I think those last two are relics from the Chicago Tribune’s attempts at ‘Simplified Spelling’, which they kept up from 1934 to 1975.
Malacandra was right about ‘realize’
- oddly I picked it up from the same Morse source
- and have checked it out
While UK English is largely a combination of old German with an overlay of French, we probably retain the French spelling as most people determining ‘correct’ spelling also spoke French.
Actually, further into the article you linked to, “ameba” and “kidnaped” are supposed to be his (editor McCormick’s) fault too, so the only one that isn’t is “nite.” So…the list maker hasn’t read anything written in US English for 30 or more years, then, do you suppose? :dubious:
‘Realise’ is a valid modern variant, though, isn’t it?
I stand by my previous post (since I’m an educated Englishman and I always use realise 
), although I was surprised to see that realize has its supporters.
From the Cambridge Online Dictionary:
realize, UK USUALLY realise
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65816&dict=CALD
From the Chambers Online Dictionary:
realize or realise
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=realise&title=21st
From the Oxford Online Dictionary:
realize
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50198441
(note there are historical references throughout to realise)
I think you underestimate English and the passing of time since the Norman Conquest. We have Latin words, Greek words, Indian words, Australian words and acronyms.
I wanted to eat a poppadum, so recorded a television program about boomerangs on DVD.
I know, but our rule is that it’s “meter” if it’s a measuring device, and “meter” if it’s a length. Even with Americans, hardly anyone ever gets them mixed up! 
Marklar.
I would check it out a bit further, you might be surprized.
We have certainly absorbed a lot of words, but they are, in my view a minority, also the Germanic ones long preceded the post Norman ones.
Put simply, nobody in Germany could spell until Hochdeutsch and Duden (Dueden) arrived, but the French had things pretty well standardized in the 1700’s
On paper I am a pretty well educated Englishman, PPE Oxon etc. Matric 30 years ago.
However I’m always interested in the subtle ‘social discriminators’ that subliminally persist.
My take is that by broadcasting them, one destroys them.
You must both be stopped.
I think you must mean stoped.
Not being a South Park fan, I hadn’t heard this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_races_in_South_Park#Marklar
But Robert Sheckley beat them to the punch, long ago. One of his short-shiorts from the 1950s featured an alien race whose language consisted (at the end of the story, anyway) of the word “mun”.
At least no one ever worried about confusing the spellings.
Welcome to the boards.
Here we like a poster to supply his own cites, rather than tell others to do it.
I listed 3 authoritative dictionaries to support my point that ‘realise’ is standard English usage. (Admittedly one preferred ‘realize’, but I’m a fiar man.)
I would certainly be surprised to learn surprized was correct!
So you don’t count Latin or Greek? 
The French have an Academy to standardise - we don’t. Hence the changes in English continue right up to present-day.
I asked my English department (they’re practically all English graduates from Oxbridge). But just saying sort of thing that doesn’t prove anything. Bung us a cite!
Do you mean not keeping coal in t’bath?
Or using RP?
Could you give an example?
I have poked around in my computer’s innards some and discovered that I can set my spellchecker to UK usage of English.
That’s making my proofreading, mentioned in the OP, go a lot faster, but I still am enjoying the facts folks are supplying here.
@Glee
I liked the ‘fiar’ bit - neat - a life tenant
My Odhams New English Dictionary 1932 does not know about ‘realise’
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1966 puts ‘realise’ as a sub spelling of ‘realize’
If you care to check it out, you’ll find that the full Oxford Dictionary explains the difference, the last time I had a scrap about this an American in Japan checked his paper version
- Books do furnish a room
Since I come from a generation that taught your generation’s English tutors, it is entirely possible that they have no clue.
I must confess I was not impressed by my bunch.
Digressing, my introduction to social discriminators was at Christ Church, an alarming interview - one guy spent most of his time crawling around chasing the spring from a ball point pen. while another asked me about the differences between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, also ‘jealousy’ and ‘envy’.
Personally I suggest that you suppress RP
- cultivate a gentle accent
- argot is good - it has to be understandable
Just a spelling mistake. Since I was correcting your spelling, this is known here as ‘Gaudere’s Law’.
I said that ‘realise’ is current usage. Referring to 40 and 74 year old dictionaries is not relevant.
If you care to look at my cite above, you’ll see that the Cambridge Dictionary states that ‘realise’ is the usual UK spelling.
