Talk:English language: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:59, 24 September 2009 editCaesarjbsquitti (talk \| contribs)2,313 edits →Playing with language.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:57, 31 December 2024 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,779 editsm Reverted edit by 2A02:B127:8014:3B16:6846:E1F3:D77:9AE2 (talk) to last version by RemsenseTag: Rollback
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skiptotoctalk~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{talkheader\|search=yes}}
			{{Not a forum}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			{{British English\|flag=no\|date=September 2010}}
	\|target=Talk:English language/Archive index
			{{Article history
	\|mask=Talk:English language/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{autoarchivingnotice\|bot=MiszaBot\|age=30\|small=no\|dounreplied=yes}}
	<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 18
	\|minthreadsleft = 10
	\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:English language/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=02:32, 24 November 2005
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/English language/archive1
	\|action1result=not promoted
	\|action1oldid=29061755

	\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=19:39, 23 January 2006
	\|action2result=listed
	\|action2oldid=36292910

	\|action3=GAR
	\|action3date=25 February 2007
	\|action3result=delisted
	\|action3oldid=110940236

	\|action4=GAN
	\|action4date=15 June 2008
	\|action4result=failed
	\|action4oldid=219410224

	\|action5=GAN
	\|action5date=21 January 2009
	\|action5result=failed
	\|action5link=Talk:English language/GA2
	\|action5oldid=265425985

	\|aciddate=29 August 2007
	\|currentstatus=DGA
	\|topic=Langlit		\|topic=Langlit
			\|action1=FAC\|action1date=02:32, 24 November 2005\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/English language/archive1\|action1result=not promoted\|action1oldid=29061755
			\|action2=GAN\|action2date=19:39, 23 January 2006\|action2result=listed\|action2oldid=36292910
			\|action3=GAR\|action3date=25 February 2007\|action3result=delisted\|action3oldid=110940236
			\|action4=GAN\|action4date=15 June 2008\|action4result=failed\|action4oldid=219410224
			\|action5=GAN\|action5date=21 January 2009\|action5link=Talk:English language/GA2\|action5result=failed\|action5oldid=265532371
			\|action6=PR\|action6date=13:01, 14 September 2012\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/English language/archive1\|action6result=reviewed\|action6oldid=512068549
			\|action7=GAN\|action7date=12:46, 14 April 2015\|action7link=Talk:English language/GA3\|action7result=listed\|action7oldid=656431559
			\|action8=GAR\|action8date=21 September 2019\|action8link=Talk:English language/GA4\|action8result=kept\|action8oldid=914252924
			\|aciddate=30 November 2019
			\|currentstatus=GA
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{WikiProject English Language\|importance=top}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.5=pass\|class=B\|category=Langlit\|VA=yes}}
	{{~~LanguageTalk~~\|importance=top~~\|class=B~~}}		{{WikiProject England\|importance=top}}
	{{~~WP Australia \|class=B~~ \|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Languages\|importance=top}}
			}}
	{{WikiProject Canada \|class=B \|importance=High}}
			{{Annual report\|]\|9,183,400}}
	{{WikiProject Caribbean\|class=B\|importance=\|United States Virgin Islands=yes\|United States Virgin Islands-importance=}}
			{{Spoken article requested\|{{U\|Sdkb}}\|Subject is of particular interest to English language-learners, many of whom particularly benefit from spoken articles. Note: ]}}
	{{WikiProject Central America \|class=B \|Belize=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{WPE \|class=B \|importance=top}}
			\| algo = old(60d)
	{{WikiProject Micronesia \|class=B \|importance= \|Guam=yes}}
			\| archive = Talk:English language/Archive %(counter)d
	{{WPNZ \|class=B \|importance=top}}
			\| counter = 27
	{{WikiProject Polynesia\|class=B\|importance=mid\|AS=yes\|AS-importance=\|Niue=yes \|Niue-importance=mid\|PI=yes}}
			\| maxarchivesize = 200K
	{{WikiProject United States \|class=B \|importance=top}}
			\| archiveheader = {{tan}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 7
	}}		}}
	{{to do}}
	{{British English}}

	== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:But they are practically all second language speakers so its an apples and oranges comparison. ] (]) 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

	:I removed the dubious unsourced Singapore entry. —] ] ] 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 in April.
	We either keep the non-controversial version or restore the citation-needed tag. ] (]) 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 ] and the Second World War: ] 1823, ] 1846, ] 1854, anexation of ] 1898, ] 1998, not to mention ]. Of course most of that had little influence on the English language. But the annexation of Hawaii, the ], and ] made English an official language in each place, making the United States similar to the British Empire (though on a smaller scale). —] ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	::::Also, the US acquired the Philippines from Spain as the result of the Spanish-American War. They did not just sail there one day and conquer it for no reason, something the Europeans did do. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 '']''. 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". --] (]) 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". +]] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. --] (]) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	== PAGE VADALIZED! ==

	someone has vandalized this page to one sentance, someone needs to restore it! - ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Thanks, it's been sorted. . . ], ] 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. ] (]) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
	:Have you seen ] and the other articles in the series (see the navbox on the right side of that article for links)? +]] 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
	::Ah, I did'nt know. Thanks for pointing me out. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] article, but I don't think it's mainstream enough yet to warrant inclusion in this one. ] (]) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


	On a related note, an anon, ], 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 ] archived sections of this talk page, and there is a consensus that it is a ] theory that does not belong here. —] ] ] 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
	:::What you say is correct except that English is a ''Germanic'' language (like ] and ]) not a ''German'' dialect (like ] and ]).

	::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::: 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 :-). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::Instead of thinking about the language, you dream about long bygone times. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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. ] (]) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

	:I've already made suggestions to this user at ] in so-far-fruitless attempts to explain the situation. If he won't bother to read and understand the ] and ] 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. - ] (]) 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

	::It is a fact that Saxony isn't on the island of England. The ] article contains errors and those errors shouldn't be allowed to infect other articles. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. By the way, if you seriously think the ] have something to do with western Germany, read that article too. —] ] ] 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. ] (]) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

	:::I'm finding it hard to believe you're serious with this ridiculous point. ], 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? ] (]) 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? <font color="006200">]</font><small>]</small> 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Who knows? The more I think about it, the more I think he's just trolling. ] (]) 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?

	] (]) 09:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

	== Playing with language. ==
	{{divhide\|Comments unrelated to improving article}}
	Playing 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.

			== British English ==
	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.

			No mention of MLE or estruary English? MLE in particular is spreading to many cities in England. Definitely worth a mention. ] (]) 20:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
	--] ] 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

			== Questionable examples of Norse influence ==
	: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. ] (]) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

			"Other core Norse loanwords include "give", "get", "sky", "skirt", "egg", and "cake", typically displacing a native Anglo-Saxon equivalent."

			How is "give" a Norse loanword, when it is common all over the West Germanic languages? (Dutch and Low German "geven", High German "geben" etc.) "skirt" (with a shifted meaning) can also be found in German "Schürze", probably stemming from Middle Low German schörte, from Old Saxon skurtia!
	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.

			"cake" is "Kuchen" in German.
	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....

			Granted, some originally used West Germanic words might have been given up and later re-introduced via Norse words of the same etymology...] (]) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
	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.

			:Pretty easily:
	I have not read the book by Simon Winchesters , but logic and observations see a rather interesting "game" in some of the language formation.
			:* ''skirt'' and ''shirt'' are cognate ]s, but are of Norse and Anglo-Saxon origin respectively.
			:* ''give'' displaced its Anglo-Saxon doublet, which fell out of use as ''yiven'' during the Middle English period
			:And so on. ]] 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

			== External link ==
	--] ] 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

			Will the following link be accepted: ? ] (]) 04:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

			:This is not appropriate to include. This article's main goal is describing English and explaining characteristics about it, not teaching the language. The external links currently on the article are for giving more information describing English that cannot be included in the text of the article (namely, archives of sound recordings). ] (]) 05:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
	This is a talk page, not a censor page.

