Talk:English language/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about English language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

English, a Romance language?

I have always wondered why English was considered as a Germanic language while the largest portion of its vocabulary derived for Latin or French, which cannot be said about any other Germanic language. English is very intelligible for a French-speaking person, nearly as much as Spanish or Italian, unlike German, since a lot of English words have both a Latinate and a Germanic counterpart. I think it should be relevant to talk about it somewhere and to say that English is not a typical Germanic language, in the same way that French is not a typical Romance language (well, even if compared, French is much more a traditional Romance language than English is a traditional Germanic one). What do you think?

--Floeticsoulchild (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's much more to a language than its vocabulary. English grammar is thoroughly Germanic, including the portion of its vocabulary used to express grammatical relations (function words). There's nothing atypical about having a large number of loanwords; Dutch and German also have many loanwords from French (if not quite so many as English has), and Yiddish has a huge number of loanwords from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic. But all of those languages, like English, are unambiguously Germanic. —An gr 19:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is artificial since if you look at "Latin roots as percentage of words in dictionary" you'll see a huge number, but if you look at "Latin roots as percentage of words in everyday speech" it will be far, far lower. SDY (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

"I have always wondered why English was considered as a Germanic language" Because it is Germanic, beyond any reasonable doubt.
"English is very intelligible for a French-speaking person" No, it's not. Most francophones don't understand English. Even in Québec, a province bordering the US, the majority isn't able to understand English.
"English is not a typical Germanic language, in the same way that French is not a typical Romance language" How do we define 'typical' here. Italian form plurals in a completely different way that Spanish, Portuguese and French, is that atypical? Portuguese has got a personal infinitive alien to other Romance languages, is that atypical? JdeJ (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, English is not 'very intelligible' to a french person. Finnish and Hungarian both have Mongolian roots but you wouldn't say that a Finnish person understands Hungarian would you? That is no more ridiculous than what you’re saying. The languages don’t even have as shared a history as one might be led to believe. English is, however, considered a slight oddity among the Germanic family, simply because of the sheer number of influences which have shaped the language. If we look at the very beginning, we get Celtic languages that were then shaped by a succession of invaders and various other tribes bringing with them their own Germanic and Nordic languages. Then we have the Romans, with their Latin. English didn't keep the romance roots of languages such as french and Italian because of how far away it was from the epicentre of the roman empire, right in a fringe area, the influence of the Romans began to crumble, including their language, with the beginning of the end of the roman empire. After that we have Germanic tribes bringing Germanic languages to England again, and thus ends the spell of Latin influence in Britain, with it being preserved in pockets such as the church and the country turning back to it's Germanic past. So, you see, relatively early in the language's history we already have a huge melting pot of influences. Then along come the Normans, bringing french and words with more romance origins, and so on and so forth. English could be seen unusual because it's been changed be countless other languages throughout its history. And then, to boot, we add the slightly more modern fact that English has the not entirely unique ability to 'absorb' words from the other cultures it meets, with this becoming more common with the boom of the 'global village'. You could say that the speed and dexterity that English does this is the interesting point here. But yes, it's words aren't entirely Germanic because it's had so many influences over the years, and perhaps a little because of how isolated the united kingdom is from mainland Europe which has undoubtedly shaped its history, society and hence it's language. Grammatically and historically, however, it is viewed as being more ubiquitously Germanic than anything else, hence it's seen as a Germanic language. I personally wouldn't call it a romance language by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the usage of Latin words, well, that makes sense doesn't it? Remember, compared to Germanic languages, Latin had a very, very limited influence on the language and actually nearly vanished with the crumbling of the empire, only later being reintroduced. More so, it's not simply that these words aren't used. Yes, they have a history of being associated with upper classes and the educated elite, so may still have a stigma as being slightly snooty if you were to drop one into informal conversation. Also, the Germanic words tend to be more informal, shorter and easier to say than their Latin equivalents. Why make life more difficult for yourself? Still, we're ignoring the fact that English has one of the largest word pools of any language and ignoring the amount that are used daily, shouldn't we at least thank our history's convoluted history and more interesting properties for that? It does mean, however, that it's a lot easier to deem what family English belongs to grammatically rather than based on vocab, and there there's no doubt as to where it belongs.

Just a question, are you basing your assumptions on geography? It just seems as if that may have played a role, and I’m not judging you about it, but we all know that geography doesn’t play a part in languages [ignoring the fact that England isn’t in any way connected to France?] I mean, look at the Basque language. Not related to French or Spanish, in fact, not related to any European language at all. And look at Finnish – it’s nothing like Swedish or Norwegian. Just don’t jump to these conclusions. --138.38.216.248 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this now the forum for fringe language ideas? Finnish nor Hungarian are Uralic languages, neither of them are related to Mongolian.JdeJ (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly why it is written as such here!! Because some learned people have written it as so! Not a very good explanation is it? Go ahead try include some more info on the lead section, see what happens. You may be "attacking authority" or "not speaking English very well" for people to understand you. This article is entitled "English language" not "The English language" and should be treated as such to avoid Ignorance and Confusion but that would be bleeding cocoa now wouldn't it. The term "English language" by definition includes "The history of language in England" and "Influence and influences of languages closely tied to England" but this is a mere classification and phonology article. Terror to think about changing or supplementing anything "important" on the mere notion that it may be Misleading or Incomplete when it is clearly "correct". ~ R.T.G 03:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

English Grammar is not thoroughly German or Germanic it has many similarities as it does with French. And the Structure of English and French is very similar (with the exeption of the placing of the adjective). --Lemonade100 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that by "Structure" you mean syntax, there are significant differences. Completely off the top of my head, English has Subject Verb Object word order as a default for nearly all sentences. French uses Subject Object Verb where the object is a pronoun (e.g. "I have killed them" = je les ai tués -- word-for-word "I them have killed", with "killed" being plural.) In any case, syntax is notoriously changeable over time and thus a poor diagnostic of genetic language relationships. Core vocabulary, phonology, and, to a lesser extent, morphology, are much more important. For example, French is known to descend from Latin, but French usually has SVO word order where the object is not a pronoun, for which Latin generally preferred SOV. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting is the crazy preposition/postposition problem. There are no postpositions in French, but English (like German) has a ton. Consider the differences between "Knock off" "Knock up" "Knock over" "Knock out" etc. (I could keep going...) The German verbs also feature ablaut, where the vowel changes to demonstrate tense, thus singen, sang, gesungen become sing, sang, sung. The French lexicon is also a bit more 'elite' as you might say, due to the Norman Invasion. Consider the word "arrive" vs. the word "come." "When are you coming?" vs. "When are you arriving?" The French "arriver" would have been used by the elite of England, whereas the Germanic "kommen" (not sure the English variety of the word) would have been used by the lower classes. So as mentioned above, just because the lexicon has been flooded by French doesn't make it "French." Just curious as to how you could think French and English were mutually intelligible... I can barely understand people from London, let alone France! Remember too, that a lot of loan words in German, for example, are very, very old. The word for "table" in German (Tisch), is actually a loan from the Greek word "dískos". The relatively recent introduction of French loan words accounts for them not being as well hidden. Retailmonica (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should analyse these particles as 'postpositions', but it's true that phrasal verbs are more Germanic than Romance. garik (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the box

Why isn't it possible to edit the "fact"-box called {English language}. For the second time in less than a week, I find it containing errors, but I don't know how to edit it. The claim that English is ranked as the 3rd language in terms of native speakers is not correct, it's 4th. I hope that can be changed, but the real problem is the box. It's a part of this page, so I don't quite get the idea with it being edited somewhere else.JdeJ (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a separate template called {{English language}}. If you want to edit it, you have to go to Template:English language. —An gr 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I edited that template one time and it didnt show up for a few days although after a week is a long enough time. ~ R.T.G 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic section

The section headed "Idiomatic" [1] is, to put it kindly, a load of rubbish. Even the heading itself is gramatically incorrect. I propose it be deleted. Roger (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

There is currently a survey being done about the English map (anglospeak) at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anglospeak.svg. You may want to participate.ReveurGAM (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English language/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The article deals with a great variety of topics. The accentuation is maybe not ideal, maybe not sufficient for FA, but for GA that would be sufficient. The only objection related to coverage is that the “Grammar” section is too short, even though there is an extra article on that. It must be quite a bit longer, address typological issues, include some info on sentence pattern types, information structure etc. etc. A compensatory shortening could be achieved by deleting “number of words in English” which is a bit shallow at the moment. You would want to know with how few words you can do in everyday speech, how the number of compounds in American English relates to idiosyncratic lexical items in British English etc.

A far more serious objection is that most of it is under-referenced: History, Classification and related languages, English as a global language, Dialects and regional varieties, Phonology (no single reference!) etc. etc.

And finally: the reference list is a mess: some sources are given in the “Notes” section, some in “References”. That would have to be unified.

I don’t say that this article would be GA if these points were met, I would have to do a more in-depth review for that, but I think it is not unlikely. Anyway, the number of references to be added is too big to be taken care of in one week. I would have preferred to put this article on hold, but it would have to be on hold for too long. Thus, I fail it. If the grammar part is enlarged and the number of in-line citations is up to hundred, I would suggest to renominate it. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to improve this article. Persons have ideas that the content should be restricted in unique ways thus making quality fairly static. I made a good edit yesterday but it was making things "too clear" and "too general" for "this article. ~ R.T.G 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is common to specify in the lead section to say sth. about language family: "European" language is far less useful than "West-Germanic", thus too general indeed. The other changes were replacing a general picture with a historic sequency, which I agree is not so much "too clear", but rahter "too specific" for the lead section. But as I stated, the main problem of this article is referencing and the grammar part, not the intro. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know what a "sth" is. The other changes were a slight correction on the style. ?The only extra information added was "South-East England" and the date "1066" (1066 which I surmised should be entered seeing as the 5th century date is entered... "South-East"... why not? It's short sweet and true is it not?). Again, people do not read or else they talk crap. The paragraph is only 3 sentences. I think a cold shower for me this morning girls. People talk about anti-clarity and anti-specifics. Context and consistency are much more important. You put those two together with factuality and you have something. With crap you have nothing. Cya. ~ R.T.G 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

~~RTG, stop making a fool of yourself.~~ According to the Constitution of Ireland“The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” [original emphasis] —teb728 t c 09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The "state" that document refers to is certainly not a republic. Can you even pronounce Eire? I doubt it. ~ R.T.G 09:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is féidir liomsa "Éire" a fhuaimniú, ach silim go bhfuil an argóint seo amadach agus gan úsáid. -- Evertype·✆ 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please post in English. Roger (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the one who was trying to use knowledge of Irish as a weapon. -- Evertype·✆ 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When you post on an article talk page you are "talking to" everyone who wants to read it. If you wish to address an individual user please post to their user talk page. Article talk pages are not the proper place for "private" discussions. However, it is in any event bad form to post in any language other than English on the en.wikipedia - except for articles about a language (other than English). Roger (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Translation: I can pronounce "Éire", but I think that this argument is foolish and useless. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

The statistic on the number of english speakers in the republic is 3.8 million. The statistic on Ireland as a whole is over 5.5 million. If you want to correct the naming, you should correct the statistic and you should correct the UK statistic because that also includes part of Ireland or you could just leave it named correctly as "Republic of Ireland" and save me from making a fool of myself. ~ R.T.G 09:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the "Act of Republic" did not occur until the 40s and repeatedly throughout history votes have been not to confuse the Irish State with the Irish Republic. The Irish State refers to the whole island. The statistics here do not. ~ R.T.G 10:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The state became a republic in 1948, before that it was a constitutional monarchy. It did not change its name at that time. See Republic of Ireland#Name—particularly the part about the 1989 Supreme Court decision. —teb728 t c 10:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of the judge and the government is "of Ireland" or "na hEireann" but the country (and the 3.8 million statistic) is, in current law, "...described as the Republic of Ireland". See Republic of Ireland Act 1948 for the full text and an explaination, of the same confusion, by the man who wrote it. If it is of any interest, an act was passed in British law the next year with more details regarding UK citizenship but saying basically the same thing about the name. See Ireland_Act_1949#Provisions. I wonder, if it was up to him, would Judge Walsh say "They'd better remove the border or nobody's crossing it!" ~ R.T.G 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it says at your link, “the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.” [emphasis added] And as it says at my link, “The name of the State is … Ireland.” [emphasis added] Both are true under current law. And in both cases the “State” means (as always) the sovereign government. (See State.) As you point out, some diehard nationalists reject the partition. But whatever its territory, the official name of the Irish republic is “Ireland.” (And calling the country by its description doesn’t affect the nationalist position.)

You are also correct that “the countries with the highest populations of native English speakers” in the Geographical distribution section is a list of countries. But because of that fact there is no ambiguity in listing “Ireland” there as to whether it refers to the country or the island. ~~Only an incredibly stubborn person trying to disrupt the project to make a point could claim to be confused.~~

The list at the end of the first sentence of the article is also a list of countries. Therefore it is wrong to list “Great Britain” there, for Great Britain is not the name of a country. Likewise it is wrong to link the mention of Ireland there to the article on the island. —teb728 t c 04:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[un]Look TEB, you are saying that both are possibly correct. I can't get to grips with this "Don't make this encyclopedia too specific" (roll!). The government neither has the right or the will to claim that Ireland is no longer the island but is now the republic portion. Now, if you agreed with that, why on earth would you argue that anything they say makes it so? They did it by accident, huh? huh? If you feel that rejection of Irish partition falls in the lap of crazy people, you are sadly misinformed and I am insisting it is acknowledged, reject or no. Your ideas on countries and islands are abbreviated as POV. Where does it say that the measurements of a country or island be more accurate or that talk of countries and islands cannot be made side by side? Of course, I insist you look at this: wikt:stubborn. "Your" link is reference to Wikipedia, not the law. The statistic of, as you say, "english speakers in the "“State” means (as always) the sovereign government", amounts to less than 300 people. lol. Regardless of what goes in the article, if you are a good person, admit to yourself now, TEB728, there is more than one valid government bearing the name Ireland. If they were to link up, there would be only one, but if they have not, stick to what you know, and don't talk about "die-hard nonsense" of which you do not know. ~ R.T.G 10:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RTG, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your 10:57 post at all. In most of your sentences I don’t understand what sort of thing you are talking to. And in some of your sentences I can’t even make out the grammar. Please revise and clarify your comments.

But first let me say that I retract and apologize for my comment about stubbornness. Perhaps you replied hurriedly in anger over that comment. If so, I hope that with my apology you can get over the anger and reply more carefully. Secondly when I mentioned “my link,” I was referring to the Constitution of Ireland, which is law. (I gave that link in my first post of this section. I was not referring to my later links to Wikipedia articles.) Sorry if I did not make that clear.

