NationStates Jolt Archive

It's actually "Socialist".

Yeah, it bugs me, too. I guess it has to do with the poor state of our public education.

Oh, and the inbreeding.

Yeah. Like in socialist medicine.

i thought it was a word they used to describe something thats part of what they might consider a "socialist" system. like the NHS would be a 'socialized' health service cos its based on socialist principles...

Well, no, socialised and socialist are two different things. Socialist refers to someone who advocates socialism. To be socialised is to be moulded by society, conforming to the norm etc.

Or... it could be that 'to socialize' refers to 'place under government or group ownership or control'.

Well, no, socialised and socialist are two different things. Socialist refers to someone who advocates socialism. To be socialised is to be moulded by society, conforming to the norm etc.

Exactly.

It actually is socialized.

Why do Americans say the word "socialized"?

Because they are proud that their toddler has stopped throwing food at the servers whenever they go out to eat, and want to boast to their neighbours about little Tommy's progress.

Exactly.

It actually is socialized.

Using a "z" is an Americanism. It's "socialised" because I'm British.

i thought it was a word they used to describe something thats part of what they might consider a "socialist" system. like the NHS would be a 'socialized' health service cos its based on socialist principles...


That is correct. True, the word socialized has other meanings as well, but for the most part, when referring to a system that fits into a Socialist Gov. format, we use the word socialized as the adjective to modify the noun. Such as "Socialized Medicine" or "Socialized Health Care".

Or... it could be that 'to socialize' refers to 'place under government or group ownership or control'.

Either way, Socialist is a proper noun. Socialized is a verb. Socialized is not incorrect.

Using a "z" is an Americanism. It's "socialised" because I'm British.

Yeah, I know sweetie. The second sentence was not meant for you.

I should have said: It actually is socialized.

1. Well, no, socialised and socialist are two different things. Socialist refers to someone who advocates socialism.

2. To be socialised is to be moulded by society, conforming to the norm etc.
1. "Socialist" is both a noun and an adjective.

2. If that is the case, then Americans are as socialised as anyone, especially the conservatives (how ironic).

That is correct. True, the word socialized has other meanings as well, but for the most part, when referring to a system that fits into a Socialist Gov. format, we use the word socialized as the adjective to modify the noun. Such as "Socialized Medicine" or "Socialized Health Care".
:eek: i was right at something :eek:

*dances*


we don't use the term over here, just for the record

If Americans spell it "socialized", why don't they spell socialism "socializm"? :p

If Americans spell it "socialized", why don't they spell socialism "socializm"? :p

Oh, don't worry. The idiots in power will start doing that soon enough.

I wish to apologize for using the world "socialized" when I had to use "socialist" (and, I'm European, so I should know hehe). But, in my defence, I quoted, and therefore wasn't paying too much attention. Woe me, woe me. I was just replying in the same vocabulry...

I wish to apologize for using the world "socialized" when I had to use "socialist" (and, I'm European, so I should know hehe). But, in my defence, I quoted, and therefore wasn't paying too much attention. Woe me, woe me. I was just replying in the same vocabulry...

It's quite alright.

you mean you think we should call it socialist medicine? or did i miss some actual misuse of the term?

You know, the only funny thing I really see is that the mistake here is that someone didn't realize that socialized is not Socialist. All of these anti-American threads really are a snore. I see language barriers, but I don't make the mistake of trying to say someone (or group) is wrong, if I don't really know what I am talking about.

Well, if we want to get all proper and what not...you can't socialize (or socialise) medicine. You can't have solcialized medicine, or socialist medicine.

You can, however, socialize (or, if you prefer, socialise) medical care.

;)

Why do Americans say the word "socialized"? It's actually "Socialist".


so·cial·ize
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v. tr.

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.




so·cial·ist
n.

1. An advocate of socialism.
2. often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.


adj.

1. Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
2. Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.


There.

