# -ise and -ize endings in UK and US English



## mordapa

Which one is most commonly used? Which one is the British form?


----------



## DDT

While living in London, I happened to remark an indifferent use of both of them.

DDT


----------



## cathy

Organising is British, organizing is American.


----------



## Focalist

Both spellings are used in British English. 

The Oxford Dictionary, The Times family of newspapers, the Oxford University Press and most other academic publishers prefer -ize. 

Popular newspapers and most other types of publishers prefer -ise. -ise is probably the more widely used form by British English writers overall. 

I prefer -ize.

But it's a free country! There is no Royal Academy of the English Language...

F


----------



## mordapa

Thank you all. I have just discovered a very useful tool.


----------



## JLanguage

Ize vs. Ise endings in the UK. 
I real*ize* that this is a difficult proposition.
I real*ise *that this is a difficult proposition.

Formal*ize*/Formal*ise*
American*ize*/American*ise*

Thanks to all the Uk'ers for your help.

EDIT: Oxford Dictionary prefers the "ize" endings. But most stuff I've read written by Brits uses the "ise" endings.

-Jonathan.


----------



## Nick

As I understand it, the UK always uses the "-ise" endings.


----------



## gaer

Nick said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the UK always uses the "-ise" endings.


Nick, I don't believe this is always so, but it is very often so, and I can't think of any exceptions at the moment. I found a site that listed whole categories, but I lost the link.

There is a great way to find out what spellings are different in the UK. Set your spellchecker to UK English, type, then see what your program wants to correct.

This is only useful, of course, if you have extra time and are especially interested in the whole subject. 

Gaer


----------



## Artrella

JLanguage said:
			
		

> EDIT: Oxford Dictionary prefers the "ize" endings. But most stuff I've read written by Brits uses the "ise" endings.
> 
> -Jonathan.





Yes J Language!!! Odd!! I would've never thought that OXFORD would do such a thing!!!  In UK the ending "ise" is preferred to "ize", however Oxford gives it the second place in its entries!

  Well, well, well... to my surprise CAMBRIDGE does the same thing.

UK people what do you think?  Has the ending "ize" overridden the "ise" one??


----------



## Helicopta

gaer said:
			
		

> Nick, I don't believe this is always so, but it is very often so, and I can't think of any exceptions at the moment.


 
Gaer, I can't think of any exceptions either, if anything i think there are exceptions the other way round... If i type compromize in word using a US spell checker it corrects it to compromise.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> UK people what do you think? Has the ending "ize" overridden the "ise" one??


 
No Artrella, we still always use the 'ise' ending here. I'm really surprised to learn that your dictionary states otherwise.

Oh, and there are two more that are spelt the same: 'Surprise' and 'otherwise'!


----------



## mirandolina

Both forms are accepted, but when writing in English I always make an effort to use only the ISE form.  It  doesn't look good if, in the same article (or whatever), you use both organise and organize, for example.


----------



## Helicopta

I'm sorry to say, Mirandolina that I doubted you and so I checked in word and... You are right; both variations are accepted as UK English. Although, the cynical part of me is telling me that this might just be part of some sinister plot devised by our friend Mr Gates to Americani_*Z*_e the world!


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> UK people what do you think?  Has the ending "ize" overridden the "ise" one??



Many, many hundreds of years ago we used to only use the "ize" form. A little later on some of us up and left and went to North America. Those people took the "ize" form with them (they had to make a special box to transport it in ). So when old Josiah Webster taught the Americans how to spell standardi_*Z*_ed the spelling in the US, he used the "ize" form. However, in the meantime, being far more up-to-date, au-fait, and a-la-mode (not to mention just plain contrary), we changed over to "ise". Just to simplicate things.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Many, many hundreds of years ago we used to only use the "ize" form. A little later on some of us up and left and went to North America. Those people took the "ize" form with them (they had to make a special box to transport it in ). So when old Josiah Webster taught the Americans how to spell standardi_*Z*_ed the spelling in the US, he used the "ize" form. However, in the meantime, being far more up-to-date, au-fait, and a-la-mode (not to mention just plain contrary), we changed over to "ise". Just to simplicate things.




Ohhh Garry!! Superb!!  aahhh <sigh of relief>... *my* "British 'ise'" is back home..


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Ohhh Garry!! Superb!! aahhh <sigh of relief>... *my* "British 'ise'" is back home..


 
I'm confuzed. 

I uzed to think I could spell English, but with these changez, it makes it crasy.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hi all,

As usual when I start reading a thread like this, I itch to add my twopenn'orth (/two cents worth), then I read on and find that others have beaten me to it and I'm left with about a hap'orth (/half a cent's worth).

Art's Oxford/Cambridge point is answered (superbly) by Garry: "ize" is historical (the Oxford, in its printed version, does explain in a preface), but is questionable for BrE, since modern UK usage is almost exclusively "ise".

Indeed Art, "ize" is not "overriding "ise" -- quite the contrary. So you're in good company: it's not a case of "for your 'ise' only"!  

One advantage of BrE "ise" is that you don't have to worry about which words can't be "ize", even in AmE (cf Helicopta's post #5), because (and now here's my half-cent's worth) : ... 

The ize/ise option is valid only as a suffix for creating a verb from a root noun or adjective :
American >> Americanise/ize = 'make American' 
category >> categorise/ize = 'put in categories'
real >> realise/ize = ‘make real’... etc

It does *not* apply to words such as 'compromise', 'surprise', 'otherwise', because they are *not* formed like this:
comprom-ise   (to make comprom !?)
surpr-ise   (to put into a surpr !?)
otherw-ise   (to make otherw !?) ....   

.... but like this:
com-pro-mise   ('mise' from past participle of French 'mettre'=put)
sur-prise   ('prise' from past participle of French 'prendre'=take)
other-wise   (two good English words, wise=way)

... and so they can't be spelt with a z.

So I'd advise (never advize) English-language learners to stick to 'ise' -- it's the easy option   , and the worst fate you may suffer is Americans thinking you're not American!

W


----------



## Outsider

A word I've seen spelled variously is "analyse/analyze". I suppose the point of the spelling with _z_ is to avoid confusing the plural noun "analyses" with the verb "analyses", since they are pronounced differently...


----------



## JLanguage

Nonetheless, I will continue to util*ize *"ize" spellings as that appears to be the prevailing custom here in the US, just as "ise" is currently in vogue in the UK.

Cheers,
-Jonathan.


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> As usual when I start reading a thread like this, I itch to add my twopenn'orth (/two cents worth), then I read on and find that others have beaten me to it and I'm left with about a hap'orth (/half a cent's worth).
> 
> Art's Oxford/Cambridge point is answered (superbly) by Garry: "ize" is historical (the Oxford, in its printed version, does explain in a preface), but is questionable for BrE, since modern UK usage is almost exclusively "ise".
> 
> Indeed Art, "ize" is not "overriding "ise" -- quite the contrary. So you're in good company: it's not a case of "for your 'ise' only"!
> 
> One advantage of BrE "ise" is that you don't have to worry about which words can't be "ize", even in AmE (cf Helicopta's post #5), because (and now here's my half-cent's worth) : ...
> 
> The ize/ise option is valid only as a suffix for creating a verb from a root noun or adjective :
> American >> Americanise/ize = 'make American'
> category >> categorise/ize = 'put in categories'
> real >> realise/ize = ‘make real’... etc
> 
> It does *not* apply to words such as 'compromise', 'surprise', 'otherwise', because they are *not* formed like this:
> comprom-ise (to make comprom !?)
> surpr-ise (to put into a surpr !?)
> otherw-ise (to make otherw !?) ....
> 
> .... but like this:
> com-pro-mise ('mise' from past participle of French 'mettre'=put)
> sur-prise ('prise' from past participle of French 'prendre'=take)
> other-wise (two good English words, wise=way)
> 
> ... and so they can't be spelt with a z.
> 
> So I'd advise (never advize) English-language learners to stick to 'ise' -- it's the easy option  , and the worst fate you may suffer is Americans thinking you're not American!
> 
> W


I'd switch over to BE spellings in a hearbeat if we could, since I can't spell EITHER AE speelings OR BE spellings without a spellchecker!

In fact, before word-processing, I used to avoid writing half the words I use in conversation because I could never remember how to spell them. 

Gaer


----------



## JLanguage

I don't have that problem. While I do not know how to spell everything, especially words taken directly from other languages such as *coup d'état, *for the most part I don't have any difficulty with it. I do have trouble though, with my locution and phraseology.


----------



## criland

Hi!

I'd like to know if exists any difference between the word "organizer" (with zed) and "organiser" (with s). What word is mainly used in Great Britain? What is the maily used in the USA? and in general?

Thank you a lot in advance for any answer!!!

;-)


----------



## garryknight

The spelling with 'z' is the American English spelling, while we speakers of British English spell it with an 's'. This is the general case but there are exceptions. There has been at least one previous thread on this subject, but offhand I can't think of which search term might list it. You could try some obvious terms like "realise" and "organize".


----------



## lainyn

Do you say "to practise" or "to practice", Garry?


----------



## garryknight

lainyn said:
			
		

> Do you say "to practise" or "to practice", Garry?


The forms with 's' are always the verbs and those with 'c' are the nouns. At least, that's our usual practice but not everybody practises it diligently.


----------



## te gato

Here is a link to other different spellings between the two..

http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/american.html

te gato


----------



## mjscott

WOW! Mr. Knight!
The "z-s" think was NEVER explained to me! (Or I wasn't paying attention!)
Thanks for getting my attention!


----------



## criland

Thank you all for you kind replies!


----------



## te gato

criland said:
			
		

> Thank you all for you kind replies!


You are welcome..any time..

te gato


----------



## Jazzie

I've been having a discussion about British v American English.  I'm an American, but lived in England a number of years and had to adapt to the spellings there.  (Yeah, I'm bilingual in English!)  

Anyway, I mentioned the difference between the -ize and -ise suffixes, based on whether from a Latin or Greek root.

Could someone help expand on this?  I did try to do a google search, but pretty much came up empty -- except for finding this site.  

Thanks,

Jazzie


----------



## Cath.S.

Hi Jazzie, 
I'm afraid all I can do for you is give you a link that leads to a great big bunch of words in -ize, it might help your research. 
http://www.onelook.com/?loc=rz5&w=*ize&scwo=1&sswo=1


----------



## panjandrum

"Thou whoreson zed! Thou unnecessary letter!"
To vary the ending depending on the word requires you to know more about etymology than most of us can possibly cope with - so if you try this, you will almost certainly break your own rule.
Take your pick and stick with it. Which you pick depends on where you are.
The quote above may suggest which I use.


----------



## bartonig

For our American subscribers:

Just how far will you go -izing every verb? I was watching the Bill O'Reilly show this morning (that doesn't mean I'm a fan. I watch a variety of news and opinion broadcasts) and an interviewee said _we've just funeralised Rosa Parks_. Blimey, I nearly fell off my seat. I was kind-of shockized. Well, I've recovered and made directly for the forum. What prompts you to _ize _a verb? Surely, there're enough verbs in the language and we've been holding services in memory of people for centuries.


----------



## elroy

bartonig said:
			
		

> For our American subscribers:
> 
> Just how far will you go -izing every verb? I was watching the Bill O'Reilly show this morning (that doesn't mean I'm a fan. I watch a variety of news and opinion broadcasts) and an interviewee said _we've just funeralised Rosa Parks_. Blimey, I nearly fell off my seat. I was kind-of shockized. Well, I've recovered and made directly for the forum. What prompts you to _ize _a verb? Surely, there're enough verbs in the language and we've been holding services in memory of people for centuries.


 
As a speaker of American English, I am guilty of perpetual "-izing."  I wouldn't have done it in that case, but sometimes "-izing" a verb is just so much more expressive than a lengthy substitute. Here's an example:

He's trying to Spanishize the class. (make it seem like a class in Spain)

I didn't know this was an American phenomenon.  I can definitely assure you that it's done with quite some frequency - at least among my age group (college students).

Do you find it a despicable abomination? 

*Sidenote: I would never do it in formal writing.*


----------



## *Cowgirl*

elroy said:
			
		

> *Sidenote: I would never do it in formal writing.* I agree, never -ize things in formal writing.


