 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] 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 [edit] 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)? +Angr 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)
[edit] 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 [1]) 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)
[edit] 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? ðarkuncoll 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. +Angr 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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). +Angr 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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) |
.png){kind=small}
