glamorization? glamourisation? or wot?

[LupusinaLlamasuit]

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

Thanks.

it sounds like a mde up meeja word anyway imo.

made up.

FGS, what a section for a typo

It is. But in an academic paper so I still have to correct it properly

Any offers?

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.

Would "glamourising" fit more neatly?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

'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.

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

ie

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 ?

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

No Pyrocanthus I refer to such hideousness as alphabetisation.

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

cokplies - ugh, there's another thread for that: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pedants_corner/788203-Words-which-sound-rude-but-are-in-fact-innocent

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

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

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.

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.