Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.106.129.189 (talk) at 20:40, 12 October 2017 (→Oxford Spelling accepted?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Decentered English was copied or moved into International English with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Linguistics: Applied Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smash160 (article contribs).

Neutrality confusion

The Neutrality section is confusing.

"International English reaches towards cultural neutrality. " — what does this mean, it reaches for.  It tries to be culturally neutral? But, English is not sentient, how can it want any particular thing?

In the next paragraph we say:

"According to this viewpoint, International English is a concept of English that minimizes.." — Acccording to what viewpoint? The reaching towards cultural diversity?

Next paragraphs sums up boring international english existing, it's fine.

Then we get to opposition.

"The continued growth of the English language itself is seen by many as a kind of cultural imperialism, whether it is English in one form or English in two slightly different forms."

Ok, so who opposes?

"Robert Phillipson argues against the possibility of such neutrality in his Linguistic Imperialism (1992)." — Which possibility of neutrality?

I am sorry I cannot really correct this article, as I don't know much about this topic, and my corrections would feels like assumptions, but without basis, so I could really be inventing some ideas. Noting the problem here hoping help will come! —fudoreaper (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this true?

I am having a small problem with this statement:

English is thus more closely related to West Frisian than to any other modern language, although less than a quarter of the vocabulary of Modern English is shared with West Frisian or other West Germanic languages because of extensive borrowings from Norse, Norman, Latin, and other languages

Here's my problem: 1). Is English really more closely related to West Frisian than it is to North Frisian and Saterland Frisian? Perhaps this should read Frisian languages since English is equidistant to all of them, being they are all the descendants of Old Frisian

and

2). Is only a quarter of the vocabulary really shared between English and other West Germanic languages?? Frisian, Dutch, and German have all borrowed substantially from French, Latin, and Greek as well, not only English. This makes that percentage much higher (--we are similar on shared native vocabulary, as well as on borrowed vocabulary). I read somewhere that Modern German has a 60% lexical similarity to Modern English (where not only does hand = Hand, but also information = Information, repair = reparieren, etc), which is much higher than the lexical similarity between modern English and French (despite the huge inflow of borrowings from Old French). Leasnam (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This article still needs a lot more sources

I've been looking at sources related to international English while updating the article English language with some other editors earlier this year. That article now enjoys "good article" status. It looks like this related article could be improved a lot by use of more sources. Which of you have sources at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 17:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411060041/http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-english-next.pdf to http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-english-next.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Spelling accepted?

EN-GB OED in Int'l english like that in Dorling Kindersley books please!? 124.106.129.189 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• Start-Class applied linguistics articles
• Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Start-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles