Re: L'OBJET: A new journal (in French) on object technology.

Re: L'OBJET: A new journal (in French) on object technology.

[Tucker Taft]

In article <PAULE.95Feb7122322@merlin.noname>,
Paul English <paule@merlin.noname> wrote:
> ...
>OK, now for the Australian perspective.
>
>From the Macquarie Student Writers Guide:
>
>---- begin quote ----
>-ise/-ize:
>Many words can be spelled with either -ise or -ize at the end.  For
>the sake of consistency, you should decide to use either -ise or -ize
>in all such words.
>
>In the past, people have sometimes argued for one spelling or the
>other in a particular word because of its history.  But the arguments
>are never clear-cut, and it is simpler to spell all one way or the
>other.  Still, there are one or two points to note.
>
>1.  If you choose -ise, as Australian newspapers and most government
>offices do, you can use it in every case except capsize.  It is the
>only exception.
>
>2. If you choose -ize as most Americans and some Britons and
>Australians do, you have to remember quite a large number of
>exceptions.  There can, for example, be no -ize in:
>	advise		chastise	comprise	compromise
>	demise		devise		despise		enterprise
>	exercise	improvise	revise		surprise
>	supervise	televise
>

Actually, my daughter's (American) spelling book indicates a relatively
simple rule -- if you drop the ize/ise and you still have a word (perhaps
after adding back a "-y") then use "ize"; otherwise use "ise." 
All of the above "exceptions" clearly follow this rule.

Basically "-ize" is a (relatively modern) verb-forming suffix, 
whereas words ending in "-ise" were usually produced by more normal 
etymological processes from longer (and older) words.

> ...
>So there you have it, depending on your perspective it is less a
>matter of right and wrong, and more a matter of either efficiency or
>laziness! ;)   ...

This may be one of the few cases where Americans are less lazy
than the average English-speaking person.

>Paul.
>
>-- 
> ,-_|\     | Paul English (p.english@nepean.uws.edu.au) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>/     \    | Associate Lecturer      | PO Box 10      | Ph:  +61 47 36 0607 
>\_.--_/ <- | Department of Computing | Kingswood 2747 | Fax: +61 2 678 5570 
>     v     | UWS - Nepean            | NSW, AUSTRALIA |

-Tucker Taft  stt@inmet.com

Re: L'OBJET: A new journal (in French) on object technology.

[Robert Dewar]

The observation that -ise is potentially more regular than the use of -ize
seems decisive to me. English abhors regularity, no wonder we have developed
the -ize ending for some words and not others. An appropriate fix to an
instance of boring regularity :-)

Re: L'OBJET: A new journal (in French) on object technology.

[David Weller]

In article <JSULLIVA.147.00099A35@fhcrc.org>,
John Sullivan <JSULLIVA@fhcrc.org> wrote:
>
>>[discussion of what OED II says about -ise and -ize deleted]
>
>STOP IT! STOP IT! SHUT UP! NO MORE! JUST KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!

*Thunderous applause*

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)