Author Topic: unitiser  (Read 4260 times)

Alonzo Quixote

  • Paronomaniac
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
  • Greenlawn, NY, USA
    • View Profile
unitiser
« on: April 22, 2011, 07:42:40 PM »
This refers to Chinchilla puzzle of April 21st.

unitiser  was not accepted.

But  unitiseunitize,  and  unitizer  were accepted.

This seems inconsistent to me.

2 tanners

  • Logologist
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2011, 08:27:22 AM »
That's because unitize is the US spelling and the Yanks would do anything with a word.

Unitise is backformed to an English spelling and the English would never use it, (so it's uncommon) much less add an "r" to a word they weren't using in the first place (so unknown).

Here in Australia (and across in NZ), we don't unitise anyway.  When counting in a unitary fashion, we go "One, another one, another one after that, jeez there's a lot of these, here's one more..."

Hence no unitiser.  Alan's not inconsistent, he simply knows how the world works.   ;D

All of which goes to show why you get daily trophies, and I doubt I'll ever lay my hands on one.

ilandrah

  • Word-meister
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
  • News South Wales, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Denizens of Ethos
Re: unitiser
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2011, 06:43:57 PM »
Thanks for the informative post 2 tanner, especially this bit...

That's because unitize is the US spelling and the Yanks would do anything with a word.

I come here to be educated, but stay for the giggles.

 :D

pat

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3377
  • Rugby, England.
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2011, 08:12:28 PM »
When it comes to the ize v. ise spelling of words, I think it's we Brits who've got it wrong (even though these days most words with such an inflection are deemed to have both spellings acceptable although I used to have an old Oxford dictionary that only gave the ize versions, which would indicate to me that Brits used to spell words that way). We all know that
the Yanks would do anything with a word
and my theory is this:

Once upon a time there was a man called Noah Webster. He decided that although English was a pretty OK language, some of the word spellings were rather pointless and therefore certain letters should be dropped, most notably the redundant 'u' in words such as labour. (Such redundancies seem the least idiosyncratic of English spellings, but hey, he was just one man trying to change the world.) Meanwhile, some toff over here probably decided that he wasn't going to have his language bastardized (sic), no sir, and decided that since the Americans seemed quite happy with the ize endings of words, we Brits ought to adopt the more 'refained' ise endings. But not content with just replacing the ize in verbs that had been created from nouns we went the whole hog and replaced all the ize endings, in words such as realize.

Of course that's probably all rubbish (my theories usually are) but I have an old Oxford dictionary printed in 1975 and even as recently as that, realize was the only given spelling of that word; realise only appeared as an alternative spelling in later dictionaries.

Personally I always use the ize endings.

2 tanners

  • Logologist
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2011, 10:51:52 PM »
Oh Pat, for heaven's sake, stop bringing facts into it.  :D

As a matter of record, you are completely right.  I was put straight by a pedant friend when spelling on the Internetz was considered important, and a 'spelling flame' was considered OK etiquette (in some quarters) and lame in none.  That might have been a little while ago now.

As a word, though, I find unitise/unitize hateful and ugly.

birdy

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • Brooklyn, NY
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2011, 06:23:02 AM »
Well, 2 Tanners, I will never offend you by using it!  Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard or seen it here.

Alan W

  • Administrator
  • Eulexic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4961
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: unitiser
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2011, 05:37:32 PM »
What caught my eye about unitize/ise was the two main meanings of the word: "to form or combine into one unit, as by welding parts together", and "to divide or separate into units". In other words, it can mean either to combine or to separate. This seems to qualify it as a contronym, or antagonym. As described at http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml, these rare specimens are words like cleave (= separate, or adhere), that have meanings more or less opposite to one another.

The word unitizer is generally used for various types of machine, although it has also been used in writings about language structures. A broader use was in an 1864 article in the Continental Monthly: "Wagon roads, canals, railroads, telegraphs, are all so many political unitizers; but the railroad, with its accompaniment, the telegraph, may be regarded as the chief of all." (It seems that the meaning intended here could probably have been conveyed just as well by unifiers.) The spelling unitiser does appear - it's rare, but so is unitizer. I think the argument from consistency should prevail in this case, so I will admit unitiser to our list.

On the general question of -ize and -ise endings, it's true that -ize was once the standard for all English-speakers. British usage has been migrating to -ise for some time, but -ize is still favoured by some British writers and publishers. The issue was discussed a few years ago by Michael Quinion on his World Wide Words website. I think the trend to -ise has gone further here in Australia than in the UK, and the -ize forms are seldom seen in texts originating from here. Even the Oxford, in its Australian and New Zealand dictionaries, gives the -ise spelling first.
Alan Walker
Creator of Lexigame websites

pat

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3377
  • Rugby, England.
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2011, 09:09:58 PM »
This seems to qualify it as a contronym, or antagonym.

Well you learn something new every day. Neither of these words is known to me, but I don't feel too upset about that as they're not in either my three-volume Webster's unabridged or my two-volume Oxford shorter dictionary. No doubt other forumites will know them.  :(

I hope if they ever crop up in a puzzle they'll be classed as rare words!

birdy

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • Brooklyn, NY
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 08:49:23 AM »
What is the term for a word which also has a negative form but both mean the same thing?  I'm thinking of ravel and unravel.  I dimly remember at one time learning that the prefix "un" could be used as an intensifier.

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 11:56:18 AM »
Both contronym and antagonym were new to me (and my browser's spell-checker doesn't like either!). I especially appreciate Alan's use of cleave as an example, because I've always thought it queer that the word has opposite meanings.

Once again, Alan has done a brilliant job researching and explicating a word. Thanks!

TRex

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: unitiser
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2011, 02:52:39 AM »
I encountered a new contronym/antagonym recently: nonplussed ... didn't even know it had the other meaning until someone used it in a way which was unfamiliar to me. Once I discovered the other meaning, I thought of this thread!