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.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
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...
While both are clearly acceptible in the U.S., nobody has pointed out the distinction in meaning that I perceive: Thieves burgle. Houses are burglarized. That is, burglarize is a form which is predominantly used in the passive tense.
...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.