Burglarize is a pointless word. The root word is to burgle, which is a verb. A burglar is one who burgles - a noun. There is no point in making another verb by adding ize on the end of burglar!
It's like Pendle Hill near Blackpool. Pend means hill, but the meaning was forgotten, so they called it Pend Hill. This became shortened to Pendle, but then someone decided it's a hill so added another Hill - so in fact the place name is Hill Hill Hill!
It's like Pendle Hill near Blackpool. Pend means hill, but the meaning was forgotten, so they called it Pend Hill. This became shortened to Pendle, but then someone decided it's a hill so added another Hill - so in fact the place name is Hill Hill Hill!
LOL that's great
Agreed about 'burglarize'; it sounds silly to my non-American ear too. In fact whenever I hear/read it I chuckle a little
Burglarize is a pointless word. The root word is to burgle, which is a verb. A burglar is one who burgles - a noun. There is no point in making another verb by adding ize on the end of burglar! [...]
Not Quite. The root is definitely "burglar", and "burgle" is an originally facetious back-formation, to avoid the perceived clumsy (but standard) -ize formation. It caught on in the UK.
Just another example of Britain's bastering of the language.
Not Quite. The root is definitely "burglar", and "burgle" is an originally facetious back-formation, to avoid the perceived clumsy (but standard) -ize formation. It caught on in the UK.
Just another example of Britain's bastering of the language.
A "fence curtain" is that what they call it where ever the hell you are from? <sarcasm>
Is "barricading type product" a better set of words?
No, where the hell I come from we don't say fence curtain, that was an invention by me... here we would say something like nedrullningsbart galler or something like that Seriously I don't know what it's called, hehe..
All my macs are equipped with 'Under Cover" by http://www.orbicule.com. If anyone steals one of my Macs I call Orbicule and they start the system as soon as a Mac connect to the internet. Then it talks to the guys at Orbicule and reports where it is. It also send video snap shots to them from built in camera and can also slowly dim the screen until it seems to need a repair. Once at a repair facility the Mac screams "I am Stolen". This is a very inexpensive system and Apple might want think about shipping all Macs pre-installed and hey why not an iPhone version? lol
This is the message you get once installed ...
Dear customer,
You have successfully set up and registered Undercover. The fact that you are getting this e-mail means that Undercover is running properly on your computer. From now on, it will continuously monitor your Mac.
Hopefully, and probably, Apple won't. Why? The more widespread this is used and more publicity it gets, the less effective it will become. All a thief would have to do is open Activity Viewer and kill that process.
Sometimes being small is an advantage for a company/software...
Sorry, dumb American here, but whats the joke? Does that mean buggerized or something in Britain?
No, "burglarized" isn't a word at all in English. To us it sounds like a a word your President would make up. In English we'd use "burgled". A Burglar burgles, hence "burgled". They don't "burglarize".
No, "burglarized" isn't a word at all in English. To us it sounds like a a word your President would make up. In English we'd use "burgled". A Burglar burgles, hence "burgled". They don't "burglarize". [...]
And yet "burglarize" is listed in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English, although qualified as US English.
What language was British author David Irving using in 1996 when he wrote:
"Gable got caught red-handed burglarizing my apartment"
Do Brits try to emulate W when they write to Americans?
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here, and the British usage is an exceptional back-formation. If "burgle" is the verb, why isn't "burgler" the noun?
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here,
LOL and since when has the English Language been known to follow convention. ;-).
Perhaps, we should try to conventionalise it because sometimes it runs counter-clockwise to logic.
Tip for writers. Looking down UK my nose at this point, :-). Taken from effective writing blog....
Quote:
Today’s Troublesome Tripe: Techno-babble »
Leave the Suffix -ize Alone
A growing phenomenon in the world of words is the use of the suffix -ize. Though it’s acceptable to summarize and harmonize in good taste, there’s rarely, if ever, a reason to utilize or prioritize. Don’t smack -ize onto a noun to create a verb. It sounds worse and a better word always exists.
The word utilize is especially annoying. Use works as well or better, and it doesn’t convey the same coldness and sterility that characterizes the term ‘utilize.’ The same goes for words like prioritize and finalize.
Using the -ize suffix to create a verb immediately separates the viewer from your language. No longer is it intriguing and interestiing, but dull and hollow. There are some words like harmonize and summarize that can be used sparingly, but please, never, ever containerize!
