Talk:Oxford spelling/Archive 1

Examples are too limited and redundant

The table in the article needs to reduce the number of -ize/-ise examples and expand to include the troublesome -ll- cases (“marvel[l]ous”). Some compounds, like fiberoptic (but not really fibreoptic), might be useful. – joeclark 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the example of traveller vs traveler in the table, I'm curious about the declaration that 'traveler' is acceptable for en-AU, as an Australian I wouldn't have thought it would be outside of possibly non-native English writers mistakenly using American spelling. Conversely, I wouldn't have expected 'traveller' to be acceptable in en-US usage. 60.242.213.104 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As a standard?

IMHO, Oxford spelling would be a very adequate spelling standard for Wikipedia articles with academic topics. Nobbie 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It can resolve the issue of whether to use "British" or American style spelling by saying it is systematic rather than based on casual usage. 118.90.103.184 (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion imho. --kingboyk (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cooperate, medieval and standard

This is a reply to

1) OED DOES hyphenate "co-operate," and is in fact well known for its use of hyphens. 2) mediEval is probably commoner than mediAEval in BrE. 3) re "standard": watch your terminology, mister!

1. It doesn't, actually. I have here in front of me the 11th edition of the COD and it spells cooperate. It gives the hyphenated form as an alternative spelling (read: non-Oxford spelling). So does the online Oxford dictionary.
2. I often read the 'mediaeval is en-GB, medieval is en-GB-oed' claim, but I'm not going to start an edit war over it. If you insist medieval is more common, let's assume you're right.
3. I don't like the term "standard British English" either, but I thought I'd use it because the article uses it too (" The use of -ize instead of -ise does not affect the spelling of words ending in -yse, which are spelt analyse, paralyse and catalyse in line with standard British usage"). MrTroy 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oxford spelling" simply means "British spelling in combination with -ize instead of -ise". It is not connected to a specific dictionary. User:JackLumber was right. In the OED, the head word is spelt "co-operate". Although it should be noted that the entry for "co-operate" dates from the second revision 1989, in the next update they might switch to "cooperate", because the spelling without a hyphen has become more common.

For medieval, the OED gives "medieval". "mediaeval" is becoming increasingly rare.

What you are referring to is the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" (COD), a dictionary that is based on the OED and designed to be used in daily life. The OED however is a scientific reference, a huge database and the entries look very different from the entries in the COD. The focus is on etymology, historical usage etc... I doubt that you have access to the OED. I can use it via a university library account. A personal subcription is very expensive... See: [1] SpNeo 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the word "standard": there is no such thing as "Standard British English" or "Standard American English". Even a narrower discription like "Oxford spelling" leaves room for some variation. What you need is a system of spelling prescribed by a specific dictionary, every copy editor knows that. A good style guide should provide such information. For example, here I quote one of my favourite style guides (ITU) [2]:

In line with United Nations practice, the spelling given in the current edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COD) should generally be followed. Where alternative forms are given in the COD, the preferred spelling should be used. The preferred spelling is the one which is presented first (e.g. "judgement, judgment": use "judgement". [...]

SpNeo 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard means substantially uniform and well established by usage in the speech and writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable (Merriam-Webster). For example, lay meaning "lie" and irregardless are usually regarded as "nonstandard." Truth be told, grammarians and, in some cases, lexicographers, label whatever they don't like as "nonstandard." But if Oxford is not standard then England is a republic. And anyway this article seems to be pretty useless and/or redundant—cf. American and British spelling differences, International English, and the spelling section of WP:MoS. JackLumber. 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oxford spelling" simply means "British spelling in combination with -ize instead of -ise". It is not connected to a specific dictionary.

Wrong. Oxford Spelling means "spelling in accordance with the OED". The full name is Oxford English Dictionary spelling.

The OED however is a scientific reference, a huge database and the entries look very different from the entries in the COD.

The COD originally was merely a selection and reformat of entries from the OED. Of course, with the 11th edition it's substantially different from the OED. Nowadays people using "Oxford Spelling" often follow the standard you quoted from ITU - using the COD. Technically speaking, yes, the OED hyphenates co-operate. But most contemporary publications using "Oxford Spelling" spell it cooperate. But it's a debatable point. Indeed, maybe "ITU-spelling" would be a better term for what many people call "Oxford Spelling". MrTroy 09:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The iconoclastic Mr. H.G. Wells used ‘cöoperate’, rather an elegant alternative. Valetude (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"advertise" or "advertize"?

How are words such as "advertise", "televise", etc., handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.85.102 (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Words like "advertise", "improvise", "surprise"... are always spelt with "s"! "Advertize" is usually considered incorrect in both Br. and AmE. 89.56.250.164 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

These words aren't spelled with -ize. If you notice, the noun form is advertisement and television. Where would the "z" come from? - M0rphzone (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really help. Someone may simply expect them to also be spelled "advertizement", "improvization" and "surprizing" in Oxford spelling. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with Oxford (and even American) spellings, "advertizement" is incorrect. All that aside, Prinsgezinde, maybe you didn't notice, but this thread is very old. It was first started in October 2006, someone responded in November 2006, and another person responded in April 2012 followed by your response in June 2015. Dustin (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be used in American English. It's not exactly wrong. I did notice, but, as this isn't a forum, I don't actually bother anyone by responding late. It may simply be interesting for the next person who comes along. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of the serial comma?

A look at the serial comma would suggest that Oxford spelling, rather that used by Oxford University Press, would prefer to use the American-style serial comma, that is in a list item:

 Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, and Item 4

Whereas the standard British English being without a comma before the last item, i.e.:

 Item 1, Item 2, Item 3 and Item 4

--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The serial comma IS the Oxford Comma 95.148.55.185 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice for users of Oxford spelling

I don't know of any software that offers an en-GB-oed spell-check dictionary, but where the choice is available, en-CA (Canadian English) is a better choice than en-US or en-GB. -- Evertype·✆ 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one: http://en-gb.pyxidium.co.uk/dictionary/OOo.php SpNeo (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas. If only I used OpenOffice. (I use Quark mostly.) -- Evertype·✆ 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I asked for a citation for the terms "Oxford spelling" and "Oxford English spelling". The external links cited don't seem to use these terms (I can't check the BMJ, it requires a subscription). A Google search brings results that are very heavily weighted towards Wikipedia and a few Oxford University Press publications, at least one of which (the Canadian Oxford spelling dictionary) presumably adopts some different rules. So, are these terms really used, or is Wikipedia acting as an OUP agent here?

Anyway, Google searches on these terms will soon produce even more Wikipedia-based results, because this article is Wikipedia's translation of the week.Signing to give date of discussion opening for RM bot. Fences&Windows 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Andrew Dalby 09:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now asked for a citation for the statement that "Oxford spelling" is used "in academic journals and text books published by Oxford University Press". Maybe it is, but it would be good to be sure, and it would also be good to know what it is called in their style guide (if it has a name).

If there are no citations for the name, I'll propose moving this article, because (see also Casper Gutman's comment below) "Oxford spelling" is misleading and I'm thinking it's maybe an invented name. The question would be, should it be moved to "Oxford English Dictionary spelling" (as the IETF language tag -gb-oed suggests) or "Oxford University Press spelling"? Andrew Dalby 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there's no evidence for the claim that this system is used in OUP books, I propose moving to "Oxford English Dictionary spelling". There appears to be no connection with the University (see discussion below) so I've removed that project banner. Andrew Dalby

I don't quite follow "there's no evidence for the claim that this system is used in OUP books". OUP clearly states that it uses the ize/ization system in its style guides, e.g. "A hallmark of OUP style is the ending -ize/-ization"[3]. DrKay (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my brevity: what I meant was "there's no evidence cited in the article for that claim". Thanks for finding some. Andrew Dalby 09:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only link here to discuss the OUP, this one, does say that the Press, not just the Dictionary, insists on -ize. I oppose any haste here; I should have a copy of the current edition of Hart's Rules in my hands within 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "traditionally used by Oxford University Press". (New Hart's Rules, p. 43). Oppose change therefore; it would appear that the Oxford Spelling Dictionary and its recent revision are so called both because they are published by OUP and because they use Oxford spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not coming back to this earlier. Thanks to Dr Kay and Septentrionalis for the needed verification that this system is traditionally used by Oxford University Press: that was one of my points of doubt. My other point of doubt is the term "Oxford spelling". That still seems to me to be a Wikipedia invention -- but I'll be very happy if a source is cited to prove I'm wrong! If it is a Wikipedia invention, I think it's a bad one, because it's too general: it suggests to the unwary reader that the city or the university are somehow involved in what is actually a rule linked with one (important) publishing house. I have, incidentally, searched for the phrase "Oxford spelling" on the web pages cited in the article: no luck. (As I said above, I can't access the BMJ.)