Those are, of course, entries from a dictionary published on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. I'm sure entires from a dictionary published on the east side of that large body of water will soon be in evidence.

Those are, of course, entries from a dictionary published on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. I'm sure entires from a dictionary published on the east side of that large body of water will soon be in evidence.
perhaps so but the question was "why do americans say the word "socialized"? and shadowstorm's post answered that question perfectly.

the question was not "is american english correct?" or "are there other places that have a different usage?" those are mildly interesting questions that are perhaps for a different debate.

you mean you think we should call it socialist medicine?
That sounds more correct to me.

You know, the only funny thing I really see is that the mistake here is that someone didn't realize that socialized is not Socialist. All of these anti-American threads really are a snore.
Whoa! This qualifies in your mind as an "anti-American thread"? It certainly is not!

I guess we should say capitalist instead of privatised?

by "socialised" i imagine they mean "nationalised", which is what i would say

If Americans spell it "socialized", why don't they spell socialism "socializm"? :p


That's what independence does to ya, makes you want to do things your own way. ;)

That's what independence does to ya, makes you want to do things your own way. ;)

Like the kid who insists on wearing his baseball cap backwards... :p

Although, hasn't that become pretty much the norm in the US now?

Those are, of course, entries from a dictionary published on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. I'm sure entires from a dictionary published on the east side of that large body of water will soon be in evidence.

True, but they were posted onto nationstates from the east of the atlantic.

"Socialized" comes from the verb "socialize". it is not a mispelling of "socialist".

Americans speak American English, which, contrary to popular belife, is very different from English. We have different spellings, definitions, and colloquialisms. We say socialized because that is what is proper in American English. Socializing is the action of making something socialist. Its all symantics. Neither is right, neither is wrong. I'm sure we could argue thousands of words (why do the British call it a "lift" or "flat" instead of "elevator" or "apartment"?)

If you really want to know why Americans speak a different kind of English, do some research on Noah Webster and his post-revolution push for an independent and unique American culture instead of the prevailing European culture. It was a movement to create American citizens rather than British subjects.

Whoa! This qualifies in your mind as an "anti-American thread"? It certainly is not!

it's getting there with the backwards cap comments (not done by you). why doesn't anybody ever say that british talk funny and why are none of the comments "why do europeans use the s instead of the z?"

If Americans spell it "socialized", why don't they spell socialism "socializm"? :p
You guys spell "color" "colour", so don't talk :p

Socialist is either a noun. "He is a socialist." or an adjective, "Socialist Health Care System."

Socialize, is either a transitive, or intransitive verb.

If "I socialize with them..." it is an intransitive verb.... I am "taking part in activities" with them.

If I say a "The Health Care system should be socialized"... I am saying the Health Care system should be "placed under government control". Also, the same as saying "Creation of a Socialized Health Care System".

One is a politio/economic model of belief, the other is denoting action and activity. If you "Socialize" something, that does not necessarily make you a "Socialist". They can be related, but not always.

Those are, of course, entries from a dictionary published on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. I'm sure entires from a dictionary published on the east side of that large body of water will soon be in evidence.

Well if you ever bother to use a dictionary from the east side, you will find out that - shock horror - the -ize ending is correct for UK english too.

(If not preferred, did you never watch inspector morse?)

American English differs in differing ways:

Many non-pronounced letters are removed:

colour, becomes color
flavour, becomes flavor
analogue, becomes analog
catalogue, becomes catalog
encyclopaedia, becomes encyclopedia
manoeuvre, becomes maneuver

-er surplants -re:

centre, becomes center
metre, becomes meter
theatre, becomes theater

-k replaces -que:

Banque, becomes Bank
Cheque, becomes Check

-ense replaces -ence:
defence, becomes defense
licence, becomes license

-ze replaces -se:
analyse, becomes analyze
criticise, becomes criticize
memorise, becomes memorize

Many times -l- becomes -ll-:
enrolment, becomes enrollment
fulfil, becomes fulfill
skilful, becomes skillful

Verb spellings become different:
dreamt, becomes dreamed
leapt, becomes leaped

Verb form is unchanged:
fitted is just "Fit"
forcasted is just "forcast"

In some areas, like in Canada, both spellings are accepted as valid.