LOL and since when has the English Language been known to follow convention. ;-). [...]
Since its inception. How would you make "glorp" plural? Me too. That's a convention.
Of course English has many exceptions, but Bush is ridiculed for his failure to adhere to the conventions of English.
Between a verb formed conventionally, and one formed by half-assed, comical, back-formation, it is the latter ("burgle") which is most like a Bushism.
Both are well established now, and more than 100 years old, so neither qualifies.
Quote:
Tip for writers. Looking down UK my nose at this point, :-). Taken from effective writing blog....
"...
A growing phenomenon in the world of words is the use of the suffix -ize. Though it?s acceptable to summarize and harmonize in good taste, there?s rarely, if ever, a reason to utilize or prioritize. Don?t smack -ize onto a noun to create a verb. It sounds worse and a better word always exists.
The word utilize is especially annoying. Use works as well or better, and it doesn?t convey the same coldness and sterility that characterizes the term ?utilize.? The same goes for words like prioritize and finalize.
Using the -ize suffix to create a verb immediately separates the viewer from your language. No longer is it intriguing and interestiing, but dull and hollow. There are some words like harmonize and summarize that can be used sparingly, but please, never, ever containerize!"
When one criticizes -ize, wouldn't it be more effective to avoid "characterize" in the criticism?
There are many words in -ize that no one blinks at on either side of the Atlantic (economize, capitalize, terrorize, criticize, jeapordize), and a quick look in reputable usage guides suggests the phenomenon of adding -ize is no more prevalent now than it ever was. In America at least, burglarize is as sanctioned as any of the above, and it's about as old as the inexplicable British misspelling of program(me).
You're using a convicted criminal and holocaust denier as an example of good English?
There are many errors (apart from the factual ones) in that text. Are you going to suggest those are definitive also? Perhaps he picked up the American usage erroneously, just as he's picked up his weird ideas too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
Do Brits try to emulate W when they write to Americans?
Only if you're going to incentivize our speechifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
"terrorise", "précis" and "bastardise" thank you very much. That's what I was taught to use although in polite English you'd avoid -ise words as they're harsh sounding. eg. We'd not use 'colorise', we'd use 'add colour'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here, and the British usage is an exceptional back-formation. If "burgle" is the verb, why isn't "burgler" the noun?
For the same reason we don't say executize, enthusize, donatize and many others that are equally stupid sounding and that also don't follow so-called "conventions".
Exactly, which is why it seems so peculiar to the English since it's not in common usage.
Peculiar perhaps. I was disputing your claim that it's not English.
The first time I heard "burgle" it sounded as peculiar to me as "butle" might for what a butler does. Even more peculiar in fact, because of the "a"; see below.
Quote:
You're using a convicted criminal and holocaust denier as an example of good English?
No. Only as an example of English. His opinions and criminal record are irrelevant.
Quote:
"terrorise", "précis" and "bastardise" thank you very much. That's what I was taught to use
Well, the very British OED recommends -ize, but yes I know it's not a popular recommendation over there.
Quote:
although in polite English you'd avoid -ise words as they're harsh sounding. eg. We'd not use 'colorise', we'd use 'add colour'.
And would you also use "add terror" instead of "terrorize", "add harmony" instead of "harmonize", "add sterility" instead of "sterilize"?
Quote:
For the same reason we don't say executize, enthusize, donatize and many others that are equally stupid sounding and that also don't follow so-called "conventions".
Of course back-formation has a respectable place in the language too. It was the spelling of "burglar" that I asked about. Verb/noun pairs in the form act/actor are almost never represented by -xe/-xar where x is a consonant, whereas -xe/-xer and -xe/-xor are standard. (There is lie/liar, but here x is a vowel, and the -ar is necessary to avoid very unexpected pronunciation of lier or lior.)
So, without training, when one sees "burglar", "one who burgles" is simply not the instinctive meaning. That's of course why it was considered comical at first. Like a Bushism.
Execute/executor follows the very standard -te/-tor spelling convention. (The parallel -ize formation here would be executorize, by the way.)
The other two examples are a little different in that the base noun is not the word for the actor, but for the action. In any case, donate/donator follows conventions. Enthuse still has its detractors, but I have to admit it's better than enthusiasmize.
Peculiar perhaps. I was disputing your claim that it's not English.
Well, it isn't English, it's US English as pointed out in the dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
The first time I heard "burgle" it sounded as peculiar to me as "butle" might for what a butler does. Even more peculiar in fact, because of the "a"; see below.