			== Inconsistent figures ==
	There may be a logical explanation for "therapist" however the book mentioned suggests there is something more than we can see...

			The lead section mentions >2 billion total speakers, whereas the infobox states that there are less than 1.5 billion. Sure, there are countless organizations publishing figures, each with their own way of estimating and different definitions of someone being able to speak English. However, I think the figures presented in the lead section and infobox should at least be the same, perhaps - if necessary - with a note or link to a subsection in which it is explained why there are such large ranges in estimates. ] (]) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
	By the way, the word 'caucus' may be a better word to examine.

			:While the scholars with the 2 billion figure are recognizable to me, it's clear they were not really rigorous in the journal cited. I've switched the lead figure to Ethnologue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Instrumental case ==
	--] ] 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.~~] (]) 17:34, 24 September ~~2009~~ (UTC)		The reference to the instrumental case being lost in the Middle English period is surely wrong. This case was largely lost already in Old English. Does the author mean the dative? ] (]) 20:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024 ==
	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.] (]) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
	{{divhide\|end}}

			{{edit semi-protected\|English language\|answered=yes}}
	I am posting this 'warning' to my talk page after reviewing a page on 'threats'....
			Hello. In Quebec, French is the sole official language. English is not official, and has no status in that province. Kindly update the map and shade Quebec a very light blue, and not the current blue it is.
			Thanks ] (]) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			:{{not done}} English is an administrative language in Quebec, which is also included in the map. ] (]) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			== It is not true that “the majority of English vocabulary derives from Romance languages”. ==
	* This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
	If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:English language for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. I have hidden your posts with a template. Talk pages are for discussion about how to improve articles. You have been warned several times in the past about misuse. —teb728 t c 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

			Latin is not a Romance language. According to this article, only 28% of English vocabulary is of Romance origin. And I’m very skeptical about that claim as well, considering how much of French is Germanic in origin.
	The attack on my posting totally ignores my reference to

			Also, I think much more needs to be done to emphasize how Germanic English is, considering how misleading those statements about the Italic loanwords are. They may be in the dictionary, but they’re not in common use.
	"there was a presentation on author Simon Winchesters and "The Professor and the Madman", a book on the making of the Oxford English dictionary. "

			To say that “much of English's most basic vocabulary remains identifiably Germanic, as well as aspects of its grammar and phonology” is a huge understatement. As far as I’m aware, absolutely no aspects of its grammar or phonology aren’t Germanic. As a matter of fact, in some aspects of its phonology (like /w/ and /th/), English is much closer to Proto-Germanic than most other Germanic languages.


			Really, I think it should say that all of the basic and most-used words are Germanic in origin, and that every aspect of its grammar and phonology is as well.
	which includes...

			The way this article is written gives undue weight to the Italic loanwords and makes it seem like some words that are almost never used but exist in a dictionary that the vast majority of the native speakers of the language will never read and wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, or words that were also loaned into every Germanic language, not only English, have made English some kind of hybrid anomaly. And that’s really not the case. It’s very misleading.
	" Thus the two men, for two decades, maintained a close relationship only through correspondence. Finally, in 1896, after Minor had sent nearly ten thousand definitions to the dictionary but had still never traveled from his home, a puzzled Murray set out to visit him. It was then that Murray finally learned the truth about Minor--that, in addition to being a masterful wordsmith, Minor was also a murderer, clinically insane -- and locked up in Broadmoor, England's harshest asylum for criminal lunatics.

			Also, you don’t see other non-Italic languages with the majority of their vocabulary made up of Italic loanwords, like Albanian, having undue emphasis given to that fact by having it in the heading of their articles. ] (]) 04:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	THE PROFESSOR AND THE MADMAN is an extraordinary tale of madness and genius, and the incredible obsessions of two men at the heart of the Oxford English Dictionary and literary history. With riveting insight and detail, Simon Winchester crafts a fascinating glimpse into one man's tortured mind and his contribution to another man's magnificent dictionary. "

Latest revision as of 08:57, 31 December 2024

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about English language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about English language at the Reference desk.

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.