In general usage, as long as you maintain the consistent spelling standard through your entire text, it is acceptable.... Just don't shift standards in the middle of your own text.

American English differs in differing ways:

Many non-pronounced letters are removed:

colour, becomes color
flavour, becomes flavor
analogue, becomes analog
catalogue, becomes catalog
encyclopaedia, becomes encyclopedia
manoeuvre, becomes maneuver

-er surplants -re:

centre, becomes center
metre, becomes meter
theatre, becomes theater

-k replaces -que:

Banque, becomes Bank
Cheque, becomes Check

-ense replaces -ence:
defence, becomes defense
licence, becomes license

-ze replaces -se:
analyse, becomes analyze
criticise, becomes criticize
memorise, becomes memorize

Many times -l- becomes -ll-:
enrolment, becomes enrollment
fulfil, becomes fulfill
skilful, becomes skillful

Verb spellings become different:
dreamt, becomes dreamed
leapt, becomes leaped

Verb form is unchanged:
fitted is just "Fit"
forcasted is just "forcast"

In some areas, like in Canada, both spellings are accepted as valid.

In general usage, as long as you maintain the consistent spelling standard through your entire text, it is acceptable.... Just don't shift standards in the middle of your own text.
And Cuba, becomes socialized.

American English differs in differing ways:

Many non-pronounced letters are removed:

colour, becomes color
flavour, becomes flavor
analogue, becomes analog
catalogue, becomes catalog
encyclopaedia, becomes encyclopedia
manoeuvre, becomes maneuver

-er surplants -re:

centre, becomes center
metre, becomes meter
theatre, becomes theater

-k replaces -que:

Banque, becomes Bank
Cheque, becomes Check

-ense replaces -ence:
defence, becomes defense
licence, becomes license

-ze replaces -se:
analyse, becomes analyze
criticise, becomes criticize
memorise, becomes memorize

Many times -l- becomes -ll-:
enrolment, becomes enrollment
fulfil, becomes fulfill
skilful, becomes skillful

Verb spellings become different:
dreamt, becomes dreamed
leapt, becomes leaped

Verb form is unchanged:
fitted is just "Fit"
forcasted is just "forcast"

In some areas, like in Canada, both spellings are accepted as valid.

In general usage, as long as you maintain the consistent spelling standard through your entire text, it is acceptable.... Just don't shift standards in the middle of your own text.

I -knew- the internet was screwing up my spelling. Over the years, I've been picking up different spellings, (like catalogue), and it's been making me feel like an idiot every time I use a spell check.

Oy. The internet is ruining my editing abilities! Darn the Brits and Aussies and Canucks! Just for that, I'm moving to one of your countries and stealing all the Us from your Colour!

I guess we should say capitalist instead of privatised?
I'm surprised that Americans aren't already saying "capitalised health care"!

One thing USians do get right is Aluminum - the British spelling (Aluminium) is dead wrong. The guy who discovered it, a USian, named it Aluminum, but it was changed by (IIRC) the Royal Society so it conformed with other element names. I say fuck 'em; I'm with the discoverer.

Whoa! This qualifies in your mind as an "anti-American thread"? It certainly is not!

With the matter-of-fact way that this whole thing was started, AND with the infinite amount of "anti-American" threads, I would say that it certainly did not seem to be so light-heartedly asked. If it wasn't, then... whatever. It qualifies in my mind, and if it doesn't in yours, then you aren't wrong either.

Why do Americans say "socialized?"
Probably for the same reasons we spell "defense" with an s rather than a c.

Because we speak American English, not ROW english.

It's actually "Socialist".