Butlers "buttle". Nothing peculiar about it. I can't say I hear that word often though, unlike "burgled" sadly. What do you want butlers to do, buttlerize?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
Well, the very British OED recommends -ize, but yes I know it's not a popular recommendation over there.
It used to be -ize but in the last few hundred years we've used -ise. US English is a lot more conservative so has kept the older harsher English spelling. In the same way we used to use -or instead of -our. At some point it became fashionable to use the French -our whereas in the US you didn't have that influence on your language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
And would you also use "add terror" instead of "terrorize", "add harmony" instead of "harmonize", "add sterility" instead of "sterilize"?
Usually I'd avoid -ise/ize words and use phrases such as "create terror", "create harmony" and "make sterile". They're softer sounding. Of course, if you want to sound harsh then you can't beat "bastardise".
Is it any wonder us Brits find Americans talking to us as a little brash, insincere and confrontational ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsoduko
Of course back-formation has a respectable place in the language too. It was the spelling of "burglar" that I asked about. Verb/noun pairs in the form act/actor are almost never represented by -xe/-xar where x is a consonant, whereas -xe/-xer and -xe/-xor are standard. (There is lie/liar, but here x is a vowel, and the -ar is necessary to avoid very unexpected pronunciation of lier or lior.)
So, without training, when one sees "burglar", "one who burgles" is simply not the instinctive meaning. That's of course why it was considered comical at first. Like a Bushism.
There are many words throughout the history of the English language that have been spelled multiple ways. Much of English, like much of British culture, is a mix of various invaders and influences. "Burglar" is apparently a Norman word originally spelled "Burgler". For some reason the e changed to an a later in it's life. Of course, all the American dictionaries claim "burgle" is a back formation as they've a vested interest in their spelling which came about much later (800 years or so later). Perhaps it is, perhaps nobody had a verb for burgle in between the Norman conquest and the 1800s, I don't know. I wasn't around at the time and on the net you often just get an American view of history.
Well, it isn't English, it's US English as pointed out in the dictionary.
It is English. It's US English. (Canadian, too.)
Quote:
Butlers "buttle". Nothing peculiar about it. I can't say I hear that word often though, unlike "burgled" sadly. What do you want butlers to do, buttlerize?
Serve.
Quote:
It used to be -ize but in the last few hundred years we've used -ise.
The recommendation is still there though.
Quote:
US English is a lot more conservative so has kept the older harsher English spelling.
They are pronounced the same.
Quote:
In the same way we used to use -or instead of -our. At some point it became fashionable to use the French -our whereas in the US you didn't have that influence on your language.
Well, you only use -our for a small set of words. According to Fowler, -or words are more common, and there is no logical distinction between them, and for the most part the US/UK differences are the result of the US dropping the u and British stubbornness. I'd say the -our spelling is harsh.
Quote:
Of course, all the American dictionaries claim "burgle" is a back formation as they've a vested interest in their spelling which came about much later (800 years or so later). Perhaps it is, perhaps nobody had a verb for burgle in between the Norman conquest and the 1800s, I don't know. I wasn't around at the time and on the net you often just get an American view of history.
I took the back-formation story from Fowler, and he's not American. In 1926, when he wrote it, "burgle" was still considered facetious, and he hoped it might become common.
As for burgle/burglarize, WDEU claims their first appearances more or less coincide (1871/1870), but that is an American source.
As for burgle/burglarize, WDEU claims their first appearances more or less coincide (1871/1870), but that is an American source.
Whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica and oddly the American Heritage Dictionary claims "Burgler" is an Anglo-Norman word and the origin of "Burglar". I find it hard to believe that between 1066 and 1870 there wasn't a verb for the act and independently either side of the Atlantic a new verb was created.
Anyway, one can over analyse these things. As I first posted, "burglarize" has comedy value this side of the pond. That's all. It's not English as we (the English) know it.
It could be worse, if we'd gone with Mediaeval Latin, Apple would have been burgulated.
Comments
It's like Pendle Hill near Blackpool. Pend means hill, but the meaning was forgotten, so they called it Pend Hill. This became shortened to Pendle, but then someone decided it's a hill so added another Hill - so in fact the place name is Hill Hill Hill!
It's like Pendle Hill near Blackpool. Pend means hill, but the meaning was forgotten, so they called it Pend Hill. This became shortened to Pendle, but then someone decided it's a hill so added another Hill - so in fact the place name is Hill Hill Hill!
