@I advancethree principal considerations in favour of -ise over -ize:
(1) Etym. Consistency
(2) Aesthet. Appearance
(3) Penmanship.
For myself, reasons 2 and 3 override all other considerations. If I were wrong on reason 1,, I would be correct to favour -ise over -ize.
1. Etymological Consistency
-ize is etym. misguided. Though it ostensibly preserves a connexion to Gk. -izein, this is irrelevant to Eng., as most vbs. are assim. via Lat.-Fr. intermediaries. The adoption of Gk. forms introd. orthog. inconsistency into otherwise harmoniously patterned word families, creating irregularities in everyday verbs. (e.g., advertise vs. authorise).
-ise reflects French -iser, which entered Eng. directly after 1066, maint. hist. continuity. ize is Gk.-derived (-izein), foreign to the maj. of Eng. Latinate vocab. (Gk. -ize was never widely adopted in ordinary prose, only in schol., theol., or Hellenistic contexts. It has always appeared faintly foreign.)
2. Aesthetic Appearance in printed text.
In printed text, -ise pleases the eye. Its rounded form produces a smoother, more flowing visual impression, harmonising with adjacent letters. Harsh z, by contrast, intrudes abruptly, reducing elegance within a sentence & creating jagged, visually discordant patterns. Paragraphs containing an excess of -ize vbs. look rougher; reader registers this abruptness as dissonant.
3. Penmanship
- In handwriting, diag. z obstructs continuous pen movement, req. lifts that slow writing & invite smudging, unlike the curved s, which allows unbroken, flowing movement. its heavier visual weight unsettles line balance. Uniform hgt. & slope are more diff. to maint., ligature continuity is broken, rapid note-taking suffers in both legibility & rhythm. Curved s, by contrast, allows unbroken, fluid motion, produces lighter & more uniform, aesthet. pleasing lines. Uniformity of hg. & slope is maintaind, ligature seqq. presereved. Rapid note-taking benefits. Elegance, coherence, rhythm, aesthetic propriety are better preserved with -ise.