Talk:English language/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

English language in Mexico

Is English spoken in Mexico? --Master of the Aztecs (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is information about that at Mexico#Language. —teb728 t c 07:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

map

The map at the bottom of the infobox says "Countries where English is a majority language are dark blue", but this is absolutely not the case in South Africa. Contrary to other African countries, however, there is indeed a significant population of native English speakers, but the way it is now is pretty misleading.--Hooiwind (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I changed the map so South Africa is in light blue last February. But User:Joeldl disagreed and reverted to a version of the map with S.A. in dark blue. I suggest you take it up with him, or at commons:Image talk:Anglospeak.svg. Or be bold and correct the map yourself, if you have software like Inkscape for modifying SVG iamges. —Angr 11:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Joeldl also updated the image description at Commons to say "In dark blue, countries with significant concentrations of native speakers of English", so maybe changing the caption here would be sufficient. —Angr 11:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think the map and caption should be reverted to show majority countries in dark blue. The word "majority" has a precise definition that anyone can understand. What exactly does "significant concentrations" mean?

For the record, I am one of the minority of English speaking South Africans. There are no "concentrations" of English speakers anywhere in SA. We are thinly spread all over the country. Roger (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, this isn't the place to discuss it. commons:Image talk:Anglospeak.svg is. —Angr 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

English is a West Germanic language

Non-standard, biased, fractionally complete, agressively defended without appropriate discussion or reference. I gleaned next to nothing from this article having to reference the information I sought elsewhere. I added the material correctly structured and referenced. It has been removed. It is a bit long in the tooth for articles such as this to be structured (or lack content) in a biased manner, regardless of the bias type. Boo. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what part of the article is biased or inaccurate? It might help facilitate discussion. Thanks. Kman543210 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The very first bit. Please refer to the edit history to find my most recent edit. It should be quite clear. ~ R.T.G 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You added a lot of detailed material to the introduction (Contrary to the MoS). All of your additions are adequately covered in the history section - where they properly belong. There is also another entire article about the History of English. The introduction paragraph is not the right place for it. It really seems to me like you edited the intro without first reading the entire article. Roger (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style directs the articles first sentence in detail. As for discouraging detailed information, I can't find that. I am sorry but as you say "All of (my) additions are adequately covered in the history section", these entries in the history section are in response, or at least quickly added, after my edits.

• • The manual of style insists that the first part of an article should be directed on the assumption a reader knows nothing of the subject. Obviously it should say "English is an English language originating in West Germany", if that.

• • Although English may have the closest of relations to West-Germanic languages, strictly speaking it is not a West-Germanic language. There is no reason it should not be worded correctly.

• • Also the MoS encourages the use of the full title in the first sentence where possible. I see no difficulty in achieving that.

Suggestions: "part of the group", "descended from", "people of" etc.. Use of the word "England" is most apropriate if following the MoS. I see nothing wrong with the MoS but I do see the family tree of the language described in the info box.

~ R.T.G 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"English is an English language" doesn't make sense, and "originating in West Germany" is anachronistic and untrue. Furthermore, English is strictly speaking a West Germanic language. (There's a world of difference between "West German" and "West Germanic".) —Angr 06:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Angr what I wrote is as a description that West-Germanic is is "anachronistic" at least in the method!! OK, I have altered once again. What is the opinion of this one? ~ R.T.G 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That you took 8 words to say the same thing the article already said in 3. Saying English is a "West Germanic language" is exactly equivalent to saying it is "a descendant of the West Germanic family of languages". It's not anachronistic, it's a simple fact of linguistics. Saying English originated in West Germany is anachronistic as West Germany only existed from 1949 to 1990. —Angr 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. "English is a West Germanic language" is perfectly clear, accurate, and succinct. And for anyone who is unsure what the term means, "West Germanic language" is wikilinked, leading to a full explanation. But I wonder if the real issue here is that RTG wishes to argue that English is only descended from the West Germanic group, and is no longer a member of that group? If that is what this is really about, let's state it openly - and then reject it. English is a West Germanic language. See previous discussion at Talk:English language/Archive 14#The Origin of the English language and Families. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussion basically asserts that English is "derived" or "part of the family" and what you are saying is for anyone who is unsure to go see another article. This is directly contrary to the guidelines on style, which I fully support, and have detailed above. I see no reason to ingore the guidelines or confuse the words "derived" and "part of the family" with "is". There is a broad distinction between simplification and removing words. Coca cola, for instance, is not a cocaine beverage although it was and still bears the name "Coca". Who would support changing Coca Cola as such and preventing any details on the first section with bias toward other articles? I think not. It is incorrect. As with other certain parts of the encyclopedia, as you may expect, it is easy to throw question in a neutral manner, easy to remove the questionability, yet aggresively defended against such improvement. There is no merit in this yet little concern in it, quite reverse. With possible discrepency regarding smaller dialects as Belgian or other, there is no modern language as part of the West-Germanic family without being a descendant. Doubt or not, any person reading one quarter of what I have entered here has had facts presented. This article, in part at least, is not open to improvement. Have a nice day.

Resolved

~ R.T.G 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you repeat that in coherent English please. I have just realised what your problem is: Your own grasp of English is not good enough for you to truly understand the reasoning here. Roger (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Which part interests you the most Dodger67? ~ R.T.G 17:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand RTG's concerns, I'm afraid (and I don't understand the second half of the paragraph above at all). The analogy with Coca Cola/cocaine is not valid. Of course it is not the case that Coca Cola is cocaine. Coca Cola is a sugary beverage; it is (or once was) derived from plant X; it is part of the family of sugary beverages. English is a West Germanic language; it is derived from the same source as other West Germanic languages; it is part of the family of West Germanic languages. I fail to see the problem, unless (as I suggested earlier) the real issue is some sort of hidden agenda concerning something like the contribution of Romance languages to modern English, and trying to build a spurious argument that English is really a member of a different language family. As for the notion that linking to another article within the lead (and thereby avoiding having to include a long explanation/definition of the terms used) is against the WP:MoS (if that is what is meant) – that is simply ridiculous. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote of the lead section of a Wikipedian featured article, entered in a yearly best article cometition, entitled English language:

"English belongs to the West Germanic language group, and is the largest Germanic language of the day, ahead of German, Dutch and Scandinavian languages. England were in the 5 century gained by anglere and saksere from today's northern Germany, who brought with them Germanic languages. Among the linguistic relatives on the continent's Frisian and Nedertysk almost. This developed into old English, which evolved into today's English language. It is the third most spoken first language (mother tongue), with about. 402 million users in 2002, mainly on the British Isles, in North America and Oceania. English works as well as using language in large parts of the world, primarily in the former British and American colonies in Africa and Asia. Finally, English is the most important foreign language in the world, and is used in large parts of the world as a lingua franca."

Apparently the suitability of such content is not up for debate right now but I find the difference quite interesting and feel obliged to show the comparison for what it is. The only alteration I have made is with Google Translator and replacement of the word "språkgruppen" with "language group". Obviously this is not suitable encyclopaediac content which makes the comparison even more interesting with my appreciation of such. As a further addition directed at persons with difficulty in understanding my untrained vocabulary, please try visiting the discussion on the Simple English article "English language", where I, or others, ought to debate content appropriately, or to persons able to direct my use of the language (pitifully unschooled I assure you), I would be genuinely interested and receptive. Just click the T in my signature to find my talk page. I think it is appropriate to point out here, the Discussion on the Manual of Style is one of (if not the) the most active discussions on the site. Enough. ~ R.T.G 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally mystified. I have literally no idea what the problem is. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that because the Norwegian Wikipedia's article on English (at no:Engelsk) has been promoted to Good Article status there, RTG believes that translating that article's lead into English and implementing it here must perforce be an improvement on the current lead, and he's getting all huffy because we don't agree with him. —Angr 22:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think RTG wants the lead to be a little more detailed, but I can't tell what is sarcasm (if anything) and what is actual statement. There was an allegation of bias, but bias for or against what I simply cannot tell. I see no reason to ingore the guidelines or confuse the words "derived" and "part of the family" with "is" I think is the actual complaint. I think it's whether English is part of the language family or just a related language. Too a certain extent it might be an invocation of WP:JARGON in that "West Germanic Language" doesn't mean much to a lot of people and just linking it doesn't explain enough. So to questions numbering three:

• 1. Is English by any reasonable argument not a West Germanic language or are there any other outright factual errors?
• 2. Is a more complete history of the language necessary for the lead to give appropriate context to the facts?
• 3. Is there something in particular from the translated lead that's missing and is lacking here?

I am also somewhat confused. SDY (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To 1, I'd say no. English is a West Germanic language, and saying it "belongs to the family of West Germanic languages" is just a long-winded way of saying so. To 2 and 3, I'd say the current lead is definitely too short: per WP:LEAD#Length, an article this length should have a lead that's at least 3 or 4 paragraphs long. But the lead should also be summary of what the rest of the article says; ideally the lead section should be able to stand alone as a short encyclopedia article. If the Norwegian article has a different focus than our article, of course its lead will be different. Our lead section definitely needs to be expanded, but it needs to be expanded on the basis of the existing article here at en-wp, not on the basis of a different article at no-wp. —Angr 23:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic (not intentionally, except for the Coke comparison). If the history article be so important, link it directly under history ("...has a large history" or something?). I agree that expanding even a little couldnt hurt and this morning, as was suggested by another person that this article be about the modern use of the language, I have been looking at online material about modern English and its spread globally which I have kept the links to the best ones, in no particular order this one is a doctoral dissertation\small book [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. One or two are full pages of links regarding the topic but most have something small and interesting about modern English or its global development. There is a large article called International English. Note, the Porsche 911 is a Volkswagen based on and sharing the design and designer of the VW Beetle, rarely documented but occasionally the VW Karmann and the Beetle are described (accurately) as the first in that line (DYK i guess). ~ R.T.G 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course English is a West Germanic language. Saying it is not is as ridiculous as pretending that Afrikaans cannot be an Indo-European language because it is only spoken in Southern Africa. Jesus. Get read. Point final.--Hooiwind (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No Hooiwind, the point is, why do you call it Germanic and not Indo-european and why prevent the lead having any basic content? It is a narrow scope and possibly confusing to an uninformed reader. It is not merely an Indo-European language and niether is Afikaans. Such is classification not descriptive. ~ R.T.G 16:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RTG, by just mentioning "Indo-European" in the lead (omitting "West Germanic"), you are being deliberately vague. We had enough people stating that English is a Romance language. (God) Being to the point is thus less confusing for readers. For the uninformed, the infobox still shows the complete language family. Most articles just mention West Germanic (this article, Dutch, German) or Romance (Italian, French, Catalan, Portuguese) btw. But it seems to me you are contradicting yourself. First you say "West Germanic" is too narrow, then you say "it is not just an Indo-European language". I do not really understand what your problem is. --Hooiwind (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Hooiwind. As you will notice, the lead of the article is unusually brief. All that is included is a claim that English is West-Germanic, and a short list of English speaking countries. Leads are normally longer, and the guidelines say they should be. As a side note, West-Germanic is not the standard description of the English language. There is some links to lead section guidelines above and an example of a lead section from a Wikipedia featured article on the English language. ~ R.T.G 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand at all your problem with saying that English is a West Germanic language. Do you have some source for saying, “West-Germanic is not the standard description of the English language”? Do you perhaps think that “West Germanic languages” means the languages of western Germany and/or of the cold war state of West Germany? If so please understand that the West Germanic languages are the languages that have certain characteristics as described in the West Germanic languages article. Have you read that article? —teb728 t c 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RTG, other encyclopedias also call English a West-Germanic language in their lead. The first sentence in the Brittanica on the English language: "[English is a] West Germanic language of the Indo-European language family that is closely related to Frisian, German, and Netherlandic languages." [11] Sijo Ripa (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

TEB728, by and large, in a first sentence, English is described as Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Frisian, occasionally as Indo-European and occasionally as West-Germanic. Beside that, after looking at a few dozen, I cannot recall an article that refered to the ancestry as an "is" and left it at that. If you want me to source it, I will. For me, based on reading through the material, Anglo-Saxon is correct, English (or some medeival spelling), being the noun for that shift from Frisian, but on its own would continue to lack description. Anyhow, as TEB728 describes, for the unlearned reader, West-Germanic could often be confused with the post war division of Germany. Regardless of what goes in the article in future, it is very short at the moment and altering, even with correct information, is prevented. I think any correct expansion of the lead, such as mention of the Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Frisian, would make such discussion irrelevant wether West-Germanic is mentioned or not. I wonder what TEB728 would say about the links I entered above related to the spreading of English in the modern world? You did say before you wished to see info regarding English in the world and there is some interesting stuff not mentioned on the article.

