Advertising - LEO without ads? LEO Pur
LEO

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

LEO Pur
 
  •  

  • Forum home

    Language lab

    -ize, -ise endings

    27­ Replies
    Topic

    -ize, -ise endings

    Comment
    Leo states that -ise endings (eg organise) is chiefly British and -ize is chiefly American. This is a common misconception, but is incorrect. The form -ize derives from the Greek suffix "izo" meaning to make and was added to English words to imitate this, or derived from French or Latin words which were similarly influenced. However, some words in -ise have a different origin and are always written with an s, eg surprise, advertise. For organize, realize, maximize etc etc both the z and the s forms are acceptable, but the z is strictly more correct and has usually been preferred by grammarians in England, contrary to the myth that it is somehow American. If anything the us of the s is more American because this standardizes all spellings with the s: ie surprise, organise.

    I quote from the Oxford Concise Dictionary, 5th edition, 1964:

    "-ize, -ise, suffix of verbs =French -iser, from Late Latin -izare, from Greek -izo; in Greek either intrans. as "hellenizo" speak/act as a Greek or trans. as "catharizo" clean; Christian Greek verbs as "evaggelizo" evangelize were first Latinized and -izare so established as Latin for Greek verbs; French extended -iser to form verbs from names etc. whence the modern use -ize is the better spelling for all words, modern or from Greek, which contain the Greek suffix..."

    The -ise or -ize spelling is optional (in the appropriate words) but the point is that I am thoroughly fed up with hearing that -ize is American and -ise is British. I hope that you will verify this and remove this label from your entries. Since LEO is used millions of times a day, this may strike a blow against this recurrent myth.
    AuthorBill Smyth18 May 04, 10:13
    Comment
    PS Could I ask for a response from the LEO team to the above posting. thank you.
    #1AuthorBill Smyth18 May 04, 10:19
    Comment
    Wenn Du speziell eine Antwort vom LEO-Team möchtest, dann solltest Du das Forum Re: LEO benutzen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß Deine Anfrage gefunden wird, ist dort größer.
    #2AuthorSelima18 May 04, 10:26
    Comment
    I think that what is (justly so) meant by 'chiefly British' is merely the fact that 'ise' spellings are used ESPECIALLY in British English (as opposed to American English), and not that these spellings are mostly used. I do not agree, however, that the 'ize' spellings are more correct; language evolves: certainly, the origin might be such and such, but common practice in British texts favours the use of 'ise'. It is also the official spelling of the Australian government, by the way (or so I have been told by an Australian, I have not been able to confirm this).

    Besides, even if spellings such as 'organise' and 'realise' are standardised forms, one still cannot spell 'prize', 'size', 'seize' or something akin to these words with an s. To paraphrase Oxford again, the use of 's' spellings appears to be a reaction against American use of z. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this trend per se.
    #3AuthorAleks18 May 04, 13:30
    Comment
    I've always been puzzled by the shaky use of -ise and -ize, since I started learning English. In German, it's as easy as in French: -isieren (derived from French -iser) serves to form a verb from virtually any noun that sounds like stemming from Greek or Latin.

    I know the rule of thumb stating that in most cases where both are possible, -ize is preferred in AE and -ise in BE. But of course this doesn't help if you want to know *if* both possibilities exist (or if it's rather a question of "either - or"). There must be some linguists out there who have scrutinized this phenomenon and have come up whith a more complex analysis (or even a list of verbs).
    #4AuthorFrank FMH18 May 04, 22:51
    Comment
    @Frank: Here are a couple of links that might help:
    http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-ise1.htm
    http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/tables...

    Plus a lot more that I haven't checked out:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-885...
    #5Authorhm -- us18 May 04, 23:19
    Comment
    Bill, I do not see any misconception here. The etymological background and the actual spellings are a different kettle of fish. LEO represents the latter.

    See also http://forum.leo.org/cgi-bin/dict/forum.cgi?a..., in particular this link: http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-ise1.htm

    Or, look e.g. at these Google figures for your example "organi[s|z]e":
    .uk sites:
    - organise: 451k
    - organize: 79k
    .edu sites:
    - organise: 2k
    - organize: 316k

    Whether etymologically correct or not, it is a fact that "-ize" is more common in AE and "-ise" in BE -- bestimmte Ausnahmen außen vor gelassen.
    #6AuthorUho <de>19 May 04, 00:12
    Comment
    Apologies, substitute ".gov" for ".edu".
    #7AuthorUho <de>19 May 04, 00:13
    Comment
    Dear Bill Smyth:

    Leo is right: -ize *is* chiefly American and -ise is chiefly British. This reflects actual usage in both countries.