 
I think we use it to try to emphasize something. I have also heard people -ize words when they are trying (unsuccessfully) to make that word an adjective or adverb.

Some correct "izers"
materialize
idolize 
symbolize


----------



## GenJen54

"-izing" is becoming as popular for verbs as "-ate" is to new dilemmas or scandals.  Both are overly-used.

My favorite, to date, which comes from Management-ese, is: incentivize.

_Management is continually looking for new and inventive ways to *incentivize* employees to be more productive in the workplace.

_In AE, it seems as if we are continually coming up with new ways to _bastardize_ our language, which throws any idea of _standardization_ right out the window.

_*Edit*_:  I should add that this is a very sarcastic "favorite."  In other words, I find it abominable.  To borrow a word from Panj-ese, pleeeuggh.


----------



## PSIONMAN

elroy said:
			
		

> I didn't know this was an American phenomenon.  I can definitely assure you that it's done with quite some frequency



It is very much an AE phenomenon. Conservative speakers and commentators in the UK are always complaining about it. I think it adds a lot of richness to the language (see some examples already given) but also some horrors (see some examples already given).

I wonder if it comes form the broader linguistic mix in the USA - e.g. Spanish does a lot more of this than does English


----------



## panjandrum

I'm not at all sure this is a tendency I would want to associate with 
But in BE, for better or worse we have been doing it for centuries as well - and complaining about it. 

I discovered when I went to look for references to -ise/-ize extensions, that British Monarchs went through a process of enthronization for centuries. Only the most recent coronation was a simple enthroning.


----------



## HistofEng

womanize, winterize

I'm totally for "izing."


It is a property of English that not all languages share.

Virtually any noun in the English language can be made into a verb. (using other affixes as well


bartoning,

do you also get mad when everyone attaches "-able" to everything


This car is *highway-driv "able"*



what abot -ness

I sense a bit of *Kyle-ness* from him.

The *"long walks on the beach"-ness* of it all just turned me off. 


as you can see many productive affixes can attach themselves to proper nouns and phrases, not just one words.


other productive affixes include

wise
hood
ship
kind
ish
ness
able
ify


-"ize" is just one oof many

it's a great function of English, and we should not look down upon it, imo!

without them, we couldn't have *computerizable*


----------



## HistofEng

^ I'd also like to point out that the more "productive" affixes (in this case suffixes) are usually germanic. most of the romance affixes are not productive (meaning they can't detach from the words they are already attached to and re-attach to other words or phrases).

"-ize" is Greek though.


----------



## cinnamon

I found 
*the televising of trials* 
and 
*to be televised*

what verbs do they refer to?
_to televize, to televise, ..._
Can you give me an example of their use?

my problem concerns many other verbs, which in the infinitive tense have the "z", in other tenses turn the "z" in "s".

I think to
organize - organised/organisation

trivialize - trivialised

criticize - criticised

Is there a grammatical rule about? 

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Aupick

The difference between '-ise' and '-ize' has no grammatical function and doesn't normally follow the pattern you have noticed (which is just random, I'm afraid).

In British English nearly all verbs ending in this way can be written as either '-ise' or '-ize': televise or televize, televised or televized.

In American English you should always use the '-ize' ending, except for the verbs listed below.

In British English it doesn't matter which form you choose, but your choice should be consistent within the same document (for all verb forms). (The exception is when you quote from another text that uses the opposite system: you should maintain the system used in the original.) Publishers tend to have a preference that they enforce in all their books. But there's no difference between them (in meaning or in pronunciation). 

Words which have to be spelled '-ise', even in American English or in British documents using the '-ize' system, are the following:

advertise 
comprise 
devise 
franchise 
revise
advise 
compromise 
enterprise 
improvise 
supervise
apprise 
demise 
excise 
incise 
surmise
chastise 
despise 
exercise 
premise 
surprise

And a final complication: in British documents, if you choose the '-ize' ending, you should still spell 'analyse' with '-yse' even though in American English you can spell it 'analyze'.
​


----------



## Isotta

It's a British English (Canadian/Australian/New Zealand) / American English spelling difference. In British English, it's "criticise," and in American English, it's "criticize." Pronunciation of the "s" and the "z" are the same.

There are exceptions, such as the "televize" you listed--it exists in neither BE nor AE. It's "televise" in both.

Hope this answers your question.

Z.

Edit: I think in American English, you can go back and forth without raising too many eyebrows.


----------



## cinnamon

and what about televise?
Can some of you write a phrase so that I mean its sense?


----------



## panjandrum

Interesting.
There is some incompatibility between posts 2 & 3.
I must go to look for a reference.
In the meantime, it may interest you to know that George Best's funeral will be *televised* live on Saturday - meaning that images of the funeral will be transmitted by television, live.


----------



## Isotta

Incompatability--in that I say you can use both? 

I say this because I learnt to write in Canada. When I moved to the U.S., teachers would count some of my Canadian (British) spelling wrong, but not all of it. For example, "colours" and "favourite" would be counted wrong, but "criticise" and the like were usually not. This led me to believe that this particular difference does not stand out as much. I didn't even know "cheque" was considered British spelling until about a year ago; nobody ever said anything. 

So the line is sometimes rather indistinct.

Z.


----------



## panjandrum

Sorry - I really shouldn't post in a hurry - but here I go again 

Aupick suggests that in BE we accept either *ise* or *ize*, but emphasises consistency. He suggests always using *ize* in AE. I'd have agree with that.

Isotta suggests that in in AE it's *ize* - although you may go back and forth without raising too many eyebrows - and in BE it is *ise*. I'd almost have agreed with that - although I'm a bit surprised at the acceptance of *ise*.

The incompatibility is really marginal, and it strikes me that perhaps the AE view of BE usage , and the BE view of AE usage, is perhaps too rigid.

My friendly OED would have me use *ize* for those words in which the ending comes from Greek and *ise* in other words 
My pragmatic soul has me use *ise* because there's no way I could remember which is which


----------



## Isotta

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Aupick suggests that in BE we accept either *ise* or *ize*, but emphasises consistency. He suggests always using *ize* in AE. I'd have agree with that.
> 
> Isotta suggests that in in AE it's *ize* - although you may go back and forth without raising too many eyebrows - and in BE it is *ise*. I'd almost have agreed with that - although I'm a bit surprised at the acceptance of *ise*.
> 
> The incompatibility is really marginal, and it strikes me that perhaps the AE view of BE usage , and the BE view of AE usage, is perhaps too rigid.



Sorry, I was backwards--what Aupick says about BE is absolutely true. 

If asked, an American would associate it with BE, though I don't think it raises many eyebrows, unlike "colour" and "favourite." 

In writing I go back and forth, usually opting for "-ise" because I can't remember. For a paper, I usually go for the American standard, even though a professor would not care, in which case I bother to look it up.

Panj's final conclusion hit it dead on.

Z.


----------



## Queva

Hi all,
I have a doubt concerning the spelling of -se and -sed ending words such as optimise, characterise etc. 
I am proof-reading in British English and, since spelling these words with a 'z' tends to be viewed as American English, I was opting for the more "traditional" -sed spelling. However, writing "specialised", "emphasise" etc. looks somewhat old-fashioned. I would not want it to be taken that way. 
Reassurance would be most appreciated 
Cheers!
Q.


----------



## panjandrum

Here is a summary:

Aupick suggests that in BE we accept either *ise* or *ize*, but emphasises consistency. He suggests always using *ize* in AE. I'd have agree with that.

Isotta suggests that in in AE it's *ize* - although you may go back and forth without raising too many eyebrows - and in BE it is *ise*. I'd almost have agreed with that - although I'm a bit surprised at the acceptance of *ise*.

The incompatibility is really marginal, and it strikes me that perhaps the AE view of BE usage , and the BE view of AE usage, is perhaps too rigid.

My friendly OED would have me use *ize* for those words in which the ending comes from Greek and *ise* in other words 
My pragmatic soul has me use *ise* because there's no way I could remember which is which


----------



## TrentinaNE

Queva said:
			
		

> I have a doubt  concerning the spelling of ...


I always envy the Italians for having simply one doubt. In English, we have doubts.   

Best,
Elizabeth


----------



## T.D-K

Here is a useful link on the subject

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ise1.htm


----------



## Tensaskia

Hi
I appreciate this may have been asked before but I wonder about the correct usage of s and z in some words.  To cite a recent example of 'bastardization' - a friend, based in America, used this spelling.  I would be more inclined to use s instead of z.  However, a work colleague has said that in fact the usage of z is correct regardless of which nationality.  Is someone able to offer a concise answer to this?  Many thanks.


----------



## timpeac

Tensaskia said:
			
		

> Hi
> I appreciate this may have been asked before but I wonder about the correct usage of s and z in some words. To cite a recent example of 'bastardization' - a friend, based in America, used this spelling. I would be more inclined to use s instead of z. However, a work colleague has said that in fact the usage of z is correct regardless of which nationality. Is someone able to offer a concise answer to this? Many thanks.


 
Welcome! I think that z is the only one correct in the US, both are allowed in the UK but s preferred. Then there are a few words which only have one or the other (no matter UK or US - but I can't think of them off hand I'm afraid!). I would certainly write bastardisation.


----------



## angeluomo

Timpeac:

How about "organization"?  I have seen this only written as "organisation" in British English, whereas Americans use the 'z'. 

Another example: revolutionize.  Wouldn't the Brits write 'revolutionise' consistently?


----------



## Tensaskia

Thanks for your response which is certainly very helpful.  I am now very much inclined to stick with 's' when before I was perhaps a little unsure and also worried that I was using it a little too indiscriminantly!


----------



## timpeac

angeluomo said:
			
		

> Timpeac:
> 
> How about "organization"? I have seen this only written as "organisation" in British English, whereas Americans use the 'z'.
> 
> Another example: revolutionize. Wouldn't the Brits write 'revolutionise' consistently?


 
Absolutely - but we would not be "wrong" (in the eyes of didacts) if we spelt it with a z whereas you would find red pen on your homework if you spelt it with a s. At least that's my understanding.


----------



## angeluomo

Gotcha....


----------



## Tensaskia

so does that imply that the english language is reasonably informal to variations in spellings?  If so why - and I'm not implying that it should or shouldn't be - is it that this is the case?  Are there other languages that have this informality, or is that for another forum?


----------



## Cracker Jack

Timepeace, what about if the an examinee for a UK based English proficiency examination like FCE, CAE, CPE, IELTS or like,  uses z instead of s in the written portion, in the previously stated words, would it affect his marks?  Is this allowable?


----------



## panjandrum

If I were you, I would check with the relevant examining authority.  The usage in BE is very flexible.  Many organisations have style guides that set out their own particular standard usage.  These vary.


----------



## Cracker Jack

panjandrum said:
			
		

> If I were you, I would check with the relevant examining authority. The usage in BE is very flexible. Many organisations have style guides that set out their own particular standard usage. These vary.


 
Thanks a lot Panj.  I guess that would be the wisest thing to do.


----------



## Tresley

My daughter has had American spellings corrected in her English homework several times. Words such as 'industrialisation' and 'legalisation' were corrected. (My daughter had spelt them with a 'z').  When she asked her teacher about the spelling corrections, she was told that it was better to use standard English spellings in her English essays and not American English spellings.

At the time she didn't realise what the difference was between them as she saw both spellings on the Internet.  I had to explain it to her.  She was about 13 years old at the time.

When I looked through her homework she had also written 'surprize'. This made me laugh, because the Americans spell 'surprise' like we do!

I don't know what the examining boards in the UK think of American spellings, so I told my daughter that her teacher was trying to help her by telling her to use standard English spellings.

In here GCSE English exam she made sure that she used standard English spellings and got an A*.


----------



## Brazilian dude

Cracker Jack said:
			
		

> Timepeace, what about if the an examinee for a UK based English proficiency examination like FCE, CAE, CPE, IELTS or like, uses z instead of s in the written portion, in the previously stated words, would it affect his marks? Is this allowable?


I'm an English teacher in Brazil.  The FCE book I work with says that both spellings are okay, as long as you are consistent in your spelling.