About the only thing in your post I clearly understand is your request that I acknowledge there is more than one valid government bearing the name Ireland. I acknowledge there is a government legally named “Ireland,” and another legally named “Northern Ireland.” The names are different; so there is no ambiguity. —teb728 t c 06:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just saying that you do not need to be fanatical or winged to agree with nationalism or open borders, that kind of thing is about friendliness first isn't it? People are alive since before the border and hardly need to be fanatics to say "Yeah, take it down." That government wihich is named "Ireland" is less than 300 members in total (possibly a few thousand working for them altogether...?), the governments name alone does not nessicarily name the country (and possibly Ireland is one of very few examples why it does not, i.e. Did the Nazis name France "Germany" no.) You would have to say that people not of Ireland will call "Ireland" and "Irish" non-discriminately north or south (you may say that the north is in Ireland and that Ireland is the southern state buts thats the ambiguity, Ireland is an island) People of north who say "Ireland" is south of the border only and they are not Irish, will also say they are more Ulster than anything else (Irish of the highest order, the warriors and wild men of Irish Mythology, renowned but mysterious, Ulster is often thought of as many Scottish immigrants but the texts suggest the opposite). People south of the border who say they do not wish to use the term republic will usually be because they do not want the island divided, not because the border is so Irish now. Make two surveys "Are you of Ulster or not?" and "Are you glad of the border or not?", then add "Is the republic 'Ireland'?", you get the contradiction. So long as they don't fight, they can call themselves anything they want :) but to describe the southern state as "Ireland", you would need to explain it or something. ~ R.T.G 13:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know what 300 has to do with anything. By the latest census there are 4.2 million people under the government which is named “Ireland” (of whom 3.8 million speak English). In any case your argument cuts both ways, for there are the same number of people in the government which is described as the “Republic of Ireland” as the government which is named “Ireland.” (BTW, what do you call the south between 1938 and 1948?)

Have your surveys been performed and published in a reliable source? (If so, what were the results?) Or are they just original research?

Calling the south “Ireland” in a list of countries needs no explanation, for the context disambiguates the meaning. If anyone had any doubt, they could follow the link to the ROI article. —teb728 t c 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As a thought, the article China may be useful for any person with difficulty differing a republic from its region. ~ R.T.G 11:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boys and girls, this hellish spat has been being played over and over again. See Talk:Ireland where folks are trying to set a policy. In the meantime, relax, have a cup of tea, and STOP EDIT WARRING OVER THIS. (The text says Great Britain (an island) and Ireland (an island). That's what it should say. The UK and the Irish state have no relevance.) -- Evertype·✆ 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be treading on very thin ice as I know this topic has been discussed for a long time now. As far as I'm concerned, all wikipedia country articles are entitled with the common name of the country. This means that when referring to the 26 counties in the southern portion of the island we use Republic of Ireland (just look at packaging - usually ROI, or Irish soccer team - Republic of Ireland). This brings it into line with the United States or the United Kingdom. If we want to use Ireland as the name of the article with linksin other articles, then, as fair is fair, we should rename the United States article to United States of America, the United Kingdom article to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and perhaps Libya to the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Great Jamahiriya? i.e. IMHO, common names only throughout unless completely necessary. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But the common name is Ireland. No one says "I'm going on vacation to the Republic of Ireland this summer". —An gr 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The commonly used name is Ireland but the common reference is the island, Angr. Absolutely the USA and UK articles should be named correctly. Common abbreviation is difficult to accept in entireity in an encyclopedia, is it not? It is being taken here (WP:CREEP) and only because a lot of people are saying "thats what I say". I am going on about what the article says but would you reckon that I say "the Republic of Ireland?" I can't remember the last (or any) time I said those words without talking politics but I abbreviate other stuff... Unless we start to change spelling convention according to the common global slang lingo, is that on? The same, do you think that I call the RoI football team Irish or Ireland? Of course I do. I still know what the proper name is and see it as correct. ~ R.T.G 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that a live.com search of "United States of America" produces Wikipedias United States at the top of the list. Wikipedia policy is to provide titles that produce search hits but that policy is older than the search policy to provide Wikipedia at top of the list :) ~ R.T.G 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed to the text in the introduction to be "Ireland" rather that "Republic of Ireland". That is both the formal and common name of the state. As there is also no need to distinguish between the state and the island, use of the long description is unnecessary and out of the ordinary. We don't, for example, say "Commonwealth of Australia", "United States of America" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the same sentence (and quite rightly so).

Use of the phrase further down in the article seems fine to me since the construction is often used when giving statistics in order to make the population (of the statistical sample) as clear as possible. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any focus on the facts that most persons in view of Northern Ireland (internationally) see Ireland, and that the Irish constitution was specifically written with that in mind. Constitutional changes of the Good Friday Agreement, often cited, were specifically designed to show peaceful intentions, not more. Considering many are twisting that item, it is little wonder, and argueably with good forsight, that the wording was not gone over for so long a time. The republic, as most any state, is a thing of war. It may be at peace (and has my respect), but it is not Ireland and gains no creedence over such, regardless of its various respects. It is a representative. Let's say, as a representative, most US Americans seemed to look exactly like B Obama (or Hillary, any of them) or they are so happy with what he says. People start saying "That man is America" (and that often happens). Who do we rename? Barack or America? What about the kids? Can they still go to Harvard or what? If you never saw one of these debates, you could have a nightmare where people make "these" nicknames, and within ten years, everything you read is confused. Reading is of the highest importance to those of the least learning and knowledge. In the area that that appears in good consideration, I would show my greatest respect. ~ R.T.G 18:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Word Order of English-Speaking Countries

I would be in favor of reverting back to this revision. I think in this case the number of native speakers is the most important factor in determining what order to list the countries. It's a minor issue, but I think it reads better that way. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about the introductory sentence which explains where English originated? It is logical that the remainder of that sentence should list countries in the order in which the language was introduced to those countries. In fact, since it is really a geographical/social topic political boundaries should not be used at all: if we said "the British Isles, North America and Australasia" that should cover it (but I imagine generalisation will cause problems...). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's the sentence. The way I see it, as the first sentence of this article, it's presenting the two most important facts: the language's origin and where it is predominately spoken. I'm reading it a bit differently than you are... I don't necessarily see these two things as being related, even though they're in the same sentence and you might initially think they should be. The second sentence in that paragraph goes on to support the second part of the first sentence by listing places that English is spoken as a second language, which tacitly supports the idea that it's focusing on places where it's predominately spoken and not necessarily places where it originated. Just my two cents, but I did take a look at the sentence again with your comments in mind and am still in favor of changing it back. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The origin and predominance are related though. According to thie article 96% of the UK population speak English as a first language; in the US it is 73% (although it is interesting to see that the statistical table attempts to fudge over that). If we throw in the second language speakers then India, Nigeria and the Phillipines would edge out countries like Ireland, Australia and New Zealand where it is the predominant language and has been for centuries. That does not seem to me to be a sensible course. If we are using population statistics for the first sentence then there are 101 arguments for different lists in different orders. It will be the constant focus of edit wars as populations change over time. It makes more sense to describe the origins and spread of the language in the first sentence and leave the tabs on the table for those who want to see numbers. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not some medieval feast, so wiki-ed don't get insulted if your country gets listed after another, it is not a sign of rank. The text that you/IP were reverting to in any case contained editorial notes stating they are listed in chronological order. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an answer. The controversial change that the two of you are advocating is illogical - why are New Zealand, the Carribbean and Ireland included on your list if it is a list of countries with the highest population of first language speakers? Also, it says the "first language for most people", but what percentage is "most" equivalent too? 70% seems quite low for this to be applicable. Maybe the US should be removed altogether.
The sentence is about the origin and spread of the language. Since it is poorly phrased I'll rewrite it altogether so it makes more sense. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with chronology and in line with that would be to substitute the terms United States and Canada with North America and Anglophone Carribean with Carribean as those were the places that the language went to. Although this does not immediately provide the modern day names, they were not in existence. Reference to the differences could be made further down for follow up reading as per relevance? The alternative to chronology would be that the info begins by referencing USA and not Germanic or England. That is valid but not so likely to be fresh, and equally valid info to the reader as the chronological format...? ~ R.T.G 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t care about the order of the list of countries. But as far as I am concerned Wiki-Ed’s radical rewording is unacceptable. If Wiki-Ed thinks the first sentence is about where English originated, I would agree to clarifying it by inserting a full stop after “England” and maybe adding the word “now” in the resulting second sentence like “It is now the first language ….” In any case I see no consensus for the new wording, and it should stay with the old consensus until a new consensus is reached.

Among the objections to the rewording: According to WP:LEAD the purpose of this introductory text, is to establish the notability of the article. But by changing the focus from the present distribution of the language to the historical spread, the countries where it is now spoken cannot properly be listed; it is this list of countries, which is a significant part of the notability. Furthermore, changing the United States and Canada to North America includes Mexico, where English is not spoken. Similarly, changing the Anglophone Caribbean to the Caribbean includes Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, where English is not spoken. Also the rewording says that English spread across Ireland before the Age of Discovery, which is false. It also did not spread across the Scottish Highlands until after the Battle of Culloden. —teb728 t c 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to discuss, also, stuff like "Pidgin English" which is excluded from the list. I am Irish. We, like any good Jamaicans (and on the subject of anglo-phone Carribean lingo, that is way more different than African-English), we speak a sort of a pidgin English, so far removed from the mimicry accent you often hear from American-Irish on TV. We talk "dis" an "dat", even in the government they always do or verge on it. In the TV news, they never do, but we have our own rival for BBC English (which I must request an article about). If the first language for most people in Nigera (one of the most populous countries in the world and "The most populous black country in the world") is Pidgin-English, that is an English language. I have seen voiced-over African-English on the TV news. It is definitly English (in fact it can annoy when they (news) voice it over and change all the dis and dat words, it's usually grammatical differences) ~ R.T.G 11:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't what your native language is (to judge from your writing, it isn't English), but Hiberno-English is most definitely not a pidgin or a creole. It is a dialect of English. It has an Irish Gaelic substratum, but it did not originate with a group of people who had no language in common and therefore had to communicate in broken English as best they could; nor did it undergo creolization to become the full-fledged language it is today. The fact that Hiberno-English has th-stopping (which is what I assume you mean by "dis an dat"), just as most pidgins and creoles do, is coincidence. —An gr 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. Some of the newer editors to this page evidently think the "consensus" is the version they are proposing. However, it is not a stable consensus version (that's what I have been reverting to) and the proposed changes are the result of recent editing.

"North America" is certainly an inaccurate generalisation, but no more so than wording which says something like it is "the first language for most people in the US". This implies that "most" is anything over 70% so on that basis we could reasonably include Mexico and Cuba etc because proportionately speaking "most" would still apply to the combined population...

Which leads to notability - the list of countries is arbitrary and inaccurate. The only way you could justify that particular list is to arrange them in chronological order of introduction, in which case the language's history is relevant. Alternatively you could have an alphabetical list of countries with the largest total number of speakers. As it is, I think arbitrarily selecting the first language total (not proportion) seems to be pushing a particular POV. Obviously that's contrary to policy so unless these points are addressed I will take it as such and revert to the stable wording used for several years up until a month or two ago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not been reverting to a "stable consensus version". That version was never stable and never had consensus. There's nothing non-NPOV about listing countries in order of number of native speakers, and it's a method of ordering that's easier both to determine and to understand than listing them in order of when English arrived there. (When did English arrive in the United States? With the founding of the Roanoke Colony in 1586? When did it arrive in Canada? In 1610 at Cuper's Cove, Newfoundland? But Newfoundland didn't join Canada until 1949. And should the UK really be listed first in chronological order, when the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only came into existence in 1922?) Perhaps it would be less controversial to list the countries is in alphabetical order, conveniently putting both the UK and the US at the end. —An gr 13:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the concensus should be reached on the article being either -

a> a discription of historical progression or
b> an example of current condition - with a possible agreement of -
c> that if no one is pursued, the two approaches should be complimentary rather than intrinsic or confusable with one another.
If those methods ought to be combined intrinsically (as is the present case, example: first sentence), why?
If something is easier, why? How?
Rather than factual content, this debate is focusing on Methodology (quite good article excepting the "example" section) Facts are not being disputed so content may be progressive upon agreeing a method.
The United States arrived in English. English arrived in whatever the Indians were calling it. Sadly, after looking for an hour or so, good reference is sparse on what, or wether, the Indians named the continent or area that the first English speaking settlement was but most likely it was territory of the Powhatan tribe (Pocahontas was daughter of the chief of that tribe) and speakers of the Algonquian language. The English named it Roanoke Colony of Roanoke Island in what was then the Colony of Virginia and it was an (twice) unsuccessful colony on a little island but appears to be the first of attempts to permanently settle the English language that side of the water. ~ R.T.G 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To address User:Angr's points:
No, you have not been reverting to a "stable consensus version". That version was never stable and never had consensus.
Err, yes I have. The article intro started this way in 2001. It has been fiddled with by POV-pushers since then, but it has always been restored.
There's nothing non-NPOV about listing countries in order of number of native speakers
Why pick that figure (as opposed to total numbers)? That's massaging statistics, stats which are based on people's self-assessment of their own language capability (in some cases).
...and it's a method of ordering that's easier both to determine and to understand than listing them in order of when English arrived there.
How is it easier to determine? Population sizes change frequently and people learn languages quickly so the article will need updating continuously (i.e. it is always wrong). I've already pointed out inconsistencies so it certainly does not make it easier to understand.
Geography
Historical dates are fixed, unlike population statistics, and although the political entities are irrelevant the dates where English arrived correspond to the dates on the table in this article: Evolution of the British Empire. If you have a list in alphabetical order, which countries do you include? (Going back to the point about the current list being inconsistent if it is supposed to be about numbers of speakers.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, all I wanted to do was start a discussion on the lead. I'm kind of sad to see that it's degenerated into an edit war, complete with accusations of bad faith and posting 3RR warnings on people's talk pages. I recommend we all take a step back and relax... The semantics of the lead are important, but they're not so important that we should be edit warring over it. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The oldest version is not necessarily a stable version, a consensus version, or an NPOV version. The fact that people have been constantly wrangling over the order in which the countries are listed in the lead for the past 8 years pretty well proves that the version you keep reverting to has zero consensus. (And the version you keep reverting away from has just as little, of course.) Just because someone disagrees with you, Wiki-Ed, that doesn't make them a POV-pusher. The population-size version is easier to determine because statistics are kept on that sort of thing, while the chronological version has to be based on guesswork and tortured decisions about what counts as the date when English arrived somewhere. (Evolution of the British Empire tells us nothing whatever about when the English language arrived in various parts of the world and so is useless for our purposes.) The question of which countries to include has to be answered regardless of what order we put them in; that's not a problem unique to alphabetical order. —An gr 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference, in the past there have been people pushing particular points of view (looking through the article's edit history earlier reminded me of one of them) and that's my concern. Also, I did not say that the oldest version is necessarily stable, agreed or balanced, but it was not a point of contention until the list was added.

As for the historical aspect - I was not proposing to use dates or even years. The reworded paragraph I proposed used historical periods and broke apart the list so it did not appear to be exhaustive or exclusive. The table in the article I referred to tells us when a colony had definitely started and since the English colonists spoke English we could reasonably guess that the language "arrived" at that point. As to what "arrived" means, well I agree that it doesn't mean much in terms of coverage, but then again what percentage of the population should speak a language for it to be significant in that country? 75%? Oops, knock out the US. 100%? Oops, knock out the UK.

Anyway, there are no "tortured decisions" if we say the language spread from across Great Britain to Ireland between the 700s and 1500s. That's not contentious even if did not reach the farthest corners of those lands during that time (it still hasn't). To say that it reached the Americas during the Age of Discovery is also correct and avoids value judgements about the speed with which it spread (again, English is not universally used). That it continued to spread during the colonial era to reach Australasia, Africa and India is very general, but it definitely happened after the language had reached across the British Isles and America. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 82 > 75. —An gr 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, (215m(first language) / 281m (population)) x 100 = 76% Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, 76 > 75 too, even if that weren't bad math, which it is, because the 281m includes children under 5, while the 215m excludes them. Anyway, the 2005 estimate is down to 80.6%. But it's actually dangerous to equate this number with native English speakers, because (1) not everyone who speaks English at home in the U.S. is a native speaker, and (2) not everyone who is a native English speaker in the U.S. speaks English at home. —An gr 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do the children under 5 speak? Okay, only joking. Personally I think 80% is still relatively low but the point I was making is that the presented statistics are misleading. For example, some figures are relatively recent, some are nearly 20 years old. The world has changed quite a bit, even in that short space of time (e.g. random fact: apparently the French have given up speaking French at EU meetings and use English instead. Unthinkable until the internet came along.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What the first paragraph needs to say is something to the effect of “English is the language of the UK, whose former empire began the worldwide spread of the language, and of the US, whose cultural, economic and political influence continued the spread. In recent years the dominance of the language itself has furthered its spread.” Wiki-Ed’s rewording totally loses sight if this. Mentioning Australia, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand in the first paragraph is much less important; they are mentioned perhaps only because nobody can find a reason not to include them. —teb728 t c 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The use of English in the US is important not because it is spoken by xx% of the population but because it is language of cinema, television, government, and business. —teb728 t c 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Now that's funny. I edited something very similar into the article a few years ago. It now appears to have been moved to a section further down the page and replaced with the recent version, including this random list. My attempted rewording was designed to placate various parties, but I wouldn't object to what I originally wrote... :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one seems to oppose User:Teb728's suggestion so I have amended the intro accordingly. NB This wording was stable for a year or two and I've simply copied and pasted. The list only seems to be cause problems, as illustrated by recent reverts, so it's better if we remove it altogether. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wont opine the wording but the list is better moved out a bit to "Signifigance" or somewhere as is a better read than a list..? ~ R.T.G 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Verb Tenses

Hi, just wanted to check and see if there was an article on verb tenses, or if that would be warranted. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Grammatical tense, but it's not (or not supposed to be) specifically about English. —An gr 12:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So is that a green light or what? I just want to make sure if I start it won't be deleted while i'm in the middle of it.Spinach Monster (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why not; an article about Tense in English could be useful and interesting. Provided it's well supported with appropriate citations, doesn't read like a personal essay, etc, I'd be surprised if it were deleted.

The following Language Log posts may be useful, by the way, if you haven't already seen them:

[2]

[3]

[4]

They actually contradict the claim made in the Grammatical tense article that "Grammarians and linguists typically consider will to be a future marker and give English two non-inflected tenses, a future tense and a conditional, marked by will and would respectively". I suspect that most modern linguists would not even want to say that English has a non-inflected future tense garik (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Phonetics is not the same as phonology

The lists and characteristics of vowels and consonants is not Phonology but Phonetics. And Phonology is the science about how do sounds co-operate with each other in speech--Армонд^@ 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, phonology is the study of sound systems, which is not the same as the study how sounds co-operate with each other in speech (which is part of phonetics). However, I agree that the phonology section of this article contains more phonetic information than is necessary for an account of English phonology. garik (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History summary

Someone removed the history summary from the lead section. I am restoring it because, according to the MOS (WP:LEAD), the lead section should (after telling what the subject is and why it is notable) “briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” It recommends a lead of up to four paragraphs for an article of this length. This article should have if anything more summary not less. —teb728 t c 07:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Language code

This article states (in the info box on the top right) that there are no codes for the english language in any of the ISO standards 693-1, 693-2, and 693-3. However, the English wikipedia articles on these standards disagree, giving en, eng, eng respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.249 (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The codes were recently removed from the infobox, and I've restored them. —An gr 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

English and Zapotec

Is there a such thing as "Anglo-Zapotec"? Mixing English and Zapotec could make sense? --210.50.12.66 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious-sounding statement

From the lead:

Modern English developed from there and continues to adopt foreign words, especially from Latin and Greek.

Does this actually say what was intended? Does Modern English really "continue" to adopt significant numbers of words from Latin and Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.42.104 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "adopt" is not the right word for Latin and Greek. It adopts from modern languages; I think that from Latin and Greek it mostly continues to create new words from ancient roots. —teb728 t c 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) An example of a word recently taken from Greek is the self-exemplifying word "protologism." —teb728 t c 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One way that English takes on new words of Latin and Greek origins is in the coining of scientific, medical, and technical terminology. For instance, the word homosexual -- originally a psychological term -- is not an ancient Latin or Greek word; indeed, it's made of one Greek root and one Latin root. --FOo (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

teb728, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The current wording suggests to me that English is assimilating lots of ready-made "living" words from Latin and Greek. In the case of Latin this seems a weird idea since it's a dead language; in the case of Greek, well, I guess there must be some cases, but I wouldn't have thought enough to warrant the word "especially". 86.146.47.94 (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

English borrows words from Modern Greek all the time: tzatziki, dolmadaki, souvlaki, ... :-) —An gr 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard of any of those things. If you're making a serious point, though, then what you seem to be talking about is the sort of borrowing that goes on from a large number of modern languages. Similar examples could be cited from dozens probably. This sort of activity does not seem to warrant "especially from ... Greek". 86.161.41.37 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Since there have been no further comments, I've changed this to what seems to make sense to me. 86.150.100.38 (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

Philippines statistics

It seems there is a problem with the Philippines statistics in the table of English speaking countries. The percentage according to the given total numbers couldn't be R Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.14.48 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You can’t tell from the numbers given whether 52% percent is correct or not, because the total Philippine population is not given. If you divide the given English-speaking total, 45,900,000, by the 2007 census population, 88,574,614, the result is indeed 51.8%. Of course that is using different census years.

However, there does seem to be a problem with the Philippine statistics, for 42,500,000 27,000=42,527,000 not 45,900,000. —teb728 t c 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I added populations to the “Countries in order of total speakers” table. The exact number come from the references. The rounded numbers are back calculated from Total/Percent; in each case they are within 1.5% of the census figures reported in the articles. —teb728 t c 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

reference in "number of words"

The reference to this piece of information:

A survey by Joseph M. Williams in Origins of the English Language of 10,000 words taken from several thousand business letters gave this set of statistics:

namely :

Joseph M. Willams, Origins of the English Language at Amazon.com

is incomplete (no page number) and the link to Amazon.com is pointless and unjustified —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamsterE (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Section: geographical distribution

Quote: "English today is probably the third largest language by number of native speakers, after Mandarin Chinese and Spanish."

This is not accurate. Spanish has less native speakers than English and the reference links given (22 and 23) do not provide any proof for the claim that the Spanish language has more native speakers than English.

On the other hand, Hindi appears to have more native speakers than English - about 500-600 Million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.93.44 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

universal use

I looked up government statistics and it says Spanish is used more globally than English, let's elaborate this.--Sometimes i wonder the meaning (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What government statistics? Can you be more elaborate? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries_in_order_of_total_speakers inaccurate?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Countries_in_order_of_total_speakers>

Appears to be inaccurate. Citation 47 suggests that 51% of Germany can speak English. With a population of ~ 82 million <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany>, gives a figure of ~ 42 million English speakers, placing it between Philippines and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.103.216 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But they are practically all second language speakers so its an apples and oranges comparison. Roger (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure English is the first language for most Singaporeans? Wouldn't a Chinese dialect be their first language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.22.198 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ireland and New Zealand be ahead of Singapore?Barney Hill (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the dubious unsourced Singapore entry. —teb728 t c 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

...and for that matter in the paragraph above, shouldn't New Zealand be alongside South Africa with 1st language of about 3.7 million speakers (aprox 4.25 million Kiwis, of whom 4.02 mill filled in at least part of the 2006 Census, which was; 3,673,679 English, 81,936 not English, too young 75,195, no response to that question 196,221, illegible 588, irrelevant 378. It seems safe to assume most who did not fill in that census question, or any of the census form also speak English as a first language. In the 3 years since the census the poulation ahs continued to grow, more by birth than immigration, although most immigration has been from English speaking countries. So it seems likely that the English First language population of NZ would be somewhere between 3.7 and 4 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.1.141 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of French loan-words

The article reads: "The pronunciation of most French loanwords in English (with exceptions such as mirage or phrases like coup d’état) has become completely anglicised and follows a typically English pattern of stress." This statement should be removed, because, as it is, it is completely unverifiable. Moreover, French words tend to be less anglicized in American English as they are in British English: 'garage' in the U.S. is pronounced as it would be in French, for example. --128.36.170.91 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand it's a completely true statement for both American and British English. Consider for instance the pronunciation of the follow words of French origin: forest, mountain, lake, tempest, entire, probable, rare, visible, air, pronunciation, table, letter, warranty, source, consider (and some thousands more). I vote for keeping the statement. Aaker (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

US role in spreading language prior to Second World War

This statement in the intro had a "citation needed" tag. This is correct as claim is not easily verifiable. The US did not play a significant role in spreading the English language until it broke its non-interventionist stance in the middle of the Twentieth century. It's role in the Spanish-American war was hardly significant in this context; if you think differently you'll need to provide a source. I should point out that the article read as it does now until it was altered with no explanation by User:23prootie here in April. We either keep the non-controversial version or restore the citation-needed tag. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as a non-interventionist stance is relevant here, it was “broken” (if it ever existed) long before the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles and the Second World War: Monroe Doctrine 1823, Mexican–American War 1846, Opening of Japan 1854, anexation of Hawaii 1898, Spanish–American War 1998, not to mention meddling in the Mexican revolution. Of course most of that had little influence on the English language. But the annexation of Hawaii, the Phillipines, and Guam made English an official language in each place, making the United States similar to the British Empire (though on a smaller scale). —teb728 t c 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-interventionist in the sense that the US did not get involved (in the 19th century) in European affairs while European nations were interfering in every other continent of the world. Of the non-American examples you gave Hawaii had already been under British influence (check the flag) for some time; Guam is pretty small; the Phillipines - okay that's probably valid - but I don't think it's really comparable to the scale of British influence (the Empire was at its largest extent) at the time. US influence expanded massively after WW2 - television, radio, various garrisons around the world... that is not contestable. The contrast between pre-war and post-war involvement is notable, as is the corresponding reduction in British influence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - just noticed - Japan - British influence was stronger in the late 19th and early 20th century - the Anglo-Japanese alliance led to them (unfortunately) developing the navy that took control of the Pacific in the early 1940s. Post-war naturally the US influence was stronger and now they use Aegis cruisers and play baseball etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the US acquired the Philippines from Spain as the result of the Spanish-American War. They did not just sail there one day and conquer it for no reason, something the Europeans did do. - BillCJ (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Although I don't think the claim was controversial I've added some sources for this sentence. I've also corrected the subsequent tag re linguar franca - but I have to say whoever added that was being very lazy - it's thoroughly referenced in the first paragraph of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal written English

This section says, "Local variations in the formal written version of the language are quite limited, being restricted largely to the spelling differences between British and American English", which omits some important differences:

meanings of words. "rubber" = "eraser" in BE and "condom" in AE. BE's "pavement" = AE's "sidewalk" and AE's "pavement" = BE's "road surface" (a matter of life and death to pedestrians). For other examples see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone#USA_publication_and_reception. BE "inflammable" = AE "flammable", AE "inflammable" = BE "non-inflammable" (another matter of life and death).
grammar. AE generally uses forms that are considered archaic in BE, e.g. "gotten", "an hotel". --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard an American say "an hotel"; I think you're thinking of "an herb". And "inflammable" is generally avoided in American English as potentially ambiguous; we use "flammable" and "nonflammable". An gr 07:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "inflammable" and "flammable" has nothing to do with British/US differences. On both sides of the Atlantic, dictionaries treat them as synonyms: they both mean "capable of being set on fire". Granted, some people on both sides of the Atlantic do use, and interpret, "inflammable" as "unlikely to catch fire", which is why "flammable" is getting more common in both. But that use of inflammable still isn't considered standard anywhere. As for the Harry Potter thing: the philosopher's stone is called the same thing in the US; the only reason the title of the novel was changed was because of a (hopefully mistaken) assumption by American publishers that the word "philosopher" would mislead children and discourage them from buying the book. The only British/US differences mentioned in the section you link to are mum/mam/mom (which is irrelevant to formal written English) and crumpet/muffin. Probably the prototypical example of formal written English would be an academic paper and, in general, if you read an academic paper in English, there are few linguistic clues, apart from spelling, that indicate where it was written. I've edited the article, however, to note that there are a few lexical and grammatical differences. garik (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

PAGE VADALIZED!

someone has vandalized this page to one sentance, someone needs to restore it! - User:Sonicobbsessed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.8.172 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been sorted. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken External Link to "The Global English Survey Project"

The last External Link "The Global English Survey Project - A survey tracking how non-native speakers around the world use English", is broken. Page no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.35.247 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 July 2009

Difference between US and UK language

While English language is identical between two countires, there can be a difference. UK has some words that are not spoken from USA, and it sounds completely different, even if it does sound a lot in English. What I want to know is that, what is the difference between British English and American English language. JMBZ-12 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen American and British English differences and the other articles in the series (see the navbox on the right side of that article for links)? An gr 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did'nt know. Thanks for pointing me out. JMBZ-12 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

English did not arrive with the Anglo-Saxons

Could someone comment on the claim that English did not arrive in the British Isles with the Anglo-Saxons? There seems to be an increasing body of evidence for this assertion (see for example [5]) However, I would like an educated opinion on its feasibility - also, should it at least be mentioned in the article - even if only as an alternative theory? Granitethighs (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's generally viewed in the field as rather a fringe theory. Most people, as I understand it, don't consider the evidence to be very strong for anything more than small Germanic settlements before around the sixth century. There may be an argument for discussing it in the History of English article, but I don't think it's mainstream enough yet to warrant inclusion in this one. garik (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, an anon, 195.153.241.116, has been rather persistent lately in adding Stephen Oppenheimer’s theory on the origin of English. He is mistaken if he thinks I am the only one who will revert him. This theory has been discussed already in this archived sections of this talk page, and there is a consensus that it is a WP:FRINGE theory that does not belong here. —teb728 t c 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxons came from the continent with their dialects. The English of today is a German dialect with many French loanwwords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.73.255 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What you say is correct except that English is a Germanic language (like Frisian and Dutch) not a German dialect (like Thuringian and Alemannic).