    There's no point trying to apply logic to this. Can you find historical reasons for the difference? Sure, so what? It doesn't matter--usage now is what it is.
    One could just as well bemoan the foreign invasion of French words into Old English in the centuries following 1066, and it would get you just about as far.

    I'm afraid that you can choose to be as upset about this as you like, but it won't change a thing.

    If you choose to spell them your way, that's different--you certainly won't find me among those castigating or correcting you (I couldn't care less how you spell) but you certainly are not going to convince the rest of the English-speaking world to do it your way.

    Plus, you're doing some minor damage here, causing doubt in the minds of German speakers that what you say might be correct. It's not correct--it's dead wrong, you pretty much have everything backwards.

    Give up, Bill. It's about as lost as cause as I could possibly imagine.
    #8AuthorPeter <us>19 May 04, 03:31
    Comment
    a reply:

    thank you to all for the relevant links, particularly the one that proves my point: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/ab...

    As far as I am concerned, the Oxford University Press and the OED are the authorities on the English language and on British/American usage.

    Judging by some of the postings, I need to clarify what I am saying.

    The point is that it is incorrect to say that -ise is "British" and -ize "American", as if we are dealing with, for example, "honour" and "honor", "colour" and "colour", "manoeuvre" and "maneuver" etc.

    In both countries BOTH forms are acceptable and perfectly correct, in those words where there is an option. I am the first person to allow this. However, if one wants to be a stickler one can make a good case for -ize being preferable. In any case, what I am resisting is the "-ize" spelling being stamped as "American".

    I am well aware that the s spelling is commonly used in the UK and many English people have also heard the one about s being British and z American. But usage is one thing and being correct is another. It only goes to show that many English people know little about spelling or grammar, which anyone who has lived in this country will realize.

    To reiterate, both are correct. But I am fed up with being corrected by people claiming that -ize is an American form, like "honor".

    kind regards
    #9AuthorBill Smyth19 May 04, 15:32
    Comment
    "both are correct"?...tell that to my elementary school teachers who always yelled at me when I wrote "organise"!
    #10AuthorJG in Essen19 May 04, 15:54
    Comment
    Bill, ob "korrekt" oder nicht (das hängt vor allem davon ab, wie man "korrekt" definiert) -- ein LEO-Nutzer, der entweder für Briten schreibt oder für Amerikaner, möchte einen Anhaltspunkt haben, welche Schreibweise dort üblich ist. If you are "fed up with being corrected by people claiming that -ize is an American form", why would you want LEO users risking being corrected this way because they didn't knew the commonly accepted spelling for their audience?
    #11AuthorUho <de>19 May 04, 16:11
    Comment
    There is a difference: Notwithstanding actual current usage, in American English only -ize is considered orthographically correct, whereas in British English both forms are acceptable.
    So to write organize "chiefly American" could be justified, to write organise "chiefly British", however is wrong, as it is only correct in British English. So at least the latter should be changed to simply "British" or "British only" (including, of course, those countries which follow British orthography).
    #12Authort19 May 04, 16:14
    Comment
    @ hm -- us: Thanks a lot, http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/tables... is just what I've been looking for. :-)
    #13AuthorFrank FMH20 May 04, 00:17
    Comment
    @Bill:

    You don't want the words to be marked as ONLY AMERICAN / ONLY BRITISH, right? But I don't get it, I mean, it doesn't say "to realize [Amer.]" or "to realise [Brit.]" in LEO, it says "to realize chiefly [Amer.]" and "to realise chiefly [Brit.]", so everything's fine, right? (Well if "t" is right, it's not totally fine, but that's a different matter ...)
    #14AuthorDavid20 May 04, 01:29
    Comment
    > But usage is one thing and being correct is another.

    Ah, I understand now. We have an axiomatic difference that cannot be resolved with any amount of persuasion or discussion, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    As long as you are self-consistent about this, I have no quarrel with you. Still don't think you'll convince anybody, but that's really neither here nor there.

    See other threads on "prescriptivist" and "descriptivist" for more interesting stuff relating to the general nature of our disagreement.
    #15AuthorPeter <us>20 May 04, 04:08
    Comment
    I can imagine it must be very frustrating being told by ignorant British people that a spelling is American, when actually, according to Oxford, it was preferred by the British themselves until the 19th century, although I must say I agree with Uho - why make others suffer this frustration?