LOL that's great
Agreed about 'burglarize'; it sounds silly to my non-American ear too. In fact whenever I hear/read it I chuckle a little
http://www.shattergard.com/home.html
Research apple......
Burglarize is a pointless word. The root word is to burgle, which is a verb. A burglar is one who burgles - a noun. There is no point in making another verb by adding ize on the end of burglar! [...]
Not Quite. The root is definitely "burglar", and "burgle" is an originally facetious back-formation, to avoid the perceived clumsy (but standard) -ize formation. It caught on in the UK.
Just another example of Britain's bastering of the language.
Not Quite. The root is definitely "burglar", and "burgle" is an originally facetious back-formation, to avoid the perceived clumsy (but standard) -ize formation. It caught on in the UK.
Just another example of Britain's bastering of the language.
bastering
A "fence curtain" is that what they call it where ever the hell you are from? <sarcasm>
Is "barricading type product" a better set of words?
No, where the hell I come from we don't say fence curtain, that was an invention by me... here we would say something like nedrullningsbart galler or something like that
Burglarized? Is that really a word you Americans use? Marvellous
just take that word with a gram of lubricant
All my macs are equipped with 'Under Cover" by http://www.orbicule.com. If anyone steals one of my Macs I call Orbicule and they start the system as soon as a Mac connect to the internet. Then it talks to the guys at Orbicule and reports where it is. It also send video snap shots to them from built in camera and can also slowly dim the screen until it seems to need a repair. Once at a repair facility the Mac screams "I am Stolen". This is a very inexpensive system and Apple might want think about shipping all Macs pre-installed and hey why not an iPhone version? lol
This is the message you get once installed ...
Dear customer,
You have successfully set up and registered Undercover. The fact that you are getting this e-mail means that Undercover is running properly on your computer. From now on, it will continuously monitor your Mac.
Hopefully, and probably, Apple won't. Why? The more widespread this is used and more publicity it gets, the less effective it will become. All a thief would have to do is open Activity Viewer and kill that process.
Sometimes being small is an advantage for a company/software...
Sorry, dumb American here, but whats the joke? Does that mean buggerized or something in Britain?
No, "burglarized" isn't a word at all in English. To us it sounds like a a word your President would make up. In English we'd use "burgled". A Burglar burgles, hence "burgled". They don't "burglarize".
To us it reminds us of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jxLB6sntSw
No, "burglarized" isn't a word at all in English. To us it sounds like a a word your President would make up. In English we'd use "burgled". A Burglar burgles, hence "burgled". They don't "burglarize". [...]
And yet "burglarize" is listed in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English, although qualified as US English.
What language was British author David Irving using in 1996 when he wrote:
"Gable got caught red-handed burglarizing my apartment"
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/d...laint0496.html)
Do Brits try to emulate W when they write to Americans?
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here, and the British usage is an exceptional back-formation. If "burgle" is the verb, why isn't "burgler" the noun?
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here,
LOL and since when has the English Language been known to follow convention. ;-).
Perhaps, we should try to conventionalise it because sometimes it runs counter-clockwise to logic.
Tip for writers. Looking down UK my nose at this point, :-). Taken from effective writing blog....
Today’s Troublesome Tripe: Techno-babble »
Leave the Suffix -ize Alone
A growing phenomenon in the world of words is the use of the suffix -ize. Though it’s acceptable to summarize and harmonize in good taste, there’s rarely, if ever, a reason to utilize or prioritize. Don’t smack -ize onto a noun to create a verb. It sounds worse and a better word always exists.
The word utilize is especially annoying. Use works as well or better, and it doesn’t convey the same coldness and sterility that characterizes the term ‘utilize.’ The same goes for words like prioritize and finalize.
Using the -ize suffix to create a verb immediately separates the viewer from your language. No longer is it intriguing and interestiing, but dull and hollow. There are some words like harmonize and summarize that can be used sparingly, but please, never, ever containerize!
LOL and since when has the English Language been known to follow convention. ;-). [...]
Since its inception. How would you make "glorp" plural? Me too. That's a convention.
Of course English has many exceptions, but Bush is ridiculed for his failure to adhere to the conventions of English.
Between a verb formed conventionally, and one formed by half-assed, comical, back-formation, it is the latter ("burgle") which is most like a Bushism.
