For one thing burgled is used generally as an adjective and burglarize a verb. -ize is a verb-forming suffix and makes a verb from the noun "Burglar", a thief. Burgled is actually a back-formation and is used chiefly humourously, i.e. Dicken's line "a man of the burgling persuasion."
Also, your examples don't hold water because stolen is a past-participle of a verb and you can't verb-form a verb. Ditto with thievery, which is the an abstract noun formed from another noun (thief), which is different from forming a verb from a concrete noun. Thieverization is a noun -> abstract noun -> verb -> noun again. Very redundant and very different than burglarize
A few things should be pointed out. My reading of the news sites makes me think that this was a crime of opportunity more than anything. Reportedly the criminal didn't know the owner and it isn't clear that the owners (Lorianne and her family) were living in the house since it has been undergoing renovations. My theory is that the thief saw a house that had lots of construction going on and figured that the owners might not be home all the time.
I guess it was not a good idea to publicize the fact that Steve really did not lock the door on his house. I personally never understood with all his money why he choose to live where he did, but it does say a lot about him and the fact he was not trying to isolate himself from the world like most people with money try to do
Actually, a lot of people with tons of money live is pretty "normal" neighborhoods here in Silicon Valley.
The whole Silicon Valley culture in general is relatively casual. Living in gated communities with security guards is the exception around here for rich people, not the norm. People move freely around here, particularly between companies (that's how Silicon Valley got started: guys going from Shockley to Fairchild to Intel to...). Non-compete clauses are basically unenforceable in the state of California.
Don't know why you think Steve lived in a neighborhood below his standards. Old Palo Alto is full of CEO and VC-types. Steve actually purchased two adjacent lots (both were designated historic) and merged them. The house is located in walking distance of some superb public schools.
$60,000 worth of "computers and personal items," according to Flattery, who declined to say whether the items belonged to Jobs or one of his family members.
I am going to say these items belong to a family member.
[LIST=1] [*] [*] [*] [/LIST] I remember (from the book) that Steve Jobs could never find furniture that he really liked, so the house was sparcely furnished. I think I read that he had one designer coffee table in an otherwise empty living room.
Might explain why the theft only amounted to $60.000.
For one thing burgled is used generally as an adjective and burglarize a verb. -ize is a verb-forming suffix and makes a verb from the noun "Burglar", a thief. Burgled is actually a back-formation and is used chiefly humourously, i.e. Dicken's line "a man of the burgling persuasion."
Also, your examples don't hold water because stolen is a past-participle of a verb and you can't verb-form a verb. Ditto with thievery, which is the an abstract noun formed from another noun (thief), which is different from forming a verb from a concrete noun. Thieverization is a noun -> abstract noun -> verb -> noun again. Very redundant and very different than burglarize
Surely both spellings are verbs and adjectives depending on usage. The fact that you could replace the offending word with burgled (and variation thereof) merely confirms this, along with the predating Dickensian usage. That they are also synonyms hints that the word root-word was bastardised when someone could not remember the correct sound and so invented an even longer way to say the same thing out of ignorance.
Seeing burgled was in use for around 300 years before someone thought of burglarize in the late nineteenth century it does hint at a little dumbing-down across the ages and continents.
I’m actually "taking-the-piss" about the usage especially "stolenized" and "thieverization" and I’m well aware of the * “iZation” of English but it stumps me when people use “long-zised” words when there are already perfectly good ones that they can’t be bothered to learn or remember. Reactions bring to mind something I once heard about colonial cousins and irony. :-)
Mind you, I’m not a linguist and English is not my mother-tongue so I’m not certain about these things - but you have occupy your mind with something when you’re cleaning the bogs.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
For one thing burgled is used generally as an adjective and burglarize a verb. -ize is a verb-forming suffix and makes a verb from the noun "Burglar", a thief. Burgled is actually a back-formation and is used chiefly humourously, i.e. Dicken's line "a man of the burgling persuasion."
Also, your examples don't hold water because stolen is a past-participle of a verb and you can't verb-form a verb. Ditto with thievery, which is the an abstract noun formed from another noun (thief), which is different from forming a verb from a concrete noun. Thieverization is a noun -> abstract noun -> verb -> noun again. Very redundant and very different than burglarize
Yah! What he said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam
Why say "burglarized" when you can use burgled? It's like saying "stolenized" instead of stolen or "thieverization" instead of thievery.