English language has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 24, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 14, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
April 14, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
September 21, 2019	Good article reassessment	Kept
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 30, 2019.
Current status: Good article

This

level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

English Language Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2010, when it received 9,183,400 views.

There is a request, submitted by Sdkb, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Subject is of particular interest to English language-learners, many of whom particularly benefit from spoken articles. Note: barnstar offered as reward".

British English

No mention of MLE or estruary English? MLE in particular is spreading to many cities in England. Definitely worth a mention. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Questionable examples of Norse influence

"Other core Norse loanwords include "give", "get", "sky", "skirt", "egg", and "cake", typically displacing a native Anglo-Saxon equivalent."

How is "give" a Norse loanword, when it is common all over the West Germanic languages? (Dutch and Low German "geven", High German "geben" etc.) "skirt" (with a shifted meaning) can also be found in German "Schürze", probably stemming from Middle Low German schörte, from Old Saxon skurtia!

"cake" is "Kuchen" in German.

Granted, some originally used West Germanic words might have been given up and later re-introduced via Norse words of the same etymology...94.219.14.131 (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

Pretty easily:

skirt and shirt are cognate doublets, but are of Norse and Anglo-Saxon origin respectively.
give displaced its Anglo-Saxon doublet, which fell out of use as yiven during the Middle English period

And so on. Remsense诉 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

External link

Will the following link be accepted: Free English Grammar and Vocabulary Lessons? תיל"ם (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not appropriate to include. This article's main goal is describing English and explaining characteristics about it, not teaching the language. The external links currently on the article are for giving more information describing English that cannot be included in the text of the article (namely, archives of sound recordings). IndigoManedWolf (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent figures

The lead section mentions >2 billion total speakers, whereas the infobox states that there are less than 1.5 billion. Sure, there are countless organizations publishing figures, each with their own way of estimating and different definitions of someone being able to speak English. However, I think the figures presented in the lead section and infobox should at least be the same, perhaps - if necessary - with a note or link to a subsection in which it is explained why there are such large ranges in estimates. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

While the scholars with the 2 billion figure are recognizable to me, it's clear they were not really rigorous in the journal cited. I've switched the lead figure to Ethnologue. Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Instrumental case

The reference to the instrumental case being lost in the Middle English period is surely wrong. This case was largely lost already in Old English. Does the author mean the dative? 86.190.145.222 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

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

Hello. In Quebec, French is the sole official language. English is not official, and has no status in that province. Kindly update the map and shade Quebec a very light blue, and not the current blue it is. Thanks 2605:8D80:502:A954:7880:F88:64E7:930A (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done English is an administrative language in Quebec, which is also included in the map. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not true that “the majority of English vocabulary derives from Romance languages”.

Latin is not a Romance language. According to this article, only 28% of English vocabulary is of Romance origin. And I’m very skeptical about that claim as well, considering how much of French is Germanic in origin.

Also, I think much more needs to be done to emphasize how Germanic English is, considering how misleading those statements about the Italic loanwords are. They may be in the dictionary, but they’re not in common use.

To say that “much of English's most basic vocabulary remains identifiably Germanic, as well as aspects of its grammar and phonology” is a huge understatement. As far as I’m aware, absolutely no aspects of its grammar or phonology aren’t Germanic. As a matter of fact, in some aspects of its phonology (like /w/ and /th/), English is much closer to Proto-Germanic than most other Germanic languages.

Really, I think it should say that *all* of the basic and most-used words are Germanic in origin, and that *every* aspect of its grammar and phonology is as well.

The way this article is written gives undue weight to the Italic loanwords and makes it seem like some words that are almost never used but exist in a dictionary that the vast majority of the native speakers of the language will never read and wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, or words that were also loaned into *every* Germanic language, not only English, have made English some kind of hybrid anomaly. And that’s really not the case. It’s very misleading.

Also, you don’t see other non-Italic languages with the majority of their vocabulary made up of Italic loanwords, like Albanian, having undue emphasis given to that fact by having it in the heading of their articles. 2600:100A:B1CD:CDC1:189A:4B36:6A05:2BC9 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: