Summarise

Summarise

[Robert Firth]

In article <3guv7j$l7t@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>The spelling with z is the only allowed one. If you need an authority
>other than me, try OED second edition, volume XVII, page 170. Interestingly
>a number of the citations use the s spelling, but it is not even listed as
>an acceptable alternative in the main heading.

No, *all* of the citations spell the word "summarise", and none spells
it in the OED form.  I think this is a clear case of the OED riding
its hobby horse roughshod over best practice, and we can feel free to
tell it to get stuffed.

As for "finalise", that's not an english word at all, however spelled,
and it should be finalized with extreme prejudice.

Re: Summarise

[Robert Dewar]

To points to make in response to Fobert Firth's authoritative sounding
statement.

First: summarize is not an invention of OED II, but is also the only acceptable
spelling given in the first edition (sorry, can't give the proper reference,
since I only have the annoying compact edition, where it appears on page 3150)
That's a fair amount of accumulated authority there, though as Robert points
out the spelling summarise appears in the quotations). Clearly the important
bottom line for Ada here though is that the spelling finalize should certainly
be regarded as acceptable British English, and you shouldn't let publishers
change it!

Second, anyone is free to play King Canute when it comes to language and
grammar, but to say that finalize is not an English word seems pushing it
to me. Yes it is a new word, appearing for the first time in OED II, but
with a fairly long history of use (the first quote is 1922, it appears to
origininate in Australia -- the Times first used it in 1955. The quotes
are mostly the z spelling with just a couple of examples of s spellings.
I guess brother Firth would have felt at home with N. Birkett who wrote
in 1953 (Magic of Words, a pleasant reference): "When I hear of...things
being adjumbreated, or visualized, or finalized..I think of the other aim
of this [English] Association, 'To uphold the standards of English writing
or speech'"

Still that was I am sorry to point out 42 years ago, and at this stage
attempting to maintain that finalize is not a word is as likely to succeed
as my campaign to preserve the meanings of moot and oxymoron :-)

Re: Summarise

[Arthur Evans Jr]

In article <1995Feb6.153045.4445@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu
(Robert Firth) wrote:

> No, *all* of the citations spell the word "summarise", and none spells
> it in the OED form.

The American Heritage Dictionary, online version for the Macintosh,
copyright 1994, lists "summarize" and not "summarise".

Random House Dictionary, copyright 1968, lists "summarise" but admits
"summarize" as "chiefly British".

Art Evans

Adumbrated (was: Summarise)

[Norman H. Cohen]

In article <3h8jh6$2i3@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: 

|> I guess brother Firth would have felt at home with N. Birkett who wrote
|> in 1953 (Magic of Words, a pleasant reference): "When I hear of...things
|> being adjumbreated, or visualized, or finalized..I think of the other aim
|> of this [English] Association, 'To uphold the standards of English writing
|> or speech'"

According to the online OED here, the word is "adumbrated", not
"adjumbreated".  I guess one part of Robert's brain was thinking of
"adjusted, or initialized, or finalized" while another part was trying to
type "adumbrated, or visualized, or finalized".

OED gices the following meanings for "adumbrate": 

1.  To shade (a picture), to represent with due light and shade so as to
complete what has been sketched or delineated.
2.  To represent the shadow of (anything), to draw or figure in outline;
to outline; to sketch; to give faint indication of.
3.  To represent a substrance by its 'shadow' or emblem; to shadow forth,
to typify; hence, to foreshadow, prefigure, as 'coming events cast their
shadows before.'
4.  To overshadow; to shade, obscure.

Another online dictionary that identifies itself only as "Webster's
Seventh" (not to be confused with Beethoven's Fifth) gives the following
definitions: 

1. to foreshadow vaguely: INTIMATE
2a. to give a sketchy representation or outline of
2b. to suggest or disclose partially
3. SHADE, OBSCURE

During the Ada 9X design process, I objected to the term "abstract type"
because it could be confused with the distinct notion of "abstract data
type," but I was unable to come up with a satisfactory alternative.  Too
late, alas, I now realize that abstract types should have been called
"adumbrated types", in the sense of Webster definitions 1 and 2.  ;-)

   type T adumbrated tagged null record;
   procedure P(X: in out T) is adumbrated;

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com