This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
In that table of sounds and the letters that represent them, /x/ should probably be moved to dialect-specific. American English doesn't use this sound and as far as I know the only dialect that does include this phoneme is Scottish English.
Iotated vowel
I wikilinked the word iotated in the Vowels section to the article on iotation. I hadn't come across the word before. It seems to be a useful word to describe the insertion of the palatal approximant. However the current article on iotation focuses strongly on Slavic languages and describes iotation as 'suffixing' /j/ to a consonant rather than 'prefixing' /j/ to a vowel. Would anyone like to comment on this, specifically whether iotation is too narrow a term to be used to describe English vowels or whether perhaps the current wikipedia article on iotation needs to be broadened in its definition? Oska 06:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Indian English Speakers
Ok, Ive been doing a little bit of looking into just how many english speakers there are in india and it seems a little confusing thanks to their census which only has two language options whereas many indians can speak three. apparently in the 1981 census 0.5% of indians put english as their first language so thats 5 million english speakers in india.
Found this nice source on the number of second language Indian speakers -
"According to linguist David Crystal, India's population passed a billion a couple of years ago, and if you couple this with the fact that a 1997 'India Today' survey suggested that about a third of the population has the ability to carry on a conversation in English you end up with around 350 million English language speakers in India - more than the combined populations of Britain and the United States."
Whilst im at it the number of first language english speakers the article says is 340 million. as one poster says "According to a British Council Study from 2000 (data from 1997): Native speakers in the four largest core English speaking countries: US 226,710 UK 56,990 Canada 19,700 Australia 15,316 Rest: 18,581 Total: 337,297"
this rest is incorrect, zimbabwe alone has 12.5 million first language english speakers, there's at least 5 million more first language speakers in south africa which i dont have accurate figures for, 2.5 million odd for ireland and jamaica each. those four countries then are totalling over 20 million, theres 4 million more in new zealand. also forgotten is the number of expats, there's over 2 million british and american expats living in europe. for example in france only 6000 out of the over 100,000 americans living there even bothered to fill in the census.
what about kenya? ghana? botswana? 337 million is definitely an underestimate and its probably between 350 and 375.
Since there are only 12.5 million people in Zimbabwe, I think you misplaced a decimal point. 1% European (assuming they're all English speaking) would make 125,000 English speakers. kwami 03:55, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Languages: English (official), Shona, Sindebele (the language of the Ndebele, sometimes called Ndebele), numerous but minor tribal dialects
Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write English, total population: 90.7%, male: 94.2%, female: 87.2% (2003 est.)
Multiplying the population times the literacy rate yields 11.56 million people who can read and write English in Zimbabwe. I don't know the country at all, but those statistics suggest that with such as high percentage of English literacy in Zimbabwe that even most of those people who can't read or write English can probably speak and understand English. BlankVerse∅ 12:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not what you said: you said "12.5 million first language english speakers", which I took to mean 'native English speakers'. English is almost exclusively a second (or third) language among the Shona and Ndebele. kwami 21:09, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Closest Related Language??? Scots or Frisian.
Sorry if I missed this subject on this page anywhere but I don't understand the claim in the "related languages" section that Frisian is the closest related living language to modern English. Actually Frisian is refered to as the closest undoubted language- sorry but I have never encountered the term "undoubted language" before, is there actually any such thing. My point is however that Scots is undoubtedly the closest related living language to English and not Frisian. There are probably still some people who do not accept the validity of Scots as a real language and consider it a dialect but the important point is that it is widely recognized as a seperate language, a descendant of Anglo-Saxon like English.
Scots is now recognized by the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom government, the Scottish Parliament, and by most linguists as a seperate language. I think considering this there should not be any serious doubt as to whether or not Scot constitutes a seperate language. Unless somebody has any counter argument I suggest Scots be listed as the closest living relative of English.
Haraald 2 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
Okay, but Frisian should still be listed. Many people still consider Scots to be an English dialect, and in any case would say, 'Well, yes, of course - so what?' Maybe it could be reworded that Frisian is the closest language on the continent. kwami 01:25, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
I did not remove Frisian, it is still in the section. But no longer listed as the closest related language to English.
