# to anglicize/anglicise



## Outsider

I've just noticed in this post by Felicia that there's a Norwegian word for "adapting a word to Norwegian", _fornorske_.

Do other languages have similar words? In Portuguese, there is _aportuguesar_. In English, I suppose it's "to anglicize"...


----------



## zaby

In French : franciser


----------



## betulina

In Catalan we say _catalanitzar._


----------



## Henryk

In German you say "germanisieren".


----------



## Jana337

Henryk said:
			
		

> In German you say "germanisieren".


I think I prefer eindeutschen/verdeutschen. Germanisieren carries some unpleasant historical connotations, but maybe it's just me. 

Anyway, in Czech we say "počeštit" (the language is called "čeština").

Jana


----------



## optimistique

*Vernederlandsen* in Dutch.


----------



## amikama

*עברית (Hebrew):* לעברת


----------



## LaSmarjeZ

Italianizzare in Italian


----------



## ireney

exellinizo Εξελληνίζω in Greek


----------



## Henryk

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I think I prefer eindeutschen/verdeutschen. Germanisieren carries some unpleasant historical connotations, but maybe it's just me.
> 
> Anyway, in Czech we say "počeštit" (the language is called "čeština").
> 
> Jana


Yes, you may also say "eindeutschen". 
I chose "germanisieren" since I've read this more often yet.


----------



## Josh_

In Arabic there is *يعرب *yu'arribu which means to Arabize.

There are also other words such as *يمصر* yumaSSiru (Egyptianize), *يسودن *yusawdan (Sudanize), *يسعود* yusa'widu (Saudi-ize), but these words probably lend themselves more towards effecting the styles of the place, not adapting a word.


----------



## Tresley

If you really wanted to anglecise 'anglecize' it's 'anglecise'. 
'Anglecize' is the 'Americanised' (Americanized) way of spelling 'anglecise'!!


----------



## Brazilian dude

In Basque _euskaratu_.

Brazilian dude


----------



## Rayines

*In Spanish: Españolizar.*


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> *يسودن *yusawdan (Sudanize)


 
I'm not familiar with this word, but my gut feeling tells me the transliteration should be "yusawd*i*n*u*." "Yusawd*a*n*u*" sounds like passive voice.


----------



## parakseno

For Romanian:

a româniza - to turn into Romanian
a angliciza - for English (British)
a germaniza - for German
a eleniza - for Greek
etc.


----------



## Josh_

elroy said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with this word, but my gut feeling tells me the transliteration should be "yusawd*i*n*u*." "Yusawd*a*n*u*" sounds like passive voice.


According to the HW it is with an 'a'.


----------



## elroy

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> According to the HW it is with an 'a'.


 
My Hans Wehr lists only the past tense form (as is usual in dictionaries), which is of course "sawd*a*na."  Does yours list the *present tense* form with an "a"?


----------



## Josh_

You're right.  I was mixing up the past and present forms.


----------



## belano75

Rayines said:
			
		

> *In Spanish: Españolizar.*


 
And also, from castellano (Castilian), castellanizar.


----------



## Outsider

Tresley said:
			
		

> If you really wanted to anglecise 'anglecize' it's 'anglecise'.
> 'Anglecize' is the 'Americanised' (Americanized) way of spelling 'anglecise'!!


First of all, they're both spelled with an *i*, not an _e_.
Secondly, endings in _-ize_ are accepted in BE.
Thirdly, who said the word 'anglicize' has anything to do with England, anyway?


----------



## badgrammar

If I had to guess, which I do because I can't find the Turkish word for this anywhere, but I know it must exist in Turkish, so I'd say it would be something like
"Türkçelesmek" or "Türkçelestermek"???  But I am 100% sure neither is entirely right, so I hope someone will correct me!!!


----------



## optimistique

Outsider said:
			
		

> Thirdly, who said the word 'anglicize' has anything to do with England, anyway?



Well, that IS where the language is originally spoken.


----------



## Outsider

But today it's spoken in other countries, too. Even if my spelling were wrong in British English, which it isn't, there's no reason why I couldn't be using American spelling.


----------



## optimistique

No, that's true. But let's say, if you do 'aportuguesar' something, then probably you are making it Portuguese, not Brazilian. Also see the ressemblence *angl*icize - *Engl*and. In the same way I guess you can make something English by anglicizing it, and not necessarily American or Irish.


----------



## Outsider

Would you normally use two different words for the process of adapting a word into the English language, depending on whether it's done by an Englishman, or by an American? Isn't it "anglicizing" in both cases?


----------



## elroy

"Anglicize" (or "anglicise") is a _linguistic_ term that has nothing to do with any particular nation.  It refers to converting a word into English.  Period.  The form of English it gets converted into can be British, American, Irish, Scottish, Australian, New Zealander (?), South African, or any other variety of English that is spoken on this planet.

Similarly, I would use "aportuguesar" to refer to converting something to European, Brazilian, Azores, or Madeiran (?) Portuguese; "vernederlandsen" to converting it to the Dutch of the Netherlands or that of Belgium; and "franciser" to converting it to any of the many varieties of French that are spoken all over the world.

Furthermore, what do you say about "Arabize"?  That doesn't refer to a specific country, so I wonder - which form of Arabic does it refer to?  Must be Saudi Arabian, because that has the most number of letters that overlap with the name of the language.


----------



## Outsider

And there's also the United Arab Emirates...

P.S. No, wait, you're right. "Arabia" does have one more letter in common with "Arabic" than "Arab".


----------



## optimistique

Listen, I should have been more clear. I was NOT talking about a linguistic 'vernederlandsen' or such, but a habit, food, whatever; anything but not a word or expression. When a meal is 'vernederlandst', it is not made Flemish, because then it would be 'vervlaamst'. For the same reason I understand Tresley's reaction. Please note that I meant that the word 'to anglicis/ze' could have a meaning beside its linguistic meaning, and in that respect he is right.

Furthermore, I understand you and I even agree with you in this context, Outsider and Elroy, so no need to convince me. I just wanted to say that I understand Tresley too, and that he is right too in a way.


----------



## Outsider

And I should have been more patient with Tresley, except he could have read the original post before criticizing. I think I made it clear enough that I was talking about languages, not countries.


----------



## elroy

I'm curious: what in Tresley's post indicates that he was talking about things beyond language?  To me, it seemed like an unnecessary prescriptive orthographic correction based on British spelling conventions.


----------



## Brazilian dude

> No, that's true. But let's say, if you do 'aportuguesar' something, then probably you are making it Portuguese, not Brazilian.


No, you're adapting it to Portuguese spelling/pronunciation.  _O termo sandwich foi aportuguesado em sanduíche_.

Brazilian dude


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> I'm curious: what in Tresley's post indicates that he was talking about things beyond language?  To me, it seemed like an unnecessary prescriptive orthographic correction based on British spelling conventions.


Doesn't it amount to the same? Why else would *Tresley* assume the spelling was British, and not American?


----------



## Manuel_M

elroy said:
			
		

> "
> Furthermore, what do you say about "Arabize"? That doesn't refer to a specific country, so I wonder - which form of Arabic does it refer to? Must be Saudi Arabian, because that has the most number of letters that overlap with the name of the language.


 
With reference to language, should the trem not be *Arabicise/ize* rather than *Arabise*?


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Doesn't it amount to the same? Why else would *Tresley* assume the spelling was British, and not American?


 
I don't know; we'll have to wait for Tresley to explain that. 

All I know is that some people think British spelling is the only "correct" one.


----------



## elroy

Manuel_M said:
			
		

> With reference to language, should the trem not be *Arabicise/ize* rather than *Arabise*?


 
You are right.  I would have said "Arabize" but I just checked in the OED and it agrees with the distinction you make.


----------



## Whodunit

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> In Arabic there is *يعرب *yu'arribu which means to Arabize.


 
Strangely my dictionary suggests "3arraba" *عرب*. It doesn't even mention your version. Is it a special "stem", which I'd doubt?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Strangely my dictionary suggests "3arraba" *عرب*. It doesn't even mention your version. Is it a special "stem", which I'd doubt?


 
No.  Josh gave the present tense; your dictionary lists the past tense (the tense usually listed in dictionaries).


----------



## roirosal

In Galician: *galeguizar*


----------

