"ize" or "ise"

I've ground up in the UK and at school I was taught both spellings. Generally I've preferred to use the "ize" spelling for words such as civilize, organize, realize and civilization, organization etc. I've noticed recently, however, that this is becoming increasingly rare in British publishing with the "ise" versions favoured, this is despite the fact that the OED lists "ize" as its preferred spelling and it is the spelling insisted on by Oxford University Press. Making a check of the seven British dictionaries, that I own, only one even bothers to list the "ise" spellings as an alternative.

As far as I'm aware The Times used the "ize" spelling until it was bought by Rupert Murdoch and I think this was probably the only one left. The spelling has become so noticably absent from publishing that I've heard some kids even think its an Americanism. A quick check of some old texts put my mind at rest, as it appears to be the traditional spelling; Robert Cawdreys 1604 publication lists "equalize" and "scandalize" and I've only ever seen John Donne's poem "The Canonization" spelt as such, it also includes the word "epitomize". I could be wrong, but i also seem to think that the King James Bible uses the spelling "baptize".

The question is therefore, why has there been a move towards the "ise" spelling which is held by some academics to be incorrect?

In my experience most UKers I've talked with that were uninformed on the history of spelling believed that "-ize" was an Americanism, and some don't believe that in fact it was the traditional British spelling. The British were once so gung-ho for "-ize" spellings that they even used them for words that didn't have etymologies from Greek "izo." In fact, in some American dictionaries, spellings like "surprize" (which I've never seen used in an American text) are listed as "British variants," but I believe those are probably a couple centuries old. I have seen "surprize" used in British academic texts on very rare occasions. But, back to the words from Greek "-izo" such as "baptize" and "equalize" etc that you mention, it is interesting to note the change in British preference over the past couple of centuries. It's interesting--but fashions change, I suppose.

The only reason I can think of that academics would think "-ise" was incorrect would be on etymological grounds, since "-ize" is historically closer to to the Greek root which it's derived from. The exception, of course, would be the words such as some "-prise" or "-mise" words which come from French "-pris" and "-mis." In the US we appear to prefer etymological and/or traditional British spellings in some cases where the British have since moved on in spelling fashion to the point where it seems as if the traditional forms are Americanisms.

"..........it is interesting to note the change in British preference over the past couple of centuries. It's interesting--but fashions change, I suppose."

For the most part the change has been over the last 20 years its been reasonably sudden, but few people seem to have noticed. I've been looking through books I own from British publishers from the 1970s, not one uses the "ise" spelling. While some book publishers still use the "ize" spelling quite a few seem to have moved over to "ise"

From what you all are saying, it appears that the British preference for -ise may be based on a desire to differentiate themselves from Americans, just as the American spellings "color" and "favor", etc., were originally meant to differentiate AE from BE. Tit for tat, I guess. Everybody likes to be different.

It could be, but I think their might be another reason.

American spelling simply reflect many popular spellings of the 16th and 17th centuries. Center was a fairly standard spelling, words like armour were often spelt as armor. "U"s in other words were sometimes unused and even today honorary is spelt without a "u" in Britain. See also:

rigour but rigorous
glamour but glamorous
labour but laborious
colour but coloration and colorific

All Webster tied to do was to tidy some of this mess up and decided it was always easier just to use the latin root- e.g. labor and honor instead of labour and honour.

As for the change to "ise" I think this might be down to the fact that the British Media became dominated by Australians in the early 1980s. The "ise" spelling has historically been preferred in Australia and the Macquarie dictionary lists it first unlike other dictionaries.

LOL this is confusing for us learning English.. I myself was taught by an Australian English Teacher and told me that both spelling was acceptable except in the US and Canada where the 'ize' spelling only used...

I thought Canadians also accepted the both versions of spelling eg. Labour and Labor.. is there an official way of spelling in Canada?

<<It could be, but I think their might be another reason.

American spelling simply reflect many popular spellings of the 16th and 17th centuries. Center was a fairly standard spelling, words like armour were often spelt as armor. "U"s in other words were sometimes unused and even today honorary is spelt without a "u" in Britain. See also:

rigour but rigorous
glamour but glamorous
labour but laborious
colour but coloration and colorific

All Webster tied to do was to tidy some of this mess up and decided it was always easier just to use the latin root- e.g. labor and honor instead of labour and honour.>>

Right, Webster did restore them to their earlier Latin forms, but actually, as the words came into English (many via Old French in Norman times) they were usually spelled "-or" to begin with. For instance, these words in Old French were "-or" as well, so naturally when English first took them from French it used the same spelling. So, an example is "color," which was "color" in Old French (Modern French is "couleur" so it's had a couple vowel changes) and taken into English as "color," as well. The "-our" for such words came centuries later, *possibly* influenced by the "-eu" which came to be used in later French to represent the ways French had changed.

<<LOL this is confusing for us learning English.. I myself was taught by an Australian English Teacher and told me that both spelling was acceptable except in the US and Canada where the 'ize' spelling only used...

I thought Canadians also accepted the both versions of spelling eg. Labour and Labor.. is there an official way of spelling in Canada?>>

Canadians often learn both ways of spelling, and may use some British forms and American forms.

I hope you're not too confused, as this really isn't as big of a deal as it sounds. For instance, absolutely none of these spelling differences we've been talking about actually points to a variant pronunciation, but are just different ways of writing effectively the same pronunciations! The "-er/-re" "-or/-our" "-ize/-ise" league is much different than the tiny class of spelling variants such as "aluminium/aluminum" which actually do represent different pronunciations. and not just stylistic preferences. Also, even with all the different possible ways to spell some classes of words according to country, ot should be emphasized the vast majority of words in written English are spelled exactly the same. You won't find variants in common words like "water" "milk" "bread" "he" "they" "the" "eat" "because", etc. even tho there are many different ways to pronounce them according to dialect. So, in short, these are subtle differences that a language learner shouldn't get too worried about, as in the big picture they're not really a big deal :)

Yeah, there are very few differences between different types of English, especially when you consider the distances and the lack of communication between areas for long periods of time!

<<Yeah, there are very few differences between different types of English, especially when you consider the distances and the lack of communication between areas for long periods of time!>>

Yeah, especially in terms of the written language. With the spoken language there's obviously quite a bit of variation, of course, but as you hinted, any given variety almost always mutually intelligible with other English varieties, which is pretty cool.

The "-ize" endings are anathaema here in the UK to be honest, whatever history says.

In fact, the letter "Z" is regarded as foreign for some reason....languages such as German are littered with Zs but in English they are rare and as I say, in the minds of most people here, regarded as distinctly non-English.

It's ZED btw! :-) Couldn't resist that one......

I'm still only half awake......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In response to Damian

I don't know whether I would count changes made in the 1980s as being "history", but while the "ize" spelling remains the preferred spelling of British dictionaries I will continue to use it. I don't think sloppy spelling should be acceptable.

<<In response to Damian

I don't know whether I would count changes made in the 1980s as being "history", but while the "ize" spelling remains the preferred spelling of British dictionaries I will continue to use it. I don't think sloppy spelling should be acceptable.>>

Regarding British English, I don't think it's "sloppy" to use "-ise" where "-ize" was traditionally used, but is simply a change in stylistics and fashion over the years. Using the non-traditional "-ise" would look weird for me to write personally as an American, because we've still stuck with traditional British "-ize," but in the context of the modern UK it appears both should be acceptable, especially given "-ise"'s more recent popularity there. However, you do make a point--my Oxford dictionary insists that "-ize" is the only way to spell such words--if you look up (or type on oed.com if you have an account) for a word like "realise" it will tell you no such word exists and that you should modify your search. Anyway, as a UKer you can decide yourself to keep on using the traditional British "-ize" but it might be too late for you to wage a crusade against "-ise," which has largely become the preferred form there by this point. Spelling norms change sometimes.

In response to Kirk

Anyway, as a UKer you can decide yourself to keep on using the traditional British "-ize" but it might be too late for you to wage a crusade against "-ise," which has largely become the preferred form there by this point. Spelling norms change sometimes.

Perhaps, but from reading other posts in this forum it seems that New Zealand has recently made the switch back to the traditional form, with only the "ize" spelling listed in school dictionaries and changes being made in government.

Yeah they did made the recent change to bring back to the 'ize' spelling.. back in my own school days teachers would encourge the 'ise' version over the 'ize' version.. teachers were discouraged to use and teach the 'ize' version but accepted students who wished to use the 'ize' version..

The new government textbooks for schools have discontinued the 'ise' spelling and also 'sation'... there is some concern in New Zealand about the continuing 'Reforms' as it may continue to the adoption of another spelling system eg. color/colour - check/cheque - etc..

It ain't a biggie... the main thing we can communciate to eachother 99% of the time.

Good point, Joel. Ultimately, such differences are of far less significance than some people would have us believe. At least I, personally, am way more interested in the differences concerning how people actually speak as compared to the 1-2% of word classes that differ in orthographical tradition in different places.