| Last Hussar | 23 Oct 2009 6:03 p.m. PST |
The word is burgled. There is no such word as burglarised. |
| kyoteblue | 23 Oct 2009 6:09 p.m. PST |
|
| Cosmic Reset | 23 Oct 2009 6:13 p.m. PST |
Well, if it ain't a word, how come I can say it? |
| Austin Rob | 23 Oct 2009 6:27 p.m. PST |
|
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 23 Oct 2009 6:36 p.m. PST |
|
pmwalt  | 23 Oct 2009 6:47 p.m. PST |
you're correct, buglarized is spelled with a z :) |
| jpattern2 | 23 Oct 2009 7:33 p.m. PST |
"Burgled" is so much more fun to say – as long as you're talking about someone else's experience. |
 John the OFM | 23 Oct 2009 7:39 p.m. PST |
"Burgled" sounds dirtier, while "burglarized" sounds so clinical and technical. |
| Lee Brilleaux | 23 Oct 2009 7:42 p.m. PST |
There have been many interesting and useful additions to the English language from the United States. This is not one of them. |
| aecurtis | 23 Oct 2009 8:43 p.m. PST |
Don't assume. Both are Victorian back formations from "burglar", which itself is only first documented in 1541. If you want to get all purist-y and stuff, why not insist on pseudo-back formations such as "burgulated", after the ME "burgulator" (later shortened to "burglar"), or "burgh-brechen", after the OE "burgh-breche"? Allen |
| adub74 | 23 Oct 2009 9:25 p.m. PST |
umm.. what's a back formation? |
| aecurtis | 23 Oct 2009 9:39 p.m. PST |
link That would indicate that "burglarize" was formed by suffixation, but some dictionaries consider it a back formation as well. Allen |
| nazrat | 23 Oct 2009 9:47 p.m. PST |
Damn, but you ignarnt boys has done been ALLENized! Heh. |
| mweaver | 23 Oct 2009 10:18 p.m. PST |
"That would indicate that "burglarize" was formed by suffixation, but some dictionaries consider it a back formation as well." I love it when you talk dirty! |
| rdjktjrfdj | 23 Oct 2009 11:33 p.m. PST |
And it as taken me several post to see that the word is not bulgarised. |
| XRaysVision | 24 Oct 2009 5:07 a.m. PST |
I've found lot of words in the dictionary that I assumed wouldn't be there because they were regional slang, improper, or vulgar. I teased someone from NYC about using "yous", as in "Are yous guys going out for lunch". He told me to look it up. Sure enough, it's in Websters as the plural of "you". However, it was also listed as slang or improper. I have no idea whether "burgled" and "burglarized" fall into this category or not. What I do know is that depending on a word simply appearing in a dictionary doesn't really prove anything about its acceptablity or appropriate use. |
| Klebert L Hall | 24 Oct 2009 7:40 a.m. PST |
"Burglarized" really ought to mean "made into a burglar".
-Kle. |
 Parzival | 24 Oct 2009 8:47 a.m. PST |
I teased someone from NYC about using "yous", as in "Are yous guys going out for lunch". He told me to look it up. Sure enough, it's in Websters as the plural of "you". However, it was also listed as slang or improper. That's because everyone knows the proper plural of you is "y'all." Just like the correct phrase for having been the victim of a burglar is, "Dangnabbit! We was robbed!"
Also of use after losing a sporting event. |
| aecurtis | 24 Oct 2009 9:47 a.m. PST |
>>> That's because everyone knows the proper plural of you is "y'all." I'm sorry, but the proper *plural* of "you" is "all y'all". One addresses Bobby Joe with the query, "Hey, y'all got any beer?" One addresses billy Bob and Bobby Joe with the query, "Hey, all y'all got any beer?" Allen |
 Jlundberg | 24 Oct 2009 11:45 a.m. PST |
What manufacturer makes 12.5 mm burglarizors and what color should i paint them to go with my all Maus SS Panzer brigade for fall of 1944? |
| Parzival | 24 Oct 2009 12:24 p.m. PST |
Too true, Allen! I stand corrected.  |
| Cerdic | 25 Oct 2009 3:33 a.m. PST |
I'm with Mexican Jack and Klebert. For the definitive answer what does the OED say? |
| Connard Sage | 25 Oct 2009 5:51 a.m. PST |
For the definitive answer what does the OED say? It says burglarize or burglarise
verb North American term for burgle. and burgle
verb chiefly British commit burglary in (a building). ORIGIN
C19: orig. a colloq. back-form. from burglar. |
| Buff Orpington | 25 Oct 2009 8:57 a.m. PST |
Of course burglarize is a word, it is the act performed by a burglarizator. |
| zoneofcontrol | 25 Oct 2009 10:12 a.m. PST |
I'm going to use it irregardless. LOL |
| aecurtis | 25 Oct 2009 10:06 p.m. PST |
Why would the OED (and I'm assuming that's not the Online Etymology Dictionary) say that "burglarise" is a North American form? Is that for our colonial cousins to the north? Allen |
| Last Hussar | 07 Nov 2009 8:03 p.m. PST |
"Burglarized" really ought to mean "made into a burglar".
-Kle.
Kle Logic Win. |
| Calmarac | 08 Nov 2009 9:56 a.m. PST |
Why would the OED (and I'm assuming that's not the Online Etymology Dictionary) say that "burglarise" is a North American form? Is that for our colonial cousins to the north? Because it's the Oxford English Dictionary and to us Brits North America just means the top half of the continent (the USA and Canada both)? "Burglarized" really ought to mean "made into a burglar".
-Kle. Kle Logic Win.
Agreed. Impeccable logic there. And compare - English English Burglar – one who burgles or commits burglary. "He burgled the house" American English (?) Burglarizor – one who burglarizes, or commits burglarization. "He burglarized the house" The NA usage just sounds so ugly to my British ears. Imagine Raffles or even Bilbo being described as a burglarizor. Or Uncle Monty's quote from 'Withnail & I' becoming I mean to have you, even if it must be burglarization. |