Brazilian dude


----------



## Joelline

However, to answer Tensaskia's question, I don't think that this suggests "that the english language is reasonably informal to variations in spellings."  Quite the contrary, what happened with Tresley's daughter's in the UK would also happen in the US.  Teachers would correct the alternate spelling.  Only bastardization, civilization, etc. are acceptable in most US schools.


----------



## Aupick

I think Tresley's daughter's teacher was being unreasonably harsh. The z forms are perfectly acceptable in British English and are the preferred standard for many British publishing houses, journals, magazines, etc. It's quite different from words like 'colo(u)r' or 'centre/er' which are clearly either British or American. And you'll probably find more and more -ize spellings in Britain in the future because it saves the effort of 'converting' a text if it's then published in the US. Still, you never know if your examiner thinks they need to zealously fend off supposedly American influences, like Tresley's daughter's teacher, so following Panjandrum's advice would be wise.

Words that are spelt -ise, even in American English, are as follows:
advertise 
advise 
apprise 
chastise 
comprise 
compromise 
demise 
despise 
devise 
enterprise 
excise 
exercise 
franchise 
improvise 
incise 
premise 
revise
supervise
surmise
surprise

'Analyze' can be spelt with a z in American English, but apparently not in British English.

They mostly look like 'recent' borrowings from French, which would explain why they're exceptions.


----------



## timpeac

Aupick said:
			
		

> like Tresley's daughter's teacher, so following Panjandrum's advice would be* wise*.
> 
> Words that are spelt -ise, even in American English, are as follows:


 
And "wise"!!


hmmm, but "wizened" is with a zed even in BE....


----------



## Lars2006

Hi there,

I need to edit a book and the publisher's guidelines tells me "use "s" not "z" where this is optional". So my question is, when IS it optional?

Thanks 
Lars


----------



## Chiara Angelucci

I guess in words like "apologize"..you can write it both "apologize" (American English) or "apologise" (British English).

Chiara


----------



## Chiara Angelucci

I'm sorry...
both...AND!

Chiara


----------



## Lars2006

But which are the words that can, and which are the words that cannot be spelled in both ways


----------



## maxiogee

If you can, install a "British English" dictionary for your spell-checker to use. This will give you the correct spellings of the "~ise" words.


----------



## You little ripper!

This link gives a pretty complete list of them.


----------



## Etcetera

Thank you so much, Charles!
So useful a link.


----------



## You little ripper!

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Thank you so much, Charles!
> So useful a link.


You're welcome.


----------



## Blackleaf

Chiara Angelucci said:
			
		

> I guess in words like "apologize"..you can write it both "apologize" (American English) or "apologise" (British English).
> 
> Chiara


 
Many people think "ize" is American and "ise" is British but I think for a long time "ize" was British and was used in England up until just over 100 years ago, then I think we changed to the French "ise" whereas the Americans kept "ize."

I THINK, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Blackleaf

The broad rule is that the _-ize_ forms are standard in the US, but that _-ise_ ones are now usual in Britain and the Commonwealth in all but formal writing. For example, all British newspapers use the _-ise_ forms; so do most magazines and most non-academic books published in the UK. However, some British publishers insist on the _-ize_ forms (Oxford University Press especially), as do many academic journals and a few other publications (the SF magazine _Interzone_ comes to mind). Most British dictionaries quote both forms, but—despite common usage—put the _-ize_ form first.

The original form, taken from Greek via Latin, is _-ize_. That’s the justification for continuing to spell words that way (it helps that we say the ending with a _z_ sound). American English standardised on the _-ize_ ending when it was universal. However, French verbs from the same Latin and Greek sources all settled on the _s_ form and this has been a powerful influence on British English. The change by publishers in the UK has happened comparatively recently, only beginning about a century ago (much too recently to influence American spelling), though you can find occasional examples of the _-ise_ form in texts going back to the seventeenth century.

I like the _-ise_ forms myself, in part because being British I was brought up to spell them that way, but also because then I don’t have to remember the exceptions. There are some verbs that must be spelled with _-ise_ because the ending is a compound one, part of a larger word, and isn’t an example of the suffix. An example is _compromise_, where the ending is _-mise_, from Latin _missum_, something sent or placed. Some other examples spelled _-ise_ are verbs formed from nouns that have the _s_ in the stem, such as _advertise_ or _televise_.

At the risk of sounding like a style guide, but in the hope you may find them useful for reference, these are the words always spelled in _-ise_, whatever your local rule about the rest: _advertise_, _advise_, _apprise_, _chastise_, _circumcise_, _comprise_, _compromise_, _demise_, _despise_, _devise_, _disfranchise_, _enfranchise_, _enterprise_, _excise_, _exercise_, _improvise_, _incise_, _premise_, _revise_, _supervise_, _surmise_, _surprise_, _televise_.

worldwidewords.org


----------



## navidad

All very confusing for non-native English speakers! I am using English dictionaries, several of them, and not a single one even mentions "ise" as a possible or allowed spelling for organize, summarize, tantalize, etc.
But they do contain analyse, comprise, compromise, etc, as explained very clearly, earlier in this thread.
Ref: The Concise English Dictionary, Hayward & Sparkes, Omega Books, Hertfordshire, 1968 or The Everyday English Dictionary, Patterson, Galley Press, London, England, (no date: so that one must be prehistorical, from the sixties, I guess) or a well-known English - Dutch dictionary Wolter's, Groningen, Holland, 1974. They all use UK English, I thought.

So I wonder, what spelling does "organize" and similar verbs have in the usual (paper) dictionaries that are used in UK? Is it different there?

If not, are you sure that "ise" really is the preferred spelling for organise, summarise, e.a.? Why then, do UK english dictionaries not even mention this? Looks all very strange to me!


----------



## NewBeginning

I know this is a bit off topic, but this entire thread is mind-blowing. I've never even thought about this before...

Also off topic, here in the USA, I see -ize far more than -ise, but I've never really thought about this before... Wow. I'm gonna have trouble using -ise/-ize for quite a while, just thinking about this, heh.


----------



## panjandrum

Hello navidad, and welcome to WordReference.

There are some words that in BE must use -ise. For the others, some people use -ize, others use -ise.

I know this is confusing. You either learn which are which or you use my escape method. I never use -ize.

Unless you are writing for an organisation that insists on -ize where appropriate, you will never be criticized  - that's a joke.


----------



## mgarizona

According to Fowler the -ise spelling entered English in imitation of the French spelling (_-iser_) of words borrowed (or formed) either from the Greek (ending -_izein_) or Latin (ending -_izare_).

In coming down in favor ... oops, favour! ...  of the -ize spelling, he notes: "there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."


----------



## navidad

Thank you, pajandrum, for your wise advice!  

My question is about the official source for English spelling. What is this source and what does it say about these "ize/ise" verbs?
As an example for the Dutch language: the official spelling comes from the "Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal" "List of words of the Dutch language", better known here as the "Green Book(let)" "het Groene boekje". If a word is not in this Green Book, then, in second rang, the spelling of "van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse taal" "Large(?) Dictionary of the Dutch Language" should be used.

I thought, by using UK English dictionaries, I used the preferent spelling of "organize" and others. That doesn't seem the case.  
So: what then is this official source for writing correct English? For BE?
Which source is so official that it overrules BE dictionaries? (as our Dutch Green Book does)
And what does this source say about "ize/ise"?


----------



## winklepicker

Wordsmyth said:


> "ize" is historical (the Oxford, in its printed version, does explain in a preface), but is questionable for BrE, since modern UK usage is almost exclusively "ise".


 
Absolutely right. It has changed in the course of the 20th century. I use exclusively _-ise_ but my mother (aged 90) uses the _-ize_ forms, and tells me off for using _-ise_!


----------



## navidad

navidad said:


> All very confusing for non-native English speakers! I am using English dictionaries, several of them, and not a single one even mentions "ise" as a possible or allowed spelling for organize, summarize, tantalize, etc.


This afternoon I looked up a couple of more recent dictionaries, and yes, I have to correct my statement above, the _-ise_ does appear as an allowed spelling in the dictionaries now: e.g.
Collins English Dictionary, 2005 and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2005. Both have _organize, BrE organise_, and (of course) consistenly the same for other similar words. However, the _-ize_ still is first. 

So we are witnessing darwinian evolution here: _-ise_, a mutant of _-ize,_ that is becoming a new species, now also officially as it appears. 
This could mean that in the last 30 years, some (governmental?) instance allowed _-ise_ to be a valid spelling? Some "Green Book" committee, perhaps?

As to why the new species (or spelling) originated, that is probably more difficult to say. I don't think the English love the French so much, that they vividly started to copy French spelling rules and there wasn't a French invasion on the British Isles either. So there should be another reason. Could it be that the most-easy-to-remember form (see panjandrum's rule above) one day started to live its own life and now gradually is taking the lead? Why follow a difficult spelling rule, as you can express your ideas as good the easy way? If nothing is counteracting this tendency, evolution will do its work. And now that _-ise_ reached the dictionaries, the gate is open. Americans, beware of your _-ize?_


----------



## panjandrum

navidad said:


> [...]
> 
> My question is about the official source for English spelling. What is this source and what does it say about these "ize/ise" verbs?
> [...]
> So: what then is this official source for writing correct English? For BE?
> Which source is so official that it overrules BE dictionaries? (as our Dutch Green Book does)
> And what does this source say about "ize/ise"?


There is no such source. English does not have, never has had, and never will have (I hope) such an authority.

Spelling and usage in English evolves, as you suggest. This may seem to make it vulnerable, but in fact is has, so far, proven to be a strength.

The nearest thing we have to an authority on English is the full Oxford English Dictionary. But that is a strange authority. It is, I believe, the authoritative record of English words and their spelling and usage as they have evolved over time (more than a thousand years so far). This may seem vulnerable to whimsy, but in fact the OED require a new word to have been around and in use for a while before admitting it to the dictionary.

December 2006 additions to the OED include (my selection from many):
adhocracy
booger
chuffing
dartitis
Eeyorish (my favourite)
fugly

This is in danger of becoming a list, so I'll stop.

EDIT - I forgot the point, but here it is.
In the OED, one of the entries for -ise says:


> a frequent spelling of -IZE, suffix forming vbs., which see.


For many of us, that is sufficient evidence that -ise suffixes are generally acceptable in British English, now.


----------



## winklepicker

panjandrum said:


> The nearest thing we have to an authority on English is the full Oxford English Dictionary.
> 
> For many of us, that is sufficient evidence that -ise suffixes are generally acceptable in British English, now.


 
And some of us bimble on even without its authority!


----------



## panjandrum

Yes, but you've lived near enough to it for long enough (guesswork) to absorb by osmosis. It communicates with kindred minds by sub-ethereal channels.
?bimble?


----------



## Outsider

panjandrum said:


> There is no such source. English does not have, never has had, and never will have (I hope) such an authority.


Don't listen to Panjandrum.  

English does have such authorities -- like the OED -- but prefers to pretend it's all decided democratically by the invisible hand of the market.


----------



## gaer

Outsider said:


> Don't listen to Panjandrum.
> 
> English does have such authorities -- like the OED -- but prefers to pretend it's all decided democratically by the invisible hand of the market.


Compared to other "authorities", the OED is incredibly flexible. I consider it the most descriptive of the major sources.


----------



## gaer

When I set programs such as Word to UK English, which I do from time to time just for fun, it underlines almost all words that I type with "ize" that seem to always end in "ise" in books written in the UK. Organize is left alone. It's accepted. This is an exception. However, If I type "organise", this also accepted.

Do any you recall UK (BE) or AE English spell-checker-settings accepting a mixture of spellings?


----------



## Outsider

gaer said:


> Compared to other "authorities", the OED is incredibly flexible. I consider it the most descriptive of the major sources.


_All_ language authorities became more flexible and descriptive in the 20th century, even the French Academy. The English language ones are not qualitatively different in that respect.


----------



## jabogitlu

In AE, "advertise" seems to be the option most used; however, my Canadian friend stalwartly refuses to use anything except "advertize," which looks VERY strange to mine eyes!

I think maybe the difference between the OED and other language resources like the RAE is that English speakers, while allowing themselves, especially in formal situa, to be guided by it, also reject it wholeheartedly in more casual conversations in which words can be coined on a whim.  I love the verbage process in English.  Shall we google!? 

Of course, this is a h uge generalization, and there are both quite-anal grammarians in English and total dictionary hipsters in Spanish and others.

Eeyorish? I love it!


----------



## panjandrum

Outsider said:


> Don't listen to Panjandrum.
> 
> English does have such authorities -- like the OED -- but prefers to pretend it's all decided democratically by the invisible hand of the market.


 
I suppose it depends on how you choose to look at "the authority of the OED".

I am happy to consider the OED the authoritative record of historical and almost current usage - while understanding (dimly) the OED's conditions of entry.  That is not at all the same as the OED being the voice that prescribes what may or may not be used.

There are organisations that are regarded as authoritative in English, but they are not formal authorities in anything remotely like the way I understand is the case for other languages.

"... the invisible hand of the market." !!! Well really, Outsider, the very idea that standards of English might be regulated by tradesmen ......
... speechless, I'm rendered completely and awesomely speechless by the mere suggestion that market forces (pleugghh - wash my mouth out with soap) might play any part in the processes that govern the evolution.  Speechless, that's what I am.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Both endings are acceptable according to the Oxford dictionary and I personally use both.

English really does need someone to clean up its spelling though


----------



## winklepicker

panjandrum said:


> ?bimble?



Bimble


----------



## konungursvia

I use ize.


----------



## Victoria32

JLanguage said:


> Ize vs. Ise endings in the UK.
> I real*ize* that this is a difficult proposition.
> I real*ise *that this is a difficult proposition.
> 
> Formal*ize*/Formal*ise*
> American*ize*/American*ise*
> 
> Thanks to all the Uk'ers for your help.
> 
> EDIT: Oxford Dictionary prefers the "ize" endings. But most stuff I've read written by Brits uses the "ise" endings.
> 
> -Jonathan.


In NZ we are changing from BE to AE, and have been all my life (I think it all began in WW2, my mother who socialised with Americans in the 1940s when she was young, was a great one for Americanisms.) 

However, I was brought up to use 'ise', and it still seems natural and correct to me. 


gaer said:


> When I set programs such as Word to UK English, which I do from time to time just for fun, it underlines almost all words that I type with "ize" that seem to always end in "ise" in books written in the UK. Organize is left alone. It's accepted. This is an exception. However, If I type "organise", this also accepted.
> 
> Do any you recall UK (BE) or AE English spell-checker-settings accepting a mixture of spellings?


The latest Mozilla which my son installed at Christmas, has a spell checker and we had to go looking for a BE version of it, as American is the default. The same with Lotus WordPro and Open Office (orifice as I call it, it's rubbish) which are our word-processing programs on this computer.

Now we have the spell check on BE it accepts the 'ise' I naturally use. Before that it red-lined almost everything I wrote. 
(It still red-lines everything I write in Italian or German but I can't be bothered hunting for a spell check to install in those languages but if in doubt I ask Beolingus and the WRF dictionary.) 

Our Lotus WordPro has 'spat the dummy' to use a New Zealand idiom, and I have to re-install the user dictionary each time I use it (otherwise it uses the  American default. <grr> ) But until I do, it red lines 'centre', 'favour' and of course every single 'ise'. 



VL


----------



## mplsray

Outsider said:


> _All_ language authorities became more flexible and descriptive in the 20th century, even the French Academy. The English language ones are not qualitatively different in that respect.


 
The OED was the first major descriptive dictionary, and that in the 19th century when it first came out under the name_ A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles._ Its founders intended it to be a historical record not a usage guide. As one of the founders, Richard Trench, put it, the lexicographer was "an historian…not a critic." (Source: _The Professor and the Madman _by Simon Winchester.) This purpose was obviously very different from that of the French Academy.

While other dictionaries published today by the Oxford University Press are suitable for the purpose—and were designed to be so—the OED itself is just about the worst source for deciding usage disputes.


----------



## gaer

Victoria32 said:


> The latest Mozilla which my son installed at Christmas, has a spell checker and we had to go looking for a BE version of it, as American is the default. The same with Lotus WordPro and Open Office (orifice as I call it, it's rubbish) which are our word-processing programs on this computer.
> 
> Now we have the spell check on BE it accepts the 'ise' I naturally use. Before that it red-lined almost everything I wrote.


Yes. It not only should accept "ise", but it should reject "ize" in many words if you spell-check.

The only words it should accept are words such as "organize", which are written both ways in standard BE. 

Gaer


----------



## mgarizona

mplsray said:


> The OED was the first major descriptive dictionary ...


 
Actually the historical structure of the OED was suggested by the dictionary of the French language published by Emile Littré beginning in 1863. I can't imagine that whatever sense you intend by 'major' would not apply to those volumes, especially in view of the fact that they are the work of a single human being.


----------



## navidad

I am a lot wiser now  
_-ize_ was the original correct spelling of _organize, realize, summarize, tantalize_, and other similar verbs. It still is in US, or in AE so to say.

In UK a new variant, one that is easier to remember and to use, _-ise_ recently has made it all the way to the dictionaries, including OED. This happened in the last decades (I'm still not sure when and why it got a green light to do so: someone must have given a fiat for this. But it looks as if nobody did this, it just happened.  ). _-ise_ is the variant or species that, if you give it to a large population and take away all barriers, has most chances to survive, as most people will prefer it above the older _-ize_ variant. So, although _-ize_ is still the first, hence preferent, spelling in the dictionaries, in UK or BE _-ise_ will take over completely in a matter of time. There isn't an authority to stop it, as we learned from the above. Pure evolution law. Darwin's Survival of the Fittest.

As for AE: the same "easy-to-remember-and-use" environmental pressure exists. People are not different. What could be different is education (when "AE-educated" one will better remember when to use each of both forms. Note: this pressure will disappear in UK, or probably it already has) or regulation (by some spelling-authority). Education and regulation are barriers for the new _-ise_ species to settle. If AE evolves in the same dynamic way as BE, then you can predict the outcome. But don't underestimate the power of such an authority: in Dutch spelling we recently learned to add _-n_ between the 2 parts of a compound(?) word: e.g. _pannekoeken_ became _pannenkoeken_ (pancakes), although e v e r y o n e used the first form. But now the latter form is the only correct spelling, the first one is just wrong. We are now writing the middle _-n. _What will AE do with _-ise_? Is there a spelling authority for AE? If not,...


----------



## mgarizona

What I most don't understand in what navidad wrote is the notion that the -ise spelling is "easier to remember and to use." 

If you (or others) have any thoughts or facts to back that up, I'd love to hear them. Because all I've seen proposed is basically "we do it because it's what we do."


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> What I most don't understand in what navidad wrote is the notion that the -ise spelling is "easier to remember and to use."
> 
> If you (or others) have any thoughts or facts to back that up, I'd love to hear them. Because all I've seen proposed is basically "we do it because it's what we do."


It is not that the -ise version is, itself, easier to remember. But if you want to keep on using -ize where it is possible, you have to remember which words take -ize and which must be -ise. So, I decided to stick with -ise and I'm always right*. That was very, very long ago.

*Except in the eyes of those who still feel that the -ize versions must be preserved.


----------



## mgarizona

Except for organise I assume. <g>

I suppose the following has the makings of a new thread, but I wonder: how do you manage to keep track of which words BE spells with -our and which ones it spells with -or?


----------



## jabogitlu

> What will AE do with _-ise_? Is there a spelling authority for AE? If not,...



Most likely, we'll ignore it.   I've come across a ton of Americans that don't even know 'organise' is correct anywhere in the world.


----------



## navidad

mgarizona said:


> What I most don't understand in what navidad wrote is the notion that the -ise spelling is "easier to remember and to use."
> 
> If you (or others) have any thoughts or facts to back that up, I'd love to hear them. Because all I've seen proposed is basically "we do it because it's what we do."


 
I think Panjandrum's "escape method", as he explained earlier, points to the most probable cause of the _-ize/-ise_ change: comfort of use. Only have to remember 1 spelling. If enough people start to do this and no-one objects (apparently), then it becomes the rule. I can't imagine that the alternative has taken place: some authority that decided to change the spelling of these verbs, somewhere in the past. It would have been just for fun and it has created a new split between BE and AE. And if an authority would have done this, then it forgot to make the new spelling mandatory: it forgot to change the dictionaries! I think that, if there would have been a BE or "global" English spelling authority, _-ise_ would never have existed, or it would have been introduced in AE too.


----------



## Victoria32

mgarizona said:


> Except for organise I assume. <g>
> 
> I suppose the following has the makings of a new thread, but I wonder: how do you manage to keep track of which words BE spells with -our and which ones it spells with -or?


You just do!  (Which means really that I have never given it any thought... Off hand and right now, I can't think of any which use 'or'... I thought of Honor, but that is 'or' only when it is a girl's name, when it is a word, it's 'our'...

But as you say, that's another thread.

Vicky


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> It is not that the -ise version is, itself, easier to remember. But if you want to keep on using -ize where it is possible, you have to remember which words take -ize and which must be -ise. So, I decided to stick with -ise and I'm always right*. That was very, very long ago.
> 
> *Except in the eyes of those who still feel that the -ize versions must be preserved.


Panj,

I was not at all sure of what you meant. I had never thought it through. The idea that "ise" should logically have the pronunciation of "ize" seemed ridiculous, so I checked:

size
prize

It's logical that the endings should be "ize".

BUT

guise, rise, wise

Oops!

Now, add to these one syllable words two syllable words that must be spelled with "ise" in AE:

advise, chastise, comprise, demise, devise, improvise, surprise…

That's just a start.

I think I'll convert to the BE rule! 

Any other converts? 

Gaer


----------



## jabogitlu

Not me, they look peskily wrong for some reason.


----------



## mplsray

mgarizona said:


> mplsray said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OED was the first major descriptive dictionary ...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the historical structure of the OED was suggested by the dictionary of the French language published by Emile Littré beginning in 1863. I can't imagine that whatever sense you intend by 'major' would not apply to those volumes, especially in view of the fact that they are the work of a single human being.
Click to expand...

 
While I recognize the name of Littré as having been that of an early French lexicographer, I was previously unaware that there was a major European dictionary that might be considered descriptive published before the time of the New English Dictionary. It sounds like something worth looking into.

My main point in identifying the OED as "the first major descriptive dictionary," however, was to avoid saying it was "the first descriptive dictionary [allow me to add _of English_]," since there were English-language dictionaries of slang at the time which would certainly have to be considered descriptive rather than prescriptive but cannot be considered major because of the limited range of vocabulary discussed.


----------



## gaer

jabogitlu said:


> Not me, they look peskily wrong for some reason.


I read BE before AE. I've taught myself to type "realize" because I realise that its expected in this country. But both look right to me. 

Gaer


----------



## Thomsen

How do you say "ize and "ise" though?  Are they identical.  i say "ize" with a distinct sound, but I would say "ise" more like the word "ice."  Maybe "ise" fits better with prevailing speech patterns?!  Or maybe I am "way out in left field"!


----------



## clairanne

hi

I always use "ise" as "ize" just looks wrong to me - and also I like to be English - why shouldn't I, after all we invented English and there are not many things we invented that still belong to us now are there!!!!!(sob,sob) -but I bet the Americans win in the end - don't you.


----------



## gaer

Thomsen said:


> How do you say "ize and "ise" though? Are they identical. i say "ize" with a distinct sound, but I would say "ise" more like the word "ice." Maybe "ise" fits better with prevailing speech patterns?! Or maybe I am "way out in left field"!


How do you say: wise, rise, guise?


----------



## mgarizona

gaer said:


> How do you say: wise, rise, guise?


 
How do you say: expertise?


----------



## gaer

mgarizona said:


> How do you say: expertise?


That's an exception:

Ex per TEASE in AE.

If you check Cambridge

you can examine more precise pronunciation symbols

Does that help?


----------



## mgarizona

gaer said:


> That's an exception:
> 
> Ex per TEASE in AE.
> 
> If you check Cambridge
> 
> you can examine more precise pronunciation symbols
> 
> Does that help?


 
I wasn't looking for help. Just pointing out an exception to you. 

Expertise is a noun. There is also a verb which I would spell 'expertize.' If you are going to spell it 'expertise' then you differentiate it from the noun only through pronunciation and it joins the crazy report (n)/report (v), reject (n)/reject (v) school. 

You simply trade one headache for another.

Personally I think that short of a championing of 'thru' and 'lite' and other such 'simplifications,' all this talk about an easy way around the madness that is English orthography is foolhardy. 

There are always going to be exceptions.

If you spell verbs with -ise because you like it, you're used to it, you simply WANT that BE be different from AE, all that is fine.

But I can't help feeling that in all the chaos of spelling English words, the memorization--- or spell-checkization--- of a z or an s here and there seems too little a rationale. 

IMO


----------



## Victoria32

mgarizona said:


> If you spell verbs with -ise because you like it, you're used to it, you simply WANT that BE be different from AE, all that is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO


It's not a matter of wanting BE to be different, _it just is,_ and it is going to continue to be, that's all there is to it.
It is after all, the original!  

Who wants meek conformity? Not me!

Vicky


----------



## gaer

mgarizona said:


> I wasn't looking for help. Just pointing out an exception to you.


I don't think this is an exception. I think it is another group of words. There is also valise, and I believe these words follow rules of pronunciation and spelling in French. Perhaps other French "natives" will be able to confirm this.

For similar reason "stein" follows German pronunciation rules. It's a pain, but learning the rules of spelling of other languages at least helps in some cases.


> Personally I think that short of a championing of 'thru' and 'lite' and other such 'simplifications,' all this talk about an easy way around the madness that is English orthography is foolhardy.


I don't think that is the same at all. Would you prefer to revert to "colour" and "flavour" in AE? The same principle was used, and it is now establised. I never said that AE should change to "realise". I simply said that I see the logic.


> If you spell verbs with -ise because you like it, you're used to it, you simply WANT that BE be different from AE, all that is fine.


I don't want BE to be different from AE here. It already is.


> But I can't help feeling that in all the chaos of spelling English words, the memorization--- or spell-checkization--- of a z or an s here and there seems too little a rationale.


I don't understand your point. 

Gaer


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Another thread got my interest in this going.

As regards to BE, the correct ending is in fact -ize. This is the way the Oxford English Dictionary prefers. If you read older English books such as Betrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" the endings are always ize/ization. The -ise thing is a relatively new phenomenon I think, perhaps a direct take from French, I'm not sure.

But regardless, I always try to use ize/ization!


----------



## mplsray

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Another thread got my interest in this going.
> 
> As regards to BE, the correct ending is in fact -ize. This is the way the Oxford English Dictionary prefers. If you read older English books such as Betrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" the endings are always ize/ization. The -ise thing is a relatively new phenomenon I think, perhaps a direct take from French, I'm not sure.
> 
> But regardless, I always try to use ize/ization!


 
The Oxford University Press uses the _-ize/-ization_ variants, but that's certainly not the same thing as considering that spelling to be the only correct one in British orthography. A publishing house, a university, or any other business is entirely within its rights to prefer one spelling to another in its in-house style. This is true even of nonstandard spellings, such as Tastee bread and the McDonalds slogan _i'm likin' it._

If it says anywhere in the Oxford English Dictionary that _-ize/-ization_ is preferable to _-ise/-isation _then the OED is, in that instance, going against the basic principle on which the dictionary was founded, that of being a historian of the language, not an editor of it.


----------



## gaer

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Another thread got my interest in this going.
> 
> As regards to BE, the correct ending is in fact -ize.


That's a very strange statement. You appear to be saying that BE is incorrect by using realise, legalise, capitalise, etc.

I could just as easily say that AE is "wrong" because it uses "color" instead of "colour". 

However, it does seem to be true that "realize" was as common or more common than "realise" in the writing of English authors until sometime in the early 20th century.

Does the OED give dates? When was the spelling switched in BE?

I believe I found, for example, both "realise" and "realize" in books written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Dickens, just to name two authors. At first I though I had found mistakes online, but if they are mistakes, they are consistent from site to site, with different spellings appearing in different books.

This could reflect the editing practices of the companies publishing books at different times.


> This is the way the Oxford English Dictionary prefers. If you read older English books such as Betrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" the endings are always ize/ization. The -ise thing is a relatively new phenomenon I think, perhaps a direct take from French, I'm not sure.


It would be helpful or interesting if you could find out when the change took place. Regardless, I am as likely to write "realise" as "realize" and usually correct in order to remain consistent in AE. 

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

mplsray said:


> [...]
> If it says anywhere in the Oxford English Dictionary that _-ize/-ization_ is preferable to _-ise/-isation _then the OED is, in that instance, going against the basic principle on which the dictionary was founded, that of being a historian of the language, not an editor of it.


See post #88.  Without further comment, the OED says of the -ise suffix:
_ a frequent spelling of -IZE, suffix forming vbs., which see._

It clearly follows an -ize policy, but lists alternative spellings.  For example, for organize, it also lists organise as an alternative spelling since the sixteenth century; colonize, also -ise; legalize and realize have -ise variants listed from the past 200 years.

There is nothing (in a ten-minute scan through a few words) to suggest when "the change" took place.  There is only a gradual emergence of -ise forms over a couple of centuries.  Perhaps if I looked at different -ize/-ise words I'd get a different impression.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> See post #88. Without further comment, the OED says of the -ise suffix:
> _a frequent spelling of -IZE, suffix forming vbs., which see._
> 
> It clearly follows an -ize policy, but lists alternative spellings. For example, for organize, it also lists organise as an alternative spelling since the sixteenth century; colonize, also -ise; legalize and realize have -ise variants listed from the past 200 years.
> 
> There is nothing (in a ten-minute scan through a few words) to suggest when "the change" took place. There is only a gradual emergence of -ise forms over a couple of centuries. Perhaps if I looked at different -ize/-ise words I'd get a different impression.


More food for thought:

Supposedly Webster proposed 10 sets of changes, and this is the last:

10. change "-ise" to "-ize" wherever this can be traced
back to Latin and Greek (where a "z"/zeta *was* used
in the spellings) or a more recent coining which
uses the suffix "-ize" (from Greek "-izein")

Since Webster died in 1843, it appears to me that the "ize/ise" problem was no new thing, as your information suggests, and the fact that Webster wanted to "standardise" the spelling only suggests to me that BE and AE merely took two different forks in the same bumpy road. 

Gaer


----------



## ayed

Well , what about :
** Americanization *
**Americanisation* 
The "Z"is easy for me to utter


----------



## panjandrum

ayed said:


> Well , what about :
> ** Americanization *
> **Americanisation*
> The "Z"is easy for me to utter


I don't think anyone pronounces these differently.  I believe it is only a matter of spelling.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

gaer said:


> That's a very strange statement. You appear to be saying that BE is incorrect by using realise, legalise, capitalise, etc.



I don't see how. The "correct" form i.e. the historically standard usage is -ize. The relevant dictionaries support that. Simply because something becomes fashionable dosen't necessarily make it correct.

For example, if I started spelling I know as _I kno_ would that not be classed as wrong? If 50 million others started doing the same would that then make it somehow "right"?

While I'm not wishing to degrade the -ise/-isation versions, I personally feel the OED and Cambridge dictionaries are correct in preferring the -ize/-ization spellings.

After all the word organization is pronounced organ-i-_Z_ation with emphasis on the z, not organi-sation with a soft s.



gaer said:


> Does the OED give dates? When was the spelling switched in BE?



Well Bertrand Russell's book was published (it says on the front page) in 1945. So it must have been some time after that.


----------



## mplsray

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I don't see how. The "correct" form i.e. the historically standard usage is -ize. The relevant dictionaries support that. Simply because something becomes fashionable dosen't necessarily make it correct.
> 
> For example, if I started spelling I know as _I kno_ would that not be classed as wrong? If 50 million others started doing the same would that then make it somehow "right"?


 
I wouldn't put a number to it, but not only does a spelling becoming "fashionable" make it standard, in some cases it becomes the only standard spelling. The first person who wrote _tonight_ instead of _to-night_ was using a nonstandard spelling that is now the only standard spelling.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mplsray said:


> I wouldn't put a number to it, but not only does a spelling becoming "fashionable" make it standard, in some cases it becomes the only standard spelling. The first person who wrote _tonight_ instead of _to-night_ was using a nonstandard spelling that is now the only standard spelling.



Den pritey soon I xpect us al 2 b riting lik dis!


----------



## winklepicker

Pedro y La Torre said:


> For example, if I started spelling I know as _I kno_ would that not be classed as wrong? If 50 million others started doing the same would that then make it somehow "right"?


 
Err - sadly, history shows that it would, eventually, yes.


----------



## Word Smith

There's an article called 'Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?' on the Oxford Dictionaries site. It suggests that -ise spellings have become more popular in Britain (and in other English-speaking countries such as Australia), perhaps partly as a reaction against the American custom.  It points out that using -ise avoids the pitfall of the several words which cannot properly be spelt with -ize, such as televise. It says 





> Writers of American English should be aware of some spellings that are regarded as incorrect in the UK, notably analyze.


askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/ize?view=uk
Sorry I can't post a clickable link but cut and paste this into the browser.    Interesting.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

winklepicker said:


> Err - sadly, history shows that it would, eventually, yes.



I can only conclude then that English is in sore need of an academy to govern its (ridiculous) spelling.


----------



## panjandrum

gaer said:


> [...]
> Does the OED give dates? When was the spelling switched in BE?
> [...]
> It would be helpful or interesting if you could find out when the change took place. Regardless, I am as likely to write "realise" as "realize" and usually correct in order to remain consistent in AE.
> [...]





Pedro y La Torre said:


> [...]
> Well Bertrand Russell's book was published (it says on the front page) in 1945. So it must have been some time after that.


For a number of -ize words, the OED lists -ise spelling variants and examples of usage from around 200 years ago.  This is not a recent development.


			
				panj said:
			
		

> For example, for organize, it also lists organise as an alternative spelling since the sixteenth century; colonize, also -ise; legalize and realize have -ise variants listed from the past 200 years.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

panjandrum said:


> For a number of -ize words, the OED lists -ise spelling variants and examples of usage from around 200 years ago.  This is not a recent development.



True but when did it come into _standard_ usage? That's the question I was attempting to answer.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I can only conclude then that English is in sore need of an academy to govern its (ridiculous) spelling.



But the diversity which has lasted so long, and the usage made of that diversity, shows that the English-speakers are in no rush to call for such an academy.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> For a number of -ize words, the OED lists -ise spelling variants and examples of usage from around 200 years ago. This is not a recent development.


Let me make my own thoughts clear. I have great respect for the OED. My own "investigation" was fueled by curiosity, and I had extra time to check things. 

This is why I wrote last night:

_Since Webster died in 1843, it appears to me that the "ize/ise" problem was no new thing, as your information suggests, and the fact that Webster wanted to "standardise" the spelling only suggests to me that BE and AE merely took two different forks in the same bumpy road._

My conclusions are:

1) Words such as "colonize/colonise" have been spelled both ways for a very long time.

2) Both spellings continued to be used past the beginning of the 20th century. This is why you will find both variants in the works of a single author. I found both versions of one word in two chapters of the same book using an online search. This may be an error as a result of scanning the book, but it may also be an inconsistency in the original or a later edition.

3) Noah Webster proposed standardizing the "ize/ise" spellings to only "ize". It's quite clear that he advocated this change and that it was adopted in AE

4) Both "ize" and "ise" are coexisting today in BE, but "ise" is without any doubt more common.

Is anything I just said inconsistent with with the information you have?

Gaer


----------



## Anglo-Greek

As a UK citizen, I can say that it is definitely more common for people to use "-ise", buy many people (myself included) do use "-ize" in the style of most Americans and the Oxford English Dictionary.
However, in the UK no one really seems to care either way. Whereas typically British people are strongly opposed to perceived Americanisms or Americanized spellings. If you were to call mathematics "math" (rather than "maths"), or if you were to call association football "soccer" (rather than "football"), to a British English speaker, you are likely to get anything between a dirty look and a lecture.
I, personally, don't care either way about American English vs British English (and use many Amercanisms myself), but I am definitely a minority.


----------



## Hutschi

_[...]_ both endings are used in UK English.