    Still, as "-ize" is the standard spelling in the US (again according to Oxford) would it help to change the Leo tip to "standard US spelling" for "-ize", and for "-ise" "often used in Britain"? As they are, they do not claim that either spelling is correct only in one or the other country, so it would not make a great difference, but would perhaps soothe the sufferings of poor sticklers. Or does Bill disagree with the idea that -ise is often used in Britain, despite being corrected on the subject so often?


    #16AuthorArchfarchnad -gb-20 May 04, 12:10
    Comment
    @t: I agree. I suspect the LEO team might understandably give that change a relatively low priority, but if you'd like to suggest it I'll be happy to back you up. From a safe distance. *g*


    @Frank: You're welcome. (-: It may help to know that most of his 'variants' are so infrequent or substandard that they can safely be ignored; just stick with the first spelling given. A few exceptions:

    Preferred spellings that he mistakenly lists as second in order or omits:
    oenology, eurhythmy, accoutrement, rappelled/ing, camomile; BS, PhD, MS (a relatively recent change in usage); (last but most important) all right.

    Variants that are indeed used/accepted:
    caesarean, dieresis, sulphur/ous, burnt (adj.), dreamt (after 'never'), kneeled, leapt, alit, fitted (transitive), wedded (adj.), sepulcher, glamour, Rumanian, analog, catalogue, dialog, advisor, faggot, chile (the pepper), woollen, kidnaped/er, garotte, omelet, any more, cafe, entrée, axe, Britishism, crawfish, tsar, tzar, doughnut, carat, catsup, Romansch.

    A few other AE ones I didn't notice on his list:
    annex, briar, coeval, dwarfs, hiccup, impanel (substandard variant), intern, math, pudgy, pygmy, shrimp (pl.), snicker, sports (sing.), -ward (afterward, forward, toward, upward, etc.), wharves.
    #17Authorhm -- us21 May 04, 04:56
    Comment
    part I: must split this due to length

    some good stuff here, particularly the link to the American-British dictionary, which looks quite good (see link above).

    my point about -ize is addressed to Germans really. My original point was that LEO gives the wrong idea to Germans (after all the principal users of LEO) that -ize is "American" and -ise "British".

    Now as we all know, the Germans (for all that I love them) are inclined to be rather rigid, so when they see "chiefly British", they think, aha, if you want to write "British English" you must write "-ise". Just like under the new rechtschreibung you must write schifffahrt and muss etc. etc.

    The context here is that the whole organization of the English language is different. What Germans find difficult to get their heads around is that EVERYTHING in English is more or less optional - in the sense that no variant spelling that is or has been widely used can be said to be absolutely "wrong". Therefore English people may write "honor", "maneuver" etc. and I am sure there are/have been writers from England who have used such spellings.

    #18AuthorBill26 May 04, 16:39
    Comment
    part II of comment:

    Certainly a corpus of differing spellings have emerged in the two countries. Use of any of these in the other country is either unusual, an explicit statement or a spelling mistake. Eg to write honor, color, center, tire, plow in Britain is highly unusual. My point is that -ize has been falsely added to this list.

    As far as I am concerned that is a clear misconception. By the way, nothing on the forum has dealt with this point and a lot of contributions seem to have ignored it or turned it into something different.

    What I believe is at the heart of the misconception is the belief that somehow -ize is a simplification. We all know that one of the principles underlying American spellings is simplification, ie the removal of illogical spelling forms, silent letters etc. etc. Hence the words I listed above and Jeremy Smith's American-British dictionary has many others. What I think is going on is this. People think to themselves :"Aha, a word in -ize, from the sound you would think it is spelt -ize, but there is an -ise form too, it's too easy to spell it -ize and since the Americans simplify everything that must be the US spelling, whereas Uk English is always fiendishly difficult and illogical and spells differently from what you'd think, so they must use -ise..." What is going on is the application of a schoolboy rule of thumb to spelling without really understanding the underlying eymological, historical and conventional reasons why things are spelt a particular way.

    #19AuthorBill26 May 04, 16:39
    Comment


    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    2 entries found for organisation.
    To select an entry, click on it.
    organisation, organise, organiser

    Main Entry: or·ga·ni·sa·tion, or·ga·nise, or·ga·nis·er
    British variant of ORGANIZATION, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZER

    #20AuthorNoFurtherComment26 May 04, 22:53
    Comment
    An interesting discussion with many facets. It would be nice to hear from
    the British what the current tendency is - towards ize, I suppose. Reading
    and writing mostly technical things myself, I assume that also British engineers
    are influenced by the vast majority of american-spelled texts. (Already 20 years
    ago a British scientist told me that you "always" write concert programm but
    computer program.) The decisive factor ist probably the passive influence rather
    than active consideration. There is no systematic phonetic reaon either in the
    ise/ize case.
    In spite of "us" being so rigid, in fact there is no institution in Germany
    having the normative power of e. g. the French academy.
    #21AuthorThomas27 May 04, 01:41
    Comment
    > LEO gives the wrong idea to Germans (after all the principal users of LEO) that -ize is 'American' and -ise 'British'.

