USA. 'Disk' came first, 'diskette' came second when a word for a wee floppy one was needed, and 'disc' was applied as an afterthought by the hypercorrect. OED2 plumps for 'disk' being an earlier and better spelling, but acknowledges that 'disc' was more common in British English in 1989 except when referring to computer disks. Much like the distinction between 'program' and 'programme'. Giles >> But the point is that the Americans invented the diskettes, so got >> to name them. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > except when referring to computer disks. Much like the distinction > between 'program' and 'programme'. You are still missing the point that 'disc' is used for optical media because their inventors spoke a different variety of English from those of magnetic media :-) Although the Winchester disk was presumably developed at IBM Hursley Park, Winchester. SignatureJohn Briggs > Although the Winchester disk was presumably developed at IBM Hursley Park, > Winchester. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk: "In 1973, IBM introduced the 3340 "Winchester" disk system (the 30MB + 30 millisecond access time led the project to be named after the Winchester 30-30 rifle)..." Other online references seem to agree. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > You are still missing the point that 'disc' is used for optical media > because their inventors spoke a different variety of English from those of > magnetic media :-) True enough. David Gregg's 'VIDEODISK' (sic) was described as a 'disc' in the patent application. Dutch and Japanese companies did the rest of the damage. Giles > And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > exclusively or not? To me, a computer program is something I run on a computer, and a computer programme is something I watch on TV about computers. I remember discussing this very point with a colleague back in 1984, and he suggested there was actually an "official" distinction along these lines, but didn't mention a source. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org It's damn wise. I really think so. Thanks. On Friday, in article <d8ubea$9nn$1@softins.clara.co.uk> > > And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > > exclusively or not? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and he suggested there was actually an "official" distinction along > these lines, but didn't mention a source. Way back (probably in the mid-1960s), the British Computer Society suggested that the spelling "Program" be reserved in BrEnglish for computer programs, whilst "Programme" be retained for all other usages, such as the programme one buys when visiting a theatre or other event, or a TV/radio programme, etc. ISTR that they were successful in getting their recommendation enshrined in BSI publication (but couldn't tell you which British Standard it might be). Nevertheless, the majority of the UK's print media remain ignorant of the recommendation, and persist in referring to "computer programmes" (just as they also persist in referring to "the internet", without the capital letter which designates it as a proper noun). Personally, I find the distinction very useful, and admit to seeing an ambiguity in AmEnglish's espousal of "program" for both contexts. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > Way back (probably in the mid-1960s), the British Computer Society > suggested that the spelling "Program" be reserved in BrEnglish for > computer programs, whilst "Programme" be retained for all other > usages, such as the programme one buys when visiting a theatre or > other event, or a TV/radio programme, etc. [Snip] > Personally, I find the distinction very useful, and admit to seeing > an ambiguity in AmEnglish's espousal of "program" for both contexts. So, it's a programme of events for the evening's entertainment at the theatre but a program of events for the computer. By that reasoning you'd have to talk about the colour of the pages in the theatre programme but the color of the pages on the theatre's web site, wouldn't you? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. >> Way back (probably in the mid-1960s), the British Computer Society >> suggested that the spelling "Program" be reserved in BrEnglish for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > programme but the color of the pages on the theatre's web site, > wouldn't you? Or should that be website? (The theater's website, of course :-) ) SignatureJohn Briggs > So, it's a programme of events for the evening's entertainment at the > theatre but a program of events for the computer. By that reasoning > you'd have to talk about the colour of the pages in the theatre > programme but the color of the pages on the theatre's web site, > wouldn't you? Well even we Brits have to spell it "color" when writing HTML or CSS :-( Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > On Friday, in article <d8ubea$9nn$1@softins.clara.co.uk> >> To me, a computer program is something I run on a computer, and a >> computer programme is something I watch on TV about computers. >> I remember discussing this very point with a colleague back in 1984, >> and he suggested there was actually an "official" distinction along >> these lines, but didn't mention a source. > Way back (probably in the mid-1960s), the British Computer Society > suggested that the spelling "Program" be reserved in BrEnglish for > computer programs, whilst "Programme" be retained for all other usages, > such as the programme one buys when visiting a theatre or other event, or > a TV/radio programme, etc. > ISTR that they were successful in getting their recommendation enshrined > in BSI publication (but couldn't tell you which British Standard it might > be). Nevertheless, the majority of the UK's print media remain ignorant > of the recommendation, and persist in referring to "computer programmes" > (just as they also persist in referring to "the internet", without the > capital letter which designates it as a proper noun). Well, it is not really the job of the BSI to lay down spelling guidelines for English. Having said that, various standards for computer languages do lay down the use of the spelling 'program' as a keyword within the computer language (examples are Pascal and 'PROGRAM-ID' in Cobol, no doubt there are many others). Axel >>> Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And how about something like program/programme? Is the latter used > exclusively or not? Once upon a time the only correct British spelling was "programme". Then for a time the "program" spelling took over, but at first only in the context of computer programs, so one could come across things like "a radio programme about comouter programs". I, personally, seem to have got stuck at that stage, although I suspect that most of the UK has moved on from there. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? > > Etymologically, most -ise words derive from Greek -izein, with a zeta. > So the z form would be truer to the origin. But 'z's are considered ugly > in England, so have been quietly ushered out, like an alcoholic uncle at > a wedding. That's an explanation I haven't seen before - Brits have a general dislike for the letter 'z'. I don't see any tendency for people to write 'prise' instead of 'prize' (e.g. competition prize) or 'sise' instead of size. So I think that the aversion is to the -ize suffix, because it's (wrongly in my view) seen as an Americanism. I think there's another reason for the popularity of -ise endings in England. Once the -ise endings came to be used alongside the -ize ones, people lost track of which words can only be spelt in -ise (e.g. compromise, advertise). So many people went for the safe option: use -ise for everything e.g. realise, advertise. > Paul Burke > Hello. > The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? No. Chaos prevails in this respect. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. > Hello. > The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? If a word has one or two syllables it's usually spelled with "s" in both British and American English, e.g. "rise", "surprise". However "prise" and "prize" are two different words. If it it has three or more syllables it can be spelled with either "ize" or "ise" in British English and with "ize" only in American English, e.g "organise/organize". There are, however, a few exceptions which are always spelled with "ise", e.g. "advertise", "televise". There are 2 words spelled "yse" in Britain and "yze" in America, "paralyse/paralyze" and "analyse/analyze". I don't think I've ever seen them spelled "yze" in a British English text, but I'm open to correction. This is about the only area where American spelling is more "difficult" than British spelling, as you can always use "s" in Britain, even if some publishers frown on it, e.g. Times Newspapers or Oxford University Press, although the latter isn't consistent. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan On Friday, in article <3hgkd6Fh32eaU1@individual.net> einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de "Einde O'Callaghan" wrote: > If a word has one or two syllables it's usually spelled with "s" in both I've never heard any such rule. The only one I know is "did it originally, or through derivation via Latin or other languages, originate in a Greek verb ending in -izein". You are the first person I have ever heard mention anything to do with the number of syllables. > British and American English, e.g. "rise", "surprise". However "prise" > and "prize" are two different words. Jane Austen famously (and erroneously) wrote "surprize". > If it it has three or more syllables it can be spelled with either "ize" > or "ise" in British English and with "ize" only in American English, e.g > "organise/organize". There are, however, a few exceptions which are > always spelled with "ise", e.g. "advertise", "televise". Quite; see my other post (and Fowler). > This is about the only area where American spelling is more "difficult" > than British spelling, as you can always use "s" in Britain, even if > some publishers frown on it, e.g. Times Newspapers or Oxford University > Press, although the latter isn't consistent. Sadly, whilst The Thuderer's house style used to insist upon the correct -ize ending, since Murdoch bought them out 30-odd years ago, they've forgotten most parts of their proud heritage, including this rule. Summary: using -ise in BrEnglish is purely down to laziness, because the teaching system doesn't bother to provide guidance as to the handful of verbs that MUST be spelt with -ise instead of -ize. As an Irishman, what does IRL's teaching system do about this question? SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > On Friday, in article <3hgkd6Fh32eaU1@individual.net> > einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de "Einde O'Callaghan" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in a Greek verb ending in -izein". You are the first person I have ever > heard mention anything to do with the number of syllables. You'll find this rule, for example, in Michael Swan's Practical English Usage. >>British and American English, e.g. "rise", "surprise". However "prise" >>and "prize" are two different words. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > teaching system doesn't bother to provide guidance as to the handful of > verbs that MUST be spelt with -ise instead of -ize. But "realise/realize", for instance, doesn't derive from a Greek root. It's root is Latin through and through. We also don't ask with most other words whether they have a Latin or Greek root in order to work out hwo they are spelled. Indeed some of the more absurd spellings with silent letters are the result of over-erudite etymological studies. For instance, the "b" in "debt " and the "l" in "salmon" have never ever been pronounced in English and writers like Chaucer and Shakespeare were quite happy with "dette" and "saumon" or "samoun". To be honest, why should it be necessary to study Latin and Greek to work out how to spell a syllable and indeed only this one syllable, no matter how common it is) when the pronunciation of the syllable is identical in Modern English - indeed in any version of english since these words were picked up from Norman French? Very few of these words have come directly into English from Greek, in which case there might be a serious case for arguing for the "-ize" from origin. > As an Irishman, what does IRL's teaching system do about this question? I seem to recall that my English teacher, a very learned man, pointed to the controversy but suggested that it was a bit pedantic to insist on the "-ize" spelling simply on the basis that the word supposedly derived from Greek. He was the one who made me aware of the irrationality of this rule with reference to "realise/realize". He argued for consistency of usage and would not accept it if people used "-ize" (or one of its derivatives) for one multi-syllable word and "-ise" for another in the same text except, of course, for those words that are never spelled with "-ize". As a teacher of English as a foreign language I teach my students to be consistent in their usage. They have difficulty enough with the vagaries of English spelling without burdening them with rather abstruse arguments about Latin and Greek roots, particularly since most of them have studied neither Latin nor Greek. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan On Sunday, in article <3hkobeFhfageU1@individual.net> einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de "Einde O'Callaghan" wrote: > > Summary: using -ise in BrEnglish is purely down to laziness, because the > > teaching system doesn't bother to provide guidance as to the handful of > > verbs that MUST be spelt with -ise instead of -ize. > > > But "realise/realize", for instance, doesn't derive from a Greek root. > It's root is Latin through and through. So are many other such words: however, Fowler believes that "the ultimate source of the ending is the Greek -izo[1], whether the particular verb was an actual Greek one, or a Latin or French or English imitation, and whether the imitation was made by addint the termination to a Greek or other stem". > To be honest, why should it be necessary to study Latin and Greek to > work out how to spell a syllable and indeed only this one syllable, no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have come directly into English from Greek, in which case there might be > a serious case for arguing for the "-ize" from origin. Since all the verbs are sounded with /z/, it surely makes sense to spell them that way too, except where we know (as with advertise) that -ize would be wrong. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 <snip> > Since all the verbs are sounded with /z/, it surely makes sense to spell > them that way too, except where we know (as with advertise) that -ize > would be wrong. But we know that in modern British English the spelling with "-ise" is always correct even if we don't know whether "-ize" is correct - except for "prize". This is the simpler rule I use with my pupils here in Germany, who definitely don't know when "-ize' is appropriate - especially since teh German equivalents are spelled with "s", e.g. "spezialisieren". In German you couldn't use "z" here since the letter is pronounced differently. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > But we know that in modern British English the spelling with "-ise" is > always correct even if we don't know whether "-ize" is correct - except > for "prize". Is this another example of the peculiar facility in English for creating distinctions between words, based on spelling differences which then diverge in meaning? Is "prize" the same word as "price"? Paul Burke > > But we know that in modern British English the spelling with "-ise" > > is always correct even if we don't know whether "-ize" is correct > > - except for "prize". > Is this another example of the peculiar facility in English for > creating distinctions between words, based on spelling differences > which then diverge in meaning? Is "prize" the same word as "price"? One is, one isn't, and a third might be; "praise" is, though. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-ravens.htm Upon the hill, within the stones, among the scattering of bones... >> But we know that in modern British English the spelling with "-ise" is >> always correct even if we don't know whether "-ize" is correct - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > distinctions between words, based on spelling differences which then > diverge in meaning? Is "prize" the same word as "price"? Initially it was a variant, but now it has a quite different meaning - so, no, they aren't the same word. However, the German translation of both words is the same - "Preis" is pronounced more or less the same as "price". Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > Is this another example of the peculiar facility in English for > creating distinctions between words, based on spelling differences > which then diverge in meaning? Is "prize" the same word as "price"? There's no short answer to that. "Prize" and "price" are nowadays quite different words (with a common ancestry), but the difference in spelling coincides with a difference in pronunciation. The question becomes more intgeresting if you also include the word "prise" which is pronounced the same as "prize" but with its own separate meaning. All three started off pretty interchangeably (before the development of standard orthography) but have udergone their own separate developments. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. > If a word has one or two syllables it's usually spelled with "s" in both > British and American English, e.g. "rise", "surprise". However "prise" > and "prize" are two different words. 'Size' can be an absolute bastard sometimes. You can spell it both ways, meaning the same thing, with the option of 'sice' as well, and still have a case to argue in news. Giles In uk.culture.language.english, danilla wrote: >The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the >subject (and alike) with z. Except for: advertise, advise, arise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, enterprise, excise, exercise, (dis/en)franchise, improvise, incise, merchandise, premise, reprise, revise, rise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise. (At least, they're *almost* always spelled that way: "advertize", "merchandize", and "surprize" ARE listed in some U.S. college dictionaries, but are not the usual forms anywhere.) A useful mnemonic is that, except "improvise", none of these make nouns in "-isation", "-ization", or "-ism". (Exceptions in the other direction are "aggrandize", "capsize", "recognize", and verbs from which no verb "-ization" has been formed because the parent or cognate noun already had the desired meaning.) Thanks to Mark Israel for that list. http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxizevsi.html SignatureMike Barnes On 17 Jun, in article <1119000382.294036.225870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > Hello. > The Americans have made it simple. They spell all the words in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you tell me a simple rule? Is there one, at all? Have you tried looking at standard works of reference, such as Fowler's MEU? As someone later in the thread has said, the Americans use the correct spellings of those verbs that do NOT derive from words that were originally ending in -izein in Greek, and for the rest they also use the correct spelling, with a -ize. For example, the verb "televise", deriving from "television" (which is itself a hybrid of Greek and Latin that was much criticized 80-odd years ago) has never been anywhere near a Greek -izein verb, and therefore uses -ise in both BrEnglish and AmEnglish. Many years ago I was told that the Americans take the trouble to teach their schoolchildren which words MUST be spelt with -ise, and therefore they also know that the remainder SHOULD be spelt with -ize. The English, following King Lear's exhortation "Out! Whoreson Zed", assume that the -ize spelling is American (and therefore to be shunned). Whereas in reality, it's the -ise spelling that is out of place, being a relic of Gallic misspellings when the Norman French first came to govern the English. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.