Some of our chaps are 50 years old. How old are you?! :eek:
The OED has always favored[sup]1[/sup] the -ize endings for verbs. The Times used to do so as well.
Don’t you mean television programme?
An interesting datum on gaol: Lois McMaster Bujold, an American author, uses this spelling in her books. Admittedly, it doesn’t appear all that often, but I’ve seen it at least twice. The mystery is how it gets past the American copy editors. You’d think their spell chunkers would spit it out, if nothing else.
[sup]1[/sup] Or even favoured…
A pity about ‘fiar’ being a spelling mistake
- it makes a good joke - I had to look it up, and thought it a great quip.
- Serendipity.
I suggest that you nip into the library and check out the full edition of the OED
Also I strongly disagree about old dictionaries not being credible sources, if you see a new spelling creeping in over time then it is an indication that a mis-spelling is becoming generally accepted.
It is similar to incorrect grammar, a lot of people say ‘If I was you’ but that does not make it correct - it just places a metaphorical dunce’s cap on their head - one that is visible only to people who know better.
I’m 50 so probably a contemporary of your tutors, not that age matters much.
Well, maybe it does in a way, I’ve seen nearly illiterate people become pedants as they’ve got older and found themselves assessing other people and being assessed by others.
Personally I think that UK English spelling is long overdue for an overhaul, but until that happens it makes sense knowing the rules.
You don’t have to take my advice, but it is well meant, I’m not trying to score points, just to warn you that such oddities exist, and that some people are acutely aware of them.
Fair enough. It was just a typo.
I’m sure you don’t mean to be offensive, but this comes across as patronising. :smack:
I already quoted both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries in this thread. Perhaps you should read the Cambridge one…
You seriously think old dictionaries are a guide to current English usage? :eek:
When are you going to draw the line on your ‘mis-spellings’? Dickens? Shakespeare? Chaucer? Latin?
No, this is not similar to incorrect grammar. ‘If I was you’ is wrong, but still comprehendable.
How does this compare in the comprehension stakes:
‘Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee bifalle
Boece or Troylus for to wryten newe,
Under thy long lokkes thou most have the scalle,
But after my makyng thow wryte more trewe;
So ofte adaye I mot thy werk renewe,
It to correcte and eke to rubbe and scrape,
And al is thorugh thy negligence and rape.’
When did this (from Chaucer) become incorrect? Or do you now admit that English changes over time?
And they all agree that ‘realise’ is the contemporary English spelling, while ‘realize’ is the US version. (They’re not my tutors by the way - they’re my colleagues. I’m 52.)
I agree about the rules (and I know the difference between imply and infer). I think however that since there is no equivalent to the French Academy for language, there is no way to stop popular usage changing the English language (as it has done for over a thousand years).
I think you are perhaps romantically clinging to your ‘version’ of English.
I see, the age bit was setting me up.
UK English spelling settled down somewhere in the early 20th century, I’m not sure why, but it was probably due to Grammar Schools kicking in (est. 1870) and reduced costs of printing. It might have been repopulation after WWI.
I once owned an Oliphant’s School Certificate ‘bible’ from around 1926, in 1970 it was totally relevant. I’ve just checked my copy of Usage and Abusage, last revised (sic) 1965, printed 1980.
When things get printed and widely distributed, they establish standards.
The standards are not necessarily consistent, for example in the 1970’s IIRC London examining boards deemed that X/0 = 0 while O&C stated X/0 = Infinity.
I suggest that you check out a large printed copy of the OED, you might find that a fair number of people disagree with the Cambridge version. It might be a ‘turf war’ between O and C - but it is worth knowing about it.
I have no problems with a mutating language, where I do have problems is when people have not made a conscious and informed choice of which branch of the river they are following.
No, but it was interesting you made an assumption about my age.
Do you have a cite for this? Or is it just your opinion?
In what way does your Oliphant Bible differ from the King James version?
Do you really think that the English language hasn’t changed since 1965?
Then they get updated.
Have you got a cite for this?
A mathematician will tell you that x/0 is infinity (although 0/0 may be a special case).
I already explained that you are being patronising. :rolleyes:
I suggest you check out the Cambridge version.
You will also find that a large number of people disagree with the Oxford version.
I obviously knew about the turf war when I posted earlier in the thread.
If you have no problems with mutating language, why do you quote books published in 1926, 1932, 1965 and 1966 as current authorities?
Are you suggesting I have not made a ‘conscious and informed choice’?