Sijo Ripa, Britannica says bluntly, (not English is a..), "West Germanic language of the Indo-European language family that is closely related to Frisian, German, and Netherlandic languages." And with the greatest of respect for Britannica, it goes on to say after a few lines "Though closely related to English, German remains far more conservative than English in its retention of a fairly elaborate system of inflections." Which is jargonous (difficult to understand). What do they mean "conservative"? What do they mean "elaborate sytem of inflections"? It may be "closely related", but is it similar (and why)? Anyway, in the lead, it is very blunt with no mention of people or time. Are there no distinguishing features? ~ R.T.G 15:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing features of the English language

• Started by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, invasions beginning around 449AD from the Natherlands and Juteland regions

• Changed by the Norman invaders of 1066

• Spoken over the widest area globally

• Official language of the United Nations

• Differences to Anglo-Frisian originating in England

• Preceded by Celtic

• Most common second language in the world

Recent history additions

Although RAG may not agree, there seems to be a consensus that the recent history additions belong (if anywhere in this article) in the History section and not in the lead section. Even in this location the additions have factual and reference problems. And I feel they still may be too detailed for this article.

• “The Anglo Saxons began invading around 449 AD from the regions of Denmark and Jutland. [12][13]” The references do not support this assertion: Neither mentions 449, Denmark or Jutland. Indeed, one says Britain fell to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in 407. Actually, the Jutes (but not the Angles or Saxons) may have originated in Jutland (in what today has become Denmark), but they probably invaded Britain from much nearer.
• “Before the Anglo-Saxons arrived in England the local language was Celtic. [14]” This is probably true but the reference does not support it. In any case, inasmuch as Celtic had little if any effect on English, it may not be worth saying in this article.
• “Although the most significant changes in dialect occurred after the Norman invasion of 1066, the language retained its name and the pre-Norman invasion dialect is now known as Old English. [15]” I can’t find support for this in the reference. Maybe there is a relevant subpage at the reference, but I can’t find it.

The fact that Wikipedia is a web encyclopedia has three important consequences: On the one hand, it means that virtually anything could be added to the encyclopedia. After all, it’s just gigabytes; it doesn’t cost any trees. On the other hand, it creates a practical limit on the size of articles, as discussed in WP:SIZE. In compensation for that limit, however, it encourages sub-articles; for an interested reader, a sub-article is only a click away.

At 78 KB the article is already overlong, and there is a sub-article on the History of the English language. The present article is principally about modern English. It provides a brief historical context of the language. More than a brief historical context, it seems to me, belongs in the sub-article—even if factual and reference problems are corrected. —teb728 t c 00:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot go into the references at this hour but it is notable that 80 or more per cent of the article details the linguistics which is certainly not so notable as to remove all other information on the language. This article ought to be the parent of any sub articles noting the most relevant info on all the topics and summarising (per guidlelines also) that in the lead section. ~ R.T.G 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If the angles and saxons had resisted more to the Normans, this is what the language would look like today:

I'll find the source, but it's from Aston university research:

Dost thou thinken, that it important is, that we now with them work starten, so that we outfinden cannen, what we today doen musen willen? Because I sayen must, that I of no timem thinken can, when I him a grounden gegiven have, to believen, that I then intention gehad have, hin untocallen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.35.24 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but even with a source, this is pure speculation and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. —Angr 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think there's any place for it at all? Also doth thou not thinken, that there any wayen therefore at all is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.35.24 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a load of rubbish to me too. A mixture of fake "ye olde English" as spoken at "Medieval" theme events and bad pseudo-Shakespearean plays mixed with Modern Dutch-like inflections and word order. Roger (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it's just speculation (as Angr stated). Kman543210 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well they marched every man and boy from as far as they could all the way to Hastings and fought until most of them were dead... thats about as good as it gets!! ~ R.T.G 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even "dost thou". Bah. -- Evertype·✆ 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not even correct: important would have been meaningful, and intention would have been bedooling or so (Dutch: bedoeling) ;-) Just speculating. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Christ! Why the hell do you geeky idiots meet comments ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE FFS with such hostility? Jeeeez get a life! I did say, resisted more, not entirely!!! And what has it to do with Dutch?? Old English came from the area around Saxony originally, why bring Dutch into it?? It's Germanic yes, but the angles and saxons didn't come from there! And it's not Dutch syntax it's German, Dutch verb goes penultimate, and German verb goes last! You act all superior, when you don't even know what you're talking about! Now I'm going and I won't even bother finding the source! Come and hurl a load of abuse back at me; I have a life, I won't be back to see it!!! Good day. 86.27.42.181 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye, then. -- Evertype·✆

At any rate, this isn't about improving the article, so it's a moot point anyway. SDY (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

86.27.42.181 is right when he says it's more German word order than Dutch word order. Mea culpa. But since it is pure speculation I think this does not belong in the article. What can be mentioned, however, it what makes English different from Dutch and German and where these differences come from, without inventing would-be English.--Hooiwind (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)