I have to agree that English is a Germanic language because it has an army and a navy, although for a German speaker English is easier to understand then Thuringian or Saxon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.110.214 (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to 95.112.110.214 England, as part of the the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth) has an army, a navy AND an Air Force. Events of July - September 1940 noted :-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.1.141 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of thinking about the language, you dream about long bygone times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.228.198 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Saxony is and was a small part of Germany and not England

I don't see how a language can develop with a English Channel in between the two locations where it is alleged to have done so. It is more likely that English originated on the island of England that anywhere on European main land. Also the concept of "west germanic" origin for the English language strikes me as lingering cold war propaganda. Saxony is actually northern Germany not western. Skeptical Dude (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already made suggestions to this user at User talk:Skeptical Dude#Accusations in so-far-fruitless attempts to explain the situation. If he won't bother to read and understand the Anglo-Saxon England and Anglo-Saxons articles, which do explain this apparent contradiction, then I don't know what else can be done here. It's hard to continue to extend good faith when the answer is so simple and apparent, if one just makes a little effort to learn. If English is not his first language, then there are probably relevant articles in his own language's wiki that he can be directed to read. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that Saxony isn't on the island of England. The Anglo-Saxons article contains errors and those errors shouldn't be allowed to infect other articles. Skeptical Dude (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The text should read something like "Anglo Saxon Europe" and not "Anglo-Saxon England" because the latter is simply errant. The article should do a much better job of disassociating ethnicity from geographical location. A language is not likely to develop if the two sub locations involved are separated by an English channel especially in the first millenium A.D. when sea travel was less than it was at other times. Isn't it also a fact that old english originated in England? The entire concept of "anglo-saxon" might be flawed and errant, wikipedia editors should investigate this. Skeptical Dude (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to the article. In light of BilCat's repeated explanations to you, I cannot that your change as a good faith error. The Anglo-Saxons lived in England not in Saxony. In particular Anglo-Saxon Saxons lived in Wessex, Sussex, and Essex in southern England. If you seriously don't understand that, read Anglo-Saxon England. By the way, if you seriously think the West Germanic languages have something to do with western Germany, read that article too. —teb728 t c 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You use the word "explanations" errantly. It is a fact that Saxony is a part of Germany and my valid complaint is that this article should not confuse alleged ethnicity with geographical locations. Skeptical Dude (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe you're serious with this ridiculous point. Assuming you are, however, here is a summary of why your point is irrelevant: The Germanic tribes who settled in England (and Scotland) during the first millennium AD were chiefly members, or descendants, of three tribes: the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. They became known, and are still referred to, collectively as the Anglo-Saxons; the territory they occupied in the area we now know as England (after the Angles) is referred to as Anglo-Saxon England for this reason. It also happens that there is an area of Germany called Saxony; it is called so because it was named after the Saxons. References to Anglo-Saxon England should not be taken to refer to that area of Germany; nor are such references plausibly misleading. It is, moreover, standard usage. All of this would also be the case had the tribe of Saxons been named after the geographical area. In neither case is it unreasonable to refer to two different places with the word "Saxon". Now can we get on with sensible discussions relevant to actually improving the article? garik (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Saxony (in fact, today, Lower Saxony), there's also a place called Angeln in Germany, and a place called Jutland in Denmark. Why is Skeptical Dude singling out Saxony? ðarkun coll 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? The more I think about it, the more I think he's just trolling. garik (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffentiation query

I came across this sentence in the article on English Language, in the section "Classification and related languages":

Preference of one synonym over another can also cause a diffentiation in lexis, even where both words are Germanic.........

I am not familiar with the word "diffentiation", and I can't find it in my Oxford English Dictionary. I wonder if perhaps this is a typo for "differentiation", and if so could it be changed?

Solaricon (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "differentiation" is the only sensible fit - I'll fix it. Roger (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Table is wrong

The table on the right ranks English as the 4th most Spoken language in terms of Native Speakers. It uses a source by Ethnologue from 1999. That is way outdated. Here is a 2009 update by Ethologue:

http://www.ethnologue.org/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size

In fact, according to this updated source English is the 3rd most spoken language in terms of native speakers, after Chinese and Spanish (by the skin of a tooth). Someone should update it. Upps.

I have updated it. Actually Ethnologue, 1999 also had English 3rd. This article changed it to 4th with this edit, which apparently was based on another article rather than the cited source. —teb728 t c 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

English not the official language of the United Kingdom

I'm sorry but yes English is the official language of the United Kingdom, de facto, so please can someone change this. (Friendly Ed 18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly Ed (talk • contribs)

Do you have a published reliable source that verifies that? (By the way, if you have “Sign my name exactly as shown” checked in your preferences, you should probably uncheck it. It prevents links to your userpage and talkpage, which is why SineBot had to provide them.) —teb728 t c 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom on the side bar under languages, and I shall change the preferences. (Friendly Ed (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, please read WP:RS. CheersJeppiz (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But the line he refers to in that article is sourced, with notes. - BilCat (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting kind of tired of pointing this out, but if it is only de facto the national language (which it is), then by definition it is not the official language, since "official" means de jure. An gr 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It simply is de facto official, it is used by an overwhelming majority. A small proportion my use gaelic/scots/welsh etc as their principle languages, but the governement gives all documents in English and some also with another translation. Sainsbury's does not have its products in welsh in London for example, whereas it does have its products in English in Wales. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 17:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I point out that the notes regarding this (49,50) are not directed to the English language in the United Kingdom, but to the English Language in the United States.(Friendly Ed (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

"Do you have a published reliable source that verifies that?" A simple Google search english official language uk throws back these as merely the first few results:

"One of the fundamental fabricator and symbol of culture an didentity is laguage. English was the official language of the new UK state and bilingualism was not yet common in much of Ireland and Wales." - Human geography of the UK: an introduction By Irene Hardill, David T. Graham, Eleonore Kofman, Routldege:London, 2001, p. 137
"Country with one official language: (English) UK" -Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 15 By Peter Haggett, Marshall Cavendish: New York, 2001
"In the context of this research, English is especially important as it is the primary official language in South Africa and the official language in the UK." - Migration for Development: Within and Beyond Frontiers By International Organization for Migration, United Nations Organisation: New York, 2006 Page 148

The United Kingdom's legal system is entirely common law. Whereas most other countries would have a law specifically stating "the official language is X", under the UK's legal system de factro = de jure. That may be the source of this common misunderstanding. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, perhaps then a rewrite is needed in order to prevent future confusion. But you can see the confusion it causes to readers, quoting Angr "I'm getting kind of tired of pointing this out", this backs the point that this section needs rewritting, can someone put the message out there?Friendly Ed (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

I think a bit of a cleanup is needed: a number of the references are just privately-run websites that aren't third-party published reliable sources up to WP:RS. I'm looking at anglik.net, englishlanguageexpert.com, spiritus-temporis.com, oxfordseminars.com, usefoundation.org and us-english.org. 86.139.143.149 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think agree with you on this, if you mean to say that the current sources given are not from well trusted sources, for example, Oxford University, Cambridge University or for speakers of the American dialect; Websters. I would propose the removal of those sites, as frankly they are not reputable. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar error on this page

"none of the other languages is mutually intelligible with English"

Shouldn't this be "none of the other languages are mutually intelligible with English"? 195.177.83.221 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In real life, both are correct. In pedantically ultra-correct grammar, only is is correct (because "none" means "not one", so it's "supposed to" take singular agreement). An gr 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

But "languages" is plural - so do whatever feels right for you. Roger (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only is is correct as per "none of the other languages" is the nominal group. One can resolve as to whether none or languages is the subject with little difficulty. Try the sentence with only one of them, "none is mutually intelligible with English" or "languages is mutually intelligible". Clearly, the first is correct, therefore it's correct to say: "none of the other languages is mutually intelligible with English" --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The "none" vs "languages" question is a bit of a red herring. Île_flottante is right to note that, at least for most speakers (and in standard dialects) the verb agrees with "none", not "languages". The important question, however, is whether "None are mutually intelligible" or "None is mutually intelligible" is preferable. As Angr says, both are fine. There's a bit of a myth out there (which Angr mentions) that, as none is derived etymologically from no one, agreement should be singular. This is an example of an etymological fallacy. In modern usage, both singular and plural agreement are perfectly fine. garik (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So, it's agreed that both are correct, therefore we can conclude that nothing requires fixing. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per The Little, Brown Handbook, Third Edition (1986):

A few indefinite pronouns like all, none, and some may be either singular or plural in meaning. The verbs you use with the pronouns depend on the meaning of the nouns or pronouns they refer to. (p. 200)

Now this is from an American Grammar textbook. Since this articleis written in British English, it should follow British English rules if they differ from US English rules. However, none of the above have cited sources - it's all personal opinion as written. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "pedantically ultra-correct" to treat "none" as singular. Anyone trying to make a case for "none... are", please say out loud the following: "Are everyone happy??" or "Everything are fine." There are similar issues there.

"none... are" is an easy error to make (I do it all the time) and easy to overlook (as in miss, or as in forgive) -- I do that all the time to. But I'm hardly being "pedantically ultra-correct" to prefer the singular. That said, while "none of us is prepared to..." is correct, I'm sure I would say "Are none of us prepared..." in the question form, just because "is none of us" simplysounds absurd. ("Is not one of us" would be the best substitute I guess.)

The best argument for "None is mutually intellible" is simply that it's consistent with typical perceptions of correctness, and it's not awkward to read or say, and does no harm. IMO, it would be more "hyper-corrective" to "correct" something that's not incorrect to begin with, by any known standard. 72.229.55.176 (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But "none are mutually intelligible" is also not awkward to read or say and also does no harm. And it's consistent with usage by respected writers. The only reason to prefer "none is" here is that that's what's already there, so there's no need to change it, as you say. So let's all leave it at that. garik (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

British English

What is with the banner instructing us to only use British English? A lot of English speakers do not know how to write or even communicate in British English. Also, British English articles are always the only one's with a banner that instructs editors to use their version. Brits do not have to be nazis with the English language. Repiceman89 (talk 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. See Talk:Poison dart frog for just one example of a talk page with the {{American English}} template on it. There are plenty of others. The differences are not all that big of a deal; mostly color/colour kind of stuff. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would guarantee you there is a lot more Brit ones and I believe you just showed me an obscure one of the few American pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. not a lot more. Hundreds of articles tagged British, fewer hundreds tagged American. Roughly 0.03% of wikipedia articles even have either of those two tags. I didn't count the Australian, Canadian, South African, and the other forms. You don't like obscure? Try Talk:Plastic then, or Talk:The Simpsons. There really are a boatload of others. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I am satisfied haha, Thanks. Repiceman89 (talk 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To say that English is a West German language in somewhat misleading. This would be interchangeable with Belgic a Celtic dialect found straddling Germany and France. To say it came at the time of the so called Anglo-Saxon invasion is disputed by Roman and later place-name studies. It is likely a dialect was present in England and Southern Scotland as early as the Celtic invasions after 1000BC. It seems with the spread of iron working from southern Germany {Celtic Halstat] it arrived long before the time period cited. Local nationalism have played a big part to disguise this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.147.107 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what is actually written. There is a very significant difference between German and Germanic. Roger (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I know this type of "info" can be frustrating, but please try be civil. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited my response - apologies for causing offence. I think I need to take a break from editing for a while and/or prune my watchlist. Roger (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Certain Brythonic languages such as Welsh and Cornish are descended from the Celtic languages existing in southern Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. English however is clearly a West-Germanic language, with all evidence suggesting it was brought over during precisely the same period as the arrival of the aforementioned Germanic invaders (the Anglo-Saxons); 2 2 = 4. Indeed its closest extant relatives are another set of West-Germanic languages: the Frisian languages. Also your point about Roman place-names is bizarre; surely the appearance of a massive number of Angle/Saxon/Jute place-names during this period are good evidence for an Anglo-Saxon invasion, whilst of course some earlier Roman and Celtic place-names would persist. Dare I suggest your bizarre and inaccurate suggestions are based on an Anglophobic mindset.... Brunanburh (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's anglophobic. I've heard this idea before, and my impression is that it appeals to English people and English speakers who don't like the idea that their language is a relative late-comer to Britain; if English has been in Britain as long as Welsh (as this editor is implying), then this gives a certain boost to the English sense of identity. However, as you say, there's really not much evidence for it. It's certainly plausible that there were speakers of Germanic languages in Britain before the big Anglo-Saxon invasion/occupation/settlement—for example as Roman soldiers and mercenaries. However, we're talking isolated individuals, not large numbers. There's no evidence that immigrants of this sort had any significant impact. garik (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Table: "Countries in order of total speakers" does not list China

I find it hard to believe that China with 6 years of mandatory English study and 200 million students currently studying English has fewer than 18 million (Australia) fluent speakers (versus users which I understand as a concept). Even as a second language most estimates I have seen show at least 90 million "speakers" and over 200 million in the "user" category. Even if these figures are highly flawed there should be at least 18 million, which would put it somewhere in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable published source that gives the actual number of people that speak it as a first language and as an additional language. Content in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. —teb728 t c 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that China has way more than 18 million English speakers. The information listed as a source that India has a greater number of English speakers was from two articles published in 2004 and 2006. In the table, the data on the number of English speakers in India cites sources as a census from 2003 and another article from 2004 and the column itself says "1991 figures. The US Data was from the Census in 2000, where common knowledge knows that the population of the United States is greater than 300 million (where the 2000 Census says 260 million). Basically, the information there is very outdated and language growth can change greatly during that time, especially from the "Teach English Programs" from the 2008 Olympics. I have searched for nearly an hour on Google and Bing and I cannot find a single reliable statistic on the number of English speakers in China. Simply let it be known that China does indeed have more than 18 million (the minimum) English speakers and should be somewhere on that table.

P.S. A rather funny source logs Jay Leno quipping last year that there are more English speakers in China than in the US.

Dragoneye776 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It still needs to be cited from a reliable source. That is poincy. If you can find reliable, more up-to-date sources, then good. - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with "Basic and Simplified Versions"

In the section "Basic and Simplified Versions", it says:

Simplified English has a lexicon of approved words and those words can only be used in certain ways. For example, the word close can be used in the phrase "Close the door" but not "do not go close to the landing gear".

As a native speaker, this sounds bizarre to me. Aren't "close" and "close" two different words? They are spelt the same, but pronounced differently (in NZ at least), and I assume they have different, or at least diverging, etymologies. They're not even the same part of speech!

121.98.145.129 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago, someone tried to simplify English, which is already a simple language. This was known as simple English, sadly there is also a wikipedia in it! It should not be cited, as the author of this bizzare artificial dialect bears no authority over English speakers. Of course, in this matter, I take no trouble to hide my point of view, and thus refrain from editing any more than typos on pages regarding such things. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem

The introduction of the page goes as follows:

"As a result of the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural influence of the British Empire during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, and of the United States since the mid 20th century, it has become the lingua franca in many parts of the world."

I cannot agree with this description, because it leaves the idea that English is the modern universal language because of England. But that's totally wrong. During all that time while Britain ruled the world, university books were printed in Latin and diplomats learned French. English was never the international language during Britain's rule. It turned into the world's lingua franca only after World War 2, when Britain had been wrecked by Hitler and America become the world's superpower; that is, English became the world language totally because of the USA and not because of Britain at all.

I think the text should be replaced like this (or maybe a bit edited):

"Because the rise of the USA as the world's superpower during the mid 20th century, and to a lesser extent, due to British influence during the 18th and 19th century, English has become the international language in most of the world."

Crystaltower (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the early part of the 20th century the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population, so to diminish it's role in English becoming the lingua franca in many parts of the world is frankly ridiculous. Clearly both the British Empire AND the rise of the USA as a world superpower played significant roles in the growth in prominence of the English language. So I think saying "to a lesser extent, due to British influence " in your proposed edit would be inaccurate. Anyway, lets not start a pointless Britain/England vs the USA contest as on so many discussion pages on Wikipedia! Brunanburh (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

English language, Nigeria and Geographical distribution

There are more people who speak English in Nigeria than New Zealand, South Africa and Australia put together, shouldn't Nigeria be represented in this diagram?Ukabia (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The pie chart lists "native English speakers", that is, speakers of English as a first language, not total speakers of English. According to the table atEnglish language#Countries in order of total speakers, there are 3-5 million speakers of English as a first language. If the pie chart listed total speakers of English, then India would be there also. - BilCat (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But the table also states that English is a first language for 4 million Nigerians, more than New Zealand. Ukabia (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they are both part of hte "other" in the pie chart. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

UKUSA?

I went ahead and split UKUSA into UK and USA

This matches the overall theme of the list as well: The UK is a conglomerate of governments brought together. So is the United States - multiple states brought together under a federal umbrella. Hence the U - for United - as the first character in either of their names. Zaphraud (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have clicked on UKUSA first. It's an organization/agreement, not a country. Also, Template talk:English language is a better place to discuss the template, as it's not actually a part of this article. I had to look at your contributions to find out what you wer talking about. -BilCat (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. It looked like a linefeed omission error because the organization/agreement has a separating dash; previously when I clicked on it, it had linked to a redirect. Seems like the template isn't used too many places either - two links to the template in talk pages, and its transcluded only here and in someone's talk page, so I figured if this template mattered, it only mattered here, right? Zaphraud (talk)

OK, that makes sense. In the future, if you could specify the template, that would be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A language in flux

The Internet is fascinating in more than one ways. One of these is the variety of language use — English in this case of course. For the purposes of my question here, another one is that it seems to me that we are observing the language change "live". An example from the article Guthrum.

Guthrum may have succeeded in conquering all of Wessex if he had not suffered a defeat at the hands of Alfred at the Battle of Edington in 878. (Boldface mine)

Those of us who learnt English as a foreign language were taught to use might instead.

Another example: Once upon a time, the words "well known" went like this, when declined for comparison: "Well known" — "better known" — "best known". Now "well known" is as likely to be treated as a single word ("well-known")and the comparison goes "well-known" — "more well-known" — "most well-known". And the same goes for "less" and "least".

Since Wikipedia is one of the largest accessible text corpora in English, nobody can help but notice.

Could an expert find it in his heart to write something (preferably fully) about contemporary or, if you prefer, ongoing change in English? All the best 85.220.111.211 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"May have succeeded" is simply wrong. It conveys a different meaning (we do not know whether or not he succeeded) than "might have succeeded" (perhaps possibly at the time, but contrary to what did actually happen). I just fixed it in the article. The ongoing change in English is an enormous topic; is there an existing article on it? With some quick looking I found Modern English and History of English which don't really do it justice. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so. "May" would be OK if the context were "We've lost all historical records of Wessex. Guthrum may have succeeded in conquering it, but there's no way to tell". But for the reality - we know he didn't, and are just kicking around the idea that he could have if he hadn't been defeated - "might" is correct. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But one sees such things and others so often, that one wonders, whether we are witnessing a language changing right before our eyes. (More well-known and most well-known are an examples which especially irritate me.) Or are we just seeing what always has been, that people use language with different skill, now that almost everybody writes about something without the proofreading of the paper age? All the best 85.220.111.211 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Map - Why is South Africa dark blue?

English is an official language (one of eleven!) but first language speakers are a tiny minority - see Languages of South Africa. According to the criteria in the caption it should be light blue. Roger (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the correct map that shows South Africa in light blue.

I don't know how to place it in the infobox. Please help!!! Roger (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox to use that image. Unfortunately I cannot fix the one on Template:English official language clickable map yet because it is a clickable image that needs to have its coordinates modified at the same time (I'm not aware of any quick or easy solution for this; hopefully someone else will comment). Sorry for the late response. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the caption on {{English official language clickable map}}, dark blue there indicates "Countries and territories where English is spoken natively by a significant population," which does describe South Africa (if you consider 8.2% significant). So, as far as that goes, the map there is correct. - htonl (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But the caption that appears here in the infobox in this article says dark blue is for countries with an English speaking majority - now the map and the caption agree. Thanks! Roger (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rise of English as a global language/lingua franca?

This is related to the section above this one. Specifically:

"As a result of the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural influence of the British Empire during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, and of the United States since the mid 20th century, it has become the lingua franca in many parts of the world."

The person above has claimed that Britain didn't actively spread English throughout its empire (I think at least India would disagree with that). But the whole "US as world's superpower" argument feels forced and self-important to me. Then the problem that I'm seeing is that maybe people have forgotten that the US wasn't the world's only superpower after WWII; the superpower argument glosses over the fact that English is more widespread than Russian (as far as I know, anyway). So if the US was a major contributor to English's global use, then one of the following must be true:

Being a superpower wasn't the sole reason behind English's propagation (or the USSR, as a superpower, would have caused Russian to spread just as far), and our explanation needs elaboration.
The USSR chose not to spread its language around, and thus we'd have to note that the US had actively spread English (relative to the USSR).
When we say English is the world's lingua franca we're excluding former soviet bloc nations from our definition of "the world".
English has only become lingua franca since the downfall of the USSR, which is to say in the last twenty years and not the last three hundred years.
Our fundamental assumption (that Britain's influence was minor) is incorrect, but even then the explanation of the US's role feels insufficient. When, pray tell, did English become the lingua franca?

Either way, it's an incongruity that should be addressed.

KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

English was a global language long before the USSR collapsed. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The text Khaaaaaan quoted from the article states "As a result of the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural influence", not, "as a result of being a military superpower". As such, the quote is not incorrect on either the UK or the US. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, maybe I should stop combining sleep deprivation and Wikipedia. XP

I should have used this quote from the section "Significance": "The growing economic and cultural influence of the United States and its status as a global superpower since World War II have significantly accelerated the language's spread across the planet."

Its source document has this to say: "The story of English in the 20th century has been closely linked to the rise of the US as a superpower that has spread the English language alongside its economic, technological and cultural influence."

So let's forget the lingua franca argument for now. The problem with all of this is that the word "superpower" has nothing to do with your economy, your technology, nor your culture. Being a superpower means you have the ability to project military power on a global scale, not that you have the ability to dictate the languages that a region speaks. The US (as far as I am aware) did not go on a world tour with a convoy of nuclear arms, forcing countries to institute mandatory ESL programs.

No, instead the world decided to connect to the USA's Internet, and we openly welcomed it. Ever heard of DARPA? Zaphraud (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And from the lingua franca article: "In the latter half of the 20th century, its widespread use was mostly due to the military, economic, and cultural dominance of the United States of America."

It doesn't cite any sources for anything regarding English, so I guess everyone in the world just takes America's complete military, economic, and cultural dominance for granted (disclaimer: I am an American). The point of all this is that the Significance section reeks of ambiguous self-importance. As far as the article presents it, this is history:

"America has invented the nuclear bomb. Let us adopt English lest they become displeased and turn THE POWER OF THE ATOM against us."

"Look at these delightful American Hollywood cinema films. Let us adopt English so that we may better appreciate them in their native tongue."

"Look at America's economy, it is righteous and strong. Let us adopt English so that we are not smoten by Alan Greenspan's mighty and terrible fist."

All these vague and inaccurate terms just serve to obscure the real importance of the US in spreading English which is... well, actually I don't know, because I've only ever seen people allude to vague and inaccurate concepts in describing it. From the point of view of any citizen of a non-English speaking country in, say, 1986, what reason would I have for teaching it to my children?

KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can challenge the reliability of the source, and or its author, David Graddol, who's not an American. At this point, it appears to be what WP considers a reliable source. Your own opinoins aren't enough to disagree with the source. You'd need a reliable source to do so, or to at least provide a counterpoint to the source's view. - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a particularly silly thing to debate given that the wikipedia you are reading right now is being served to you over a network that grew out of a US military networking protocol. Read up on the history of the internet - the "web" is just user interface fluff on top of the real network backbone. I believe that is what the article is referring to. It's not the might of the nuclear bomb that spread English, rather, the robustness of the networking ideology that the US defense industry developed in order that it actually be able to survive attacks from same type of nuclear weapon. Zaphraud (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the intro is heavily sourced because someone stuck a citation-needed tag on it last April.[6] The topic is addressed in the article on Lingua Franca and the sources connected to that - it is not solely or even primarily military power which is responsible, although it does play a role. In the past military power protected traders and they spread the language. Today the internet is actually a good example because the military network infrastructure provides a vector for the cultural dissemination of the language by websites such as this. However, happy co-incidence, while the network itself was based on US military infrastructure, the interface we use for communicating was designed by an Englishman. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read the bizarre point of KHAAAAAAAAAAN, and i can only infer his/her English isn't the best and didn't understand the sentence. It sums up how English spread perfectly well. A fifth grader knows the English spread their language throughout the world..you only need to take a look at the map of the British Empire and compare the map on this page of English speaking nations... almost identical. At its peak the British Empire contained over a quarter of the worlds population who were anglicized as a result (as had those who had previously been part of the Empire namely the US). So, the sentence sums up that from the 18th century Britain spread the English language (to the US, Canada, Australia, India, Caribbean, South Africa etc.), and subsequently since the mid 20th the US has. Mike in Aus (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Map - European Union

Should not the map be refined to include the role of English as an official language of the European Union? Imperium Europeum (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

English did not arrive with the Anglo-Saxons, again

We have an IP user continually adding info based on a self-published site. Per previous consensus in this archived discussion, this idea is considered a fringe theory, and as such does not belong in this article. The IP is welcome to discuss the issue here, and gain a consensus for it's inclusion. However, continued reversion of this material before a clear consensus to allow it has been reached will be treated as disruptive, and the user will be warned for each subsequent violation. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all that, but I struggle to see why you object to the content you removed here. It seems well sourced, and if anything argues against the fringe theory you mention above. Your edit summary also suggested you were restoring content, not removing it.

I do apologise for my terse edit summary when I restored it. I had not followed the details of all the recent edits, and assumed the IP had deleted it and that this had been missed. If I'd realised you were the one who had removed it, I would have come here first, or at least given a more explicit edit summary. -- Avenue (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry about the quick revert. I removed what I did because it introduced an equivocation I felt was unjustified. Most reputable sources state the Fifth Centuray as the earliest for the introduction of the Anglo-Saxon languages, and I don't feel we need to allow for an earlier time. However, if the consensus is to allow it, then that's fine with me. I don't think we have a specific article that deals with the theories for an earlier introduction, and that might be an appropriate subject to create an articel for. However, that's beyond my ability at the moment, and my expertise. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The presence of Latin alongside Brythonic is a slight digression, but I think it's interesting and relevant enough to include, especially as we have a good source for it. Is this phrase the equivocation you object to? "Although the linguistic situation of Roman Britain is not clear, ..." I would be happy to remove everything up to "before" from that sentence, if it would make you happier. -- Avenue (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Although the linguistic situation of Roman Britain is not clear, ..." COME ON LOL...--It is incredible (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello everybody,

I am trying to write an article about an initiative called "English as first foreign language initiative" I am still having trouble with moderators ... I think I might have some elements that might interest you ... Like this map

Can you tell me what is wrong with my article ?

Thank you Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi.mrabet (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid this isn't the right place to answer questions like this (this page is for discussions about improving this article), but I've answered your question on your talk page. garik (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have got your message and I understand ... I think that I could add a section about "English language and Economic development" in your article, stressing the importance English has today in the world economy and the "English divide" between the countries using it and those who are not ... What do you think about it ? --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for that information (not your own website), sure. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the need for multiple and reliable sources, but what is wrong with the study on www.englishffl.org ? It is noticing the results of the study that started the initiative in the first place ... If the reality was more favourable it would be better for the initiaitve itself ... For my wisdom can you enumerate the things you deem unreliable in that study ? I'm feeling a little like witchhunt lately ... Thanks --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell it is because you are not being published by a third party with a reputation for fact checking, such as a peer reviewed academic journal or a major international newspaper. Please read the reliable sources guideline for specifics. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The pie chart

The segments of the pie chart do not correspond to population figures as documnented on the country pages of each country, even taking into account the percentage of people that speak English as a fisrt language. The number of speakers in South Africa is wrong - that figure would represent ALL people who speak English, which is not the logic being followed for Canada and Australia. Second, the legend on the pie chart refers to "dialects". --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland appears twice in the list of places that use English, once where it should be and once between the US and the UK. I don't have the option of fixing it myself.(90.219.214.188 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Done Thanks for pointing that out, I've made the fix. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary section

Are "come" and "arrive" really synonyms? You can come without arriving, and you can arrive even when you go, rather than come. They have pretty distinct meanings, as opposed the other two pairs, which are much closer by comparison. I'm inclined to remove them for that reason, but I wanted to see what others thought. 75.100.246.98 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And I just realized I can't remove it anyway, so moot point. 75.100.246.98 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.162.118.76, 15 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} add http://www.writeenglish.org to reference links 10 reasons to learn English writing good motiviational article by carmen saunders 217.162.118.76 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: site not contributing, and possible conflict of interest. jonkerz ♠ 01:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The English Language

     English is a west Germanic language that arose in England.