Is there any rule there?

Do the endings reflect etymology in any way?

Did the endings change during the last period in UK English?

(For example, did "-ize" change to "-ise" to make it more regular?)

Best regards
Bernd

PS: This question is not about _-ise and -ize endings in UK and US English but only in UK English._


----------



## Sallyb36

I think that in UK English the original use was -ise, e.g. realise, philosophise, but with Americanisms becoming ever more popular the -ize endings are becoming more common.  More so since the arrival of Microsoft Windows in the majority of workplaces and American spellcheck.  It always annoys me when it underlines a British spelling such as colour and suggests that I spell it color!


----------



## Hutschi

I do not believe, that ize/ise is just an AE - BE contrast. 

There is said, that BE uses this contrast. The OED shows it, too. 

For example, do the endings reflect Greek or Latin endings? 

I do not believe that the original ending was "ise" generally. I do not believe that "ize" is generally an Amerikanism.


Best regards
Bernd


----------



## Sallyb36

Whatever you believe, the British way is -ise, the American way is -ize.


----------



## panjandrum

Having looked at the thread for you, here are pointers to some of the answers:
_It showed, that both endings are used in UK English._

_Is there any rule there?_ 
Yes.

_Do the endings reflect etymology in any way?_
Yes - see #48, #78, #83.

_Did the endings change during the last period in UK English?_
Define last?
See #128, #141.


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you very much.


----------



## liliput

Sallyb36 said:


> Whatever you believe, the British way is -ise, the American way is -ize.


 
I'm British, and I, almost without exception, use -ize endings. The -ise spelling looks strange to me (I want to pronounce it like "ice")


----------



## sokol

And one of my professors, xxxxxxx - a linguist and a native of UK (he started out in Yorkshire and ended up in Cambridge and London where he completed his university education and then spent eight years at the London School of Economics; it was only after that he came to Austria) - _exclusively _used '-ise'.
(Or at least, if memory serves me right he never wrote an '-ise' word with 'z'.)

And in one lecture he, being a linguist, even told us, as a sidenote, that due to his education (without going into detail what _exactly _he meant with that - the _British _side of it, or the _university _education, or whatever) he only uses '-ise'.

(Even though, through my own school education (which was distinctly British English, but nevertheless with using '-ize') I was an '-izer' I adopted the '-ising' from him.
However, later influences sometimes made my use of English a little bit inconsistent; I fear that it may well be that I, though basically using '-ise', sometimes mix endings and also use '-ize'.)

Mod edit made to remove a personal name.


----------



## JulianStuart

It is unusual, is it not, that in this issue the English have _wanted _to emulate the French. 

The following wording I found somewhat amusing (I added my emphasis); I'm not sure I've seen the OED so dogmatic in any other entry.

"  The suffix, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -izein, L. -izare; and as the pronunciation is also with a z, *there is no reason why in English the *special *French spelling* ending  in -iser *should ever be followed. * "



From 
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,on historical principles, 
Prepared byWilliam Little, H.W. Fowler, J. Coulson
Revised and edited by C.T. Onions
Third edition 1944, reprinted with corrections (many times) until 1972 (the copy I found this note in)


----------



## Kevin Beach

As happens so often, what seems to be logical is not necessarily what is practised.

*-ize* may well be the etymologically correct ending, but in my experience *-ise* is more common in BE.

I always prefer *-ise* because that is what I'm used to.

Is this not just another example of there being two acceptable usages?


----------



## panjandrum

Kevin Beach said:


> [...]
> 
> Is this not just another example of there being two acceptable usages?


Indeed it it, as many of the previous 150 or so posts in this thread no doubt testify.
The rest testify to the confusion this small variation can cause, and to the enthusiasm of propononents of -ise or -ize


----------



## Andreyevich

Tresley said:


> I don't know what the examining boards in the UK think of American spellings, so I told my daughter that her teacher was trying to help her by telling her to use standard English spellings.
> 
> In here GCSE English exam she made sure that she used standard English spellings and got an A*.



I sat my GCSE exams two years ago, and, as far as I am aware, English examining boards are fairly accepting of different spellings.

Technically speaking, you cannot really be penalised for mild spelling errors in any subject except perhaps English Language, the reason being that this subject is specific to English _as a language_. The focus of these exams is to test the student's ability to coherently put forward and develop an argument, within the context of, say, a letter. Thus, the student is collectively tested on punctuation, spelling, grammar, register and structure.

I suspect that you are allowed to spell in American spellings in English Literature exam, because the focus of the exam is on the arguments presented, as opposed to the use of language. When I sat my English Literature exam, one of the texts I had was Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, so I was compelled to use American spellings in several quotations. If spelling in American English is wrong, then Mr. Steinbeck deserves to lose a couple of marks too.

In all my other subjects, I had the freedom to choose either spelling in my writing, as no exam other than English Language should test my use of Language. The requirement of the exam boards is simply that the answers are written in "English", and it is not specific as to which type of English is used. Having said that, I never wrote a single word in any of my GCSE exams in American English, with the exception of quoting Steinbeck.


----------



## Wobby

I think if I remember correctly, in GCSE English Language, they would penalise incorrect spellings much less severely if the word or way of writing similar words is consistent, even if it means being consistently wrong. In terms of quoting, I think you could argue you were quoting _sic _anyway if quoting Steinbeck in American English, or being consistent if you didn't, so they shouldn't penalise that anyway. So I guess that kind of goes back to *sokol*'s point about mixing up endings - I think they would not mind which version you use, providing they are consistent. I personally stick to 'ise' by the way. So I think the only way you could be wrong is if you wrote something like "She scrutinized her organiser", which I think would look a bit strange!


----------



## sokol

Wobby said:


> (...) So I think the only way you could be wrong is if you wrote something like "She scrutinized her organiser", which I think would look a bit strange!



Exactly, it would look rather strange. 
I only fear that I am guilty of sometimes mixing up the endings ...


----------



## lizzie712

I live in the UK and although -ize is the older Oxford spelling (I remember a murderer was caught in an old episode of Inspector Morse because he was pretending to be an 'Oxford man' but used the -ise ending instead). In general, if an -ize ending is used it is sometimes considered (falsely) an americanism. It is used in Oxford Press publications, some scientific publications, and the Times Literary Supplement. Apparently the Oxford spelling is standard for the UN and WHO and other international groups. But newspapers almost all use -ise.
However, there are words which are *exclusively* *-ize*. Such as:
capsize
seize
size
prize
Mostly obvious, but there are some that can catch you out.

The Oxford spelling uses -ize for words which derive from the Greek ending -ιζειν. Not great if you are not a classicist.

You may think it is the safe option to use -ize instead and abandon the -ise.
However, in British English these words are *exclusively* ended in *-ise* (because they are not from the Greek).
advertise 
advise 
apprise 
arise
chastise
circumcise
incise
excise
exercise
comprise
compromise
demise
despise
devise
disguise
franchise
improvise
merchandise
revise
supervise
surmise
surprise
televise
prise (as in lever or force)
colonise
(these are all from the OED).

There may be an advantage if you are a French speaker, most of these word having originated from the French, so use they use the -ise ending.

Also, all words ending in -yse, are *always* -yse. Analyse, catalyse, paralyse. Never -yze.

So, it may be easier to use the -ise ending.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hi Lizzie, and welcome to the Forum

I was pleased to see your post, as it adds a lot more weight to my reasoning in favour of "-ise" (see my post #16 in this same thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=155196&postcount=16 ... which I can't reasonably expect you to have already spotted in a 153-post thread!! )

So thanks

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

Lizzie - I've not checked _all_ the words in your list, but most of them are _also_ spelled (spellt) with an s in the US, when the "others" are spelled with the "Oxford" (i.e. non-French!) z.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I too am a confirmed *-ize* user.


----------



## mgarizona

JulianStuart said:


> Lizzie - I've not checked _all_ the words in your list, but most of them are _also_ spelled (spellt) with an s in the US, when the "others" are spelled with the "Oxford" (i.e. non-French!) z.



There's 'spelled' and 'spelt'--- just like the grain--- but there is no spellt.


----------



## JulianStuart

mgarizona said:


> There's 'spelled' and 'spelt'--- just like the grain--- but there is no spellt.


Thanks for the catch That was a typo not a spello!


----------



## JamesM

JulianStuart said:


> Lizzie - I've not checked _all_ the words in your list, but most of them are _also_ spelled (spellt) with an s in the US, when the "others" are spelled with the "Oxford" (i.e. non-French!) z.


 
I found very few on the list that I have ever seen with a "z".   The only one on that list that I'm actually sure is spelled with a "z" here is "colonize".


----------



## nzfauna

NZE always uses the -ise form.


----------



## natkretep

I am a confirmed *-ise* user, partly because that's how I've been brought up and partly because the -_ize_ spelling looks 'heavy' and ponderous to me, and as lizzie (#153) suggests, it's easier to be consistent with -_ise_. (I should explain what I mean by 'heavy': the letter <z> is not a common letter in English - hence its high score in Scrabble! - and I associate it with very serious stuff. It was also something that was added to the repertoire of letters later in the history of English. It wasn't used in Old English and hardly at all in Middle English. Shakespeare, in _King Lear_, makes Kent say, 'Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary  letter!')

As mentioned earlier, there is choice in BrE but no choice in AmE. There is however a certain amount of snobbishness about the -_ize_ spelling with some of the academic presses (OUP, Routledge), whereas _The Times_ (of London) was the only one to hold out for -_ize_ until around 1990 when it threw in the towel and went for -_ise_.


----------



## Victoria32

nzfauna said:


> NZE always uses the -ise form.


Ideally and for the most part...
Vicky


----------



## Wordsmyth

natkretep said:


> _[...] _Shakespeare, in _King Lear_, makes Kent say, 'Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter!') _[...]_


 Nice one, nat. That could be really useful as a subtle insult : "You know, you're an absolute zed!" 

But seriously, that puts another angle on the _-ise/-ize_ debate. Supporters of -ize sometimes legitimise it by arguing that it's the 'original' (so purer) form. From what you say, I suppose that the common form for such verbs in Old/Middle English was _-ise _(?)

Ws


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

On the other hand, if we pronounce such words with a z sound, why not write them as such?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Pedro y La Torre said:


> On the other hand, if we pronounce such words with a z sound, why not write them as such?


 
I suppoze we kood rezort tu sudo-fonetik riting, but wood it be wize, or even plauzible?  

Ws


----------



## Einstein

Pedro y La Torre said:


> On the other hand, if we pronounce such words with a z sound, why not write them as such?


This would be an argument for writing az, uze, phraze, wanderz and many otherz. Maybe in the future, but it'll mean a lot of work!


----------



## natkretep

Wordsmyth said:


> From what you say, I suppose that the common form for such verbs in Old/Middle English was _-ise _(?)
> 
> Ws



Thanks, WS. 

I haven't got access to the OED now, but actually my assumption is that our -_i{s/z}e _words are newer words. But there are some words like _size_ that were around, and this would have been _sise_. A word like _realise_ is borrowed from French, so my assumption would be that this would originally have be spelt with an <s> (like French _réaliser_).


----------



## mplsray

natkretep said:


> Thanks, WS.
> 
> I haven't got access to the OED now, but actually my assumption is that our -_i{s/z}e _words are newer words. But there are some words like _size_ that were around, and this would have been _sise_. A word like _realise_ is borrowed from French, so my assumption would be that this would originally have be spelt with an <s> (like French _réaliser_).



Your assumption that it would originally have been spelled in English with an _s_ as in French _réaliser_ is incorrect.

The OED gives the etymology of _realize_ as "REAL _adj_.2 + -IZE _suffix,_ perhaps originally after French _réaliser_ to convert into assets (1495 in Middle French)...."

In the oldest cite, in a French-English dictionary of 1611, French _realiser_ (spelled thus) is translated as "to realize." The first use in English of the _realise_ spelling is in 1728.

While I feel it important to get the history right, as far as I am concerned, there no point in referring to etymology when deciding on the standard spelling of a word. Furthermore, the preference given to _-ize_ forms in the Oxford English Dictionary is antithetical to the ideals of its founder: As one of its founders, Richard Trench, put it, a lexicographer is "an historian [...] not a critic." For a long time, and likely heavily influenced by the choices made by Samuel Johnson for his dictionary, the British have preferred the _-ise_ versions. The Americans have preferred the _-ize_ versions, likely under the influence of the choices made by Noah Webster for his dictionary. If I were going to advise someone learning English as a foreign language which spelling to use, I would advise him that it depends upon which branch of the language he wishes his English to resemble. I would, however, mention to him the Oxford exception.


----------



## Istriano

Pam Peters recommends the *-ize *spelling for International English, so I stick with it.


----------



## timpeac

Istriano said:


> Pam Peters recommends the *-ize *spelling for International English, so I stick with it.



What on earth is international English?


----------



## Nunty

timpeac said:


> What on earth is international English?


A Frankenstein's monster of an abomination that is supposed to be easy on the ears on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## natkretep

mplsray said:


> Your assumption that it would originally have been spelled in English with an _s_ as in French _réaliser_ is incorrect.



Thanks, mplsray. I have no access to the OED this weekend, so I had to rely on less reliable sources.

At the end of the day, I suppose, you pays your money and you takes your choice.


----------



## MJWatson

Here's the Canadian perspective on the -ise, -ize question.

In Canada, we spell many words as they do in the UK, but we are also influenced by the Americans, and further still, our spellings are also influenced by the French language. We tend to use *ize* as the Americans do, although some more scholarly writers may follow the British use of *ise*, but we put the *u* in *colour *whereas the Americans spell it *color.*


----------



## natkretep

MJWatson said:


> We tend to use *ize* as the Americans do, although some more scholarly writers may follow the British use of *ise*,



That's very interesting because it's the opposite in BE. The -_ise _spelling tends to be found in non-specialised texts whereas some British scholarly writers use -_ize_!


----------



## Beninjam

Both Fowler (Modern English Usage) and Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage) prefer the use of -ize to -ise. 

The use of -ise became well established in the UK after it was decided at a meeting of Fleet Street editors (in the fifties of the last century) to adopt the -ise spelling. 

No doubt the -ise usage is perpetuated by style guides such as those of the Economist, not to mention the widespread ignorance of modern day teachers of English in England, and the pernicious influence of the feeble spelling checking facilities of Word, which does not offer Oxford spelling. 

What does strike me though is that many English people, when so asked, will prefer to spell recent neologisms such as burglarize, terrorize, randomize with "z", while spelling other more established ones such as organize with an "s". 

I was educated in the UK, but it was not until I attended translation courses with an Oxford-educated professor that I adopted any consistent approach to the -ise/ize argument.


----------



## Einar

> "People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was  removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done  was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten.  You were abolished, annihilated: *vaporized* was the usual word." - George Orwell, _1984_, Chapter 1


 
I'm working with the differences between UK and US spellings, and while I was reading 1984, I saw that Mr. Orwell uses the -ize form of the verb "vaporise" instead of the typical british -ise form that he happens to use for all other verbs in the book.

_Is there some words that british people tend/tended to spell with the -ize suffix, and could this be due to an American origin, or what explanations can you think of?_


----------



## Pertinax

"-ize" was the original form used in most words in both BrE and AmE.  AmE changed even words like "analyse"  to "-ze", whereas BrE has recently tended to change even words like "realize" to "-ise".  The BrE change has been attributed to French influence and anti-Americanism.  I think that the Times was the last newspaper to switch to "-ise", and as far as I know the OUP still uses "-ize".

The "-ize" is based on the original Greek "izo", but words that came to English via French traditionally use "-ise" in BrE.


----------



## PaulQ

Orwell was a bit of a traditionalist in his writing. 

Up to the 18th  century the -ise/-ize was somewhat haphazard, by the 19th century, it  seems to have divided roughly probably through personal preference, into  the 's' sound being -ise and 'z' sound being -ize. This persisted quite  a while and still does to an extent. (The OED shows an  entry for specialized, but not one for specialised, and organize but not  organise, although the OED's examples and quotes are a mixed bunch of  's' and 'z' from which I have taken my observations.) It seems  that there then followed a British movement (why, I cannot say) probably  starting when the Education Act 1944 came fully into play, to  standardise with 's'. 

Although I try to be consistent with  British 's', it does seem to me that the the 's' sound being -ise and  'z' sound being -ize would be most sensible. Perhaps what I see as  exceptions in the OED are the trend back to sanity.

Posted after Pertinax, his observation of "BrE change has been attributed to French influence and anti-Americanism." is probably so; the Left (of which Orwell was a member) had little time for things Amercian.


----------



## se16teddy

The OED lists words using -ize only, and not -ise.  It justifies this practice as follows:
_But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν  , Latin -izāre  ; and, as the pronunciation is also with z  , there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. _


----------



## JulianStuart

Alxmrphi said:


> I think for a lot of people who are in their teenage years or their early tweens there is a bit of a spelling crisis going on. Many people have varying different explanations as to the cause of it, the rise of email-language or chat-speak, or lack of explicit instruction in the schools. This can easily lead to a lot of people internalising an American form, or maybe just being more comfortable with a spelling that's more reflective of the pronunciation (when someone does this subconsciously it's nearly impossible to tell the difference). I certainly feel that a lot of British people would occasionally throw in an _-ize_ once in a while without realising it. It's not really an issue and I don't think (m)any lay people would be bothered about it. If you're a bit of a linguistic stick-in-the-mud then you might find some frowns here and there, but I don't think it bothers too many people.


I started to use the -ize form (long before I left the UK) after reading the OED and returning from a bad experience in France 
The OED I have uses slightly different wording than Teddy quoted


> " ... there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should ever  be followed.


----------



## Pertinax

Fowler was defending "-ize" as long ago as 1926:

_Most English printers follow the French practice of changing -ize to -ise; but the OED of the Oxford University Press, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of the Cambridge University Press, The Times, & American usage, in all of which -ize is the accepted form, carry authority enough to outweigh superior numbers...

It must be noticed, however, that a small number of verbs, some of them in very frequent use, like advertise, devise, & surprise, do not get their -ise even remotely from the Greek -izo, & must be spelt with -s- ; the more important of these are given in a list in the article -ISE. The difficulty of 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.
_
It is ironic that the "-ize" form (which I use myself) is making a comeback, possibly as a result of American spellcheckers.


----------



## JulianStuart

But you cannot do a global search and replace to convert from one to the other 

There's a list somewhere in the US spellcheckers that has words like:
 advertise, advise, apprise, arise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, enterprise, excise, exercise, expertise,  franchise, improvise, incise, merchandise, premise, reprise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise, treatise.


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: I am merging the thread started by Einar with an older thread on this issue.


----------



## ewie

Einar said:


> I'm working with the differences between UK and US spellings, and while I was reading 1984, I saw that Mr. Orwell uses the -ize form of the verb "vaporise" instead of the typical *B*ritish -ise form that he happens to use for all other verbs in the book.
> 
> _Is there some words that *B*ritish people tend/tended to spell with the -ize suffix, and could this be due to an American origin, or what explanations can you think of?_


I would say Mr. Orwell's use of _vapori*z*e_ is either:
(1) Poor editing / proofreading; or
(2) A deliberate attempt by him to make the concept of _vaporizing_ appear as 'alien' as possible to British readers.


----------



## mplsray

ewie said:


> I would say Mr. Orwell's use of _vapori*z*e_ is either:
> (1) Poor editing / proofreading; or
> (2) A deliberate attempt by him to make the concept of _vaporizing_ appear as 'alien' as possible to British readers.



Not at all. As pointed out in this Web site, Orwell preferred _-ize_ to _-ise_ (in those words where both possibilities are correct, of course).

Addition: Note that the Oxford English Dictionary derives _vaporized_ from Latin _vapōr-_ plus the _-ize_ suffix, mentioning the French version in an aside ("Compare French _vaporiser._")


----------



## Istriano

I find -ise endings a bit strange. As far as I know, using -ize spellings in the UK is known as ''Oxford usage''. It's the spelling various organizations use, for example United Nations.


----------



## ewie

mplsray said:


> Not at all. As pointed out in this Web site, Orwell preferred _-ize_ to _-ise_ (in those words where both possibilities are correct, of course).


Surely then, Ray, that would fall under category (1): an editor went through the manuscript 'correcting' all his _-ize_s to -_ise_s ... but missed one

(Of course it could have been any one of a number of editors, unless Einar is reading a first edition.)


----------



## mplsray

ewie said:


> Surely then, Ray, that would fall under category (1): an editor went through the manuscript 'correcting' all his _-ize_s to -_ise_s ... but missed one
> 
> (Of course it could have been any one of a number of editors, unless Einar is reading a first edition.)



Well, I'd have to see the book to see whether Orwell actually did use an _-ise_ version where _-ize_ was also acceptable. *Einer* did not list any of the verbs ending in _-ise_, so for all I know, they were ones which required _-ise_ only.

But here's another example of Orwell using _-ize_ (and the quote from the following page hints at his dislike for things American, an aspect of Orwell mentioned earlier in this thread). From this Web site:



> [From] George Orwell's essay 'Raffles and Miss Blandish', on James Hadley Chase's _No orchids
> for Miss Blandish_ (1939)....
> 
> Evidently there are great numbers of English people who are partly americanized in language and, one ought to add, in moral outlook.



See also Orwell's use of _Americanized_ (capitalized) on pages 319 and 324 of _The Orwell Reader: Fiction, Essays, and Reportage_, available in preview form via Google Books.

Addition: Or maybe not, since that edition is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, an American publisher, who may have altered the spelling.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mplsray said:


> Not at all. As pointed out in this Web site, Orwell preferred _-ize_ to _-ise_ (in those words where both possibilities are correct, of course).
> 
> Addition: Note that the Oxford English Dictionary derives _vaporized_ from Latin _vapōr-_ plus the _-ize_ suffix, mentioning the French version in an aside ("Compare French _vaporiser._")



Yes, I only use -ize where possible and I am a British (with heavy Irish influence) English speaker/writer.
Bertrand Russell too, for example, only used -ize.


----------



## Einstein

Thanks to Julian Stuart for a long list of "-_ise _only_" _words. 


JulianStuart said:


> advertise, advise, apprise, arise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, enterprise, excise, exercise, expertise,  franchise, improvise, incise, merchandise, premise, reprise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise, treatise.


What distinguishes them from most possible _-ize_ verbs is that the latter are derived from adjectives: _realize _means _make real_; _nationalize _means _make national_; _publicize _means _make public_; _industrialize _means _make industrial_. Few if any of the above _-ise_ words are derived this way.

I don't want to claim that this is a hard and fast rule. "Terrorise/ize" isn't derived from an adjective, although in this case the idea of subjecting to some kind of change (from calm to terrified) is still there. 

Personally with the possible _-ize_ verbs I use _-ise_ or _-ize_ as the mood takes me, but I certainly wouldn't spell _surprise _or _merchandise _with a z.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Einstein said:


> _[...]_ most possible _-ize_ verbs _[...]_ are derived from adjectives: _realize _means _make real_; _nationalize _means _make national_; _publicize _means _make public_; _industrialize _means _make industrial_. Few if any of the above _-ise_ words are derived this way.
> 
> I don't want to claim that this is a hard and fast rule. "Terrorise/ize" isn't derived from an adjective, although in this case the idea of subjecting to some kind of change (from calm to terrified) is still there._ [...] _


 Hi, Einstein. If you want your 'not hard and fast' rule to be somewhat harder and faster, you can make it: _most '-ize' verbs are derived from adjectives *or nouns*_. That would then include "terrorise/ize", as well as many other verbs such as "categorise/ize' (which I mentioned in post #16— though I wouldn't expect you to have found that in a 188-post thread!).

I think the key question is whether the "_-ise_" is a suffix (added to adjective or noun) or an integral part of the last syllable. Here's the corresponding extract from my earlier post : 





Wordsmyth said:


> _[...]_
> The ize/ise option is valid as a suffix for creating a verb from a root noun or adjective :
> American >> Americanise/ize = 'make American'
> category >> categorise/ize = 'put in categories'
> real >> realise/ize = ‘make real’... etc
> 
> It does *not* apply to words such as 'compromise', 'surprise', 'otherwise', because they are *not* formed like this:
> comprom-ise (to make comprom !?)
> surpr-ise (to put into a surpr !?)
> otherw-ise (to make otherw !?) ....
> 
> .... but like this:
> com-pro-mise ('mise' from past participle of French 'mettre'=put)
> sur-prise ('prise' from past participle of French 'prendre'=take)
> other-wise (two good English words, wise=way)
> 
> ... and so they can't be spelt with a z. _[...]_



Ws


----------



## Einstein

You did well to quote yourself, Wordsmyth, because I'd only taken a rapid look at the beginning of the thread and I wasn't going to read meticulously through 188 posts! So I was left with the doubt that I was saying things already said by others.

Your "suffix" explanation is good.


----------



## clare lorraine

garryknight said:


> Many, many hundreds of years ago we used to only use the "ize" form. A little later on some of us up and left and went to North America. Those people took the "ize" form with them (they had to make a special box to transport it in ). So when old Josiah Webster taught the Americans how to spell standardi_*Z*_ed the spelling in the US, he used the "ize" form. However, in the meantime, being far more up-to-date, au-fait, and a-la-mode (not to mention just plain contrary), we changed over to "ise". Just to simplicate things.



Just to complicate things further, as a BritEng, I confirm the 'preferred' use in everyday English is 'ise'. But in academia, a lot  of papers are shared and when studying social science our tutors told us from the outset that "in social sciences, we prefer the American 'ize' ".
Clients for translations sometimes have strong preferences: they may want the text to be boldly British English, in which case not only colour, grey, centre etc but also 'ise'.
On the other hand, I was recently translating a catalogue for an international literary fair, and the editor's instructions were to always use 'ize' so as to be *mid-Atlantic*!! So my advice is, if writing for yourself, use 'ise' for Brit. English; if translating for a customer, enquire about their preference, if any.


----------



## JulianStuart

Good point Clare.  The use of -ise is regarded by all as "BrE only" (so to be "boldy British", it will be required).  The use of   -ize is regarded by many BrE speakers as American but there are a significant number of BrE speakers who use -ize (perhaps reflecting centuries of strained Anglo-French relations), following the "Oxford" way (except for the list above of "always -ise words, even in AmE and "Oxford" style).  For a learner of English, using -ise all the time keeps it simpler and one can just say, "I'm learning BrE"


----------



## clare lorraine

Quite right, Julian - I have to bear in  mind learners of English as well as translators here!


----------



## Swisser

<<Swisser's thread has been appended to the existing one, for consolidation purposes >>
Hey,
I live in Italy; have I to use/write: "I realised" or "I realized"??


----------



## ewie

Oi.  Use whichever you like, but be consistent: either always AmE spelling, or always BrE spelling.


----------



## Liam Lew's

I would say it's up to you. It depends on which variety of English you want to speak. 

*Edit:* cross-posted with ewie
And as ewie said, be consistent.


----------



## se16teddy

ewie said:


> Oi.  Use whichever you like, but be consistent: either always AmE spelling, or always BrE spelling.


But which is the AE spelling and which is the BE spelling? The OED recommends z on etymological and pronunciation (but not nationalistic) grounds.


----------



## Sabretooth

se16teddy said:


> But which is the AE spelling and which is the BE spelling? The OED recommends z on etymological and pronunciation (but not nationalistic) grounds.



In the US, it is spelled "reali*z*ed."


----------



## e2efour

You don't often see _realize_ in the UK nowadays. Newspapers mostly use the -ise spelling, which has steadily been gaining in popularity.


----------



## JulianStuart

<<Swisser's thread has just been added - starting at #194.  The previous ten (yes this has been discussed before) pages will prove illuminating  >>


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

ewie said:


> Oi.  Use whichever you like, but be consistent: either always AmE spelling, or always BrE spelling.



Aye, but what is "BrE" spelling in this case? 

I'd argue that "realize" is no more or less standard in BrE than "realise" is.


----------



## Wordsmyth

No more or less *standard*, perhaps, Pedro (since both can be found in standard reference sources, as long as you include the OED) — but I'd argue that "realise" is far, far more frequently *used* than "realize" in BrE.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

The British National Corpus returns 3800 hits for "realise" and 2133 for "realize".  This seems to bear out the assertion that "realise" is more frequently used but not "far, far" more frequently used. That's a pretty respectable showing for both words.


----------



## Wordsmyth

That's an interesting result, James. If you'd asked me to guess the ratio for BrE published literature, I'd have put it at well over 2:1, but I'll bow to the BNC's wisdom. 

But the key words there are "published literature". Since the venerable OED maintains the _-ize_ spelling for its main entries (with _-ise _as an alternative), a significant number of publishing houses and literary authors use the OED primary form — and that's reflected in the BNC results.

However I still maintain that in everyday use the number of BrE speakers who write "realise" is far, far greater than those who write "realize". Throughout my professional life I have read, reviewed (and sometimes proofread) thousands of documents written by BrE speakers in commercial, industrial and social contexts. I really can't remember any using the _-ize _form, except for some who worked for American companies. 

I worked for a while with a European-based international company that decided to adopt American English as standard (including the _-ize_ verb-ending). It was a total failure, because there were almost no Americans in the company, and it came so unnaturally to the Brits and many of the Europeans, as well as to other (non-American) native English speakers, that it would have needed an army of proofreaders to enforce it.

Ws


----------



## natkretep

I suppose it's to do with the distribution of the kinds of publications represented in the BNC. Generally, academic presses prefer _-ize_, and I have heard British academics say how their _-ise_ spellings have been automatically adjusted to conform to the house style. On the other hand, all British newspapers now use _-ise_. _The Times_ held out for the longest time but made the switch to _-ise_ in the early 1990s. (This is also true of newspapers where I am in Singapore, and also in Australia.)

Wikipedia also tells us that


> The European Union switched from -_ize _to -_ise _some years ago in its English language publications, meaning that -_ize _spellings are found in older legislative acts and -_ise _spellings in more recent ones.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I believe the Times Literary Supplement still holds to -ize. -ize was the original, and I'd argue D), preferable English form.


----------



## natkretep

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I believe the Times Literary Supplement still holds to -ize. -ize was the original, and I'd argue D), preferable English form.


Yes, it does - but I was thinking of general newspapers. I'm an -_ise_ user myself, and I would say the original is not necessary the best, and that we could also take into account that many of these words came in through the French forms with -_iser_​.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

natkretep said:


> Yes, it does - but I was thinking of general newspapers. I'm an -_ise_ user myself, and I would say the original is not necessary the best, and that we could also take into account that many of these words came in through the French forms with -_iser_​.



I was being facetious with "preferable", but I see no reason to imitate French in using -ise, especially as it is not pronounced that way. It makes sense to write "organi*s*ation" in French; in English? Not so much.


----------



## dadane

The EU has rules about this. 


> The spelling organisation should thus be used for all international organisations, even if they more commonly use the -ize spelling, e.g. International Labour Organisation (its website uses International Labour Organization, while Americans will write International Labor Organization). However, following the rule in 2.1 above, the spellings of bodies native to the USA and other countries that use the –ize spelling may be retained.


 http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf - page 22.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I believe the Times Literary Supplement still holds to -ize. -ize was the original, and I'd argue D), preferable English form.


 But was _-ize_ the original? It's been used in English only since the 16th century. Before that, the Middle English (12th-15th century) ending was _-isen_. 

Going back several steps to Latin origins is a questionable approach to deciding modern spelling (and if applied widely it would mean throwing out all English dictionaries and starting again from scratch!). Nonetheless it is possible to relate _-ize_ back to Late Latin _-izare _... So is that the original? Well, no, because prior to the 1st century BC, the Latin spelling of the Greek letter zeta was <s> or <ss>. 

So if the original English wasn't with a <z>, and if the original Latin wasn't with a <z>, maybe we should try Proto-Indo-European  ... or maybe just accept established modern English usage, as we do for most spellings.


Pedro y La Torre said:


> I was being facetious with "preferable", but I see no reason to imitate French in using -ise, especially as it is not pronounced that way. It makes sense to write "organi*s*ation" in French; in English? Not so much.


 But there's every reason to "imitate French", since a vast number of English verbs with _-ise_/_-ize_ came into English from Old French (_-iser_), as natkretep said. If the spellings of all the words in English that arrived with Willy the Conk and his successors were rejected as imitations of French, we'd have to rewrite about half the English language. As for the pronunciation, the English <s> has two possible sounds: [s] and [z]. If it doesn't make sense to write "organisation" in English, then presumably we should write "nazal", "uze", and "penz and pencilz". 

Ws


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Wordsmyth said:


> So if the original English wasn't with a <z>, and if the original  Latin wasn't with a <z>, maybe we should try Proto-Indo-European  ... or maybe just accept established modern English usage, as we do for most spellings.



It's  worth noting that it was established English usage, at least until the First  World War, if not thereafter, as far as I can find. You won't find an author like Bertrand  Russell, for example, using "-ise", neither, if I remember right, did  George Orwell. Apparently the first "-ise" dates from 1755.

I'd agree with the OED:



> In British English, it doesn’t matter which spelling convention is  chosen: neither is right or wrong, and neither is ‘more right’ than the  other. The important thing is that, whichever form you choose, you  should use it consistently within a piece of writing.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Pedro y La Torre said:


> _[...]_ I'd agree with the OED:
> 
> 
> 
> In British English, it doesn’t matter which spelling convention is chosen: neither is right or wrong, and neither is ‘more right’ than the other. The important thing is that, whichever form you choose, you should use it consistently within a piece of writing.
Click to expand...

 Now that's something I heartily agree with.

I'm very doubtful about the first "-ise" dating from 1755, though. Ngram shows _authorise_ existing in the late 1500s and heavily dominating the first half of the 1600s, with _-ize_ being almost non-existent then. Equally, there are instances of _criticise_, _realise_, etc, in the same period. That's consistent with various references to the dropping of the _n_ of Middle English _-isen_, in the 1500s.

Ws


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Wordsmyth said:


> Now that's something I heartily agree with.
> 
> I'm very doubtful about the first "-ise" dating from 1755, though. Ngram shows _authorise_ existing in the late 1500s and heavily dominating the first half of the 1600s, with _-ize_ being almost non-existent then. Equally, there are instances of _criticise_, _realise_, etc, in the same period. That's consistent with various references to the dropping of the _n_ of Middle English _-isen_, in the 1500s.
> 
> Ws



The OED needs to update its entries in that case!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Unless 1755 referred to a particular word, rather than to the "-ise" ending in general ... ??

Ws


----------



## Loob

I was curious about where Pedro had found the comment he quoted in post  211, and was making increasingly desperate forays into the on-line OED  in search of it, until I finally tracked it down to the Oxford Dictionaries blog. Thank you for finding it, Pedro: the whole thing makes interesting reading.





Wordsmyth said:


> Unless 1755 referred to a particular word, rather than to the "-ise" ending in general ... ??
> 
> Ws


It relates to the word _realise/realize_, Ws: here's the relevant quote from the blog

The _OED_’s earliest example for *realize* dates from 1611: it’s taken from a definition in _A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues_, a bilingual dictionary written by Randle Cotgrave:
_Realiser_, to realize, to make of a reall condition, estate, or propertie; to make reall.

The first recorded use of the verb with an ‘-ise’ spelling  in the _OED_ is not until 1755 – over a century later!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Loob, you are right. I skimmed over the blog post at work and didn't see it only related to one word (I also should have linked to it).
Some humble pie for me!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Some humble pie for me too! 

Inspired by Loob's info (thanks, Loob), I looked further into the Google Books sources behind the Ngram results I mentioned — and they're not at all reassuring. I found several that were more recent rewritings (often 20th century) of old texts, with the English clearly modernised, but dated as if they were originals; and others where the search algorithm simply misread the scanned text: for example "realme" (with a fuzzy "m") read as "realise".

So I'll think twice about using Ngrams in future. 

It might be revealing to find some writings dating from somewhere between Chaucer's Middle English and Shakespeare (the beginning of the _-ize_ era), to see if _-ise_ (a shortening of _-isen_, as some sources claim) was present. But then if such examples existed, I suppose the OED should have found them.

Ws


----------

