tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post749603394535777003..comments2024-03-14T16:19:49.359+01:00Comments on Random Idea English: Some random thoughts about -ise and -ize verbs in British English.Warsaw Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-47145954014043633232013-03-12T13:55:42.969+01:002013-03-12T13:55:42.969+01:00Correction - it seems that "A Sicilian Romanc...Correction - it seems that "A Sicilian Romance" was first published anonymously in 1790. So both of the 1792 volumes in Google Books are presumably Second Edition.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-31502583711469027382013-03-12T13:37:27.573+01:002013-03-12T13:37:27.573+01:00@AnWulf - A more detailed look at "A Sicilian...@AnWulf - A more detailed look at "A Sicilian Romance", using Project Gutenberg and Google Books, suggests that the writer uses six French <i>-ise</i> verbs and their derivatives in 31 iterations. <i>Surprise</i> (by far the most common) is the only one that is sometimes (in fact in the, majority of cases) spelt with a Z (and once as suprise [sic]). <i>Advise, chastise, despise,disguise</i> are all spelt with an S in all their occurrences. Ten <i>-ize</i> suffix verbs are used, always spelt with a Z, but in only 24 iterations. <i>Surprize</i>, with a Z, also appears as a noun several times.<br /><br />The figures are:<br /><br />1792 Second EditionVolume I<br />surprise 2 surprize 6<br />surprised 5 surprized 7<br /><br />1792 First Edition Volume II<br />surprise 2 surprize 15<br />surprised 0 surprized 4<br /><br />1809 Fourth Edition Vol II<br />surprise 5 surprize 11<br />surprised 2 surprized 3<br /><br />In the Fourth Edition, published in 1809, a couple of Z versions of <i>surprize(d)</i> have been changed to S, but the majority still have a Z. An edition of the novel coupled with the Mysteries of Udolpho, by the same author, and published in 1826 by J.Limbard in London, has as far as I can see, replaced all occurrences of the <i>surprize(d)</i> with <i>surprise(d)</i>. All <i>-ize</i> verbs keep their Z in this edition.<br /><br />This confirms my belief that French <i>-ise</i> verbs, even though few in number, were used considerably more than <i>-ize</i> suffix verbs. This, for me, is a possible reason for the British publishers' change: they were simply going with the flow.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-35944906967145886892013-03-12T10:12:07.284+01:002013-03-12T10:12:07.284+01:00As regards promise, as far as I can see it and pra...As regards <i>promise</i>, as far as I can see it and practise are the only verbs in the hundred or so most common words ending in "ise", unless you count <i>premise</i> which, although pronounced like promise in American English, is promounced like surmised in British English.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.morewords.com/most-common-ends-with/ise/" rel="nofollow">MoreWords</a><br /><br />It seems a bit strange to me to fault a practice because of a couple of exceptions. After all, we don't usually fault the "i before e" rule, just because there are one or two weird exceptions. <br /><br />If you're concerned about spelling reform, I would have thought it would be better to change these two verbs, by dropping the final "e" as you suggest, or by ending with "ss", rather than change everything else, including non-verbs such as <i>wise, sunrise</i> to a Z. People are very wary of new spellings, and many find such "phoneticisations" as "Krazy Kuts" childish, twee or downright ugly.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-34215038660441299152013-03-11T21:29:20.995+01:002013-03-11T21:29:20.995+01:001) Z - You know a lot more than me about Early Eng...1) Z - You know a lot more than me about Early English, but I think you're also saying that your example is unusual. My information came mainly from the pages I've listed in the links, especially from Online Etymology Dictionary. <br /><br />2) Point taken about <i>arise</i>. I don't know how it got into that list. I'll remove it.<br /><br />3) Your example of Radcliffe's A Sicilian Romance is an interesting one. In <a href="http://books.google.pl/books?id=KlsmAAAAMAAJ&q=surprise" rel="nofollow">Volume I</a> of the London 1792 edition, on Page 118, there is indeed the sentence you quote where surprise is spelt with a Z, and there also four more examples with a Z. But on Page 22 we have "might reasonably be supposed to excite a strong degree of surprise and terror" and on Page30, "leaving his daughters in a state of sorrow and surprise", where in both cases surprise is spelt with an S. The same thing happens in <a href="http://books.google.pl/books?id=y1omAAAAMAAJ&q=surprise" rel="nofollow">Volume II</a>. Two instances of surprise with an S, fifteen with a Z.<br /><br />This is typical of many of the eighteenth century (and some nineteenth century) books I've looked at, where there is quite a lot of inconsistency in the spelling of both -ize suffix verbs, and French-based -ise verbs. The first edition of Vanity Fair is full; of them, as you can see <a href="http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2013/01/thackerays-use-of-ise-ize-verbs-in.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> . Personally, I feel that it was probably this inconsistency that decided publishers to standardise their spelling. I know Oxford and others say that the change to -ise was due to French influence, but they never seem to quote a source on this. My theory is that they went for S rather than Z because the occurrences of French -ise verbs were much more frequent than -ize suffix verbs, so they went for what they were familiar with, rather than taking a conscious decision to "go French". It would seem strange that we should suddenly fall under the spell of the French when we had just finished a long and rather bitter war with them. But I certainly accept that the origins of the -ise ending is French.