--Haraald 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I was quite happy with the reference to F as the closest; most people regard Scots English as not distant enough from Standard English to be regarded as a separate language. Many 'dialects' of other Germanic languages are more distant from their siblings than Scots E is from Standard E.
Tony 08:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Scots is a language derived from Old English similar to the way Yiddish is derived from Middle German. Since many people regard even the unintelligible Old English as being part of the English continuum we should reinsert Frisian as the closest relative to English or specify that Scots is the closest related language to Modern English. ~cg
I've never taken any Scots and I can read the Wikipedia articles in Scots, but I look at Frisian and I'm lost.
Cameron Nedland 02:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Consonant Table
There are some serious problems in the consonant table, which I intend to fix. The first is the lack of /w/ or /ʍ/, which I can only assume is an oversight. The second is the labialization of /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, and /dʒ/, which for several reasons should not be there:
First, even if some speakers do labialize these sounds, they are not common across all dialects.
Second, from a phonemic standpoint rather than a phonic one, it's generally best to give the simplest allophone. It's a lot like the argument over whether our voiceless affricate is /tɕ/ or /tʃ/ - it varies, but you always see the second one because /ʃ/ is the more common symbol.
Third, it is common practice to show the phonemes as /ʃ/, /ʒ/, etc. and not the labialized versions. Look up any site on the Internet on how to pronounce English - American or British - and you won't see these sounds labialized.
What I will do is, instead of removing the references completely, to keep the footnotes but change the actual note text to say that the sounds may be labialized in some dialects.
If anyone wants to re-apply the labialization to these consonants, please let's have a discussion here first regarding why it needs to be that way before further changes are made. I don't pretend to have all the answers - I'd love to be proven wrong about this - but we'll only know if we talk about it.
I fully agree with removing the labialisation marks. They are unusual to say the least. However w does not occur in the IPA table and we should not add it. In the IPA system, w is in a list of "other symbols", because it has a double articulation point (labial-velar). Better to stick to true IPA and add w as an extra remark. −Woodstone July 2, 2005 20:19 (UTC)
I put in the labialization symbols, and a footnote like you have now is fine.
However, removing the labial-velars is not necessary. What's in another IPA chart is irrelevant here: an IPA chart for English should show what's phonemic for English. The reason certain symbols are in the 'other' chart in IPA publications is because a universal table would get overwhelmed if they included everything. That's not a problem when we're dealing with just English. There's nothing sacred about the layout of a particular chart; there's no 'true' IPA chart. We should use whatever's pertinent for the language in question. IPA charts have separate columns for palatalized and labialized velars when they're phonemic, for example, rather than relegating them to an 'other' chart. In fact, the English chart in the IPA Handbook has w in the velar column! We could put it there, and match the 'official' chart, but I thought a separate column would be less confusing to our readers. I've never seen a language-specific IPA chart with an 'other' chart. I think that would be considered inappropriate. (In the French IPA chart, for example, they have extra columns for both labial-palatal and labial-velar.) Any reason anyone can think of that w should not be treated like a normal consonant?
One other problem: ʍ is not a fricative, it's an approximant. It's only called a fricative in IPA publications for historical continuity, but here such terminology would be misleading. kwami 2005 July 3 02:44 (UTC)
I left the labial-velars in a separate table for now, but did relabel them properly. Also, the table showed ch as being dental and n as being postalveolar (among other realizations), so I put them in the columns that are correct for English. kwami 2005 July 3 06:48 (UTC)
Just as in the IPA general table I had merged the cells in the columns for dental, alveolar and postalveolar in case they contain only one phoneme. Since the symbols were centered, they show up in the middle of a merged box. Your browser must render incorrectly if n appears to be under postalveolar. For ch I agree that it is better to keep them clustered with sh. and not merge the box. I have no objection against splitting all boxes back up again, to avoid problems on different browsers. (I cannot check since I use only one.)