    > My point is that -ize has been falsely added to this list [of chiefly AE spellings like honor, color, center, tire, plow].
    > As far as I am concerned that is a clear misconception... a lot of contributions seem to have ignored it

    Not ignoring it, just rejecting it.

    While your perspective on historical linguistics is interesting, it doesn't reflect current usage.

    If you're translating documents written in our lifetime, Leo gives the correct impression, and -ize is indeed chiefly American and -ise is chiefly British. There are, of course, a few exceptions, and some cross-talk back and forth, but that's why dictionaries invariably say 'chiefly' and not 'always' BE or AE, as the case may be.

    Leo's comments about -ise/-ize endings are correct and should remain unaltered.
    #22AuthorPeter <us>27 May 04, 07:33
    Comment
    As an Australian with some love for "Fowler's Modern English Usage" I have favoured "organize" for quite some time. This is based on etymological grounds as has been well explored here.
    That said, it is very clear that the -ise form has come to dominate in the UK since the 1960s. I wonder to what extent the spell checker in MS Office products has to do with this? Early UK versions of MS Word insisted that -ise was the correct form, even when the more credible references where suggesting -ize.

    There is little doubt that -ise is taking over in the UK, but I am keen to know why, especially since it flies in the face of logic, well etymological logic at least ;-)
    #23AuthorMark30 Aug 04, 16:05
    Comment
    since 'Fowlers' has cropped up once in this thread - perhaps it is of interest to see what he had to say about -ize v. -ise -

    "It must be noticed, however, that a small number of verbs, some of them in very frequent use, like advertise, ..., do not get their -ise even remotely from the Greek -izo, & must be spelt with -s-... The difficulty fo remembering which these -ise verbs are is in fact the only reason for making -ise universal, & the sacrifice of significance to ease does not seem justified."
    (Fowlers, 1st Edition 1926)
    which explains at least in part why -ise are so popular in BE.
    even if incorrect.

    but as Peter <us> has pointed out - we can cry over the loss of etymological exactness all we want - usage determines the 'correctness' of LEO entries, and that's that.
    #24Authorodondon irl30 Aug 04, 16:30
    Comment
    Bill, vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag, den ich keinesfalls für überflüssig halte. Ich glaube, du hast ein Problem der Deutschen (zumindest von mir) angesprochen, dass die Amerikaner in diesem Thread nicht verstanden haben. Auch wenn ich der Meinung bin, dass die LEO-Einträge "chiefly British/American" wegen des "chiefly" so bleiben können, so stimme ich dir zu, dass für mich seit diesen LEO-Einträgen (und dem MS-Spellchecker) -ise _nur_ britisch und -ize _nur_ amerikanisch war. Wenn ich dich richtig verstehe, ist es aber gerade nicht so, dass ein Brite beim Lesen eines Textes mit -ize-Endungen stutzt und sich z.B. wundert, warum der deutsche Autor amerikanische Endungen benutzt. Weil in England eben _beide_ Endungen akzeptabel sind. Oder?
    #25AuthorMattes30 Aug 04, 17:18
    Comment
    ...ein Problem [...] angesprochen, das einigen anderen in diesem Thread noch nicht aufgefallen ist...
    Sorry. Nachdem mir der Tippfehler aufgefallen war, gefiel mir auch der Rest des Satzes nicht mehr so gut.
    #26AuthorMattes30 Aug 04, 17:56
    Comment
    Bill Wrote : <It only goes to show that many English people know little about spelling or grammar, which anyone who has lived in this country will realize.>

    Sounds like someone's had an overdose of Lynn Truss for breakfast!
    #27AuthorAl Bundy31 Aug 04, 08:42
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
 
 
 
en
English ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ Spanish
 
es
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ French
 
fr
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
en
English ⇔ Russian
 
ru
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
fr
French ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
es
Spanish ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
it
Italian ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
zh
Chinese ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
ru
Russian ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
pt
Portuguese ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
pl
Polish ⇔ German
 
de
ForumsTrainerCourses
 
es
Spanish ⇔ Portuguese
 
pt
ForumsTrainerCourses
Hello
 ­ automatisch zu ­ ­ umgewandelt