Both are well established now, and more than 100 years old, so neither qualifies.
Tip for writers. Looking down UK my nose at this point, :-). Taken from effective writing blog....
"...
A growing phenomenon in the world of words is the use of the suffix -ize. Though it?s acceptable to summarize and harmonize in good taste, there?s rarely, if ever, a reason to utilize or prioritize. Don?t smack -ize onto a noun to create a verb. It sounds worse and a better word always exists.
The word utilize is especially annoying. Use works as well or better, and it doesn?t convey the same coldness and sterility that characterizes the term ?utilize.? The same goes for words like prioritize and finalize.
Using the -ize suffix to create a verb immediately separates the viewer from your language. No longer is it intriguing and interestiing, but dull and hollow. There are some words like harmonize and summarize that can be used sparingly, but please, never, ever containerize!"
When one criticizes -ize, wouldn't it be more effective to avoid "characterize" in the criticism?
There are many words in -ize that no one blinks at on either side of the Atlantic (economize, capitalize, terrorize, criticize, jeapordize), and a quick look in reputable usage guides suggests the phenomenon of adding -ize is no more prevalent now than it ever was. In America at least, burglarize is as sanctioned as any of the above, and it's about as old as the inexplicable British misspelling of program(me).
And yet "burglarize" is listed in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English, although qualified as US English.
Exactly, which is why it seems so peculiar to the English since it's not in common usage.
What language was British author David Irving using in 1996 when he wrote:
"Gable got caught red-handed burglarizing my apartment"
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/d...laint0496.html)
You're using a convicted criminal and holocaust denier as an example of good English?
There are many errors (apart from the factual ones) in that text. Are you going to suggest those are definitive also? Perhaps he picked up the American usage erroneously, just as he's picked up his weird ideas too.
Do Brits try to emulate W when they write to Americans?
Only if you're going to incentivize our speechifications.
Do you also consider "terrorize", "summarize", and "bastardize" to be Bushisms, preferring instead "terrer", "summer", and "baster"?
"terrorise", "précis" and "bastardise" thank you very much. That's what I was taught to use although in polite English you'd avoid -ise words as they're harsh sounding. eg. We'd not use 'colorise', we'd use 'add colour'.
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here, and the British usage is an exceptional back-formation. If "burgle" is the verb, why isn't "burgler" the noun?
For the same reason we don't say executize, enthusize, donatize and many others that are equally stupid sounding and that also don't follow so-called "conventions".
Actually, I like "burgle", but it is the American usage which follows verbing convention here, ...
Verbizing surely?.. ;-).
Exactly, which is why it seems so peculiar to the English since it's not in common usage.
Peculiar perhaps. I was disputing your claim that it's not English.
The first time I heard "burgle" it sounded as peculiar to me as "butle" might for what a butler does. Even more peculiar in fact, because of the "a"; see below.
You're using a convicted criminal and holocaust denier as an example of good English?
No. Only as an example of English. His opinions and criminal record are irrelevant.
"terrorise", "précis" and "bastardise" thank you very much. That's what I was taught to use
Well, the very British OED recommends -ize, but yes I know it's not a popular recommendation over there.
although in polite English you'd avoid -ise words as they're harsh sounding. eg. We'd not use 'colorise', we'd use 'add colour'.
And would you also use "add terror" instead of "terrorize", "add harmony" instead of "harmonize", "add sterility" instead of "sterilize"?
For the same reason we don't say executize, enthusize, donatize and many others that are equally stupid sounding and that also don't follow so-called "conventions".
Of course back-formation has a respectable place in the language too. It was the spelling of "burglar" that I asked about. Verb/noun pairs in the form act/actor are almost never represented by -xe/-xar where x is a consonant, whereas -xe/-xer and -xe/-xor are standard. (There is lie/liar, but here x is a vowel, and the -ar is necessary to avoid very unexpected pronunciation of lier or lior.)
So, without training, when one sees "burglar", "one who burgles" is simply not the instinctive meaning. That's of course why it was considered comical at first. Like a Bushism.
Execute/executor follows the very standard -te/-tor spelling convention. (The parallel -ize formation here would be executorize, by the way.)
The other two examples are a little different in that the base noun is not the word for the actor, but for the action. In any case, donate/donator follows conventions. Enthuse still has its detractors, but I have to admit it's better than enthusiasmize.
Peculiar perhaps. I was disputing your claim that it's not English.
Well, it isn't English, it's US English as pointed out in the dictionary.
The first time I heard "burgle" it sounded as peculiar to me as "butle" might for what a butler does. Even more peculiar in fact, because of the "a"; see below.
Butlers "buttle". Nothing peculiar about it. I can't say I hear that word often though, unlike "burgled" sadly. What do you want butlers to do, buttlerize?
Well, the very British OED recommends -ize, but yes I know it's not a popular recommendation over there.
It used to be -ize but in the last few hundred years we've used -ise. US English is a lot more conservative so has kept the older harsher English spelling. In the same way we used to use -or instead of -our. At some point it became fashionable to use the French -our whereas in the US you didn't have that influence on your language.
And would you also use "add terror" instead of "terrorize", "add harmony" instead of "harmonize", "add sterility" instead of "sterilize"?
Usually I'd avoid -ise/ize words and use phrases such as "create terror", "create harmony" and "make sterile". They're softer sounding. Of course, if you want to sound harsh then you can't beat "bastardise".
Is it any wonder us Brits find Americans talking to us as a little brash, insincere and confrontational ?
Of course back-formation has a respectable place in the language too. It was the spelling of "burglar" that I asked about. Verb/noun pairs in the form act/actor are almost never represented by -xe/-xar where x is a consonant, whereas -xe/-xer and -xe/-xor are standard. (There is lie/liar, but here x is a vowel, and the -ar is necessary to avoid very unexpected pronunciation of lier or lior.)
So, without training, when one sees "burglar", "one who burgles" is simply not the instinctive meaning. That's of course why it was considered comical at first. Like a Bushism.
There are many words throughout the history of the English language that have been spelled multiple ways. Much of English, like much of British culture, is a mix of various invaders and influences. "Burglar" is apparently a Norman word originally spelled "Burgler". For some reason the e changed to an a later in it's life. Of course, all the American dictionaries claim "burgle" is a back formation as they've a vested interest in their spelling which came about much later (800 years or so later). Perhaps it is, perhaps nobody had a verb for burgle in between the Norman conquest and the 1800s, I don't know. I wasn't around at the time and on the net you often just get an American view of history.
Well, it isn't English, it's US English as pointed out in the dictionary.
It is English. It's US English. (Canadian, too.)
Butlers "buttle". Nothing peculiar about it. I can't say I hear that word often though, unlike "burgled" sadly. What do you want butlers to do, buttlerize?
Serve.
It used to be -ize but in the last few hundred years we've used -ise.
The recommendation is still there though.
US English is a lot more conservative so has kept the older harsher English spelling.
They are pronounced the same.
In the same way we used to use -or instead of -our. At some point it became fashionable to use the French -our whereas in the US you didn't have that influence on your language.
Well, you only use -our for a small set of words. According to Fowler, -or words are more common, and there is no logical distinction between them, and for the most part the US/UK differences are the result of the US dropping the u and British stubbornness. I'd say the -our spelling is harsh.
Of course, all the American dictionaries claim "burgle" is a back formation as they've a vested interest in their spelling which came about much later (800 years or so later). Perhaps it is, perhaps nobody had a verb for burgle in between the Norman conquest and the 1800s, I don't know. I wasn't around at the time and on the net you often just get an American view of history.
I took the back-formation story from Fowler, and he's not American. In 1926, when he wrote it, "burgle" was still considered facetious, and he hoped it might become common.
As for burgle/burglarize, WDEU claims their first appearances more or less coincide (1871/1870), but that is an American source.
As for burgle/burglarize, WDEU claims their first appearances more or less coincide (1871/1870), but that is an American source.
Whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica and oddly the American Heritage Dictionary claims "Burgler" is an Anglo-Norman word and the origin of "Burglar". I find it hard to believe that between 1066 and 1870 there wasn't a verb for the act and independently either side of the Atlantic a new verb was created.
Anyway, one can over analyse these things. As I first posted, "burglarize" has comedy value this side of the pond. That's all. It's not English as we (the English) know it.
It could be worse, if we'd gone with Mediaeval Latin, Apple would have been burgulated.
Since its inception. How would you make "glorp" plural? Me too. That's a convention.
No, English is known for having no official body governing English, unlike French/France and several other Languages/Countries.
Bush may be ridiculed for being linguistically challenged, but thats not in the context of the much wider trends you talk about.
he has now been taken in custody where he is being questioned about the burglery