I am totally suprised by IPA's inconsistency about w. Although it has no place in the main table, it suddenly appears in the English version, as well as in several other localised ones, mostly under velar, but Hausa has it under bilabial. The French table has a separate side table containing it. My assumption had always been that all specific tables are a subset of the main table, possibly with added rows/columns for composite symbols (implicit ligatures or with diacritics). Given the apparent liberties taken by IPA (association) itself, my preference would be to place w under bilabial, with a footnote that it has a double articulation as a velar. −Woodstone July 3, 2005 11:52 (UTC)
By putting /tʃ/ in a cell spanning dental, alveolar, and postalveolar, you're claiming that it's ambiguous as to these points of articulation, that in English we do not distinguish dental from postalveolar [tʃ]. In the generalized IPA chart, n does span these columns, because the same basic symbol is used for dental, alveolar, and postalveolar [n]. That is, they're saying 'use the symbol n for any of these, as appropriate for your language.' However, since in English /n/ is specifically alveolar, it should be placed in a specifically alveolar column.
As for /ʍ,w/, there are several ways to do it that I've seen in IPA charts: in the velar column; in bilabial; in both velar and bilabial; in bilabial and again in velar, but in parentheses in the velar column (or vice versa); in parentheses in both bilabial and velar; or in a separate labial-velar column. Any of these would work. There is no theoretical reason not to have a separate labial-velar column, except for the question of where it should go in the chart (next to labial? velar? completely separate?). There are a couple esthetic reasons against it, though: extra columns take space, which means that all columns then need to be shrunk down for the chart to fit on a page (not a problem for us); and it's unsatisfying to have lots of rows or columns with only a single cell filled. For this reason, /l/ and /r/ are often placed in the same cell, and /tʃ/ is often placed in the palatal plosive cell, and people are just expected to understand that it's not really palatal nor a plosive. (It's even represented by the symbol c in some charts!) I certainly don't think this is appropriate here. Although it isn't nearly as confusing to place /ʍ,w/ in the bilabial column, and I wouldn't make a fuss if you decide to put it there, it is inaccurate, and I feel would be doing a (slight) disservice to our readers. If we're going to make a separate row for affricates (which does not exist in the standard IPA chart), why not have a separate column for the equally justifiable labial-velars? kwami 2005 July 3 20:18 (UTC)
merger of English the Global Language
I merged some portions of English the Global Language into this article. I couldn't elaborate the following part, though.
A global language has the possibility of becoming a negative factor in a culture as the dominant culture may become increasingly complacent and dismissive in their attitudes toward other languages. The idea of linguistic power is an assumption that those who speak the dominant language will be in an automatic position of power. The possibility is real and can be illustrated by the scientific community in which an English-speaking person may be able to present his ideas and theories more clearly.
Linguistic complacency may develop as those in the dominant culture become uninterested in getting a secondary languages. And as many languages increase in dominance many others lose importance and use. Linguistic death (the extension of a language) may result. It has been estimated that 80 percent of the world's 6,000 or so living languages will die within the next century. Many of these languages may never be well preserved and much of a culture dies with the death of it s language. It will be a shame to lose so much of history with the death of languages. When a language becomes global, such as the case with English, the world gains a mutual intelligence. Ideas and concepts can more efficiently be shared and debated on a global level. Peoples of different cultures can increase their understanding of each other. The world becomes a smaller more friendly place.
On the flip side, cultures begin to lose some of their identity and uniqueness. Also, individuals lose an important part of their identity. Some concepts, feelings and ideas do not translate well form one language to another. English is now so widespread that we should no longer think of the language as being owned by any one nation. It is a global language. In the coming years it will be interesting to see the effects of English globalization. We might expect the need for translators to decrease. We might expect economic communities to merge at a faster rate. We might even expect tourism to increase.
The globalization of a language is a natural process. The future of the English language will be largely determined by the world economy and the sharing of ideas and policies by nations. The advantages and disadvantages are interesting to understand and helpful in guessing what the effect of globalization might be. But the growth of the language remains a natural progression.
Reference:
"English as a Global Language" by David Crystal,Cambridge University Press.
This sounds like a summary of the book. So someone who has a copy of it might want to incorporate some neat ideas from the book directly to the article. -- Taku 01:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Is this information copyrighted? Either way, if you want to have a whole section that is kind of a tangent to the main article and describes what is in a book, the book needs to have a separate article.
Also as there are already articles on language death, linguicide, and extinct languages, I thought it better to link to them instead of having the pros and cons here. I've since tightened up the section - debates over the value of minority cultures adopting the majority language (or not) belong on those other articles, not here. Anyway, I hope this allows the section to flow better. Dave 21:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
/p/
I learned that in English (at least some dialects), /p/ is aspirated if at the beginning of the word, unaspirated in the middle. I believe there was a third classification for /p/ at the end of a word, though I forget what it was.
Is there a reason that these allophones aren't listed in the consonant chart? Eleusinian 17:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Pie is aspirated, spy is not. True for most if not all dialects. Also true for /t/ (tie, sty), /k/ (chi, sky), etc. It is a rather egregious omission. I'll see what I can do to fill it out. kwami 04:40, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
It is an intentional omission, based on linguistic tradition. Exactly because the two pronunciations are allophones (not different phonemes) in English, there is no reason to distinguish them systematically. This is completely in line with the IPA guidelines. Especially because aspiration is indicated by a diacritic it does not really alter the chart. For English it would be considered pedantry to include the aspiration diacritics, except in very narrow renderings. −Woodstone 07:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but this is the "English language" article, not the "IPA for English" article. In the language articles, we give major allophones - for example, for /t/, /s/, and /h/ in Japanese. True, the details belong in the English phonology article, but the outlines of the major English allophones belong here, since the phonology article is not accessible to everyone. kwami 10:34, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I haven't been around enough to know the precedent. But information like this is useful, and it's directly related to the English language, which is the topic at hand. If the discussion of allophones becomes cumbersome, perhaps it can be made a subsection.
As it happens, I came to this page specifically because of allophones. I was originally looking for aspiration rules in Hebrew's [p], and when that page didn't say whether they were aspirated or not, I checked the English page as a control group, since I knew English's aspiration rules to some extent.
My point is that these are the sorts of details that people might want, and that therefore they should be up on these pages. -Eleusinian 04:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have added a section on voicing and aspiration after the consonants section. Please check it out and make any changes or deletions you think are appropriate. Dave 16:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks! -Eleusinian 01:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Question - Kwamikagami, you added a note that some dialects of English partially devoice initial consonants but not final ones. What dialects do this? It would be useful to mention which do it. Dave
I don't know what the distribution is. I've looks at the wave forms of simple words like bib, did, and gig spoken in isolation by several people from greater Los Angeles. In initial position, true voicing starts about half way through occlusion; finally, the whole thing is voiced. I've read similar descriptions for GA English in general, but unfortunately I don't remember where. kwami 02:41, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
BTW, partial devoicing in initial position is standard for GA, according to Ladefoged. I meant that I don't know the distribution of fully voiced final stops. kwami 02:47, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
In reference to the original poster's comment, in utterance-final position, /p/ is often unreleased, meaning the end of the utterance is characterized by the lips closing and the concomitant cessation of all other speech-producing processes like airflow through the vocal tract and vocal cord vibration. The IPA diacritic for "unreleased" Unicode Character 'COMBINING LEFT ANGLE ABOVE' (U+031A). So, unreleased /p/ would be transcribed in IPA as [p ̚] The change in state of the glottis is sometimes represented in transcription with the glottal stop symbol ʔ. So, final /p/ might appear in a very narrow transcription as [ʔ͡p̚] (not likely to appear correctly because browser support for the tie bar and the unreleased diacritic is spotty). Nohat 01:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
That is not the case in southern California. I stopped releasing my final plosives, as well as losing my initial aspiration and close diphthongs, while living overseas, and when I came back people couldn't hear them. They'd hear day for [tek̚] take, for example. I've lived in California, Oregon, Michigan, Connecticut, and Florida, and have visited people in Washington (state), Kansas, Texas, Vermont, Massachusetts, NYC, and Ontario, and nowhere did I notice unreleased stops. After having to relearn how to release them so that they sounded natural (that is, without aspirating them, which is what I did at first), I think I probably would have noticed people not releasing their stops, though of course you can't take my reminiscences for actual evidence. From what I understand, the unreleased stops are rather marked regionally. Perhaps characteristic of some of the "stronger" eastern US accents?? kwami 02:41, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
