On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 11:44:50 +0100 Justin B Rye <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Adam Wilson wrote: > > Justin B Rye <email@example.com> wrote: > >>> + (keyboard), <replaceable>locales</replaceable> (localisation).</para></glossdef> > >> ^ > >> Is this package using en_GB or en_US? Elsewhere it seemed to be > >> standardising on -izing... > > In fact I'm not sure what kind of English it means "refcard-en-a4.pdf" > to be in, but it's the same content as "refcard-en-lt.pdf", and who's > going to want "letter size" in en-GB? > > > It could be either, depending on the style manual being followed. > > The Oxford Dictionary is panegyric on -ize endings, even though -ise > > is more commonly used in British English. > > As I mentioned on this list not long ago, when I was a kid The Times > used -ize, and my English teachers were happy with either style. But > the prevailing standard has drifted over the past few decades, to the > point where even the University of Oxford now uses -ise in its press > releases. > > English is unlike most major modern languages in having no official > orthography - it's just a matter of following the herd. As a result > we've ended up in the bizarre position of having a breakaway-faction > sub-locale which is ignored by the entire publishing industry even > though it's backed by knock-down arguments and recommended by the > single most prestigious dictionary in existence. Both are correct even within the same orthographic system: -ize should *technically* be used for words of Greek origin and -ise for those of Latin origin. I use -ise for everything basically because I think it looks better and I don't like the letter 'Z'. Such is the nature of spelling in English.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature