Talk:English language/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Pronunciation

I've been making a lot of changes in the Pronunciation section. One change may arouse some disagreement: I replaced the traditional symbol /ʌ/ with /ɐ/. This is because /ʌ/ is pronounced as /ɐ/ in the standard English of both England and the United States. This may confuse some people, and if anyone objects, say so here. — Eru·tuon 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

All in all I think it is really good work, especially the introduction of the fact of dialectal variation to the phonology section - it was rather weird the way pronuncaiotn was being described as if it were homogenoeusly neutral. The main challenge with this article however is to hold back with detail, there are so many experts in all kinds of detailed topics of English who all think the article should give full detailed coverage of their corner of the language - but it makes for an incoherent and unreadable article (Vocabulary section is a point in case). So we need to keep conscious of how to strike the balance between overview and summary and the necessity of accurate and substantial information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I can use some oversight. I removed a few things that were not notable enough, but your further removals make sense. There may be more things that need further shortening, and some things that should be added, like an explanation of tense and lax vowels and more details on rhoticity. Also, perhaps the example words should be changed; I'm not sure why this article doesn't use the traditional lexical sets: FLEECE, KIT, etc. — Eru·tuon 00:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have only just spotted this note about changing from /ʌ/ to /ɐ/. While admiring your thoroughgoing revision of this material, I'm afraid I think this particular idea is a bad one, for the following reasons: (1) transcriptions using this alternative symbol would no longer match the /ʌ/-transcriptions in the dozens of other WP articles in the area of English phonology, and I can't imagine there's a general appetite for globally changing all occurrences of /ʌ/ to /ɐ/, (2) almost no published material on English phonology uses the /ɐ/ symbol as a standard phoneme symbol for English and (3) the important point about phoneme symbols in slant brackets is that the symbol itself is not to be taken as a precise, literal phonetic value - that's what we use square brackets for. In the case of WP more than elsewhere this point should be kept in mind, because the WP phoneme symbols are supposed to be taken as diaphonemic, not simply phonemic, and therefore standing as abstract tokens for a range of possible phonetic realizations. In the short time I have been involved in editing WP material about English phonology we have had lots of changes and reversions caused by people wanting to change /r/ to /ɹ/ or /e/ to /ɛ/, almost always on the grounds that "it fits the phonetics of my accent better", and I worry about getting lots of edits changing /ʌ/ to /ɐ/ if it's allowed to stay that way. RoachPeter (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A valid concern. My reason for changing it was to remove the note saying that /ʌ/ is actually pronounced [ɐ]. It's probably wise to use the usual symbol, as you say, but it would work better only if we modify the chart of vowel sounds to display sounds by height and backness. This would also better display the phonological differences between RP and GA. — Eru·tuon

I am seeing /ʌ/ in the sources - not /ɐ/. We must remember the difference between phonemic and phonetic representations - the symbol used for the phoneme need not be relasted to the IPA for the pronunciation in any specific dialect. We should use the symbol most commonly used in the sources I think. Spo basically i agree with RoachPeter·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Due to discussion above, I've realized that using */ɐ/ is pretty OR. I've gone and changed the symbol back to /ʌ/. — Eru·tuon 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Old English

Moving some discussion from my talk page to here, since it relates to this article. (Hope you don't mind, Maunus.) — Eru·tuon 22:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The talkpage is also a fine place to share drafts of sections. Generally I think we're on the same page in terms of though. I am thinking about adding an example of each stage of English to the sections. Ideally we would have the same sentence in OD, ME and Modern versions, illustrating the changes in grammar syntax and souns but we'd have to find a source for that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also not, because it conflicts with anything you've done, but my ambition in terms of style is to be brief and concise, but also clear and give explanation of concepts and processes in a way that a non-linguist can actually understand it. This means that sometimes I have to give simple explanations of linguistic processes like language change in order to help the lay reader. So sometimes I make simple statements that may seem uninformative such as "Though a direct ancestor of Modern English, Old English is not readily intelligible to speakers of contemporary English. This is because significant changes both in the sound system and the grammar of the language have occurred since then". If you feel that I forget to explain some concept or that I use linguistic vocabulary or jargon that could benefit from being parsed for the reader - don't hesitate to do that. I think it is important for language articles like this to be intelligible to everyone. Also you are more than welcome to correct my L2 mistakes and sloppy typoes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I will take a break from this and go do some real work for a couple of hours, feel free to continue meanwhile also.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of including examples, and the year span is certainly needed. I frequently am frustrated because I can't find the exact years for a language form, since it isn't mentioned prominently in an article. I was thinking of adding more on dialects, but only if there are well-known examples of literature in, say, Mercian and Kentish, and maybe that would make the dialect paragraph longer and require it to be split off. — Eru·tuon 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about mentioning Mercian, Kentish and Northumbrian OE as well, it could be mentioned briefly together with West-Saxon without taking too much space. Generally we need a solid section on Modern English dialects (and accents) - and someone will have to do dialect maps of British and North American dialects. There are no useful maps of this on commons, weirdly enough.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just writing a note about West Saxon being the "standard language": Alfred was a scholar, and he translated and encouraged the translation of works from Latin, such as The Consolation of Philosophy. These works were therefore translated into his dialect, West Saxon, and so it can be considered the "standard written form" of Old English, though it's admittedly less standardized than Classical Latin was, with many variant forms of words. — Eru·tuon 23:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to call West Saxon the standard written form, there were no Standard languages in the 6th century quite simply since stndardization was not inventesd untill the 18th century. Linguists would not even talk about standard Latin at any point. I also dont think we should mention Alfred's scholarship or education as the source of the preminence of West Saxon. I dont think it is true that there was any general education in West Saxon at the time. If you want to include this you should provide a very good source for it because it doesnt figure in any of the sources I have read on it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess "standard language" has a meaning that I'm not altogether familiar with. However, Alfred's scholarly work is pretty important to the history of Old English. I'm curious what the sources do say is the cause of the dominance of West Saxon, if not Alfred. I should clarify, West Saxon being dominant doesn't mean that West Saxon English remained dominant in Middle English and onwards; that's clearly not true. — Eru·tuon 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

More than simply the prestige variety that people emulate and circulate, a standard language is a language that has been standardized through grammars, dictionaries and a centralized education system - none of which was present in 6th century England. I think generally people would not attribute the rise of any single variety to its being used by any single king or scholar - but rather to it occupying a particular social and political position within a society. I.e. it was the political domination of the West Saxons that made their dialect become the most prevalent and prestigeous. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we certainly need a source, and it's not so much the personal use by Alfred, but how much he did in terms of encouraging education in English (not universal, but among political elites and clergy, I guess), translation, and the collection of written works. — Eru·tuon 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"We have many more West Saxon and dialectally mixed manuscripts than pure Anglian ones, because of the political supremacy of Wessex from the end of the ninth century onwards; moreover, many originally Anglian texts only exist in West Saxon copies, e.g. the early poetic records, and in the copying

process have undergone various degrees of Saxonisation." (Cmabridge history, vol 1. p. 341)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Same vol p. 416-17 (chaptr on Old english dialects by Thomas E. Toon) describes how the political hegemony of the three kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex changed over time with Wessex dominating from the 9th century on - and it describes that in each case the political dominance resulted in an educational/scholarly florescence. I.e. the Alfredian educational reforms which promoted West Saxon are seen as a result of the growing political dominance of Wessex.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at the Cambridge History and it seems you're right – standardization didn't arise till Late West Saxon, after the Early West Saxon of Alfred, and therefore was due to something else: the work of later writers, perhaps. — Eru·tuon 23:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The chapter does mention educational reforms, so I've added that, but I think the political hegemony is the causal factor. They mention that the reason West Saxon is most common in writing is not because other dialects werent written but because many of the manuscripts we have are west-saxo copies of Anglian originals. So it was the copying practices associated with the Wessex rule that enforced the west saxon as the main written language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Another comment: I think we should move Old Norse influence from the Middle English to the Old English section. Old Norse influence began in the Old English period, and usually Middle English is taken to begin with the Norman Conquest. Not sure if Old Norse influence is considered the origin of unique Middle English features, or Old Norman, though. — Eru·tuon 04:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, that would work, the fuzziness has to do with the arbitrariness of the periods though - because obviously they kept changing throughout. The way I was thinking this was that Norse and Norman influence together converted into ME, with the first period of Norman influence being a sort of transitional period. I will see how the sources I have treat it (primarily Kaufman & Thomason + Hogg).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think that French influence is more likely to cause the observed changes in Middle English than Old Norse is, since French had post-stress vowel reduction, whereas Old Norse had basically the same amount of vowel reduction as Old English, but this needs verification from a source. — Eru·tuon 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Which observed traits exactly? The sources I am using seem unanimous in considerng Norse influence deeper than French influence - especially grammar.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking of reduction of most unstressed final vowels to a single vowel, probably schwa, and hence the simplification of the inflectional system. ON, like OE, had varying levels of reduction, but not reduction to a single vowel. French, though, lost most final vowels, and final -a became /ə/. But I'm working from vague memory here, not from a source. — Eru·tuon 18:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Example Matthew 8:20

I decided to try and use Matthew 8:20 as an example since it Roger Lass uses it and gives a grammatical analysis of the OE version. But I can't fnd a good Middle English source. It would be the 1380 Wycliffe Bible but I cant find it online, the 1731 Wycliffe already sounds like Early Modern saying: "Foxis han dennes and briddis of hevene han nestis".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to find that in a library. Offhand, the sentence you found looks very much like Middle English to me, but I'll double-check. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Online I see "And Jhesus seide to hym, Foxis han dennes, and briddis of heuene han nestis, but mannus sone hath not where `he schal reste his heed" at a site claiming to show the full text of the Wycliffe Bible. I see that one issue we have to watch out for is that many of the later sources actually follow the text of the early printed version of the Wycliffe Bible (1731), which indeed might have been conformed to more modern English. But, as before, to me this sentence looks like Middle English rather than Modern English. I'll keep checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm being picky and perfectionistic here, but I wonder if we couldn't find an example that has all four cases in Old English. That would be the ideal; the current example doesn't have the dative. — Eru·tuon 19:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I chose it because Lass gives a nice gloss of the OE text and compares it with the EME. Adding the ME version is already approaching OR a little bit, which we should probably try to avoid. If we find an equally suitable example in another text, preferably with a full grammatical gloss, I am happy to change it though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have Bailey-Görlach (1982) English as a World Language at hand?

I'm almost done verifying all the references cited in the article. Two sections, near the beginning and near the end, cite Bailey, Richard W.; Görlach, Manfred, eds. (1982). English as a World Language. University of Michigan Press. It looks like I can get this book on my next library run (within two days). Do any of you have this book at hand? At least three separately authored chapters from within this book are used as sources for our article here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have the book at hand at my office and am the one who added the references.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have it too by Sunday evening. We have several other books at hand, methinks, that cover some of the same issues based on newer field studies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I will also use Trudgill's "Accents and Dialects of England", and for the U.S. Labov's work, and also I have a book called "One Tongue many voices" by Svartvik and Leech. The fact that the 1982 volume is old is not a huge problem since a lot of this is about history - and the "traditional dialects" of UK, are best described in older sources, since they have largely contracted since the first half of the 20th century. Also I don't think there are any much newer books of equal breadth. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disorganization of current structure of article

Hi, everyone,

The massive amount of work done on the article in last few weeks has brought about a lot of improvements. As other editors slog through content updates in most sections of the article, and as I slog through checking and rechecking all the cited references, I thought I'd look up for a moment at the overall structure of the article.

That structure now looks like

1 Classification

2 History

2.1 From Proto-Germanic to Old English

2.2 Middle English

2.3 Development of Early Modern English

2.4 Modern English as a global language

3 Geographical distribution

3.1 English as a global language

4 Phonology

4.1 Consonants

4.2 Vowels

4.3 Stress, rhythm and intonation

5 Grammar

5.1 Morphology

5.2 Syntax

6 Vocabulary

6.1 Register effects

6.2 Number of words in English

6.3 Word origins

7 Writing system

7.1 Formal written English

8 Dialects, accents, and varieties

8.1 England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland

8.2 North America

8.3 Australia and New Zealand

8.4 Africa

8.5 Caribbean

8.6 Pidgins, creoles, and mixed languages

9 See also

10 References

11 Bibliography

12 External links

We can immediately see, as I just saw, that we have two sections titled "English as a global language". I think that best fits under Geographic distribution. We also have a large section of geographically arranged dialects that would fit very naturally under Geographic distribution (I think this is the usual treatment for articles on living languages here on Wikipedia). The Grammar section still needs expansion, as was noted years ago in the last good article review and again in the peer review by Maunus (who is now joining the work of fixing the problems he identified years ago as the peer reviewer of this article). What else comes to mind to the rest of you about the article's structure? I'm not rushing into making any changes to the current article structure, in part because gathering the references goes more smoothly if I proceed from top to bottom in the article without rearranging anything, but I thought I should raise the question now so that we can all discuss it of what the final stable structure of the article might be. Your thoughts are welcomed. (P.S. As noted earlier on this talk page, I have good sources at hand about the geolinguistics aspects of English and about English vocabulary. I'll obtain the source on vocabulary that Maunus mentioned soon, I hope.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me there is an organic connection between the last subsection of the history section, and the section on current geographical distribution. But they carry out different functions, the history section describes the historical process that lead to the current geographical distribution. The Geographical distribution sentence should only include contemporary speaker demographics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A distinction is sometimes made between internal history, the grammatical changes in a language, and external history, the sociological aspects. Perhaps we could use this categorization, but broaden it so that classification and internal history are described together, and external history and modern geographical distribution are described together. Not sure what the section names for this would be, but it's an idea. — Eru·tuon 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A possible objection would be that external history is closely connected to internal history. For instance, English differentiated from Frisian through being isolated in Britain; English was influenced by Old Norse and Norman through invasions. However, if we described external history before internal history, these external historical facts could be assumed in the description of internal linguistic changes. The external history section could describe the invasions by Norsemen, and the internal history section would describe the changes caused by the invasions: loanwords with North Germanic phonological features, new pronominal forms, etc. — Eru·tuon 21:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I'm bringing up questions as they occur to me, not being in a rush to fix any of these particular issues, so that all of us here can discuss what's a good overall result for a thoroughly researched, clearly organized article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not like that at all. I think the synchronic geographical demographical situation is necessarly a topic unto itself, and the distinction between "external" and "internal" history is itself highly problematic. One section is about how English became a global language, and how that affected the language. he second second describes the extent to which it is a global language in terms of geographical extension and domains of global use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the distinction you intend to make, between factors leading to a situation and the situation itself, but in reality, the two global language sections have some of the same material, and it would therefore make sense to merge them, unless we figure out a way to make them more distinct. I'm not sure if description of a current situation is considered history, but I don't think it's that much of a stretch. Also, the description of varieties might be better moved up to the Distribution section, since it is naturally connected to the fact of the global spread of Modern English. — Eru·tuon 23:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't started working on either of the sections, so don't judge them by their current contents. Demographics of English is one body of literature, the cultural history of the spread of English is another. That is what requires the two separate sections. The subsection of "English as a global language" in the demographics section should include descriptions of its use in science, in publishing and in global media. The subsection on Modern English could be retitled as "Colonial spread of English". The section on varieties will have to be vey large, and hence it doesnt make much sense integrating it into either the demographics, phonology or history section. It needs a separate section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reserve judgement till you've done a bit of work on it. I still wonder if demographics and geography shouldn't be under history, but it all depends on what it looks like when you've added the available information. — Eru·tuon 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there would have to be a term that includes history, demographics, and geography in order for these to be merged; perhaps there is none. — Eru·tuon 00:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Major overhaul on its way