Final voiceless stops are definitely sometimes unreleased here at least here in northern California. However, given that, /t/ is much more likely to be unreleased than /k/ or /p/. Unreleased final voiceless stops are often accompanied by glottalization. The sentence "What?" is typically just [wʌ̤ʔ͡t̚]. I'd suggest that the reason people misheard "day" for "take" was not due to the expectation of final stop release, but probably more a vowel length difference. The vowel in "take" is probably 1/3 the length of the vowel in "day". Nohat 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's normal for final /t/, even in less common words like rabbit. But it's quite unusual for final /p/ or /k/. I hadn't lengthened the vowel in take - it was still quite short - but on the other hand "day" isn't always that long in context. Since day and take have the same diphthong, I don't see how the vowel could be the cause of confusion. It seemed to me at the time that people simply couldn't hear my final /k/. kwami 21:19, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
I was just at the bookstore, listening to others’ conversations for final stops, and pretty much every final /t/ was a glottal stop. I didn't hear one released final /t/ that I can remember. Final /k/ was usually completely unreleased. Although I heard a few releases, most of them were unreleased. I listened to 5 or 6 different people, and the results were surprisingly consistent. I didn't notice any examples of final /p/ so I can't comment on that. Nohat 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Opening para—Celtic influence?
I think the reference to the native Celtic languages should be removed from the opening, because it was relatively trivial. Only eight Celtic-derived words survive in modern English (all or most of them topographical); there was virtually no grammatical influence. It's one of the mysteries of the history of English that Celtic had such little influence.
'English grammar is based on its Germanic roots, though some scholars during the 1700s and 1800s attempted to impose Latin grammar upon it, with little success.'
The attempts by scholars to 'impose' a latinate grammar concerned not the actual grammar, as used either in writing or orally, but on its explanation, analysis, and teaching. That's not quite what the current sentence means, and since it was all a miserable failure, I'd like to remove the clause after the comma and replace it with information about the actual grammar.
I was just about to move the bit after the first comma to the discussion page but found that someone had got there before me! My concern is that this reference to "scholars imposing Latin grammar" needs much more explanation to be intelligible to the reader of an encyclopaedia. I've heard this reference before but I didn't know what it meant until I read Tony's explanation.
So I was going to move this part of the sentence to the discussion page. But as it's already here, I've just deleted it from the article until someone can provide a more detailed explanation, if that's thought worthwhile. Adrian Robson 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the introduction is too long and includes information that should be in the history of the language - it goes on too much about the origins of it without actually describing what it IS
The opening
Whoever rewrote the opening and shifted my text down to history: it's a much better approach, although I'll have a go at fixing a few things in the new opening. Please register yourself with Wikipedia!
The original opening now sits at the start of the history section. I'll have a go at improving its integration with the rest of the brief historical account. The second para, in my view, doesn't belong here, and should be moved to the daughter article.
I have a problem with this "a knowledge of English is virtually a prerequisite for working in many fields and occupations." I just wonder: Is it really true? The vast majority of occupations in Japan where I live, for example, don't require the ability to speak English. -- Taku 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Taku, how is it now? Tony 12:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to make a very basic point: a pidgin may lead to but IS NOT EQUAL TO a creole. I have noticed a conflation of the terms here and elsewhere. English may have been and may (more interestingly) be considered a creole, but it was never a pidgin. Marskell 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
While it is true that pidgins and creoles are different, and it is also true that a pidgin may become a creole, but doesn't necessarily do so. But as far as my understand of the terminology goes, a creole doesn't come into existence without having been a pidgin first. So the claim that English may be considered a creole but it was never a pidgin seems to directly contradict the definitions of those terms. Or is there some other definition of creole that I am overlooking? Nohat 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nohat: a creole comes into existence when children learn their parents' pidgin as a native language. Tony 02:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Primary Language
It's interesting that English is given as the co-p.l. for Ireland but not for the U.S. My guess is that the % of Spanish speakers in the U.S. is a lot higher than the % of Irish speakers in Ireland. I guess its' a matter of politics more than linguistics.