In hope of getting this remaining point cleared up I have dared to restore the "citation needed" tag. A better name for this system, given what Dr Kay and Septentrionalis have now shown, would be Oxford University Press spelling; Oxford English Dictionary spelling remains possible if that dictionary is the original model, although slightly odd because the OED's main purpose is not to prescribe modern usage. Andrew Dalby 08:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you access to the Oxford Spelling Dictionary or New Oxford Spelling Dictionary? They seem the obvious sources here, one way or the other. If not, I should be able to lay hands on them with some inconvenience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am probably many miles from the nearest copies ... Sorry to give you the trouble, but the name is being spread via templates etc. and I think we ought to be sure whether we just "made it up one day". The phrase does not occur in the text of the OED on CD-ROM -- you probably know that already. The largest modern Oxford dictionary I happen to have is the Oxford Thesaurus (2nd ed. 1997): the text does indeed use -ize; there is a section on spelling in the introduction, but no mention of the -ise/-ize question and no reference to "Oxford spelling". Andrew Dalby 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Easier than I feared (some but not all of the section on English is being reshelved). Unfortunately the works split the difference; the spelling is definitely associated with Oxford ("Spellings, where alternatives exist, are those recommended by the house style of Oxford University Press"; OSD, p. ix), but is not called Oxford spelling - except of course in the titles. The front matter in either is quite short, too short to conclude this is deliberate. So did they make it up, or did we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It depends how you parse "Oxford spelling dictionary": (a) a dictionary of Oxford spelling, or (b) a spelling dictionary from Oxford? That's the creative ambiguity of English ... But if OUP can't be shown to use the phrase "Oxford spelling" anywhere, that suggests to me that they themselves had interpretation (b) in mind, and that (a) never occurred to anyone before Wikipedia came along. Anyway, I suspect that's as far as we can get. Andrew Dalby 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move for now, since whatever the doubts about the current name, the proposed alternatives suffer from exactly the same issues. You have not produced any evidence that Oxford University Press spelling or Oxford English Dictionary spelling are used in sources; Google searches suggest they aren't. Page 1148 of this paper suggests that even if "Oxford spelling" is a WP neologism, it may be catching on; certainly the phenomenon deserves a name. I don't make much of the existence of The Oxford Spelling Dictionary; the The Oxford Writer's Dictionary is clearly just not for writers with a connection to Oxford, and so on. We should perhaps ask the OED if they have a name for it; I have found them responsive by e-mail when pointing out errors and omissions. Otherwise we should stick with the neologism we created several years ago and not try to find another. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move. In real life (whether in print or not) the term "Oxford spelling" is the one which is in use. -- Evertype·✆ 11:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Withdraw suggestion. If three people whose work I admire oppose it, there must be something wrong with it :) Andrew Dalby 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oxford spelling in Oxford

It is interesting to note that Oxford University's in-house style guide advises against using either Oxford spelling (-ise is preferred to -ize) and the Oxford comma! Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oxford University is not quite the same as the Oxford University press... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The University, as distinct from the Press and the colleges, is a bunch of bureaucrats clustered about the Vice-Chancellor, a political appointee from Yale. The emphasis here on the University's "brand identity" is indicative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But it's also the colleges. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be either; but there is no sign who produced this unsigned "style guide." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably the guy whose name is at the end of this. It's an odd little document, I must say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is; his bio is here (you may have to click to expand). He is somehow affiliated with New College; I wonder if he gets teased about turning the High Street into a cattle drive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to see Oxford discussed in terms of brand identity. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The BMJ link in the article is a pharmacologist arguing for -ize (straight out of the OED, though he doesn't cite it - and as majority medical usage). He is from, you guessed it, Oxford. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

What did Tolkien write in his handwritten footnotes? His English may be a little old fashioned, but the man had a canny knack of stringing English sentences together and I would go with what he reckoned, personally. Which was...?

His books use -ize, although I'm not sure how relevant that is. Double sharp (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Evertype, the only material I removed was unsourced. Mostly it was just reorganizing for flow. [4] What are your objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell what you took out; but it's probably sourceable to the OED. That's the problem with editing and rearranging in one edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I retained what was in the source that was cited. If there's more, we need other sources. Otherwise it was just a copy edit, quite harmless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The section you deleted mentions for instance that words in -yse for instance are not part of the -ise/-ize group. Well, they aren't. The source? The OED. This isn't research; it's observation and reporting. Every sentence in the Wikipedia does not need to be footnoted. -- Evertype·✆ 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Please see my version here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As the revert seems based on a misunderstanding, I've restored my copy edit. Both versions below.