I am planning a major overhaul of the article in terms of structure and contents. I will work along the lines of the peer review I made for the article a couple of years ago. It should not affect the phonology section (which I see good ongoing work on) much since this is one of the better sections, but several sections will see radical change - as will the overall weighting of material. I will of cours be open to discussion and collaboration with anyone who is interested n participating. But I hope we can agree that something radical is needed to clean up the article and take it closer to what we expect of an article that is both comprehensive and informative, but also clearly organized, with adequate weighting of different subtopics, thoroughly sourced with high quality sources and written in summary style.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a bunch of content rearrangement without rewriting, so that content on the same topics is in the same place. This will hopefully make it clear which parts are overly long-winded — which is at the moment almost all of the article. — Eru·tuon 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You can see some of my own ideas in my sandbox. They are not too different from yours. We will need to cut a lot of he vocabulary stuff most of which is unsourced. I dont think much text will be kept it be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 06:04, March 1, 2015‎

Wiping the slate clean is a good way to start. I personally think more historical, comparative, and vocabulary-related information should be included, but with less wordiness. — Eru·tuon 07:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is good news. I am glad to see some experienced editors who are knowledgeable about linguistics joining this task. I have just downloaded the up-to-the-minute current text of the article to my off-wiki text editor, and will track changes continually there. I will participate largely by verifying every reference exhaustively. I will comment in a while on Maunus's list of proposed sources, most of which I have at hand in my office. And thanks too to Maunus for mentioning the Core Contest, which I will join as an editor of Psychology, another vital article that has long been neglected. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a single subsection on vocabulary in summary style is enough which can then be elaborated on in its own daughter article. Definitely more historical information with subsections on proto-Germanic to OE, OE to Middle E, and Early Modern E and Modern E. Then the grammar sections needs to be expanded into a full overview - still in summary style of course. But yes, wiping the slate is necessary since we have to start from the sources. (notice how after my removal of 20kb of text the number of citations is still the same!)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see that revisions in the Phonology and Vocabulary and History sections are well underway, and I wanted to let the rest of you know that my next task will be to pare away the content of the Significance section (not a standard section for an article about a spoken language) into appropriate other sections, mostly Geographical distribution, with some trimming of repetitive content along the way. The sources that I have read the most over the decades pertain to the geolinguistics of the English language, so that is where I will focus my content editing efforts, besides taking care to verify absolutely every citation throughout the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking we can add a few examples of English words from each historical source (Old English, Old Norse, Latin-through-Old-English, Old French and Anglo-Norman) as relevant — as in Bill Bryson's book, but less detailed, more linguistically accurate, and less hilarious. Examples illustrating stuff like Old English palatalization, the origin of they, and Old French loanwords with /tʃ/ are possibilities. — Eru·tuon 01:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, we may wish to simplify section names. Stylistically it may be preferable to list the year ranges in the intro to the History section, and label the subsections just with language names (Proto-Germanic, Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, Modern English, Global English). And Classification and History may be mergeable, if we describe the Germanic family features along with Proto-Germanic, Anglo-Frisian and dialectal Old English features with Old English, and the specifically English innovations in the Middle English, Early Modern English, and Modern English sections. History in some sense determines classification, and characteristic features each developed at different points in the history of the language, so it makes sense to place the two together. — Eru·tuon 01:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont disagree, except I think we may as well keep classification and history as separate but adjacent sections under each a level 2 header - just for the sake of easing the the structure of the headings (avoiding lvl 4 headings), and because that is the way most other articles do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of simply moving classification information to language period sections, and hence not adding any more section levels. But I suppose whether this makes sense depends on how the rewritten article looks. — Eru·tuon 02:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think there are good reasons to have classification separate - some people are interested in being able to extract informaiotn about phylogenetic relations specifically, and also when there are issues in classification that are subject to discussion or interpretation it is the best place to present that information. For example here the question of Ingvaeonic, and the creole hypothesis. I am wondering whether Jan Terje Faarlund's recent widely published claim that English is best considered to be a Scandinavian language in terms of syntax might also fit in or if it is too fringe/recentism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, "I was thinking of simply moving classification information to language period sections, and hence not adding any more section levels." What does this mean? Is there any period of history when English wasn't an Indo-European language, or indeed wasn't part of the Ingvaeonic subbranch of the Germanic languages? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that shared Germanic features developed in the Proto-Germanic period, Anglo-Frisian features developed in the period before the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, unique Old English features developed in the Old English period, etc. Features are, in many cases, traceable to a particular period in the language development. — Eru·tuon 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, but the taxonomic classification is not just about tracing the innovations over time, also about deciding how to weight them and create a tree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::But how many "languages" are there Maunus? One: English? Old English and New English? Scottish English? New Scottish English? Where do we draw the lines? There is no word for "English". What if he says that word in German? "Language" is a mythological social construct like phlogiston on a flat Earth in the dark ages. Get with the times and check your privilege. 123.142.246.6 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I check my privilege daily, just to make sure it is still there. Nonetheless, you are of course right that one cannot count languages as if they were things and that boundaries on a dialect continuum are arbitrary. I think an important job of the article is exactly to show the reader that English is not one thing but many.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Struck post by yet another sock of Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Main Sources to be Used

These are some of the sources I will rely on in my work on this article that really is immensely undersourced. Suggestions for other additions are more than welcome:

• Jespersen, O. (2013). A Modern English grammar on historical principles: Volume 2, syntax (first volume). Routledge.
• Jespersen, O. (2003). Essentials of English Grammar: 25th impression, 1987. Routledge.
• Jespersen, O. (1905). Growth and structure of the English language. BG Teubner.
• Milroy, L. (2002). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. Routledge.
• Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (Eds.). (2014). Real English: the grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. Routledge.
• Schreier, D., Trudgill, P., Schneider, E. W., & Williams, J. P. (Eds.). (2010). The lesser-known varieties of English: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (2008). International English: A guide to varieties of Standard English. Routledge.
• Hogg, R. M., Blake, N. F., Lass, R., Algeo, J., & Burchfield, R. W. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge history of the English language (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press.
• Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
• Crystal, D. (2002). The English language: A guided tour of the language. Penguin UK.
• Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of English. Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-23.
• Halle, M., & Chomsky, N. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
• Labov, William, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Walter de Gruyter, 2005.
• Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.

General comment on sources I can tell from the dates that you show for some of the classic titles that you are working from reprint editions. I am trying to find exactly the same editions whenever I can to make sure that I verify all the bibliographic information with full citation templates (which are a big convenience for readers who access Wikipedia from library terminals while doing research). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually dont go by the years given here they are just the editions I found first in google scholars, once I find hardcopies at the library I will put the versions I will be using - for the Jespersen ones I will probably use the original editions since they are free on google.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

lead revert

Re [1], English_language#Colonial_spread_of_Modern_English says "The growing economic and cultural influence of the US and its status as a global superpower since the Second World War have significantly accelerated the spread of the language across the planet." There is no sourced statement in the article about the American TV/film industry. NE Ent 12:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That was good of you to check what the cited source actually says. That section of the article has historically been subject to source-free edit warring. The sources already mentioned in various references for the article cover the worldwide spread of English quite comprehensively, and I was just at an academic library yesterday checking out books that I hadn't already borrowed to make sure I have just about every source for this entire article at hand in my office. I can see already from reading those sources that we can be much more thorough and complete in describing the worldwide spread of English and how that happened by citing those sources in more detail. That will put due weight on each major factor that mattered for the spread of English. Thank you for checking sources; I wish every Wikipedian did that all the time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts about trimming See also section?

Thanks for the continued great work on the article revisions. Do any of you editors have thoughts about revising the list of See also references to other Wikipedia articles in the section near the end of this article? The article is already well supplied with wikilinks (and I think will stay gain more in the next couple weeks of edits), and usually See also sections on Wikipedia don't include wikilinks that already are included inline in article text, so what See also links will this article still need when it is further revised? I'm not expressing any opinion here about any of the current See also links; I'm just raising the question for your consideration. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective the default number of see also links is zero.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It shall be done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Three general categories or two general categories of English dialects?

I see the sentence in the article, "The major native dialects of English are often divided by linguists into the three general categories of the British Isles dialects, those of North America and those of Australasia[7][94]", and I have both sources at hand, but I don't see strong support for a three-category grouping of English dialects in either source. Crystal, rather, follows most other sources in tracing English dialects around the world from either American English (AmE) or British English (BrE), and so does another book cited in this article, Svartik and Leech (2006). I generally see a two-way categorization in the literature I am reading on this topic. Do any editors have any comment on this, or any specific citations on point? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I left that in there without checking the reference, but it struck me as a problematic claim as well. I haven't seen any sources that make that three way distinction which also leaves out Caribbean and African Englishes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so that is older article text. Yeah, then the statement is very suspect. Do you have sources at hand that include a map like the one on page 107 of the 2003 Crystal Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (which attributes the map to Peter Stevens), showing which main dialects spread to which parts of the English-speaking world? That might be another good graphic for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Colonial spread of Modern English/American Independence

The following has been added to the section English language#Colonial spread of Modern English:

"The period following 1776, the year in which the American colonies became the first parts of the British empire to achieve independence, saw English become a global..."

Certainly 1776 is when the fledgling United States *declared* independence, but achieved it? Britain recognized American independence in 1783, after their last defeat at Yorktown.

Simply changing "achieved" to "declared" may be problematic, I don't know enough British history to know if any other bits of the empire attempted independence before 1776, although if they did, they were presumably not successful. Maybe just "the year in which the American colonies declared independence"? Rwessel (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus has dealt with the problem by changing the sentence to say "late 18th century". A pretty good solution. — Eru·tuon 03:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If I do say so myself. :) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Query

"In terms of grammatical evolution, Modern English is seeing the final stages of the loss of case (case is now only found in pronouns, such as he/him, she/her and who/whom), an increasingly fixed SVO word-order, the standardization of do-support (earlier English did not use the word "do" as a general auxiliary as Modern English does, it was only used in questions), and the increased usage of progressive forms in -ing."

The reference is to Suzanne Romaine's intro to the Cambridge History of the English Language, fourth ed.

I'd like to follow this up, because some of these claims seem to require special justification. For example, whom/who, yes; but a falling of of she/her? Where do we see that? ... and I'd like to see evidence how SVO word order is becoming increasingly fixed, and that the fusion of do-plus-predicate is still stabilising—without looking it up, my assumption is that it was stabilising around Shakespeare's time. Query also whether -ing usage is increasing. Tony (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1:, Well of course we cannot predict the future, but it is a fact that that is the trajectory English has followed so far, which is what is meant. So no do-support is nt still stabilizing it has by now reached the final stage of that process is what I meant - same with -ing usage although this is later. Is your query mostly regarding the wording "final stage" which suggests that there is necessarily an endpoint to the development? I can definitely change that. Let me know if my solution pleases you. Romaine points out that between EME and ME the main change has been in the relative frequency of forms, not the introduction of novel forms. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Early Modern English

@Maunus: I made some changes in the Early Modern English section. The Great Vowel Shift needs a good introduction. I think listing vowel shifts using IPA is too much information. Giving examples of how mouse and bite were pronounced was better, but it's kind of artificial. I think what might be best is a couple of examples of exceptions to the GVS: like how house has a different vowel from soup, great has a different vowel from eat, or something like that. This is less artificial and illustrates both vowel changes and spelling irregularity caused by the GVS. If there are examples of more graphemes with variable pronunciation in Modern English because of the GVS, list them here, and we'll add them. — Eru·tuon 05:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a chart of the great vowel shift for that section. I think it makes sense to describe the entire change, the way I do to show that it is a systematic rearrangement of all the vowels of the language, not just a random process. Here you can get a tast of what it is going to look like when Goran the graphist has finished it Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Great_Vowel_Shift_Chart. It may make sense to change the examples in the text to fit those in the chart.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

That's a great idea, and the chart looks very good. It seems that it has already been finished, but I think there should be some further tweakings. I like Manfred Goerlach's version of the chart, which presents the shifts as cyclic. Also, the vowel space should be triangular, and the fact that /iː uː/ changed to /əi əʊ/ be noted. I wish I'd known someone was making a graphic, since now it's basically already finished, and I'd be requesting a redo. — Eru·tuon 18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the development of /iː uː/ is somewhat uncertain, so that part should not be changed. And perhaps the cyclic analysis is uncertain as well. Then I suppose the only remaining tweaking is to make the chart more triangular (see this article for how it could look, with some symbols removed of course). What do you think? — Eru·tuon 18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that King Henry V of England started the use of English in the royal court in 1417 (Henry V of England § Domestic policy), and noted it in the article. It provides a good specific date for when the chancery standard began developing. Maunus, could you verify if this is noted in the Cambridge History that's cited as a source for that paragraph? — Eru·tuon 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw that mentioned in one of them - Ill find the reference and add it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the chancery standard is named after the Court of Chancery, where, according to that article, English replaced French in official documents around 1430. We need to verify the date, and note it in this article. I'm not sure exactly when Henry V is supposed to have done in 1417. — Eru·tuon 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the causal factor is not so much anything done by Henry V, but the fact that in the early 15th century English became increasingly acceptable as a language for official functions, replacing French. The sources mention the King writing letters home to England in English instead of French and the 1430 change of the Chancery - but for example Görlach describes this more as the result of the increased prestige of English than the cause of it. It did however boost the status of the Westminster dialect and cause the subsequent spread of its linguistic traits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of graphic

I have some suggested tweakings, although I must first confirm that Maunus agrees with them. I would like the schematic to be more triangular, with the symbols placed as they are in this chart, or trapezoidal like the more standard IPA vowel chart. I'm sorry that I didn't offer this suggestion earlier, since now it requires a remaking of the chart. I'm going to make rough sketches of how it could look, and let Maunus tell what he thinks. — Eru·tuon 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rough sketch of what it would look like, uploaded to Dropbox. The outer letters should outline a trapezoid, similar to an equilateral triangle, but with a wider bottom and leaning to the left. (Thus iː eː ɛː aː would be approximately at a 60-degree angle, and uː oː ɔː at an 80-degree angle, and all these outer letters should be almost equally spaced.) Also, the pairs iː uː, eː oː, ɛː ɔː should be at the same horizontal level, and a slightly below them. The pair ai au should be in the center, between the horizontal levels of eː oː and ɛː ɔː. Hope this is sufficient detail to show what I'm looking for. — Eru·tuon 19:21, 7 Me both arch 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I like yours because it is linguistically sophisticated - but I think the more schematic overview (similar to the books I have referred to above) maybe more easy to understand for lay readers (who probably won't realize the shape represents the vowel space). I think it would be useful to have both, the more sophisticated one might be best for the article on the vowel sift and the more schematic for the article English language. I can be convinced either way though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if lay readers would be confused by the more sophisticated diagram. The arrows are the same; it's just that the position of the letters is different. They wouldn't have to know what the positions meant in order to understand the diagram. They might even interpret the positions as being artistic license, a way of making the diagram more beautiful. Perhaps we could have both versions, and use the more sophisticated version in both articles unless someone complains? Or better yet, we could request that less linguistically-knowledgeable editors and readers comment on which version they find easier to understand. — Eru·tuon 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I should also say: I didn't write the example words in my version of the diagram, but they should probably be included. — Eru·tuon 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Note @Goran tek-en: your IPA font is degrading bc it doesn’t contain the necessary glyphs (see ɔ and ɛ)—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If an IPA font is needed, Gentium Plus is a very beautiful free one, more beautiful than Charis SIL, in my opinion. — Eru·tuon 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of self promoting, ky also add a typeface I am currently working on which supports IPA glyphs too? && also neither font lives on wikimedia’s servers, you will have to convert the glyphs to svg outlines btw—♥ Kelvinsong talk 15:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the examples and the general layout we're using.

bite iː		uː bout
beet eː	ai au	oː boot
beat ɛː		ɔː boat
bate aː bait ai

First question: whether bate and bait should be listed as having /aː ai/ or /æː/. Second question: should we use a more triangular shape, the original more linear shape, or each in a different article? Third: should we add a word with /ɑu/, which also shifted? — Eru·tuon 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should list it as what the source has, and definitely not as /ai/ because that would probablyt both be inaccurate and ruin the illustrations illustrative value.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a new sketch uploaded to Dropbox. My previous link broke because I did some rearranging of files. — Eru·tuon 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Page 73 of Lass's Cambridge History (Volume 3) gives a slightly different picture of the immediate changes in the Vowel Shift. Here I've omitted the arrows. Each cell would have an arrow facing upwards to the next highest cell.

ei	ou
bite iː	uː bout
beet eː	oː boot
beat ɛː	ɔː boat
bate aː

Later, [ei ou] lowered their first elements to [əi əu], [ai au], [æɪ ɑʊ], or [ɑɪ æʊ] at different times and in different dialects. Likewise, [ɛː] split into [iː] or [eː], giving the different sound values of break, bread, east.

Given that the set of changes between Middle English and Modern English is so complex, we have to figure out how best to simplify it in this overview article, and in the graphic. Perhaps the earlier table above is the best way. — Eru·tuon 22:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The details and complexities belong in the article about the vowel shift, here we just need an overview, and the versions of the scheme I used appear in sev eral pulications as a basic illustration of the process. Lass himself gives it as the "traditional" illustration which he then goes on to complicate. There is lots of room for improvment in the article on the vowel shift as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly lost on which is the "traditional" scheme. If it's different from the tables above, could you create a similar table displaying it? — Eru·tuon 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly traditional, but an often repeated representation, is the first one Lass gives here: On page 73. He states that "this configuration is now traditionally called the great vowel shift". then he criticizes the view of it as a single process and gives some other more detailed representations. [2]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so basically like the first table above? We can stick with that in this article, since it basically gives Modern sound-values. What do you think of my sketched version? Any changes you'd like to make? — Eru·tuon 00:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I think both are fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so my sketch is okay, but you would like to change the /ai/ of bait? Should we place with beat, giving it the sound-value /ɛː/, or simply use Lass's words bite, meet, meat, mate, out, boot, boat? — Eru·tuon 01:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove bait and have "bate" as the example of /a:/. Using a sequence of /ai/ doesnt work, because it is supposed to exemplify the raising of a: to ɛː. I was assuming that bait was originally /ba:t/ and then became /bɛːt/ before breaking into /bɛit/. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's a new sketch with bait removed. Assuming there are no other changes, I'll submit it on the Graphics Lab page with proper instructions on how to make it. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems qwith that one. Note that I have also requested dialect maps at the map lab, and a tree diagram of West germanic with added detail for English.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we're confusing Goran tek-en a little too much. We're both giving directions, which are contradictory or mutually exclusive, and he doesn't have time to figure out which of them to actually follow. Let's discuss here what changes we want, and then let him know.

1. You want a grid, but I don't. You say it makes sense to have a grid, because the diagram follows the typical IPA shape of the vowel space. I think a grid is too noisy, and isn't needed, since it isn't in Lass's and Goerlach's diagrams. (See Goerlach's diagram here.)

2. I want the proportions to be adjusted, which means that the symbols will be smaller, the arrows longer, and space between arrows and symbols greater. Basically, I think the proportions should be closer to those in Goerlach's diagram. What do you think about this? — Eru·tuon 16:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think Görlach's is graphically effective. It begs the question of the triangular shape, and I think makes the diagram more confusing than helpful unless set against the background of the vowel space trapezoid (which any graphist could make in such a way as to be unobtrusive). I think Lass' diagram with straight vertical columns is more graphically effective (doesnt have unused parameters of information such as the introduction of the triangular slant, and gives a more simplified overview of the information) and also more efficient in terms of space. I am fairly indifferent regarding the size of glyphs and lenght of arrows - but I don't see why smaller letters and longer arrows is an improvement either. I would think of it in term of making as compact yet clear illustration as possible, and for that reason I prefer Lass's straight design. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. You didn't express this preference for a rectangular form earlier, but simply assented to my trapezoidal sketch. I appreciate you speaking your mind now, but which design of Lass's are you referring to? You originally suggested this design, which is different from any of Lass's. Lass either has a time-graph of changes (diagrams 11 and 12, on page 72), or a diagram with the diphthongs ei ou on the outside of the rectangle instead of the inside (diagram 13, on page 73).

	iː	uː
ei	eː	oː	ou
	ɛː	ɔː
	aː

Is this the design you prefer, except with ai au replacing ei ou? Or do you want the time-graph design? — Eru·tuon 17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont want the time graph design, that one is too complicated for this article, and we already have a detailed time graph in the Vowel Shift main article. I prefer the straight design either with the diphthongs on the outside as Lass does or on the inside as the image I linked to from the Penn dialectology website. The reason I acceded was because I assumed that you would want to overlay the design on the vowel chart, which I can understand because it makes the spatial information useful for linguistically sophisticated readers by showing that it is a process taking place in vowel space. Without the grid that information is lost I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we miscommunicated. I personally like the trapezoidal shape best, and without a grid. It's prettier, and I think readers would see that. Some readers wouldn't know the reason behind the shape, but they don't have to, since it looks artistic. Since even the rectangular diagrams assume the concepts of height and backness, we might as well go the whole way and shape the thing based on the vowel space. I don't want to use the grid, because it's superfluous and theoretical: it's arbitrarily defined by the concept of 7 cardinal vowels. We already have the 7 vowel symbols in the diagram, with arrows between them. The symbols show the corners of the grid, and the arrows show the two sides of the vowel space. There's no reason to add the horizontal or vertical crossbars, any more than there's a reason to add them to the rectangular diagrams: they're implied by the positioning of the vowel symbols. The trapezoidal design is prettier because it makes space in the center for ai au, and all the arrows are straight, which looks nicer; also angles are prettier than straight edges.

That's the best reasoning I can come up with; if you aren't convinced, we can go ahead and use one of the rectangular designs, even though it seems clearly deficient to me. Let me know which you prefer, Lass's or the Penn one. I might ask the graphist to make a final version of the trapezoidal design as well, which can be uploaded separately and left in the Commons unless consensus moves the editors to use it. — Eru·tuon 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the aesthetic argument. By the same reasoning we should make the letters pink on a yellow background. I do think it is good to have both versions (or all three, including the one with the grid) on commons, then future generations can choose to switch as the consensus changes over the ages. It would also allow us to have an rfc about which is preferable if we cannot come to terms on the question at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, let's ask for three versions: rectangular version, trapezoidal version without grid, trapezoidal version with grid. We'll use the rectangular version for now, and maybe have an RfC later. Sounds like a good solution. In our instructions to the graphist, perhaps you should handle the rectangular version, and I'll handle the trapezoidal ones. — Eru·tuon 07:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The rectangular one was pretty much ready when the discussion started.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But he may not still have it and have to remake it, so you'll have to provide the link again to show what it's supposed to look like.

Also, we need to decide on filenames. Since all these versions will have the same content, perhaps we should name them with variations on the same name: Great Vowel Shift2a, 2b, 2c. Later, perhaps, it would be good to move the current File:Great Vowel Shift.svg to a more appropriate name: time plot of English vowels, or something. It's about more than just the GVS.

And do we both agree that the images should not have a border? — Eru·tuon 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The links are still there in the original request, regarding filenames and borders I am entirely neutrally disposed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erutuon:, could you let Goran tek-en know our request for three separate images? I dont think he will take me seriously anymore after vacillating back and forth so long now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Quite right, I've just been a little lazy. I posted the request. — Eru·tuon 04:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)