<br /><br />For example, the original editions of all six of Jane Austen's novels, published between 1811 and 1818, all appeared with mainly -ize endings (albeit with a few S endings), but when they were republished by Richard Bentley in the Standard Novels series in 1833 , all the -ize verbs had changed to -ise. Now what would be interesting to discover is whether Bentley gave his reasons anywhere. <br /><br />4) As for pronunciation, those Brits, Australians etc, who who spell -ize suffix verbs with an S are unlikely to have any doubts about pronunciation or spelling, as all verbs with this sound are spelt with the same way, whether French -ise verbs like <i>surprise</i>, -ize suffix like <i>recognise</i>, or -yse/-yze like <i>analyse></i>.<br />Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-34499377280898355972013-03-08T22:55:22.328+01:002013-03-08T22:55:22.328+01:00Tho seldom seen, 'z' does show up in OE .....Tho seldom seen, 'z' does show up in OE ... bæzere. Hard to say how the z was said as the word was came thru Celtic and was also spell'd as bæcere, bæchere, and bæþere/bæðere.<br /><br />Arisen is an Anglo rooted word from OE arisan. Here, the vowel likely was a lengthen i ... thus ee and the 's' was an 's' sound rather than z. The vowel shifted to ī and that drove the s to a z sound. It wouldn't bother me to change the spelling to arize.<br /><br />Suprize has been about for a long time: 1792, Ann Ward Radcliffe, A Sicilian Romance: Ferdinand not yet recovered from the painful surprize.<br /><br />Promise is a good byspel of why -ize should be noted for the ī since promise is not an īze sound ... or better yet ... spell promis without the 'e'.<br /><br />Prize, meaning to pry/lever, is also found in AmE: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/prize--2 However, pry is word that most Americans will note.<br /><br />Lastly, the Oxford Dict. Online clearly thinks that the -ise is French: The alternative spelling -ise (reflecting a French influence) is in common use, especially in British English. - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/-ize?q=-ize<br /><br />The -ize spelling takes away any doubt about how to say it.AnWulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561827352709157334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-25229161693320686802013-02-25T15:24:33.318+01:002013-02-25T15:24:33.318+01:00Hi, Vireya. From what I understand, the -ise versi...Hi, Vireya. From what I understand, the -ise version is much more dominant in Australia, even more so than in Britain.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-76883927365789963062013-02-25T07:16:40.329+01:002013-02-25T07:16:40.329+01:00Fascinating, as I did not know that as a speaker o...Fascinating, as I did not know that as a speaker of "British English" I had a choice of which ending to use. I was taught (Australia, primary school in 1960s) that "ise" was correct and that was that. Thanks for a very interesting investigation.Vireyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16464838238295059335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-74885881581829696392013-02-02T13:18:51.062+01:002013-02-02T13:18:51.062+01:00Really useful post. Many thanks
@EditorSpiceReally useful post. Many thanks<br /><br />@EditorSpice@EditorSpicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360170737983594981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-86679842636221719512013-02-01T17:38:40.480+01:002013-02-01T17:38:40.480+01:00@vp - Thanks for your kind comments. I've intr...@vp - Thanks for your kind comments. I've introduced an Early Modern English section, which I hope solves the first problem, but I've no doubt made some other howlers as well. This is my first foray into this sort of area; I usually write about the joys of such things as reduced relative clauses and negative inversion. <br /><br />Johnson was one of my other howlers, as these verbs weren't coming up on normal book search. I now understand why, and more or less how to get round it, and <i>analyze</i> is certainly in there. But even he gets a bit confused and has entries for <i>realise, tyrannise</i> (with an <i>S</i>), amongst others.<br /><br />As for your last comment, I'm totally unqualified to judge. But I don't think my few examples from literature are necessarily much to go on. Perhaps you could explain a little more what you mean.<br /><br />I see Ngram being used by real linguists such as the people at Language Log, so I presume it can't be that bad. For amateurs like me I think it's an amazing tool. And the same goes for Google Books.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-81241079832345352102013-01-31T15:59:55.764+01:002013-01-31T15:59:55.764+01:00A wonderful post!
A few very minor points:
* Sp...A wonderful post! <br /><br />A few very minor points:<br /><br />* Spenser belongs to the period of Modern English, not Middle English (he was a rough contemporary of Shakespeare). He did include some conscious archaisms in "The Faerie Queene", but the language is fundamentally Early Modern English.<br /><br />* It's interesting to note that Samuel Johnson's dictionary has an entry "analyze".<br /><br />* Your investigations confirm my belief that Google's British English data set cannot be relied upon in any way.<br /><br /><br />Thanks once again.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-64065778895410176452013-01-31T15:57:23.450+01:002013-01-31T15:57:23.450+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.com