This may not seem like a big deal, but consider the effect that such an influential source of “correctness” can have on the general sense of what is correct.
Spell checkers like Word’s are responsible for the “z” in British English being demonised. Once upon a time, according to linguist Gretchen McCullen, it was common in British English to use both z and s. But somewhere along the line, automated spell checkers categorised one spelling as British and categorized the other as American, and it created a whole new hobby for many British people who fancied themselves the guardians of the English language, courageously pointing out whenever someone used the filthy, “dumbed down” version from across the Atlantic. We have these brave volunteers to thank for defending the purity of the famously consistent English language, and for these people we have spell checkers to thank.
This sort of thing long pre-dates spell checkers, as other have pointed out. Here's an older example for you. The word "alright" existed fairly quietly and unobtrusively in the English language for decades, as a formation similar to "altogether" and "always", until Fowler and other authorities got hold of it after World War 1 and demonized it.
Huh, didn’t know “alright” wasn’t universally hunky-dory. In Australian English it’s a common word and that’s how it’s spelled, and I believe “all right” would be considered actively wrong.
FWIW, the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as all right; note that it is a distinct entry from an earlier (now obsolete) word alright meaning "exactly, just".
Regarding the spelling, though, it notes:
> The form alright is frequent, although more widespread in non-literary printed sources (e.g. newspapers and journals) than in literary texts. Compare the standard spellings of already (adj. and adv.), altogether (adj., n., and adv.), always (adv). Although these analogues exist, the form is strongly criticized in the vast majority of usage guides, but without cogent reasons.
I suspect that while all right is generally regarded as the more "correct" form, alright will eventually be accepted as a valid alternative in modern usage, though traditionalists will be fighting a rearguard action for some years yet.
I don't think that's right, or at least maybe not for the colonies.
I grew up in New Zealand and my mother was very insistent that I spelled and spoke "Proper English", rather than American English. This was before Microsoft Word was popular and the source of truth for the English language, especially for my tech-illiterate mother. She also didn't like me using slang, especially the Kiwi tendency to say "sweet as" and put "aye" on the end of sentences.
Maybe it's a colonial hangover, trying to hold on to the British identity, or maybe it's because she had a less privileged upbringing and saw "Proper English" as a sign of higher status.
My experience in Australia was similar: always the ’s’ for Australian/British English, with the ‘z’ for American English. Well before spellcheckers, save for the teacher or parent who would spell-check your work and catch every organization and specialized, and correct your alphabet song to finish with ‘zed’ and never ‘zee’. :)
It's the same in former British colonies in the Caribbean. We're thought "Proper English" in school and the American spellings are considered wrong. Local dialects are frowned upon in professional settings and writing.
As a native U.K. person that went to school in the seventies (ie long before spell checkers), I can assure you that British English used S rather than Z in the kind of words you are talking about.
Part of the point being made was that British English did not. People put about the myth that this was a British/American thing, when it really was not. It's a French/Greek thing. British English incorporates both.
You might want to "but, but" reply to someone who blamed it on spellchecks, then. (-:
It's not a confusion, moreover. It's two alternative forms, one with its roots in the French influence on the language, one with its roots in the Greek. British English incorporates both, as I said.
According to the OED and paraphrased from the 1989 edition — arguably before spellcheckers were widespread; the use of -ize, for instance, is dependant on the root of the word. Words that stem from Greek, with the transitive sense of ‘make or conform to, or treat in the way of, the thing expressed by the derivation’, or ‘to act some person or character, do or follow some practice’. Words formed (in French or English) on Latin adjectives and nouns (esp. on derivative adjectives in -al, -ar, -an, etc.), mostly with the transitive sense. Words from later sources. Words formed on ethnic adjectives, and the like, chiefly transitive but sometimes intransitive. Words formed on names of persons, sometimes with the intransitive Greek sense of ‘to act like, or in accordance with’. From names of substances, chemical and other; in the transitive sense of ‘to charge, impregnate, treat, affect, or influence with’.
GNU Aspell has an en_GB-ize-w_accents dictionary, which I think is what's needed. The source seems to be here: http://wordlist.aspell.net/
It's the UN's official version of English [1], and my employer's, and it's widely used in scientific publications.
I'd like to use it in Firefox, but the British dictionary extension[2] accepts both versions. I have "feces colored airplane modeling" marked as misspellings, and "digitized aeroplane signalling" accepted, but "digitised" is also accepted by this dictionary.
Thank you for that. Would you happen to know if Hunspell (I think that this is what firefox uses at least on linux) has something similar or if I can use this dictionary with it?
> New Zealand's largest newspaper is deeply conflicted. With the World Cup underway in Brazil, should The New Zealand Herald refer to the "global round-ball game" as "soccer" or "football"? The question has been put to readers, and the readers have spoken. It's "football"—by a wide margin.
Interestingly, if you asked Australians, it would be "soccer" by a wide margin.
Spell checkers like Word’s are responsible for the “z” in British English being demonised. Once upon a time, according to linguist Gretchen McCullen, it was common in British English to use both z and s. But somewhere along the line, automated spell checkers categorised one spelling as British and categorized the other as American, and it created a whole new hobby for many British people who fancied themselves the guardians of the English language, courageously pointing out whenever someone used the filthy, “dumbed down” version from across the Atlantic. We have these brave volunteers to thank for defending the purity of the famously consistent English language, and for these people we have spell checkers to thank.
Thanks a lot, spell checkers!