This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teb728 (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 24 September 2009 (→Playing with language.: hiding comments unrelated to improving article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:02, 24 September 2009 by Teb728 (talk | contribs) (→Playing with language.: hiding comments unrelated to improving article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | English language was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
|
|
 | 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. |
Countries_in_order_of_total_speakers inaccurate?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/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/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)
- 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)
- 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". +Angr 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)
- 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)
- 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". +Angr 07:52, 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.
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)
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 ) 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).
- 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)
- 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? 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)
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)
Playing with language.
Comments unrelated to improving articlePlaying with language. (a suggestion)
In my study and examination of the english language I often pondered why some words seemed to be a playful and sinical manipulation of syllables to form words with underlying sounds and meanings.
On a recent CBC Radio show there was a presentation on author Simon Winchesters and "The Professor and the Madman", a book on the making of the Oxford English dictionary. It was menitoned that he was one of the major contributors to the English Websters Dictionary, it was later found out to be a criminal genius whose submissions came as he sat in prison.
Well just last night at a comedy presentation the comedian presented out a statement, "Therapist" that really is "the rapist" and once again I am reminded that whoever created some of the words in the english language had a somewhat weird sense of humor, a cynical deceptive undertone, that played with the english language.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be very misleading to assume that the similarity between "therapist" and "the rapist" (like most similarities of this sort) is anything but an amusing coincidence. It would be equally misleading to think that dictionaries are where words are created. They're not at all. With very minor exceptions, dictionaries contain only records of words that are already in use in the language. More importantly, while this topic may be an amusing diversion, it's irrelevant to improving this article. garik (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all this shows who was in fact behind the contributions to the english language many decades ago when only a limited amount of people could contribute.
As a contributor to the english langauge with such words as 'moral-feminist', 'cult-feminist' and 'anti-truths' I have to disagree with your generalizations on the source of some of the words within the english language. You will also be surprised how words and logic have been manipulated in recent history by various hidden agendas....The Jesus Christ Code.
Once again, in time we will understand that some were co-incidence and others were in fact a hidden agenda manipulating language for their own selfish interests.
I have not read the book by Simon Winchesters , but logic and observations see a rather interesting "game" in some of the language formation.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not a censor page.
There may be a logical explanation for "therapist" however the book mentioned suggests there is something more than we can see...
By the way, the word 'caucus' may be a better word to examine.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a talk page on how to improve the article. With all due respect, your personal guesses at what English words "really" mean are of no interest and have nothing to do with the article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course I doubt very much that anyone seriusly could confuse a joke by a stand-up comedian with linguistics, but here goes:
- Therapy" (and words derived from it) goes back to the Greek noun "therapeía", treatment. "Rape" (and words derived from it) goes back to the Latin verb "rapio", to seize. I must admit that I have difficulties believing that anyone could seriously think they are related or that there is a group of secret people sitting somewhere "constructing" words with a secret agenda. This nonsense has nothing at all to do with improving the article, and I suggest further attempts by Caesar J.B. Squitti to turn the talk page into a forum are removed without anyone having to take the time to comment. Misplaced Pages is not a foum and the rules for talk pages are quite clear, they are there for discussions about improving the article, nothing else.Jeppiz (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class language articles
- Top-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles
- B-Class Australia articles
- High-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- High-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class Caribbean articles
- Unknown-importance Caribbean articles
- B-Class United States Virgin Islands articles
- Unknown-importance United States Virgin Islands articles
- United States Virgin Islands articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles
- B-Class Central America articles
- Latin America articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- Top-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- B-Class Micronesia articles
- Unknown-importance Micronesia articles
- B-Class Guam articles
- Unknown-importance Guam articles
- Guam work group articles
- WikiProject Micronesia articles
- B-Class New Zealand articles
- Top-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- B-Class Polynesia articles
- Mid-importance Polynesia articles
- B-Class Niue articles
- Mid-importance Niue articles
- Niue articles
- B-Class American Samoa articles
- Unknown-importance American Samoa articles
- American Samoa articles
- B-Class Pitcairn Islands articles
- Mid-importance Pitcairn Islands articles
- Pitcairn Islands articles
- WikiProject Polynesia articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English