Spoken samples
It would be very nice to have some dialect samples. Either recorded by editors or links to sites that keep them. As it stands, no variety of English seems to be represented with audio files. Surely there must be some out there, or people willing to make them.
Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/wil/ . The BBC is currently running a fascinating series on dialects in the UK and you can listen to the radio programmes on their website as well as the dialect samples they are accumulating for their archive. I added this link to the List of dialects of the English language article and I'm not sure that it's appropriate for this general English article. But if anyone can think of a good reason why it should be on this page, too, I'm sure the duplication wouldn't hurt. Adrian Robson 08:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's very appropriate. Just look at Portuguese language and Swedish language (the second is inspired by the layout of the first). A language article is so much harder to appreciate without spoken samples and I'm sure I'm not the only one who really likes listening to a wide range of dialects when reading about a language. The BBC sample archive is a virtual gold mine for every kind of British English imaginable, even if they are in that horrid Real Audio-format. Please don't hesitate to add them to the various articles on varieties of English. Preferably with well-drawn maps.
I removed this statement, added recently:
' Contrary to popular misconception, the English language did NOT originate in England. "The earliest period begins with the migration of certain Germanic tribes from the continent to Britain in the fifth century A.D." -- http://www.m-w.com/help/faq/history.htm '
We can argue about whether it's true or false, but it doesn't look good to have a statement that contradicts an earlier one, not to mention itself. If it's true then it needs to be worked into the article more skilfully than this. I think there is enough detail in the article to make it obvious that the proto-English West Germanic languages germinated on the Continent before being transplanted to Great Britain. --Heron 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Missing Diphthongs
This article is missing the diphthongs /ar er ir or/. Although it's conventional to think of these as a vowel plus r they do constitute a single phoneme much like /aj aw oj/. Also /r/ in English like /j/ and /w/ is a semivowel/approximant. The American Heritage dictionary recognizes these as separate phonemes.
too PC?
"English is also one of the primary languages of the United Kingdom"? Well, let's be honest, whether or not Welsh, Gaelic etc. speakers like it, English is THE primary language of the United Kingdom. Can we change this?
It certainly doesn't make sense to say that English is one of the primary languages in the UK, while saying in the previous paragraph that it is the primary language in the US, where a far greater percentage of the population are non-English speakers, mostly native Spanish speakers. English is one of the languages of the UK and it is also the primary language of the UK. Adrian Robson 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it makes sense either so I changed it.
No image
Is there no flag (other than the Union Jack) for the English language.--Alan Frize 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I've seen some Web sites use an icon that might be blazonable as per bend sinister the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes -- or, in normal English, divided along a diagonal line, with the pattern of the Union Jack above and the Stars and Stripes below.
But then, that leaves out Canada and a number of other English-speaking countries. :) --FOo 17:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course there’s no flag for the English language. Languages don’t have flags, countries do. Most of the other languages of Europe are just luckier in that there’s usually a closer correspondence between one particular language and a country. Though of course French is still spoken in Quebec, Louisiana, various other places. —Felix the Cassowary(ɑe hɪː jɐ) 23:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Esperanto flag
Languages do have flags as you can see the Flag of Esperanto to the left. English is first language for a country or political region on every continent and shouldn’t be associated with any particular country's flag.--Alan Frize 15:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
One language isn't languages, so languages still don't have flags. You can't use any particular country's flag for English, no, but that doesn't contradict that languages (generally) don't have flags. —Felix the Cassowary(ɑe hɪː jɐ) 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, why not put the English Flag down, as that is where tthe language originated from. Big Moira 16:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If we are talking about the origins of English- look across the Channel just a bit. Frisia, old Saxony, Anglia... those are good places to search. It is not so simple as 'where tthe (sic) language originated from'. English evolved gradually, not cthonically. Slainté. --P.MacUidhir(t)(c) 03:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
As an anglophone who isn't American or British I'm offended. There should be something a little more international. Or perhaps a variation of the English flag would be acceptable since the English flag doesn't represent a nation.--Alan Frize 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, we could go with per cross the Union Jack; the Stars and Stripes; argent, a maple leaf gules; and azure, the Southern Cross argent. But it would probably be ugly, and I'm not sure anyone uses it -- whereas I've certainly seen the above one.
Or, yeah, use St. George's Cross and confuse everyone who doesn't recognize it. --FOo
The easiest thing is just to do nothing. Alternatively, a paragraph in the article could be added that says the split US/UK flag is sometimes used, but it is inheritely limited and that no flag which does not offend could be designed that isn't because of the diversity of English-speaking peoples and the lack of a single unifying English speaking nation/theme. And other similar limitations. —Felix the Cassowary(ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
russian lexicon?
"English has a lexical similarity of 60% with German, 27% with French and 24% with Russian."
Can anyone explain this?
That seems a bit silly. I don't know whether the 24% Russian figure is what someone calculated for common Indoeuropean roots, or shared French and Latin vocabulary. By applying similar criteria English would have a good 60% similarity with French (28% French borrowings, 28% Latin borrowings also found in French, plus common Indoeuropean roots). I'm just going to delete this until someone can justify it, okay? kwami 06:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
English Language Template
I have been thinking about the creation of an English language template. This is what I made recently:
What do all of you think of the idea of a template and my prototype above? --Der Sporkmeister 15:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Word origins
The percentages in the table (French 28.3% etc.) don't add up to 100%-- 4.83% are missing. Perhaps someone can check the original source and look for typos or a missing line? Zompist 15:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.
It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:
Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?
I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
To my POV, it is either 'errors due to (inexcusable) ignorance of the omitted items' or 'cultural snobbery', depending on who made the map. ::shrug:: --P.MacUidhir(t)(c) 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Official Language
I'm not sure how this should be dealt with, but in the sidebar at the side of the page it is stated that English is the official language of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has no official language - English is de facto the language of the UK, but there is no official (de jure) language. I'm fairly certain this is different from the other countries listed as having English as an official language. (As a point of interest, Sweden is in a similar position to the UK, also having no official language.) Matthew 15:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The United States also does not have a official language and, as in the UK, English is the de facto language. English is, however, the official language in 29 of 50 states. Movementarian 15:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Australia has English as an official language either. Mark 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There are many cases where we do not have sufficient data as to how official a certain language is in a certain country. Turkish, for example, in Bulgaria, or Yiddish in the Netherlands. English is obviously different in the UK or Oz than it is in Switzerland with its large expat community, regardless of its legal status. I think the solution might be to modify the sidebar template to display 'Official or national language in'. kwami 02:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't a footnote that read: English is de facto official in these countries suffice? I mean, how would one determine the national language of the USA. English doesn't really fit into the marked slots of national and/or official language in that case (at least). Izehar 13:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That's the nub of it, though, isn't it? That English is de facto the language of the UK means that it's not an official language. An official language would be codified by law or enshrined in a constitutional document. Indeed, 'de facto official' would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. Matthew 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely Turkish either is or is not an official language in Bulgaria (and Yiddish in the Netherlands, and so on)? If it is stated in Bulgarian law that Turkish is one of Bulgaria's languages then it's official; if such a thing is not stated then it's not an official language. Just because a language is widely used in a country does not make it the official language. (If something were made official by its widespread usage, then I see no good reason why water should not be an official drink of every country, bread an official food, and so on.) Matthew 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
What I was getting at is that English is the only language used in Parliament, in the courts, in all official documents etc ... etc. Does that not make it official in practice (de facto)? Especially, when no other language is used in that way. If everything were to go by the black letter, then we could say that English is the official language of Wales, because the Welsh language Act made it so (alongside Welsh). Izehar 19:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this too. There is a bit of US bias in the article with the smell of that annoying 'America is the only home of peace and freedom' bs through it getting something written on its unofficial status but Britain being unfairly dismissed as having a official language.
IMO the US bit should be snipped and something written about it being de facto in the UK and US or maybe even lying about the US like the UK and saying its official. The US bit certainly looks untidy.--Josquius 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is English the offical language anywhere in the Anglosphere? I am also not sure that the Welsh Language Act made English an official language in Wales. Didn't it merely state that Welsh should have the same status as English? Movementarian 18:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
English is definatly the official language in some places. Australia I know for certain. Go check the pages of the other English speaking nations on wikipedia to check what else.
I think Britain the US may be the only ones who don't have a official language. --Josquius 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Does English has grammatical gender?
Hi! It is intersting to me, does English language have grammatical gender? I wrote in russian wiki-article that it hasn't, but came across disagreement. Some people say, that English has female gender in the words ship, England etc., and even that it is necessary to say "she" about any transport vehicle. But others say that it is only romantic tradition, not a grammatical rule, and that it is violated everyvere exept some rare cases. Who is right? Is statement, that English has no gender completely wrong? Or it is correct? Or it is only non-neutral? Thaks and excuse my English :) Dims 13:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It's just tradition, not grammar. An old (150 years) history book I just read always used "he" and "she" systematically to refer to the sun and the moon. But I can't remember which was which because it's not normal to do so. It is very common with ships though and sometimes with cars but absolutely not necessary. Modern English has no grammatical gender. Old English had three grammatical genders. I have no idea about Middle English. — Hippietrail 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Well...English does have grammatical gender in its third-person pronouns ("he" versus "she"). But that's pretty much it. --Whimemsz 23:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
English has grammatical gender (he-she-it, cf. Finnish which only has one pronoun for those three), but the only obligatorially masculine things are male people and the only obligatorially feminine things are female people. Pets and other animals can be delt with in three ways: natural gender (i.e. using the gender of whatever sex they are, same as people); all-the-time neuter; using "he" for all dogs and "she" for all cats. The last is particularly common if you don't know what the animal's sex is.
Occasionally, ships and other vehicles use female pronouns, but this is purely romantic tradition and not obligatory. Not even all that common really, by normal people talking about ships or vehicles they have no connection with. (i.e. someone who just bought a car they're really proud of might call it "she", but the rest of us who don't really care much about cars will call it "it".)
And is it possible for someone (for example, a woman) to call her car "he" with proud? I.e. does "she" here is sense, so it can sometimes turn to "he" accordig to speaker's ideas, or it is a tradition, so it cannot turn to "he", because correspondent tradition does not exist? Dims 17:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, some countries are traditionally anthropomorphised(?) as male (Germany, Russia) and others as female (the UK), but that's not grammatical gender, either.
(As for Middle English, it started the period with OE-style grammatical gender, and ended it with MnE-style. Pronouns even in the OE period could be applied using natural gender rather than grammatical, but I don't think this was particularly common till MnE. I think one of the last vestiges in ME was that adjectives agreed with the gender of the noun, taking a final -e if the noun was female, and nothing otherwise.)
I was under the impression that English's he/she/it is natural gender rather than grammatical gender. Inanimate objects are always "it" and only objects with natural gender can be "he" or "she". This can be contrasted with Dutch whose definite articles reflect only two genders but whose pronouns show all three (at least outside Amsterdam). — Hippietrail 15:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In Russian we have gender assosiated apparently with any noun (we have 3 genders: male, female and neutral)! For example we speak table as male thing, river -- as female and so on. We have no sense in this gender, it is completely virtual, controlling only noun usage in texts. Sometimes we have, that synonyms have different gender! It is very impressive difference between English and Russian, what do you think about it? 217.10.38.16 17:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Cars are mostly referred to as "it". Some people may playfully call their car "she" because they love their car so much but that is in the realms of psychology not grammar. Do women sometimes call their cars "he"? Probably they do - a neighbour of mine even has a pet-name for her vacuum-cleaner (George).
In children's literature there are plenty of cars with boys' names.
When I learnt Spanish (2 genders) I must confess that the whole concept of grammatical gender seemed ridiculous to me. And very irritating! I found it easier to think in terms of "type A" nouns and "type B" nouns and forget about the masculine/feminine thing. Jameswilson 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
