The slightly daft way we British go about spelling our own language raises its head again. Occasionally I get taken to task by denizens of these shores for adopting the “ize” convention. “Are you an American?” they cry, as if that’s the gravest insult they can think of. If you don’t know what the “ize” convention is, here is an example : recognise or recognize.

The ize way is unquestionably from the land of stars and stripes, right? Non, Monsieur. It traces its origin back to 16th-century England, and, moreover, it is recommended by Oxford University and its imprint, the OUP. If you look carefully at spellings in most books published by major British publishers, you’ll find the “ize” convention in use. Curiously, newspapers almost always use “ise”, as does most of the population.

Those of us who don’t mind standing in the traditions of 16th-century England (remember Shakespeare?), use “ize” but also the other British conventions. For example, travelling, rather than traveling ~ though the latter does save on printers’ ink; cosy instead of cozy (why?), and got before gotten (another old English usage). But we also prefer hooligan (Irish) to larrikin (Elizabethan, but used widely in Australia). The old Empire sometimes has the edge on us, I feel.

But, to return to the “ize” convention : why should we adopt it over the weaker “ise” form? I call to the stand our star witness : Inspector Morse. Addressing Sergeant Lewis, who, not surprisingly, used the “s” way, he cited the Oxford English Dictionary and proclaimed that “ise” was “completely illiterate”. I rest my case.