It is because the word Socialist brings to mind Communist, which is a bit too close to the truth for most Americans to seriously support it. Socialized has that nice "social" feeling and does not bring to mind the tens of millions who died under communist rule.

:eek: i was right at something :eek:

*dances*


we don't use the term over here, just for the record

If the term is not used over the pond, then why is this thread here?

Well, no, socialised and socialist are two different things. Socialist refers to someone who advocates socialism. To be socialised is to be moulded by society, conforming to the norm etc.

That's the only way I've ever heard "socialized" used.....

I guess we should say capitalist instead of privatised?
I'm surprised that Americans aren't already saying "capitalised health care"!

With the matter-of-fact way that this whole thing was started, AND with the infinite amount of "anti-American" threads, I would say that it certainly did not seem to be so light-heartedly asked.
It was a serious question, but I don't see how my asking it equates to hating America.

It is because the word Socialist brings to mind Communist, which is a bit too close to the truth for most Americans to seriously support it. Socialized has that nice "social" feeling and does not bring to mind the tens of millions who died under communist rule.
Comparing democratic socialism with Soviet communism is like comparing American conservatism to Nazism.

Tekania, you're mostly right, except that we have 'forecast', not 'forcast' and we certainly don't use 'banque' instead of 'bank'. We also still have 'meter' as a device that measures, rather than the unit of measurement itself.

Alumin(i)um? Bugger off.

Incidentally, why the yanqui 'could care less' instead of the limey 'couldn't care less'? Surely the meaning is lost when the former is used?

Incidentally, why the yanqui 'could care less' instead of the limey 'couldn't care less'? Surely the meaning is lost when the former is used?
Well, "could care less" implies that you would be able to care less, where as "couldn't care less" implies that you don't care at all and therefore physically could not care less.

its like the difference between I could lift that and I couldn't lift that (and if you write "could" enough, it looks really weird)

Comparing democratic socialism with Soviet communism is like comparing American conservatism to Nazism.

Not much of a diference.

Well, "could care less" implies that you would be able to care less, where as "couldn't care less" implies that you don't care at all and therefore physically could not care less.

its like the difference between I could lift that and I couldn't lift that (and if you write "could" enough, it looks really weird)
But, but... I'm sure that people who say 'could...' mean the sense of 'couldn't...'.

Ach, who knows. Let's remember, be it American or English, we're still speaking a language that has about a squillion different ways of pronouncing 'ough'...

Tekania, you're mostly right, except that we have 'forecast', not 'forcast' and we certainly don't use 'banque' instead of 'bank'. We also still have 'meter' as a device that measures, rather than the unit of measurement itself.

Alumin(i)um? Bugger off.

Incidentally, why the yanqui 'could care less' instead of the limey 'couldn't care less'? Surely the meaning is lost when the former is used?In english (pun intended) we call that a "Colloquialism"...

Socialize is a verb that means "to make socialist," as in we need to socialize our medical system.

Socialize is a verb that means "to make socialist," as in we need to socialize our medical system.
- OR -

Socialize is a verb meaning "to visit with, make small talk, engage in social activities together"...

Why are people still debating this? It's been answered (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8858571&postcount=22) by me, and several other people too.

Why are people still debating this? It's been answered (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8858571&postcount=22) by me, and several other people too.And you were appointed the final arbitrator of discussions involving english usage by whom, and when? ;)

- OR -

Socialize is a verb meaning "to visit with, make small talk, engage in social activities together"...

No, that's part of the left-wing conspiracy. When you "socialize" with a Democrat, he's trying to convert you to their homosexual communist conspiracy!

And you were appointed the final arbitrator of discussions involving english usage by whom, and when? ;)

By me, about a year ago. Seriously though, I quoted from a dictionary.

Tekania, you're mostly right, except that we have 'forecast', not 'forcast' and we certainly don't use 'banque' instead of 'bank'. We also still have 'meter' as a device that measures, rather than the unit of measurement itself.