Importance of English in International BusinessItalic text'

While English is not the most widely spoken language in the world when you look at it in terms of the number of native speakers, it is the world's most prominent language. While a larger number of people speak Chinese, that language is largely confined to China.

English on the other hand, is spoken around the world. It has been estimated that out of the roughly 6 billion people that are alive today about 350 million speak English. When you look at the importance of English for International Business, you must look at more than just the number of people who speak it. You must also look at what the language is used for.

English is the ideal language for many governments around the world, and it is also prominent in business, education, world news, and communication. In addition to this, Western pop culture is also carried to foreign countries in the form of music or movies. If you wish to be successful in International business, learning English is incredibly important. In many places such as Asia, Africa, and South America, the ability to learn English will determine who will increase their living standards, and who will remain in poverty. There are a number of powerful tools that have allowed more people to learn English than ever before. One of these tools is the Internet.

The Power of the Internet in Spreading English

Before the Internet, it was hard for you to learn English if you didn't attend a college or university. These were the only institutions where the language was widely spoken. If you lived in a community so poor that it didn't have a college or university, your chances of ever learning English were remote. While many people still live in these circumstances today, the Internet has allowed the English language to spread around the word. Because the Internet was invented in the West, English was inherently built into it. Because Internet usage has expanded throughout the world, more people are being exposed to English.

The advent of online universities has now made it possible for more people to learn English, people who may live in countries where access to standard education facilities is limited. While it may have been impossible for these people to learn English in the past, the Internet has opened up new career opportunities. These people are now able to learn English, and they can use their English skills to get better paying jobs at home, or they can use them to find jobs overseas. In any event, the Internet has played a powerful role in allowing English to spread across the world, and the number of people learning it is likely to increase in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munjid abu saleh (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a direct quote form an onlike article but the are no references that prove any of it is true. In fact, the whole thing about English only being widely spoken at college or university is total garbage. I know Japan and China had English courses at the middle school level in the freaking 1980's a full decade before surfing the internet was anything other than a geek hobby. English was and still is pretty much a second language through most of western Europe. The above is useless unless a reliable source supporting can be found.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Hypothesists link

There should be a link to Celtic Hypothesis material. So perhaps in the history section beneath the "Old English vernacular was also influenced by two waves of invasion" paragraph. "Some scholars attribute various developements in English to the influence of a Celtic substratum in England." and if its thought this needs a caveat "This view has, generally, been peripheral to the academic consensus." Though, I'm not sure it is peripheral now.--Fodbynag (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Trim and tidy

I've just made a raft of changes. Generally no substantive change to meaning, but tightening and some re-org, If some "good stuff" seems to have gone, please look carefully before reverting - it may just have moved :-) Snori (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

one based on educated southern British

The dialect referred to is not "one based on educated southern British", but "one based on educated southern English English". "Southern British" presumably describes most of England, whereas the dialect in question is very different to those spoken in the Northern parts of Southern Britain.

I'm not sure if the term "educated" is helpful in this context. If a usage is "educated" then is it truly a "dialect"? BBC/RP English strikes me as being very close to the way even uneducated people talk in places like Oxfordshire. Of course, such uneducated people have had a perfectly good education.

I'm also a bit concerned that "The Queen's English" might be confused with BBC English. The Queen says things like "traiysuhz" where a BBC newsreader would probably have a reasonable go at saying "trowsers". I think the two are distinct.

So where do these opinions come from?

62.194.88.9 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Civilization

but in long words, there can be secondary stress(es) too, e.g. in civilization

The article is supposed to be written in British English. However, the source for the pronunciation is the Oxford English Dictionary, which spells -ise as -ize (as in American English). Which way should the word be spelled, "civilisation" or "civilization"? PleaseStand ^(talk) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

One question folks ... should not the opening sentence include some reference to the spread Ireland and Wales (the latter of which gets no reference at all)?

It is not correct to say it "arose" in Scotland, speakers of Old English settled in south eastern Scotland from the 7th century at which time Celtic Brythonic was being spoken.

If you accept that, then you would go headlong into a debate (which I am not getting into) over whether it developed as English - feeding back into the development or English - or Lallans. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who actually "wrote" the Lead sentence that you changed (it was probably a synthesis of many editors over time). However, I think they were trying to give credit to the southeast of Scotland for contributing to the rise of Old English in the Anglo-ASaxon period. But if you want to be hyper-correct, then Scotland shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead sentence at all. Covering the spread of English in the first sentence would make it far too long. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

English as a germanic language with heavy latin vocabulary and not romance

To me, it really seems like a fairly reasonable text. It is a fact, and easily verifiable. Any search on google will show dozens of sites of confused people who arent sure if English is Germanic or not. Its one thing to say its a germanic language, another to explain the confusion.

Anyone who studied even a tiny bit of linguistics will know this, but it is not obvious to someone who would read an article on English for the first time, and I dont see how clarifying this in a clear way, which is also educational would badly affect the article. People are really surprised to find out that English is more closely related genetically to German than French.

If you dont want it in the introduction, I understand. Where could we put it in the main text?

Shabidoo 22:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs)

Historically, English originated from several dialects, now collectively termed Old English, which were brought to the eastern coast of the island of Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers beginning in the 5th century. The language was further influenced by the Old Norse language of Viking invaders - and after the the Norman conquest, developed into Middle English with heavy borrowing from the Norman-French vocabulary and spelling conventions giving the superficial appearance of a close relationship with Romance languages^[1]^[2]

Hmm, perhaps you have a point. How's this? Snori (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

China

China appears only in the footnotes, but according to those footnotes, it should be included among the countries with the largest numbers of English speakers. In fact, that footnote content should appear in the main body of the article, to explain why China is not really the largest English speaking country, as some claim. Mdmcginn (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

China's population of native English speakers is minuscule. This article is not really interested in second language speakers. Roger (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Being able to count words

I have no problem with mentioning both point of views, but I dont like how the word count in english section has been deleted simply because there is a competing point of view.

It can easily be phrased to represent both, if there is a consensus here that both should be a part of the introduction, which I doubt they should. These new problems can be addressed later on in the article. However; for instance,

While measuring the number of words in each language is relative and an inexact science ... (the original paragraph)

-using both references.

Shabidoo 00:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs)

Mentioning both views is certainly better than just mentioning that English has a larger vocabulary (whatever that means). However if there is consensus within the academic linguistic community that it is impossible to count the number of words (or the opposite). Then, like in any other science, that view should be the only presented. Is there a consensus? How reliable are the sources for and against word counting? Aaker (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think both sources presented seem equally reliable or not reliable. Your sources have strong a point of view, but I see nothing in there that demonstrates any consensus within the academic linguistic community. Shabidoo 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs)

English as a first language

I find it very doubtful that only 309–400 million use English as their first language. The number seems to low. I used Wolfram Alpha and came up with 760 million English speakers. [7]

If you exclude Tanzania and the Philippines I think it's reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority speak English as their first language rather than less than 50%. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics of intonation—stress

I don't know what the OED cite says, but: in section Characteristics of intonation—stress, the word "civilization" is described as having the stress on the 3rd syllable, but the stress is actually on the 4th syllable, as shown in the phonetic spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.63.247 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have fixed it. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong

Until a few days ago the map was correct but its been changed even though I can't find an entry in the edit history. English is an official language in South Africa but it is far from a majority language. Less than 10% of the total population are English speaking - see Languages of South Africa. Nigeria is similar. Both countries should be light blue. Roger (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found the correct map - File:Anglospeak.svg - but I can't edit it as the infobox is not "available" for editing when I go to the edit tab on the article - please help! Roger (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reverted the change. The infobox is part of a template (Template:English language), so this is where the changes are made. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification and related languages

In the Classification section, there used to be information detailing the tenses of verbs (eat/ate/eaten; bring/brought/brought), but I see that this has been removed. Since the section is about the classification of English, I think this type of material is extremely necessary and helpful, as this is what largely determines and evidences English as a Germanic language (in addition to lineage). A lot of the focus seems to have shifted towards lexicon (the origin of words), which is important and should remain, but word origins do not affect classification. Words are easily transferable between languages, and this tends to blurr distinctions of classification (cf. as with Albanian in the past). The critical determining factor, rather, is the structure in which words are employed (i.e. how they are tensed, conjugated, changed with regard to inflectional morphology, comparative/superlative constructions, etc.) regardless of origin. Syntax at least is still there. Leasnam (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Western Germanical Language?

The latest edit shows several changes, the first of which is to the lead. Can someone please verify? Leasnam (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Very long list of North Germanic words which are common, and often mistaken for being native

Does anyone else think that the list of common North Germanic words in English_language#Classification_and_related_languages is getting a bit out of hand? Perhaps we should trim it, and add a comment asking people not to extend it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not sure why we need such a huge list when there is already a piped link to List of English words of Old Norse origin. Hayden120 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down, as I am to blame for it. Leasnam (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of words again

As the article reads now one gets the impression that English has more words than other languages. However, this doesn't make sense because any language has an infinite number of words, and actually we don't even have an exact definition of what a "word" is. This is obvious if you think of it. If you bother to read the source to the present text you'll also see: "How many words are there in the English language? There is no single sensible answer to this question. It's impossible to count the number of words in a language, because it's so hard to decide what actually counts as a word." Aaker (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that, also, 500.000 English words only in Websters dictionary as compared to some 1.350.000 German Words in Duden's "big" dictionary does not seem to support the case. Duden includes some well known colloquialisms and some widely used regionalisms while Websters does not include slang, but that would never account for some 850.000 additional words. Also, German builds additional words as needed by concatenating existing words giving new ones, while English uses compounds of words, such as Atommüllendlagerkapazitätsindikatorenbestimmung = finding indicators of the capacity of (a) final nuclear waste disposal site(s) (FYI: atom-≈nuclear, Müll=waste, end-≈final, Lager≈disposal site, Kapazität=capacity, Indikatoren≈indicators, Bestimmung=the process of finding or determining), thus comparison of the number of words in common use, so they show up in a dictionary, is somewhat unjust. Many German words are not in dictionaries because their subwords are, and their meanings do not deviate from what can be determined from subwords and onomasiological standard. -- 77.182.130.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

My colleague of chinese-vietnamese orgin just points out that, many English words exist only for grammatical reasons. Eg. finally, final (adjective) and the final (noun) are only different grammar forms of one word, but were counted as tree in Websters. Since all three forms are spelt identically in Chinese, they count only once, but nevertheless, Chinese was having all the words, English has to offer plus many more Chinese words unknown to English. --77.182.130.143 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've changed the text to reflect the source. Ergative rlt (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Words origin

"The majority (83%) of the 1,000 most common English words, and all of the 100 most common, are Germanic.[83]" That's wrong, the link provided don't support the date, and a quick review to the 100 most common words gives several latin words, for example "Number". --Bentaguayre (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. While looking at this "The First 100 Most Commonly Used English Words" list, I noticed the word "oil" and found it striking for two reasons: firstly, it originates from Latin/Greek, and secondly (slightly off topic), how is "oil" a common word? Words such as "the", "and", and "to" make sense, but "oil"? From my own experience, it is definitely not a word that is used often. Words such as "people" and "part" also descend from Latin. Hayden120 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I too am very surprised by the inclusion of "oil", but i think I can hazard a guess as to why it's there. Such lists are made by taking a large corpus of English texts and simply doing a frequency count of all words. For understandable reasons, the corpora tend to contain written texts, with very little spoken language, as this would have to be transcribed before it could be included. Indeed, this list claims only to be a list of the most frequent words in written English. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if this particular list was based on a corpus containing mainly newspaper articles, where "oil" is likely to be a much more frequent word than in most other sources. That said, I still wouldn't expect it to beat "its". garik (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You grasp at straws because the words "yes","where","here" and "hear" are surely used more frequently then "oil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.44.218 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

English in the Philippines

It's impossible that only 58% of the Philippines knows how to speak English. The data is so old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.11 (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The data is from the 2000 census. If there has been another census since then, feel free to cite it and update the article. Hayden120 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It partly depends on how one defines "speak". Without knowing what level of fluency was the threshold, it's hard to claim it's wrong. Looking at the source, there is also great variety in the levels across the regions of the Philippines, being as high as 80% in some places, and as low as 50% in others. That is the average for the whole nation. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Counting Words

This discussion does not seem to want to go away. Just because it is difficult to define how we count words does not mean that we cannot do it. The source provided for the impossibility to count words is a lonely little source from one guy, where as there are lots of sources claiming very high word counts and editors keep putting it back up. It would be nice for there to be a consensus on this. I am really all for taking the many verifiable sources claiming that English has the highest word count as opposed to a reletavist theory about the impossibility of counting words. Anyone? Shabidoo | Talk 09:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay Shabidoo, since you are in favour of word counting, how do you count the number of words there is in a language? Aaker (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the burden of proof is on you. You make the claim that counting words is impossible. You gave one source. A relativistic essay on how hard it would be to compare different languages and their lexicons.

Someone added a line about a "claim" that English has the highest vocabulary and you reverted it because of an online relativistic essay even though the claim was multi sourced. After we talked about this, we compromised and I changed the wording to something along the lines of "while it may be questioned how we can count words and compare languages vocabularies it has been claimed that..." which stayed up for a while, it disappeared again. You also claim that this is based on consensus in the linguistic community but Ive never seen this and youve never demonstrated it. Even if that was the case, there are dozens of online sources which make the claim that English has the highest word count. That which can be checked through verifiable sources, not one relativistic online essay. So instead of consensus, instead of accepting a sourced piece of information, it is all deleted. I honestly dont care if English has more words than any other language, I dont think it would make the English language any more awe inspiring even if that was the case, I just don´t like how everything was deleted because you say counting words is impossible, end of story and if you disagree, prove me wrong. The sources were already given.

Shabidoo | Talk 04:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a humble observation,I do not know what exactly is the Counting Words purpose,but if purpose is to demonstrate that English has the highest vocabulary ,I'd like to apologise ,but it is hardly demonstrable.To demonstrate it,it is usually made a comparison with main other languages (i.e. German Spanish Portuguese French and so on).But there is a significant difference ,that languages somehow have a vocabulary that originates from a single language.English vocabulary,all we know it , has not a vocabulary that originates from a single language, from it comes the english vocabulary richness.Now as you can image there are other languages somehow similar ( speaking on vocabulary) to English.Now I come with a practical example (but you can find easily other examples): Albanian vocabulary ,for example, originates at least from 5 differents languages .Let me add a comment that i found on "Talk:Albanian language/Archive 1" to explain better what i mean :"The Phonetics of Albanian G. S. LowmanIn 1891 Gustav Meyer state that of 5140 words =1180 Turkish,400 original Albanian,1420 Romance,840 Greek,540 Slavonic and over 700 indeterminable whose number later may have been prove to be Albanian to a degree.Megistias (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)".Now there are not so many studies on Albanian but on theory languages like Albanian could have ,for each single word ,five or more different equivalents/forms/variations (you use the word that you prefer).You understand that if we do a comparison between English and Albanian, i m not so sure that English have more words than Albanian.I m not an Albanian language expert ,neither i can cite sources to demonstrate that English has more words than Albanian or the opposite,i m just using my common sense.I m sorry , if ,in case ,I hurted feelings someone--Downbased32 (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I understand what you are saying. But I dont think that you have said anything different than before. This isnt a question about who is right, or what is actually true, but how wikipedia works. Its based on referable sources. A vocabulary count was placed on the page, with references, and someone removed it because they disagreed with it, not with the soruce, nor added a source of their own. You cant remove things because you dont like them. There was no compromise, no discussion, just a rant about the impossibility of counting words. This is no way to colaborate on an article and this is what bothers me. Sad really. Shabidoo | Talk 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well,you should demonstrate what you want write ,you should demonstrate that the A language has more words then B language ,C language and so on,for each single language in the world . To simply say "the A language has highest vocabulary beacause it has 1000 words " is not enough, because we don t know how many words there are in all the others languages.When you ll demonstrate it, there is none that " will remove things because you dont like them".Good luck--Downbased32 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to feeling that what I am writing is not being read. It was SOURCED. The person who writes something no longer has the burden of proof. The source is what should be challenged. I myself might disagree with the claim too, but it had a source and it was removed because someone didnt like it. What you are challenging is the truth of the claim, and not the validity of the source. This is a complete misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. It is ANTI wikipedian. Wikipedia is a collection of referable information, not what facts people agree or disagree on. If it is sourced, it can go in. If you dont think its relevant, fine, if you dont think its a good source, fine, but I find it petty and arrogant to delete things just because you dont like it and to rule out discussion and conversation. I am yet to see one credible source against the idea. Shabidoo | Talk 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay okay, don't shoot the messenger.When i write "you should demonstrate",obviously,i mean "your sources should demonstrate".Let me add a last thing ,If the source is valid, it can go in,i think that we cant add any sources.Now I dont know exactly how wiki works, you can try to open a discussion ,you put your sources here and let to the others users to see them.Sincerely I m still dubious,that there is a source that say """it is so""",maybe some source that say """it could be so""",which is not the same thing.Another user could show another valid source that say """it is not so""" and so on,simply beacause the topic is still matter of debate,and there are few objective evidences,but however ,from this moment ,i ll do what some years ago Pontius Pilate did:"I wash my hands of it".--Downbased32 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Table ?

There is a table in the Classifications and Related languages section, denoting origins of words at various levels. What does this have to do with Classification and Related languages??? It is a nice table, and the info is thought-provoking, but is it in the right place? Leasnam (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it. Leasnam (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The table does, however, conflict with the information directly before it: "The majority (83%) of the 1,000 most common English words, and all of the 100 most common, are Germanic.", then "Source of the most frequent 7,476 English words – 1st 1,000 – 57%". Hayden120 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a disclaimer is in order, which reads "According to some estimates...the majority (83%) of the 1.000 most common..."? Leasnam (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I have reworded the sentence to include the range of the estimates. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you do a CTRL F on the article and search for "penis", it will come up. Can someone fix this? Apparently this vandalism was done a while ago and no one noticed it.... I would fix it myself, but 'the force' is not strong enough with me. Thanks. mz (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about Pullum's idea that concerns over the size of the lexicon is akin to an obsession with the size of one's penis, it is fair dinkum according to the the source. Cheers, Hayden120 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In case mz doesn't understand the reference (to penis), Wikipedia has articles on everything: Penis envy (refer 2nd para, not the Freudion meaning), and Penis envy#Male penis envy. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was legit? How embarrassing! Well its a good thing I didn't just go in and try to delete that word hehe. mz (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

English pronunciation.

I found this sentence from a spanish novel,it was manuscript at the end of page 99: Max Turiel " El reescritor de novelas ". Ediciones RIE.

" THE NAÏVES KNIVES OF RIGHTS KNIGHTS AT NIGHTS SIGHTS ". Could be a good example of english pronunciation.

Signed: Victoria Ibáñez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.149.135.123 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

number of speakers

Two references saying 300m and one saying 375m. With the population of the US being well over 300m and the UK and Ireland pushing around 66m, Canada being well over 30m and Australia well over 20m. I think it is fair to say there are at least 400m with english as their first language with millions of other exclusions from Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, NZ and Overseas Territories. The reference must be well out of date. Though I don't know of any more modern ones, I'm still fairly confident of my calculations except for perhaps significant numbers of immigrants in the american population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.244.109 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

world map of where English is an official or de facto official language

This map is not very accurate: in Quebec, province of Canada, the only official language is French, and furthermore, more than 80% of the population of Quebec has french as its first language. So the color of Quebec should be light blue, not dark blue.Monsieur W (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh please! Not the old Quebec issue again. The map is about countries, not provinces, states, regions, districts, counties, cities, towns, suburbs, villages or neighbourhoods. English is an official language of Canada. Quebec can be changed after it becomes independent. Roger (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If Quebec becomes independent*. Hayden120 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha, well, they do what they want, after all, I'm not from Quebec. Anyway, to come back on our subject, in that case, the map is correct. But even if it is right, I'm not convinced by the potential reception of this map: for somebody who doesn't know Québéc, and there are a lot on Earth, he would think, by seeing this map, that in Québéc, the language in English. De facto, English is a language as important as French in Montréal, but I can assure you that, except Montréal, it is not uncommon to encounter Quebeckers who don't speak English at all! So to come back on the misunderstanding that this map can produce, here, you have the map where French is spoken:

If we decide to have the same criteria than the current map depicting where English is spoken worldwide, the whole Canada would be in dark blue also. That wouldn't mean of course that French is widely spoken in Canada, but it could be understood like this. That's why, I think, it is preferable to change this map. Monsieur W (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the map includes Quebec separately from Canada. Therefore the map is wrong either way (either it is wrong in saying english is official in quebec, or it is wrong in saying quebec needs a different color from Canada). --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you colored countrie and not sub-state , you must colored india and Usa and italia beaucause the french language has a official statuts in the countries recognize for any region —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.18.74.80 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that the current map is not the above.

Countries of the world where English is an official or de facto official language, or national language, in dark blue; countries where it is an official/non-official but not primary language in light blue.
Current map.

My style-incorrect map.

official

co-official

de facto

effective use by majority

border despite it's legal status, english is virtually not spoken (10% or less of the population speak fluent english)

border a substantial percentage of the population can read and write english, but cannot speak the language

If its preferred, I can recolor mine for wikipedia neutral-blues --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Robbiemuffin While you have obviously put in a lot of work on your map I feel it is inapropriate for this article. The criteria used are not clear in all cases - in particular the way you applied the coloured "borders" appears to be arbitrary. Take for example South Africa - you put a "border" on it that signifies "despite it's legal status, english is virtually not spoken (10% or less of the population speak fluent english)". That is definitely not true of South Africa - while mother tongue English speakers do make up less than 10% of the total population, English is in fact very widely spoken as a second language - it has been a compulsory school subject for at least a century, it the main language for government communication; the overwelming majority of all media - print, broadcast and internet is in English, most business communication is in English as well as the vast majority of all higher education is in English. Your map attempts to make quite fine distinctions based on too little information - there are no reliable statistics for second language use in South Africa at all. I also have misgivings about the way you have marked Mexico, Argentina and Chile. The existing map is clear, unambigious and the criteria are based on practically perfect information (there is no realistic doubt about which countries do and don't have English as an official or majority language). Roger (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this makes sense ...

"[dyslexia] is twice as prevalent among dyslexics in the United States (and France) as it is among Italian dyslexics."

Isn't dyslexia by definition 100% prevalent among dyslexics of any nationality? 04:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.85.246 (talk)

The cite is horribly written. The cite, *ahem*, cites the following article:

http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/speech/booth/james/neuropsychology/ReadingArticles/PaulesuDemonet.2001.pdf

And their conclusion is that (poor) word recognition accuracy, the common diagnostic basis for dyslexia, is in fact, twice as common in English and French speakers as in Italian speakers, *but* assuming a biological cause for dyslexia (for which there is considerable evidence), biological dyslexics (who score consistently poorly on control tests no matter the their language), are better able to compensate in languages with "shallow orthographies" (Italian) and in languages with "deep orthographies" (English, French), and thus are more hidden. IOW, the proportion of dyslexics is the same, but the word recognition accuracy standard misses many more of the Italian speakers. Now, how to make that point with a semblance of clarity and concision...? Rwessel (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Official Status of Welsh

Please see Talk:United_Kingdom#Informal_Vote:_Official_Status_of_Welsh where an informal vote is taking place on displaying the Welsh translation of "United Kingdom" at the top of the United Kingdom infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Countries in order of total speakers - China

I'm intrigued that China is not listed under "Countries in order of total speakers" even though English seems to be widely taught in the schools in the Chinese cities. It is true that when people learn English as a second language you can often hear them still thinking in the structures of (presumably) their first language (which applies in some degree to all the countries where English chiefly features only as a second language). Even so, to see the status of English language in China relegated to a (n admittedly thoughtful) foot-note, as currently in this entry, seems a little ... um ... backward looking. (Though having grown up at a time when half the intellectual class here in England seemed convinced we'd all end up speaking Russian after another generation, I appreciate that "forward looking" can also be a risky condition).

Still, it would be interesting, if there is any suitable expert (and / or person with knowledge of, and access to, sources) out there, to see a little more on the English language in China

Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article (and other main articles about various languages) is not primarily concerned with second language usage. Good statistics about native English speakers are hard enough to come by as it is, information about 2nd language usage is even harder to find and really is outside the scope of this article. (In my country, South Africa, for example, the census collects only mother-tongue data even though multilingualism is so common here that a monolingual person is regarded as a rare "freak".) Roger (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Chinese origin Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Glottal stop everywhere

I think it will be likely to mention that glottal stop (may be semi-reduced) can accompany such phonemes as /p/, /t/, /k/ and sometimes — /b/, /d/, /g/ not only in final position. The word important may be pronounced as [ɪmpʰˈoːtˀnt] and so on. Can anyone add something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

100 words of English: How far can it get you?

Interesting article in the BBC today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12894638 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spread into Scotland

This confuses me. English didn't spread into south eastern Scotland because of Northumbria. Northumbria included south eastern Scotland, the same way as north western England was at this time part of Scotland. When Scotland conquered Northumbria and took part of that kingdom's territory, it of course inherited a population of English speakers. It's false to imply that just because Scotland today has the borders that it does, it should be thus regarded as having this extent at the time of the English heptarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.71.210 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Official language of the United Kingdom

Someone has added that English is not the official language of the United Kingdom, quoting 'us-english.org' (gakkk!). This is false, for a few reasons. Firstly, there IS written legislation favouring English officially with respect to immigration, etc. Secondly, it is the de facto official language of parliament and government (and very often quoted as such). To say that 'de facto official' is a contradiction in terms is to misunderstand how English law works: British government and English law are governed by convention, precedent and an unwritten constitution, and place far more weight on the unwritten when it comes to political institutions than most countries, including the US. Thus, deeply rooted convention can make things official, especially when there is no written constitution in which one can write, 'the official languages of this country are...' - and the fact that this is omitted in the US constitution is more significant. The official Commonwealth and Home Office websites agree that English is the official language, as do other pages in Wikipedia. Harsimaja (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add to the Significance section the fact that English is also the language of seafaring. Citation: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/StandartMarineCommunicationPhrases.aspx 93.172.56.90 (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with editing right mind adding this? 93.172.56.90 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rwessel (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

The source from The Economist is not reliable, they didn't cite there source or any survey and also they got a reputation partiality for an classic English imperialist view. So i'm asking to change the ref from the Economist Article to Reference need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.155.229 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A recent edit or edits has caused a 'cite error' in red at the bottom of the page. I can only suggest reverting. Alternatively whoever kindly deals with this could correct the offending syntax? Sorry, I can't be more specific! :( - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a further note to both above. The "recent edit" to this article had nothing to do with it. It was before me that the error was happening. I hadn't noticed it. I didn't add a ref but a bibliographic reference. Upon further research, the bad reference problem has been there since August 11, 2007 and appears to have been introduced with this edit:

(cur | prev) 06:24, 11 August 2007 IeieieieFrenchenenenene (talk | contribs) (63,758 bytes) (→Dictionaries) (undo)

The offending change, an addition, from 11 August 2007 6:24 by User:IeieieieFrenchenenenene added this: {{Official languages of South America}} macro invocation which somehow threw everything off and caused the error.
User:Bility actually and properly fixed the source of the error in the "Official languages of South America" template source code and removed my temporary work-around. Well done. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, it actually happened yesterday with this edit. — Bility (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, since the error was in the macro/template which you fixed. But it appeared on comparing a lot of English language article histories and diff's, delusionally, to go back to a time when the actual code to call the macro was inserted in 2007. I didn't realize it was that macro that was in error. Hmm. Also, it seems that older copies of an article call a present edition of a macro (template) and don't call an archived past version. I was fooled. Apologies. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility with Scots

A minor point, but under "Classification and related languages" the article says:

With the exception of Scots, none of the other languages is mutually intelligible with English

I feel uncomfortable with the article stating this so bluntly, and I feel this view needs heavy qualification. (Or at least a cite.) Mutual intelligibility is very ill-defined and variable according to many factors. Especially in the case of Scots, which lacks any kind of standardisation and consists of a continuum ranging from very distinctive rural local dialects to something that might be more like Scottish English with various Scotticisms thrown in. Native speakers (especially those from Southern England) seem to agree that at least Insular Scots is so divergent as to be unintelligible to them.

How about rephrasing this to With the exception of Scots, all the other languages are completely mutually unintelligible with English or some such? I don't think any monolingual speaker of English has ever proven capable, or even claimed, to understand Norwegian, German, Dutch, or even Frisian with an effort no greater than that required to get used to a different (national) variety of Standard English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the present content again: it does not say Scots is mutually intelligible with English. Indeed the difference is just the placement of the negative (none/intelligible vs all/uninelligible), which doesn't change the meaning. Beside that proposed rephrasing is somewhat awkward IMO. —teb728 t c 07:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A more important difference is the inclusion of "completely", which does change the meaning. But I agree that it's a bit awkward. However, I also think that the sentence as it stands in the article does imply strongly that Scots and English are mutually intelligible, which is not ideal. How about: "English and Scots are mutually intelligible to an extent, but neither is mutually intelligible with any of the other languages..."? garik (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How about

With the exception of Scots, which is to a{n} {varying} {extent|degree} (or: varying {extents|degrees}) mutually intelligible, all the other languages are {fully} mutually unintelligible with English?

Or simply: With the partial exception of Scots or: With the exception of {some|many|urban|Anglicised|southern|some less divergent|some less distinctive} varieties of Scots? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or even better, just delete the whole sentence. In spite of the fact that it is a rambling run-on sentence that touches on many many topics, it really doesn't say anything of real value.

As for mutually intelligibility, it really doesn't mean all that much. I, an American, have had conversations in perfectly standard English with South African (not Afrikaans) speakers that were a major challenge to understand, solely because of their pronunciation. After living a year with a South African roommate, it's hard for me now to believe that I had so much trouble undertanding it when I first heard it. Also, I speak Danish, and I can't understand Norwegian Bokmaal at all, even though it is extremely similar to Danish on paper. Mutual intelligibility depends a lot on getting used to the pronunciation of the person you are speaking with, as is therefore in large part a characteristic of the listener, than of the languages or dialects themselves.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right that simply deleting the sentence would be no big loss. For closely related varities, so closely related that the whole language-dialect issue comes into play, mutual intelligibility is generally difficult to determine and differs according to the precise subvarieties/lects chosen and many other factors, as I've already said in the outset, so we are in full agreement there.

However, one could argue that if you fail to understand a foreign "accent" pretty much immediately, mutual intelligibility is simply not present, as "getting used to" an "accent" basically involves/means learning a different, just very closely related, dialect, much the same as Danish speakers tend to "assimilate" or "absorb" Norwegian or Swedish relatively effortlessly without realising that they are actually learning a new variety. For this kind of "bilingualism" that involves languages so closely related that speakers basically feel about them as variants of one and the same system, not clearly distinct systems, Linguasphere uses the term translingualism.

If we keep the sentence, the proposal With the partial exception of Scots sounds like the simplest fix to me, not perfect, but not worse than the others; but if you prefer to delete the sentence, go for it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the article now.

As an aside, I wonder if children raised in (say) rural Southern England without exposure to other varieties of English (through mass media, especially TV), only the local/regional dialect/accent, might not also have major difficulty understanding (say) American English, when first getting in contact with it, just like you had with South African English. After all, American English might conceivably have diverged from Southern British English even more since Shakespeare's time than South African English has diverged from Southern British English, which, after all, has happened much more recently. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: some external links

My proposal - add some external links to other Wiki projects:

Category in Wiktionary;
Category in Wikisource;
Category or Subject in Wikibooks.

--Averaver (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE UPDATE IT

America has 300 million people now, not 250 million. Added to UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the total must be much more than 300. The numbers for english are very out of date here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.168.139 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have a good source? I found the 2007 Census Bureau report, which gives an over five population of 280,950,438 (vs. 262,375,152), an English only number of 225,505,953 (vs. 215,423,557), and a non-English primary number of 55,444,485, of which 52.6% and 18.3% fall into the "very well" and "well" categories, yielding approximately 39.3 million (vs. 35,964,744). I think I'm doing this the same way as the numbers that were sourced from the cited 2000 report (although the 2000 report had numbers instead of percentages for the categories). It does not appear that more recent numbers are available (if the follow the apparent pattern, the 2010 number will be available in a couple of years).

2000: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf

2007: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf

An issue this raises is how well these numbers actually apply. The Census Bureau reports have as their top-line number the "Population 5 years and older", and *not* the total population. Further it's entirely unclear that "English only" is "First language" (as used in the article) or that "Spoke a language other than English at home" "Very well" or "Well" (leaving out "Not well") is "As an additional language" (article), yet that is how the numbers in the articles appear to have been derived from the Census report. :Rwessel (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out that the main page claims 1.8 billion people speak English world-wide, even though the source is very dubious. I thought at first that it might represent the total population of countries where English is an official language but there's no indication of where the number came from or what it actually means. Please look in to it, it appears this number was posted once on the Internet without any source and it's simply been copied over and over again. The original site reads like a poorly written research paper so it wouldn't surprise me if whoever wrote it simply made up that number for his paper. 173.80.110.206 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Final Section

The final section of the article is written like an advertisement for Basic English. Should it perhaps be removed? Interchangable|talk to me|what I've changed 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somaliland

I posted this over at List of countries where English is an official language, but it occurs to me that this might be a better place to point it out.
According to both the CIA[8][9], and Ethnologue[10][11], English is either an official or national language of both Ethiopia and Eritrea.
It's also an official language of Somaliland, as noted in the infobox. Though Somaliland is not a recognized country, perhaps striping on the map would be in order? --Quintucket (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not in order 177.17.5.19 (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity parameter

Its use in the {{Infobox language}} is to display "people for whom this is the ethnically native language; also good for the ethnic population if different from the number of speakers (although the name of the article for the people and the language will generally be the same, it may be valuable to pipe in the native name here)". The explanation is taken from the template's documentation. I assume that information about ethnicity for which this is the ethnically native language might be useful in here since the this ethnicity for the English language can also refer to American and or Australian. But since I am not certain about this I firstly linked the parameter only with the English people. I started another discussion about this parameter's rendering at Template talk:Infobox language. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit dishonest, isn't it. The reason why the phrase "people for whom this is the ethnically native language" appears in the template description is because YOU put it there [[12]]. Secondly, the English language is a non-ethnic language. Most native speakers are not members of the English ethnic group, whatever that is. Spanish is another example. Third of all, there is absolutely no such thing as an American or Australian ethnic group. The concept of ethnic groups in the English speaking world is radically different from the concept that pertains to the Balkans. I'm afraid your applying your concept of ethnicity to a case in which it is useless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think is dishonest. I have put the new wording for the rendering of ethnicity parameter, and not for its explanation. You have stated your arguments - no need to assume bad faith. And if your opinion on concepts that pertain in the Balkans influence your perception, you might as well change it. Why, you have mistaken the concepts which you think I use with those that you state pertain to the Balkans, and perhaps even have some general prejudice against people from Balkans. In either case your perception - as well as mine - could use some change. Also there's really no need to shout: you made your point but please be nice and assume good faith in the future - as I will try to do. Anyway, I think we could agree that the conclusion is that currently there is no need for such an ethnicity parameter. I say currently because language can change. Not that I am implying that it will :-) Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

English in sudan is very law compering with the other contries in sudan education is used as asimle way to make the studant know about english many of the sudanese studant cannot speak english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.95.5.75 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say, nor how it's relevant to improving this article. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the user is trying to show that they are one of those who can't speak English, they've made that point quite well! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nigeria numbers

In the table near the top of the page, it notes the numbers for speakers in Nigeria are for Nigerian Pidgin, which is not English but rather a separate language. Here's some proof, from the linked article, that English and NP are not mutually intelligible:

"Im tel mi se 'chop rais' se hongri du mi finish."
"Ema aks mi se dem giv mi weting for maket."
"Im de veks mi se yu kuk rais."

I really don't think speakers of NP should be counted automatically as speakers of English unless we're prepared to apply the same treatment to all pidgin and creole languages, including for example Tok Pisin and Haitian Creole, which seems completely wrong and uncalled for. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Many English speakers can probably understand the gist of what you wrote, especially if they have some familiarity with other English Creoles/Pidgins. Haitian Creole isn't a Creole of English, and most English speaker cannot understand Haitian Creole. As far as including speakers of NP in the Nigerian numbers, is that what the given source says? BilCat (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The article on Nigerian Pidgin says that it is spoken natively by some people, so (despite a side comment to the contrary in that article's lede) it is a creole. Creoles are not dialects of their superstrate language (English in this case) -- they are separate languages with a grammatical system that is not based on that of the superstrate, but rather either on that of the substrate or on some underlying universals (or both). So NP speakers should not be included in the count of English speakers (except those who also speak English, of course). Duoduoduo (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not as clear-cut as that, as there is a degree of mutual inteligiblity with Creole languages, epecially if the speakers have some education in English, though they may not have any real fluency in English. Also, that is the only source given, so we probably need to find a more comprehensive source that gives better numbers for English and NP speakers. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry BilCat, what you're saying isn't true. If it is, please tell me what those sentences mean (without doing extra research) and I will be happy to concede your point that English-based creole languages are mutually intelligible with English. (They're not, hence why you can't understand those sentences). --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I said that there is a degree of mutual inteligiblity with Creole languages. Translatating the sentences is a bit beyond the scope of this talk page, but here goes:

"Im tel mi se 'chop rais' se hongri du mi finish."
- "He told me that ..." The rest I dont quite understand, but somethign about rice, hungry, and finish
"Ema aks mi se dem giv mi weting for maket."
- "He asked me if they gave me" something " for the market"
"Im de veks mi se yu kuk rais."
- "He made me vexed (angry), said that you cook rice" - possibly a colloquiallism

- BilCat (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes and there is a degree of mutual intelligibility between English and Dutch or Afrikaans (the Afrikaans for "my name is" is "My naam is", for example), but that is neither here nor there, is it? From your failed translations, you've proven my point; as an example, "finish" has been grammaticalized in NPE as a perfective marker; "se" (from "say" probably) has also been grammaticalized. This is not the first time and I'm sure it will not be the last that I've heard someone claim that they can get "the gist" of what someone's saying in a creole language, but without fail I have found on every occasion that when put to the test, people can't explain or translate. It's somewhat understandable; English speakers, unlike, say, speakers of Romance languages, are not used to hearing unintelligible speech varieties that have bits and pieces that are comprehensible to them; Spanish has Portuguese but English has nothing comparable (ie, spoken by hundreds of millions, close enough that you can almost understand it, but not quite). So English-based pidgin and creole languages throw people for a loop, they are tricked into believing that they can understand it when they really don't have the slightest clue what it says beyond a word here and there.

So again this test has essentially proven that NPE is *not* just some variety of English, it is not part of the main body of the English language, and native speakers of NPE should not _automatically_ be counted as native English speakers (note the "automatically" - I'm certain there are Nigerians who grow up bilingual in NPE and English, unfortunately we don't have a number). --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I never stated that NPE was a "just some variety of English", nor was I trying to make that point here. ~~Btw, would you provide your translation of sentences you wrote in NPE?~~ Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)\\

OK, I've found the translations from the given source above.

"Im tel mi se 'chop rais' se hongri du mi finish."
- "He told me that ..." The rest I dont quite understand, but somethign about rice, hungry, and finish
  - Correct tranlation:‘(S)he told me, ‘eat the rice’ because I was hungry.’
    - That makes sense, and isn't far off from what I thought, though certainly didn't understand the use of "finish" in such a manner.
"Ema aks mi se dem giv mi weting for maket."
- "He asked me if they gave me" something " for the market"
  - Correct tranlation~~:‘Ema asked me whether I went {to the} market.’~~ ‘Ema asked me what they gave me at the market.’
    - Agaim, close enough. In context, "Ema" as a name would probably be obvious, and I was unfamiliar with "weting"
      - Actually, I added the incorrect translation Facepalm The correct one is much closer. ;)
"Im de veks mi se yu kuk rais."
- "He made me vexed (angry), said that you cook rice" - possibly a colloquiallism
  - Correct tranlation:‘(‘It is making me angry that you cooked rice.’ OR ‘I am getting angry because you cooked rice.’
    - I actually wasn't far off on that one, just unfamilar with the pronouns.

So, yes, there is a degree of mutual inteligibilty between Englsih and NPE, greater than that of English to Dutch or Africaans, though not accuarate. But given this was my first exposure to NPE, and in it's written form, I did actually did quite well. Thanks for proving my point. ;) - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely right (Node ue's comment above). And in any event, linguists simply don't categorize creole languages as the same language as their superstrate language. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I've been arguing here. Most Creole speakers don't exclusively speak the basilect form of their language, so to call them "bilingual" if they understand the superstrate isn't all that accurate either. But I do agree to call the whole language as a form of English is incorrect. I haven't done that, and the source which the figures came from has not done that either. More information is needed. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument is unnecessary. The discipline of linguistics has already sorted out these arguments and has come down firmly on the side of separate languages. The degree mutual intelligibility is a moot point; there are a number of language families that display a much greater degree of mutual intelligibility than English and its various creoles but they are nevertheless separate languages. (See Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, for example, or Dutch and Low Saxon, or numerous pairs of Slavic languages.) Speakers of Nigerian Pidgin are not English speakers unless they also speak English. They do not receive an "automatic pass" just because they know a related creole. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Swineflesh

Swineflesh seems very unusual to me, and pseudo-biblical. Neither as spelt nor "swine flesh" nor "swine-flesh" is in the (admittedly quite old) dictionaries I have (Collins 1979, Chambers 1998), nor is it on dictionary.com. The sentence doesn't fit the context either. Dickdock (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This article uses British English

I noticed a previous editor systematically changed all "-isation" words to the American spelling. Since this talk page has the British English banner, I reverted the edits. I also went through and changed a couple of Americanized spellings (ha ha) that had previously snuck in. But I am not British so I might have missed a few. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, and P.S. I did not change the spellings of names of organisations that have the word "Organization" in the name. I think the spellings in these cases should match the organisation's official spelling. Peace .... Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't "ization" words acceptable under Oxford spelling? Our article on The Beatles, for examples, uses BrE with Oxford spelling. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting if true, as I had always seen that as an example of an Americanism. In any case, the WP Manual of Style still says we should be consistent and the majority of words in this article did not use the z. The word "colonisation", for example, appears numerous times but was only spelled with a z once. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is true. Either -ize or -ise is fine in British-English articles, provided the style is consistent. garik (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok well in this article we've standardised on the letter s. ;-) Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab13

[2] ttp://www.orbilat.com/Influences_of_Romance/English/RIFL-English-Latin-The_Inflluences_on_Old_English.html

[1]

[2]