Advanced search

glamorization? glamourisation? or wot?

(23 Posts)
LupusinaLlamasuit Fri 10-Jul-09 10:57:16

Need help. Proofreading for someone and no farking idea on this one.


FigmentOfYourImagination Fri 10-Jul-09 11:02:46

it sounds like a mde up meeja word anyway imo.

FigmentOfYourImagination Fri 10-Jul-09 11:03:10

made up.

FGS, what a section for a typo hmm

LupusinaLlamasuit Fri 10-Jul-09 11:05:37

It is. But in an academic paper <jargon alert> so I still have to correct it properly grin

Any offers?

Pyrocanthus Fri 10-Jul-09 11:28:29

OED: 'glamorization (also glamourization)'. The first spelling is their preferred. You could also replace the 'z' with an 's': 'z' is Oxford house style.

I would go for glamorization, or glamorisation if you're an 's' sort of a person. First recorded use is 1952, incidentally, so not particularly recent invention.

Snorbs Fri 10-Jul-09 12:37:13

Would "glamourising" fit more neatly?

Pyrocanthus Fri 10-Jul-09 12:44:31

Possibly, but then you're stepping beyond proofreading into new territory... If the author prefers glamorization or variation thereupon, I'd leave it, as it's not incorrect.

cattj Sat 11-Jul-09 00:07:45

Aaaaaarrggghhhhh!!!!! The Americanisation of our language continues.

I hate the endless "slap an -isation on the end of an existing word, and that will do" mentality.

Please make it stop. Now.

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 16:15:23

What, like authorization (first recorded in English in 1610)? Militarization (1881)? It's become more of an American trend, I admit, but this obsession with the Americans ruining our language is a bit tiresome.

hatwoman Sat 11-Jul-09 16:36:04

what an awful word. I would struggle to curtail myself...I think I'd have to suggest (very gently) an alternative wording. Unless it was in inverted commas, in which case I might forgive it.

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 16:42:40

I think it's ugly too, but authors are entitled to make their own decisions. What does the OP think? Are you there Lupus, or too busy proofreading?

BecauseImWorthIt Sat 11-Jul-09 16:44:30

As the original noun is spelt 'glamour' I'd stick with that, and add -isation on to the end.

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 16:46:50

PS - glamorize is of US extraction, but if you want an ugly word try 'gospelize', first used by Milton (with a 'z') in 1640s. Nobody seems to have had the heart to add an 'ation' on the end. Yet.

LupusinaLlamasuit Sat 11-Jul-09 17:35:32

I think he will stick with glamourisation.

In context, it has its uses. Talking about the relationship between the press and crime. Not sure what other word would do to convey same meaning but sensible suggestions will be passed onto DH (who is writing his book as we speak) grin<dons hardhat>

policywonk Sat 11-Jul-09 17:53:13

'authors are entitled to make their own decisions'


You should see the pile of nonsense I am currently editing. No way am I letting this man have his head. <chunters>

hatwoman Sat 11-Jul-09 19:16:32

I can see why there might not be another word that would fit as well - which is why I suggested a different wording.


instead of "In the twentieth century there was an increased glamourisation of crime by the media."

use "In the twentieth century the media increasingly glamourised crime."

not only does it avoid that horrid word, it also cokplies with two other rules of thumb for good writing - it's shorter, and it's active rather than passive.

Strictly speaking you're right - in that it's editing rather than proofing...but perhaps that's a dw's perogative grin?

hatwoman Sat 11-Jul-09 19:19:20

cokplies??? how about that for an ugly word?

cattj Sat 11-Jul-09 19:40:43

No Pyrocanthus I refer to such hideousness as alphabetisation.

That's "to sort alphabetically" to you and me.

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 21:25:18

cokplies - ugh, there's another thread for that:

hatwoman Sat 11-Jul-09 22:00:49

I keep reading it as cock-piles. which sound very unpleasant

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 22:15:20

No, I'm afraid it's ending in 'pliers' for me.

Pyrocanthus Sat 11-Jul-09 22:24:47

cattj - sorry I was distracted. Alphabetization, yes, ugly, first recorded in a late C19th English book on cataloguing library books. Actually very useful in its context, as Lupus suggests.

thumbwitch Sat 11-Jul-09 22:28:13

I would have gone with glamorisation on the same principle that when you add endings to the word colour you are supposed to lose the 'u' (coloring, coloration) - or that was what I was taught at school many many years ago.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now