I feel as though I've been nit-picklarized...
or is it nit-pickled?
A few things should be pointed out. My reading of the news sites makes me think that this was a crime of opportunity more than anything. Reportedly the criminal didn't know the owner and it isn't clear that the owners (Lorianne and her family) were living in the house since it has been undergoing renovations. My theory is that the thief saw a house that had lots of construction going on and figured that the owners might not be home all the time.
The whole Silicon Valley culture in general is relatively casual. Living in gated communities with security guards is the exception around here for rich people, not the norm. People move freely around here, particularly between companies (that's how Silicon Valley got started: guys going from Shockley to Fairchild to Intel to...). Non-compete clauses are basically unenforceable in the state of California.
Don't know why you think Steve lived in a neighborhood below his standards. Old Palo Alto is full of CEO and VC-types. Steve actually purchased two adjacent lots (both were designated historic) and merged them. The house is located in walking distance of some superb public schools.
Samsung was listed as a "Person of Interest" in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
$60,000 worth of "computers and personal items," according to Flattery, who declined to say whether the items belonged to Jobs or one of his family members.
I am going to say these items belong to a family member.
[*]
[*]
[*]
[/LIST]
I remember (from the book) that Steve Jobs could never find furniture that he really liked, so the house was sparcely furnished.
I think I read that he had one designer coffee table in an otherwise empty living room.
Might explain why the theft only amounted to $60.000.
That probably WAS the coffee table.
The family's assets are in a revocable living trust, pretty much invisible to the outside world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Somebody forgot to set the alarm.
There's an App for that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
For one thing burgled is used generally as an adjective and burglarize a verb. -ize is a verb-forming suffix and makes a verb from the noun "Burglar", a thief. Burgled is actually a back-formation and is used chiefly humourously, i.e. Dicken's line "a man of the burgling persuasion."
Also, your examples don't hold water because stolen is a past-participle of a verb and you can't verb-form a verb. Ditto with thievery, which is the an abstract noun formed from another noun (thief), which is different from forming a verb from a concrete noun. Thieverization is a noun -> abstract noun -> verb -> noun again. Very redundant and very different than burglarize
Surely both spellings are verbs and adjectives depending on usage. The fact that you could replace the offending word with burgled (and variation thereof) merely confirms this, along with the predating Dickensian usage. That they are also synonyms hints that the word root-word was bastardised when someone could not remember the correct sound and so invented an even longer way to say the same thing out of ignorance.
Seeing burgled was in use for around 300 years before someone thought of burglarize in the late nineteenth century it does hint at a little dumbing-down across the ages and continents.
I’m actually "taking-the-piss" about the usage especially "stolenized" and "thieverization" and I’m well aware of the * “iZation” of English but it stumps me when people use “long-zised” words when there are already perfectly good ones that they can’t be bothered to learn or remember. Reactions bring to mind something I once heard about colonial cousins and irony. :-)
Mind you, I’m not a linguist and English is not my mother-tongue so I’m not certain about these things - but you have occupy your mind with something when you’re cleaning the bogs.
* Hmmmm… maybe I should patent that?
First result on Google search for "Kariem McFarlin" is this:
http://www.facebook.com/kariem.mcfarlin
Click on the facebook link to see his ugly mug.
It's gotta be the same dude as the scumbag burglar and lowlife criminal thief, unless there's more than one Kariem McFarlin who's also from Alameda.
The criminal seems to be associated with some hospitals including a children's hospital! What a lowlife!
Hopefully they lock this failure of a person up behind bars where he'll get what he deserves for being such a loser and criminal.
This is a great opportunity to use Remote Wipe.
That must be him (or close enough) lets march to his house and sort him out.
I'll light the torches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam
Why say "burglarized" when you can use burgled?
What's the problem? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala
That must be him (or close enough) lets march to his house and sort him out.
I'll light the torches.
The dude's already been arrested, no need to march to his house. He'll get what's coming to him when he spends time in the slammer.
And yes, it is most likely him. Seems to be around same age, same name, same town, same state etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909
I am going to say these items belong to a family member.
And I would have said items were stolen from the home of Steve Jobs' family.
Steve's computer equipment is in a cave 2 miles below the ground protected by the Avengers and nuclear lasers. I'm not worried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909
I am going to say these items belong to a family member.
I dunno, Steve was rumored to be a bit of an egotist. He probably left most of his belongings to himself in his will.