Which is more correct:
We were burgled yesterday.
We were burglarized yesterday.
I'm from the U.K. and never use burglarized but my friend from the U.S.A. seems to think it's OK.
|show 3 more comments|
Either is acceptable. Burglarized is much more common in the USA, although burgled is less cumbersome. Dictionary.com dates both burgle and burglarize from the 1870s. Burgle is a back-formation from burglar.
|show 1 more comment|
I really like Google's N-gram viewer. Look how a picture says more on the subject than a thousand books could :)
Burgled vs. burglarized in Google's corpus of British English:
Burgled vs. burglarized in Google's corpus of American English:
According to Wiktionary burglarize is an acceptable US synonym to burgle.
A deleted answer made a distinction that was already in my mind...
...and supplied what I see as plausible evidence in favour of that distinction. Counting google hits...
The house was burglarized gets 76000.
The house was burgled gets 21700, giving a ratio of 3.5 for the passive.
burglarized the house gets 18200.
burgled the house gets 11500, giving a ratio of only 1.6 for the active.
I know it's commonly said here that Google hits can be misleading, but in this case I fail to see how such a significant change in ratio can be ignored across so many results. Either some Americans make the distinction, or Brits are over twice as likely as Americans to report the burglary by saying what the burglar did (as opposed to Americans reporting the same event by saying what happened to the house). An unlikely US/UK difference, given an Englishman's home is his castle!
Though I'm a Brit who normally uses the shorter word, the house being burglarised (my spelling!) sounds fine. But I think it sounds distinctly odd to speak of someone burglarising the house.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?