Alumin(i)um? Bugger off.

Incidentally, why the yanqui 'could care less' instead of the limey 'couldn't care less'? Surely the meaning is lost when the former is used?

There's also America's annoying habit of refering to ever increasing values as "each more something than the next."
e.g. the chocolate buffet was great, each dish more deleicious than the next." Appearantly it starts off as chocolate and ends up as feces.

It was a serious question, but I don't see how my asking it equates to hating America.

Fair enough.
But, what made me think that is what I was saying. It was so matter-of-fact, "It's actually Socialist." I just feel like some people on this board are very righteous in the way they address others, when they don't even know the facts. It eluded to "why are Americans wrong" to me. If I am alone on that, then so be it.

It is quite possible that I am just really tired of all the negative attitude on this forum, and I read your statement in manner that it shouldn't have been taken, due to the saturation of hate threads. Quite possible. If so, my apologies.

There's also America's annoying habit of refering to ever increasing values as "each more something than the next."
e.g. the chocolate buffet was great, each dish more deleicious than the next." Appearantly it starts off as chocolate and ends up as feces.Shall we start in on annoying British "turns-of-phrase"? Eh, wot? :)

There is no explaining a colloquialism. They just are. Someone says something that really doesn't work in english - but works somehow on a different level, perhaps in the psyche. It just feels right to the speaker and the listener. Others pick it up, and a ridiculous, albeit useful, colloquialism is born.

Works the same way on either side of the Atlantic - and, as far as I can tell (with what little French I know, and what little German I know) in any language.

There's also America's annoying habit of refering to ever increasing values as "each more something than the next."
e.g. the chocolate buffet was great, each dish more deleicious than the next." Appearantly it starts off as chocolate and ends up as feces.

Wha?

There's also America's annoying habit of refering to ever increasing values as "each more something than the next."
e.g. the chocolate buffet was great, each dish more deleicious than the next." Appearantly it starts off as chocolate and ends up as feces.
Wha?
Well, logically:

If the first one is MORE delicious than the next, it follows that "the next" (or 2nd one) is less delicious than the first. That one (the 2nd) is more delicioius than the next (now the 3rd) - which make that 3rd one LESS delicious than the 2nd, and the 1st.

Follow that chain long enough, and you could eventually wind up, as Domici indicates, with something that tastes like...

Socialize is a verb that means "to make socialist," as in we need to socialize our medical system.
No, that's an improper usage. The verb you want is "nationalise".

No, that's an improper usage. The verb you want is "nationalise".It's semantics. Are you planning to give control of the medical system to the nation it serves (nationalise)? Or are you planning to give control of the medical system to the society it serves (socialise)?

and, anyway, over here we spell it "nationalize" and "socialize"

edit: Two things occured to me after I posted this -

1. I shouldn't say "over here" or "on this side of the Atlantic" - because there's another large mostly english speaking country on this continent, and Canadian english is also different.

2. In the US, "nationalize" has the meaning of turning control and ownership over to the national federal government - it may or may not result in a socialist system. The health care system, for instance, could be nationalized without being socialized - ownership and control ould be transferred to the federal government, but people could still be required to pay, and those who can't pay could still be in a position where they can't get health care. "Socialize" doesn't necessarily mean nationalize - because we have social programs run by the various states in different ways. So, a program could be socialized without being nationalized. For example, our unemployment systems are socialized - they pay benefits to those without work for a period of time using funds collected from those who have work (and employers) - but is not nationalized - each state runs it's own unemployment program.

What I don't get is the word "burglarized".

1. Because "burgled" is a perfectly good word
2. bur-gla-rized. bur-gled. 3 syllables vs 2. Labour-intensive option anyone?

What I don't get is the word "burglarized".

1. Because "burgled" is a perfectly good word
2. bur-gla-rized. bur-gled. 3 syllables vs 2. Labour-intensive option anyone?Labour? When "Labor" is one letter shorter? ;)

Hmm good point *suspicious eyes*

At least with those you still say it the same though.

And also - burgled: 7 letters. Burglarized: 11 (so many that I had to use my fingers, my FINGERS!!)

Though I admit I am now grasping at straws as burgled/burglarized comes up in writing/speec much less than words ending in -our/-or.

I concede :)

It's semantics. Are you planning to give control of the medical system to the nation it serves (nationalise)? Or are you planning to give control of the medical system to the society it serves (socialise)?

and, anyway, over here we spell it "nationalize" and "socialize"

edit: Two things occured to me after I posted this -

1. I shouldn't say "over here" or "on this side of the Atlantic" - because there's another large mostly english speaking country on this continent, and Canadian english is also different.

2. In the US, "nationalize" has the meaning of turning control and ownership over to the national federal government - it may or may not result in a socialist system. The health care system, for instance, could be nationalized without being socialized - ownership and control ould be transferred to the federal government, but people could still be required to pay, and those who can't pay could still be in a position where they can't get health care. "Socialize" doesn't necessarily mean nationalize - because we have social programs run by the various states in different ways. So, a program could be socialized without being nationalized. For example, our unemployment systems are socialized - they pay benefits to those without work for a period of time using funds collected from those who have work (and employers) - but is not nationalized - each state runs it's own unemployment program.

Very good points. Some on the other side of the pond, forget that the US is still made up of 50, pretty differing mini-republics, overseen by one larger republic.

The Federal Government has a Constitution, Legal Code, and Executive, Legislative and Judicial governmental branches.... And the states look the same, each with their own constitution, legal code, and executive, legislative and judicial governmental branches.

The US is a federation of states. Not a "nation". There is alot still in the power of the states (National Guard and State Militias answer to the state's executive [govenor], Social Services and welfare, while funded partially by federal taxes, is run by state controled agencies, in addition to Medicare [Federal] most states also have their own complimentary program [Medicaid] run and legislated at the state level).

Yeah well they like putting random 'Z's in words for no reason. They spell everything wrong.

Well, logically:

If the first one is MORE delicious than the next, it follows that "the next" (or 2nd one) is less delicious than the first. That one (the 2nd) is more delicioius than the next (now the 3rd) - which make that 3rd one LESS delicious than the 2nd, and the 1st.

Follow that chain long enough, and you could eventually wind up, as Domici indicates, with something that tastes like...


Yeah... I don't know anyone that uses this..... phrase/way of thinking...

:eek: i was right at something :eek:

*dances*


we don't use the term over here, just for the record

Congratulations :D

Oh, btw, I'll tuck that tid bit of info. in the back of my mind so I avoid confusing communication in the future...

Very good points. Some on the other side of the pond, forget that the US is still made up of 50, pretty differing mini-republics, overseen by one larger republic.

The Federal Government has a Constitution, Legal Code, and Executive, Legislative and Judicial governmental branches.... And the states look the same, each with their own constitution, legal code, and executive, legislative and judicial governmental branches.

The US is a federation of states. Not a "nation". There is alot still in the power of the states (National Guard and State Militias answer to the state's executive [govenor], Social Services and welfare, while funded partially by federal taxes, is run by state controled agencies, in addition to Medicare [Federal] most states also have their own complimentary program [Medicaid] run and legislated at the state level).

For the most part a good explanation, however, just so you know, Medicaid, although administered by State Gov. is primarly funded by Federal Gov. and States provide varying levels of supplimentation to the Federal funding.

Yeah well they like putting random 'Z's in words for no reason. They spell everything wrong.Let's see... you put random "u"s in words where they aren't needed. And we do not spell everything wrong.

We spell everything e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g

We spell wrong w-r-o-n-g

It's actually "Socialist".

I've never heard anyone call it "Socialized"...But if people do say it, all I have to say is: Fuckin' Idiots.