Old

New

Oxford spelling (or Oxford English Dictionary spelling) is the spelling used by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and English-language dictionaries based on it, such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and in many academic journals and text books published by Oxford University Press. In digital documents, the use of Oxford spelling can be indicated with the language tag en-GB-oed. Oxford spelling can be recognized for using British spelling in combination with the suffix -ize instead of -ise. For instance, organization, privatize and recognizable are used instead of organisation, privatise and recognisable. In the last few decades, the suffix -ise has become the usual spelling in the UK. Although many people therefore incorrectly regard -ize as an Americanism, the form -ize has been in use in English since the 16th century. The use of -ize instead of -ise does not affect the spelling of words ending in -yse, which are spelt analyse, paralyse and catalyse in line with standard British usage. The OED lists the -ise form of words separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE..." It explains its use of -ize as follows: "[I]n mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -ιζειν, L. -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Gr. -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in L., but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, (-idz) became īz, whence Eng. (-aɪz).)

Oxford spelling (or Oxford English Dictionary spelling) is the spelling used by Oxford University Press (OUP). It can be recognized for its use of British spelling combined with the suffix -ize instead of -ise. For instance, organization, privatize and recognizable are used instead of organisation, privatise and recognisable. The spelling is favoured on etymological grounds, in that -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is published by OUP, explains its use of -ize as follows: "[I]n mod.F. the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from L., as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in Eng., as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or Eng. from L. elements, retaining -ize for those of Gr. composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr. -ιζειν, L. -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Gr. -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in L., but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, (-idz) became īz, whence Eng. (-aɪz).) In the last few decades, the suffix -ise has become the more common spelling in the UK. Many people there incorrectly regard -ize as American English, though it has been in use in English since the 16th century. The OED lists the -ise form of words separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE...". In digital documents, Oxford spelling can be indicated with the language tag en-GB-oed. The use of -ize instead of -ise does not affect the spelling of words ending in -yse, such as analyse, paralyse and catalyse.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What material did you remove? It's hard to tell. (That Evertype could not see the discussion of -yse suggests that the new edit may not be entirely clear - except, understandably, to its author.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer the original text. The term "Americanism" is better than "American English", and just in general I don't think the edits are better. -- Evertype·✆ 11:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced

"Since the 1990s[citation needed], -ise has become more common in the UK, with the result that -ize may be regarded incorrectly as an exclusively American variant"- Both of the assertions in this sentence are not supported by the source given. I'd be particularly interested in seeing a reference for the usage since the 1990's assertion.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Too promotional of the style.

This article does not give a balanced view of this style. It lists that places where the style is used but does not give much indication of what proprtion of general British English uses it. Some comparative data would be useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What reliable soures have you found on what proportion of general British English uses it? I'm not sure that's a meaningful question. It's a matter of registers of usage more than anything. Oxford style is academic, found largely in journals and non-fiction book publishing. It's clear that Oxford spelling is not favored in British/Commonwealth fiction and journalism, but there's no assertion in the article otherwise. It would be fallacious to try to prove it obsolete by comparing apples and oranges. A similar case would be trying to "prove" that whom is obsolete on the basis of how infrequently it's used compared to informal "who" constructions in Web-based writing. A proper analysis will show that whom is stil preferred in formal writing. A proper analysis of Oxford style will show that it remains common in British academic writing. The problem is, it's not up to us to do such analyses, per WP:NOR. We have to have secondary sources for both the data and any conclusions drawn from it, per WP:AEIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Analyse or Analyze in Oxford spelling?

After all the article speaking about how the oxf-spelling prefers -ize the first example in the ox column shows "-ise" (analyse). Is this a typo or is there a reason? If there is I think it should be explained in the article, otherwise change it. --Giacomo Volli (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is explained in the first section of the article already. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There is some unintentional original research going on in that section. We can't label something "Canadian" on the basis of a single dictionary; CanEng is notoriously inconsitent and in a state of flux. I do have some additional Canadian dictionaries and usage guides I can check.

Also, not all of Oxford's publications are consistent; they produce many dictionaries for different audiences (including different British/Commonwealth audiences as well as American). For anything we assert is Oxford Style, we should probably check all of the following for lack of conflict, especially given recent (last 10 years or so) changes in OUP's apporach to language materials and questions:

• New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (ed. Ritter, 2014)
• Hart's New Rules (ed. Waddingham, 2014) [This and the one above will be available as a combined new ed. of New Oxford Style Manual later this year.]
• Garner's Modern English Usage (2016 – just released, and I have it)
• Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (ed. Butterfield, 2015)
• OUP's house style guides for journals and books (beware false positives – this one is for the NYC office and American-targeted publishing; not sure where the most recent main/British one(s) is/are right now, they keep moving stuff; another false positive is Oxford University's house style, which is for people who work at the educational institution)
• And the OED in some recent-ish form and edition, be it the full thing, the 1991 Compact (microprint) and its additions, the CD-ROM version, or the Shorter (2007).

Sometimes one has to look in other places; my work at sourcing the capitalization of prepositions in titles of works, for example, found a statement of formal OUP style policy in one of their smaller volumes on grammar and usage.

I'm not certain we can rely on Oxford Dictionary of English (2010, and I think what OxfordDictionariesOnline is working from), the Concise (2011), the Paperback (2013), or the Pocket (2010) (in order of increasing abridgement and informality) as being certain to present "Oxford style" (i.e., what they recommend for academic writing and expect of people who write for OUP), since they're all intended for casual use. And the New American (2010) will be its own animal, as will older Modern American Usage versions of Garner's.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin: -isare or -izare as the root of -ize/-ise?

How was the Latin root spelled, with a "Z" or an "S" -- or was it both?

Here --

https://books.google.com/books?id=Eg9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=ize+ise+latin+isare+greek&source=bl&ots=u5AvtFa9oD&sig=mieBMDtHcmBCLeGBxKTa_9GW-t8&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGzYTO-pTQAhUr3IMKHZYbCMQQ6AEISDAF#v=onepage&q&f=false

I read that it's -isare. But I've see the "Z"-spelling in other sources.

Thanks.

Samuel Webster (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Date and time of EN-GB OED...

BS-EN ISO 28601 I think 124.106.129.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there some kind of change to the article you are proposing?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oxford v. Cambridge

I was taught that 'judgement' and 'acknowledgement' (with the 'e') was the Cambridge Spelling, and without the 'e' was Oxford - apparently the reason why Byron (Cantab) spelt the title of his poem 'A Vision of Judgement' with the 'e'. Does anyone know if this is accurate, and whether it falls within the scope of this article? Valetude (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Broken link

I observed that http://www.upf.edu/gl/en/criterisupf/oxford.html is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palcuiealex (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Palcuiealex: Thank you for spotting that, I have updated the link to https://www.upf.edu/en/web/gabinet-linguistic/quin-model-d-ortografia-en-angles-oxford-spelling- so it should work for you now. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

'Oxford English' redirect

Oxford English redirects to this page, however I'd like to note that the most common usage of it for me would be referencing Received Pronunciation. Might we want to add a hatnote suggesting it also refers to this? Fixing26 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Theatre" in U.S. English

User:Getsnoopy -- The "theatre" spelling is not all that common as an ordinary uncapitalized word, but it's fairly common in the names of specific businesses/institutions ("The XYZ Theatre" or whatever)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Agreed, but even there, I'd say it's in the minority. Regardless, the way the article/table is set up, writing "but Theatre" assumes that that's the spelling to be used for all proper nouns, which is definitely not the case. Getsnoopy (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-ize words

"Others include arise, chastise, disguise, prise (in the sense of open), revise and televise"

I claim that this is a bad set of examples, as all except for televise (and prise if you don't consider monosyllabic words to have syllabic stress) have the stress on the -ise syllable. It seems to be a general rule that the words with the -ise/-ize variant spellings have the stress elsewhere in the world (baptise/baptize being the exception that comes to my mind). As such, I'm going to add a few more examples to help redress the balance. — Smjg (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Those examples don't appear in the source. Nor do I see any mention of stress. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@DrKay: In that case, the appropriate course of action is to find a source that lists these or similar words. I'll try and remember to have a look when I have a bit more time. In any case, we shouldn't be copying a list of examples verbatim from just one source.

"Nor do I see any mention of stress." - so what? The point is that the list as it stands is biased towards words with the stress on the final syllable, thereby making it potentially appear that -ise words not affected by Oxford spelling are mostly restricted to words with this property. — Smjg (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please allow me to chastise you for your pronunciation of chastise. The first pronunciation given by Merriam-Webster Online for chastise has the stress on the first syllable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why should I? It's not your place to tell me what foreign dictionary I should go by or which of multiple pronunciations given therein I should use. — Smjg (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)