Jump to content

Talk:English language/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

English

change ((Other uses|English)) to ((Other uses|English (disambiguation)((!))English)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:A4C7:505D:448:C226 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Ends up where the hatnote is now pointing. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Done I've made the correction, as the OP is correct. Per WP:INTDAB, "...the community has adopted the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page." - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

By my mind it seems West Germanic language is an unclear way of speaking . What country is intended when it says West Germanic language ? BatmobileFire (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

West Germanic says nothing about relation to any country. "Germanic" is the name given to a group languages that share developed from a shared parent language. Germanic had three daughter groups - West Germanic, North Germanic and East Germanic. As the article describes West Germanic languages include modern Dutch, German, Flemish, English and a couple of other extinct languages that were once spoken in the area that is now the Netherlands, Belgium and Northern Western Germany. This is actually a very precise definition, so not unclear at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Germanic is a word that modifies another word . They say its currently out of possibility to u-se the word Germanic alone . If it were Germanic literature then it would seem sensible; and so too Germanic music; Germanic medicine . So to say that there is a West Germanic language is not clear . I can only conclude they are not all ready to deliberate . I will patiently wait to learn by what magic they u-se the term West Germanic to refer to that linguistic origin . BatmobileFire (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@BatmobileFire: You have missed the point made by Maunus. In another context "Germanic" may be a modifier for a noun or pronoun, but West Germanic languages is a term used by many linguists and well sourced in its article. Please take the time to read West Germanic languages. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if you click on the link it should be come more clear to you. Germanic by the way is an adjective that refers to the speakers of Germanic languages and their cultures - the West Germanic languages is a specific group within this group. There is nothing unclear or odd about that for someone who is willing to learn.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Word Order" and "Question" sections

Regarding the question section; I suggest that it be edited because "interrogative pronouns" is extremely misleading; only 2 out of 5 of those are actually pronouns; the remainder are adverbs as well as most "interrogative pronouns" are actually adverbs; wouldn't it make more sense and accuracy to use "words" instead of "pronouns"?

Also, regarding English's word order and this page's Word Order Section; true that, because of French influence, English is now predominately SVO but English still uses other constructs which are either essential or a convenient nuance which should be considered.

was english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.68.48 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Example: OSV or OVS when the object respectively has the theme/topic or is desired to be emphasized.

OSV In the Modern English language
Object Subject Verb
Kind and polite folks I like. ... EXAMPLE: "I don't like mean and/or disrespectful people; kind and polite folks I like."
OVS In the Modern English language
Object Verb Subject
A great and mighty man was he. ... EXAMPLE: "My comrade, a great and mighty man was he."


Also, English still uses V2 word order (albeit in just vestiges).

V2 In the Modern English language

Questions
Prepositional phrase themed questions
Question Phrase V2 Verb Remainder of the clause
Exactly how did you know that?
Prepositional phrase themed questions
Prepositional phrase V2 Verb Remainder of the clause
Within how many miles and yards of the finish-line must he be to complete the race?


Finally, the most common and traditional Modern English V2 use: Negative or limiter first.

V2 In the Modern English language

Negative or limiter first
Negative/Limiter V2 Verb Remainder of the clause
Very seldom(ly) does it rain here.
Rarely have I ever seen such arrogance!
Never again will I ever see such a wondrous spectacle!

And in light of the fact that English is a Germanic language (which all other Modern Germanic languages use V2 word order), I strongly suggest that these and others (if any other(s) are applicable) should be taken into consideration for the English Language page reformation.Wizymon (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The mention of interrogative pronouns has already been changed. I am not going to read your examples since in the absence of a source they are simply Original Research. Please take the time to read the sources given for the information you wish to change (Huddleston and Pullum, and König), and then present an argument why other sources should be preferred. The relics of V2 word order are of very minor and specialized interest. Describing them in any detail is unnecessary when the task is to summarize the basics of Modern English syntax as it is here. The argument might be made to include it at English syntax, but it simply doesnt belong here in an article that is already out long as it can be. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And what about my OSV and OVS sections/suggestions? Wizymon (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, those word orders are marked word orders in English, fulfilling only pragmatic purposes. The "O","S","V" description is only used to describe the basic, unmarked word order of a language, not the different permutations used by all languages for different pragmatic effects.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't like these simple claims of word order. It's more varied and subtle than that, and Maunus is right in raising the marked–unmarked issue. In fact, markedness involves the wording of interrogative just as much as indicative mood. Tony (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed the fronting of wh-word can well be considered simply a form of focus construction limited to questions. The only reason the V2 vs. SVO distinction is note worthy is because those two kinds of basic unmarked wordorder are used for typological purposes. O initial word order constructions would be described by their specific pragmatic functions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


"I am not going to read your examples since in the absence of a source they are simply Original Research." Fair point.

Consider the following then:

Never in my life have I seen such a mess. [1]

Only a few Icelandic sounds would an English speaker have trouble pronouncing. [2] Wizymon (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizymon (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it is well known that English has vestiges of V2 - it is however a specialized point that is not generally mentioned in grammatical descriptions of the language. As I said this can be added to the specific article on Grammar (Or perhaps better the article on V2 word order) But it does not belong in this general article about the language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch14.html#modern-english
  2. ^ http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/psicl.2007.43.issue-2/v10010-007-0015-2/v10010-007-0015-2.xml
  3. ^ http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/syntax/verb-second-in-english.html

Additional information in the lead

copied from my talkpage. This seems a more suitable place for discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Good day i just wanted to tell you that it is strange that in the very long lead of English language, the languages of the same language branch are not mentioned (Frisian, Dutch and German). It is also not mentioned that the English language derives its name from the Anglia peninsula in Germany. I wonder which facts could be more suitable for the lead apart from the language branch and the countries in which a language is spoken.TheLusatian (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think there is room for that information in the lead, which I don't actually think is particularly long. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category for scholars

There are categories Category:English teachers, Category:Anglo-Saxon studies scholars But I fail to see Category:English studies scholars Also Category:Linguists by language of study has "[[:Category:Linguists of Klingon:Linguists of Klingon]", but alas! there are no linguists of English in wikipedia !-). Can someone help me to solve this puzzle?

(My concern: I am about to write an article about German Anglicist Eugen Einenkel. There are [[:de:Kategorie:Anglist]/de:Kategorie:Anglistischer Linguist with no en: counterparts.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There may well be no such category; there doesn't seem to one for scholars of Eng Lit either (which is what "English studies" in English mostly are). F. R. Leavis is only in Category:English literary critics. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

103.52.127.149 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.- BilCat (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Romance language

I suggest to mention English is has been called a "semi-Romance language" by some authors. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 01:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which ones are those, and where do they call it that? - BilCat (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Barfield is one of them. See "History in English Words" (1962:59).
Thomason & Kaufman (1988:72) argue that the greater intensity of contact results in more borrowings, especially between typological-related languages. While, English is, of course, a Germanic language, it has been called a "semi-Romance language" because over half of its vocabulary is of Latin and French origin (see Barfield (1962:59), quoted in O'Laoire & Singleton (2009), who also quote Pei's (1967:92) assertion that 12,000 of the words in "full use" in English are of Latin, Greek and French origin. Ravage (1917:103), an early 20th century Rumanian immigrant to the US, wrote that: "My friends are finding English contemptible easy" because of their "partly justified" notion "that it was a mixture of Yiddish and Rumanian!" (quoted in Jarvis & Pavlenko 2007:2)). — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 03:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The English loanwords from Latin and French, which in many cases are pronounced very differently in comparison with the original, have not influenced the Germanic structure of the English language at all. So yo cannot formulate a single English sentence using only loanwords. Additionally many loanwords are only synonyms of original Germanic words: storm - tempest, go down - descend, sight - view, little - petit, finding - trove et al.

Besides it is not surprising that a Romanian immigrant can understand some English sentencies, because several thousend Romanian words are of Greman origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.238.128 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the genetic descent is the way that languages are always classified (an example is Maltese, which is Semitic even though most of it's words are of Romantic origin), plus everyday speech still leans Germanic. I could be misinterpreting what you're suggesting, though. Alex (Talk) 07:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. English descends from Proto-Germanic, not Latin. English grammar and basic vocabulary are solidly, overwhelmingly Germanic; the strong verbs like sing – sang – sung alone (besides the weak verbs in -ed, a typical Germanic trait as well) prove the thorough Germanicness of English at its very core, as do the suppletive paradigms like is – was or good – better – best that can impossibly be borrowed, irregularities like he will and he can (also cf. the archaic God wot) without the -s ending, typically Germanic, and the few remaining irregular plurals preserve traces of the equally typical weak declension and the root nouns with their umlaut. It's relatively easy to form English sentences that contain only Germanic words. Romance influences haven't penetrated deep enough into the grammar to even consider English as a candidate for a genuinely "mixed" language like Michif or Cappadocian Greek. Nor is English a pidgin or creole – its reduced morphology has plenty of analogies in other Germanic languages such as Swedish (which has done away with person and number agreement in verbs altogether) or Dutch. The classification of English has been debated countless times, and nobody has ever been able to refute the consensus that Modern English is just as solidly West Germanic as Old English is.
Moreover, if English were "semi-Romance" purely on account of a large borrowed lexicon, then Japanese could easily be called "semi-Chinese" and Persian "semi-Arabic", which would be ridiculous. Language classification doesn't focus on lexicon, but those elements of a language which are highly resistant to borrowing and characteristic of language descent, mainly shared morphological paradigms, especially highly irregular or suppletive paradigms with bound morphology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree

Hello. Is the tree accurate with respect to Low German ? How is Old Franconian the predecessor of Low German, and not Old Saxon ? Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there is room for adding detail in the classification scheme in the higher levels where we decided to simplify it more so that the focus was on the specific relations of English. The sources we used were Hogg and other sources that did not use the ingvaeonic/istvaeonic classification, but I think the old Franconian label is meant to correspond to "Istvaeonic" and the "Anglo-Frisian" to "ingvaeonic" - this would put ingvaeonic Old Saxon as another branch of the Anglo-Frisian node, but whereas Istvaeonic "Low Saxon" is also another name for the Low German.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"Old Franconian" shouldn't be used in the first place since it splits into a Low and High variant when the distinction arises. Old Low Franconian and Old Saxon are still clearly distinguishable separate languages with no common ancestor beyond Proto-West Germanic. It's not a matter of 'adding detail', the tree is wrong and needs to be repaired or removed. Korn (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some sources for this? Preferable would be a source that has a tree diagram that you think is better.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a brilliant idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017

1)With the internet/mass communication there may be a lot more foreign English speakers than noted compared to "native speakers".

2)I don't like the terminology Native speaker. Such as is a German American a English native speaker? or would only someone born in England be a native speaker? or would an English American be an English native speaker? The US English American population is only 6% of the US so probably globally is the same relative amount to English speakers. There needs to be separate terminology for English speakers with English genetic history compared to those without English genetics. For example, I don't consider anyone to be of English genetics without Evolving in England as a geographic region for at least two centuries, so maybe those without the evolutionary history wouldn't be native speakers. With only approximately 55 Million people in England,85% white, so only 46 million being white. Then consider the English American population in the US, English populations globally in Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, and other locations. Compensating for those who went to England for infrastructure, language, those from wars or other without English genetics. Its probably only 25-30 Million or less globally who are English with at least two centuries of evolutionary history in England. Twoandrew (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but it seems as if you're confusing English ancestry with the English language. In any event, unless you'd like a specific change made, there's no need for a formal edit request. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Concur. A "native speaker of English" is a person for whom English is their first language, regardless of their ancestry or place of birth. To answer your question, yes, a person of German ancestry born in the United States, a German American, who speaks English as their first language would be a native speaker of English. My grandfather was such a person, btw. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

202.151.30.3 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

While I applaud anyone who in good faith tries to improve an article, I think additions to this article should be done cautiously. I have a few concerns about recent edits by ArchitectMan in this edit and several just previous to it.

1) This editor has made quite a few changes to content while leaving no edit summaries, contrary to WP:FIES.

2) Some of the changes resulted in sentences that are now rather long and unwieldy, such as in the lead. In two edits, material was added to the lead. This is the second of the two edits: [1]. I think some of these sentences are now so long, unwieldy, and packed with information that they present comprehension problems to the average Wikipedia reader.

3a) Some of the changes are stylistically questionable, such as in this new material added in this edit, later made into one sentence in this edit:

  • Apart from being the most Romance Germanic language in terms of vocabulary, English also is the most North Germanic influenced West Germanic language, and, as an insular language, it developed independently of the continental West Germanic Frisian, Low German, German and Dutch, and is thus, differing in vocabulary, syntax and phonology, not mutually intelligible with these languages.

I refer especially to the phrase "the most most Romance Germanic language", but I also think the sentence is too long.

3b) or the change made in this edit, changing the sentence from:

  • While Dutch and Afrikaans are classified as Franconian languages (nr. 25, 29 and 32), Standard German is based on Thuringian-Upper Saxon dialects (nr. 30), and therefore is more closely related to the North Sea Germanic languages.

to:

  • While Dutch and Afrikaans are classified as Franconian languages (nr. 25, 29 and 32), Standard German is based on Thuringian-Upper Saxon dialects (nr. 30), and therefore the three languages are about equally closely related to the North Sea Germanic languages.

where now there are two -ly adverbs in a row; only one adverb should be enough: "about equally related". I wonder, also, whether the change from "more closely related" to "about equally closely related" is original research.

4) Also, some readers may find the numbers (referring to a map) added in this edit distracting. The map should speak for itself. (Besides that, "nr." is not the abbreviation for "number" in English.)

5) In this edit, the editor changed "who" to "that", presumably thinking that since a frog is not a person, the word "who" should not be used; however, since the line is clearly personifying both the ghost and the frog, "who" would be appropriate here, and in my opinion should be changed back.  – Corinne (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits, I think the greater problem was that they were unsourced- and that they contradicted the sources that were already there and used a different classification scheme (for example the istvaeonic/ingvaeonic grouping is not currently considered definitive).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Change "later by Romance languages, particularly Latin and French" to "later by Italic languages, particularly Latin and French" -- Romance languages derive from Latin, so by definition Latin is not a Romance language. It does not derive from Latin; it is Latin. However, both Latin and French are Italic languages. LeRichard11 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, in fact english has probably not been significantly influenced by Latin, so probably we can just remove Latin from that sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The section "Word origins" does indicate that the English vocabulary has been quite significantly influenced by Latin, so I don't see any reason to remove Latin. But really, other Romance languages but French haven't exerted any significant influence on English, certainly no more than Latin has, so the "Romance" part is unnecessary, and removing it should take care of the objection. Also, I suspect that the source given does mention Latin. Moreover, it wasn't only Norman French. However, since we don't know what the source actually says (that's the problem when you don't add quotations to offline citations), we shouldn't change the sentence arbitrarily, so I have undone your change, and modified the sentence to be closer to the original phrasing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2017

The pronunciation should be changed from /ˈɪŋɡlɪʃ/ to /ˈiŋɡlɪʃ/. "1,000 million" should also be changed to "1 billion." M0a1r1c7h (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What would be the source of that pronunciation being more common?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Classification

I would like to suggest changing this:

"English is an Indo-European language, and belongs to the West Germanic group of the Germanic languages. Most closely related to English are the Frisian languages, and English and Frisian form the Anglo-Frisian subgroup within West Germanic. Old Saxon and its descendent Low German (Low Saxon) languages are also closely related, and sometimes Low German, English, and Frisian are grouped together as the Ingvaeonic or North Sea Germanic languages. Modern English descends from Middle English, which in turn descends from Old English. Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland."

to:

"English is an Indo-European language, and belongs to the West Germanic group of the Germanic languages. Apart from Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland, English is most closely related to the three Frisian languages: West Frisian, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian, with which it forms the Anglo-Frisian subgroup within West Germanic. Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon, is also closely related, and sometimes English, Frisian and Low German are grouped together as the Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germanic) languages."

a) Scots is regarded as a language by many, and if the text says that Scots is a language, then there is a contradiction if Frisian is being referred to before Scots.

b) That English is closely related to the Frisian languages, says the introduction already. Since the classification section should be more specific than the introduction, it would be better to specify the three Frisian languages, also because these three languages are the most closely related languages to English apart from Scots.

c) The text should either read:

English is related to Old Frisian and its descendant Frisian languages, and to Old Saxon and its descendant Low German languages

or:

English is related to the Frisian languages and to Low German, which evolved from Old Saxon

In the current text, one time only the modern languages are mentioned (the Frisian languages), and one time the language (Old Saxon) from which the modern language (Low German) evolved is mentioned first, which is inconsistent. It's like writing that Spanish is related to Portuguese, and to Gallo-Roman and its descendant French language.

d) Low German is regarded as one language and not as different languages. There are different Low German dialects but just one Low German language.

e) That modern English descends from Middle English which in turn descends from Old English can be read about in detail in the history section. ArchitectMan (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I disagree with this proposal. I think the proposed changes are unnecessary - in the lead only the related languages that are most likely to be known by the reader should be included, and also not necessarily in a sequence according to degree of proximity - there is no particular reason that one would expect the most closely related languages first. The inclusion of scots and Yola is unnecessary (since they are descendants of middle English and old English and in this way are kinds of "English" in the same way Modern English is - even if we consider them separate languages politically) and is just going to confuse the general reader. The added details about Frisian varieties is not useful in my opinion. I would be fine with changing "Frisian" to "the frisian languages" to show that there are more than one - but there is no need to mention all three of them. The most probematic aspect of the proposal is the removal of the mention of Modern English and the sequence of development from old to modern since this distinction is crucial for the reader to undrstand how Scots and Yola relates to the English spoken today. In short I don't think any of the proposed changes will improve the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"I disagree with this proposal. I think the proposed changes are unnecessary - in the lead only the related languages that are most likely to be known by the reader should be included, and also not necessarily in a sequence according to degree of proximity - there is no particular reason that one would expect the most closely related languages first."

Well, but if the texts reads "it is most closely related to the Frisian languages" when in reality it is Scots, then the sentence is wrong.

Probably Scots is better known by the reader than the Frisian languages, and the best known closely related languages apart from Scots would probably be German and Dutch.

Even if there should be no particular reason that one would expect the most closely related languages first, it seems, however, that this would be most logical.

"The inclusion of scots and Yola is unnecessary (since they are descendants of middle English and old English and in this way are kinds of "English" in the same way Modern English is - even if we consider them separate languages politically) and is just going to confuse the general reader."

Either Scots is a language or not. Since it is being referred to as such in this very text, it should be treated like that and therefore would have to be mentioned.

A possible solution for this would be a sentence like:

"Apart from Scots, which is sometimes considered a language and sometimes a dialectal variant of English, it is most closely related to the three Frisian languages."

"The added details about Frisian varieties is not useful in my opinion. I would be fine with changing "Frisian" to "the frisian languages" to show that there are more than one - but there is no need to mention all three of them."

The three Frisian languages are not three variants of a Frisian language, but three different languages. These languages are the languages most closely related to English apart from Scots. How could mentioning them not improve the text?

"The most probematic aspect of the proposal is the removal of the mention of Modern English and the sequence of development from old to modern since this distinction is crucial for the reader to undrstand how Scots and Yola relates to the English spoken today."

Wouldn't it be enough to tell the reader that Scots is most closely related to English because it is also an Anglic language? The history section would be more specific about this.

And what about points c and d? ArchitectMan (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not the case that "either scots is a language or not" - those are two different equally possible points of view. Adding Scots as a related language in the lead makes it appear as if wikipedia assumes one of those views. Added detail is not always an improvment, sometimes it makes text more confusing - especially when the added detail does not provide additional information about the topic. Saying "English is related to the Frisian languages" is not less correct than saying "English is related to West Frisian, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian" and the latter provides information that is both insignificant for the current topic and redundant (because saying it is related to the Frisian languages provides the same information). I propose we avoid the problem you perceive by simply removing the "most" before "closely related to".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Concerning the classification section:

"It is not the case that "either scots is a language or not" - those are two different equally possible points of view. Adding Scots as a related language in the lead makes it appear as if wikipedia assumes one of those views."

Since the text currently reads:

"Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland.",

exactly what you want to avoid is already the case: Scots is being referred to as an Anglic language, and not as either a language or a dialect of English.

If it shall appear as if no view is preferred to the other, a sentence like "which sometimes is regarded as a language and sometimes as a dialect" would have to be added. Therefore I propose this:

"Apart from Scots (which is sometimes regarded as a language and sometimes as a dialect of English), it is most closely related to the Frisian languages: West Frisian, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian..."

"Added detail is not always an improvment, sometimes it makes text more confusing - especially when the added detail does not provide additional information about the topic. Saying "English is related to the Frisian languages" is not less correct than saying "English is related to West Frisian, North Frisian and Saterland Frisian" and the latter provides information that is both insignificant for the current topic and redundant (because saying it is related to the Frisian languages provides the same information)."

Actually, more information is provided if all three languages are mentioned, because just saying that it is related to the Frisian languages, does not provide the information which these languages are. Even the Irish dialects, which aren't even spoken anymore, are being mentioned. Why are these extinct dialects more important than the most closely related living languages? Since the introduction already says Frisian languages, wouldn't it be justified if the classification section was a bit more detailed? Otherwise it is just being repeated what has already been said in the introduction.

Still there is point c)

This: "Most closely related to English are the Frisian languages... Old Saxon and its descendent Low German (Low Saxon) languages are also closely related..."

sounds like:

"Most closely related to Spanish is the Portuguese language... Gallo Roman and its descendent French language is also closely related..."

and should be changed to:

"Most closely related to English are the Frisian languages... Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon, is also closely related..."

and point d) Low German is regarded as one language with many dialects.

  • Concerning the introduction:

"I propose we avoid the problem you perceive by simply removing the "most" before "closely related to""

Now you changed the sentence in the introduction to:

"It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages..."

Wouldn't it be better to write:

"Apart from Scots, it is most closely related to the Frisian languages and Low German (Low Saxon). The English vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages..."

At least the "but its vocabulary" ought to be changed to "and its vocabulary" because the "but" sounds as if, because it is closely related to the Frisian languages, one should assume that English has been significantly influenced by these languages. But probably it was not influenced by them at all. ArchitectMan (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

First, it would be great if you would write your comments in a format that is more easy to respond to (not breaking up the text in every sentence and following the indentation practice outlined at the talkpage guideline). Secondly, "Anglic languages" = English languages and dialects (which is clear from the link) - so no it is not a problem, it is exactly the best way to avoid the fruitless debate of classifying Scots (and other Anglic varieties as either languages or dialects). Third, the same is the case for Low German, which is not universally regarded as "one language with many dialects" - here I don't care as much since it is tangential to this article, so I don't mind changing that one sentence to a singular form, it is basically irrelevant. Lastly, no I don't think your proposed sentence would be better, since I disagree that the sentence as it is now suggests that it has been influenced by Frisian, in fact I think it is very clear from the "but" that the influence is specifically from Germanic languages other than those with which it is most closely related (i.e. Old Norse), your proposed text is therefore unnecessarily verbose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree that the sentence "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages..." should be changed to "Low German, which evolved from Old Saxon,..."? ArchitectMan (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to mention Old Saxon at all? The article is so full of detail, the danger of the reader zoning out and throwing "tl;dr" is palpable. And this article is likely to be perused by tons of lay readers, especially schoolkids. Let's stick to the most salient points and leave the detail to more specialised articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

So either "Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon,..." or just "Low German (Low Saxon)..." ArchitectMan (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the "but" in this sentence:

"It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages, as well as by Latin and Romance languages, particularly French."

should be changed to "and", because the "but" makes it sound as if one would assume that English should have been significantly influenced by the Frisian languages, just because it is most closely related to them. ArchitectMan (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

I am not sure where to fit these comments in, but there are two points I should like to make about grammar. First, there is no mention of the semi-obsolete pronouns "thou", "thee" and "ye", or thy" and "thine", which are to be found in many still-read books and are sometimes still used. Then, more seriously I think, the paradigm of the future tense omits "shall", which is incorrect and destroys one of the subleties of our language. Seadowns (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Seadowns I appreciate your interest in improving the article. I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page since it was a new section. See WP:BOTTOMPOST for guidelines. Regarding your first point, if you look at the beginning of the various sections in this article, you will see several links to other articles that cover the information in that section in more depth. Thus, this article is somewhat of an overview. The pronouns you mentioned are treated in at least two of the linked articles, History of the English language and Middle English. If you think they should be discussed or mentioned in this article, feel free to make your case. I recommend trying to develop a consensus among the various editors who watch this article before making any changes.
Regarding your second point, I found these sentences in the "Tense, aspect and mood" section of the larger section English language#Verbs and verb phrases:
  • English does not have a morphologised future tense. Futurity of action is expressed periphrastically with one of the auxiliary verbs will or shall.
Do you think that covers it sufficiently, or do you think it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article? The modal auxiliary verbs, including will and shall, are covered in the Verbs section of English grammar and in the English verbs article. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
About those pronouns: they were still in common use long after Middle English had given way to Early Modern English, which is also linked from this article. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As to the pronouns, the case is that they are still to be found in the Bible and much other writing that is still read. Take Pope, or more recently Kipling. And they can be found used, even if only facetiously, eg by people who sign their letters "Thine". As to "shall", it disturbed me to see the paradigm of the future tense set out with "I will" as the "neutral" future form, which is really a slipshod usage for "I shall" with "shall" not there So much is lost by obliterating this nicety, for example in the exchange in Macbeth "Fail not our feast," "My lord, I will not", a touch of genius nullified by the loss of "shall" (because "will", being different from "shall", shows his determination to come whatever happens, which he does). I think there ought to be a separate paradigm also, "I will go, you shall go," etc. for the "intentional" future. It may be worth noting that, for example, "I'll" can stand for "I shall" or "I will" (or so I think). 

But I accept I can be wrong in all this.  Seadowns (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We follow the sources, the grammars we have used as sources do not do this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

But some grammars do? Seadowns (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That is for you to find out. Find some that do and which are equally well esteemed as the ones we currently use and then we can discuss it. Otherwise it is futile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Gender

Gender 

There is an aspect of gender in English that I am unaware of in other languages. English nouns have no grammatical gender, but the gender of their pronoun is determined, so to speak, biologically. But only up to a point: there is more to the story. Thus men and women are he and she respectively, of course. Babies, however, can be called he, she, or it. Animals also can be he, she or it, from the top of the scale, with dogs or horses, say, down to creatures like spiders or insects. Looking at inanimates, ships and boats are often, or even usually, and quite correctly, feminine, so can things like cars be, or certain other pieces of machinery. Some also may be masculine, like, I think, locomotives. Trees also can be masculine. This is a form of personification. Then, of course, nations and cities are often feminine, in some writers always so. This may all seem rather fanciful, but it is definitely part of the language and deserves to be mentioned in the article. I have found that many foreign learners of English are quite unaware of it. I do not think this expressive resource would be possible in a language where the nouns have a determined grammatical gender.Seadowns (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR which is one of our basic policies. It says that we base our articles on sources, and follow what the best available sources say. Your description of English gendered pronouns is essentially right, but there is nothing particularly special about it among the world's languages - the same for example exists in the scandinavian languages. Nevertheless it is not something that is typically covered in detail in general descriptions of English. I would suggest finding some good sources (Anna Wierzbicka has written about this phenomenon in Australian English for example) and then adding it either to English grammar or to Gender (grammar. It is not something that should be given more detail in this general article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid I am no longer able to visit libraries to search for better sources than those hitherto used. However, I think I have pointed out one or two ways in which this article could be made to cover rather more of the facts. The future paradigm, in particular, as it stands, may be taken from a printed source, but I don't see how it is not erroneous. Seadowns (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no future paradigm in English, since the language does not have a grammaticalized future tense. Whether you agree with the major experts on this is not particularly relevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Meganesia's changes

I have reverted some of Meganesia's bold changes to the lead, I particularly disagreed with the decision not to mention the genetic classificatoin of hte language in the definition - this is a standard part of the definition in our language articles. I also disagree with the inclusion of vocabulary size in the lead - several sources make a point of the fact that it is not possible or meaningful to compare the vocabulary size of languages or even to count vocabulary items. Also the removal of grammar from the lead was problematic because the lead has to summarize the entirety of the article, and a large part of the article is the grammar. The lead is supposed to "give away" as much relevant information from the body as possible, that is its function.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted some additional changes by Megansia that added several thousand kbs to an article that is already very large and which was not necessary, overly detailed and unsourced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have also reverted some changes by Monochrome Monitor that are in my opinion over detailed, and which are also uncited. These kinds of additions will lead to the article deteriorating to the point where it no longer is GA quality. All additions should be cited to high quality sources such as those that are alredy used, and they should not get lost in details and minor quibbles that are better treate din the daughter articles. If the article is eventually going to be developed to FA, it needs to stay focused and well cited. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reordering "Classification"

I suggest moving the following paragraph from its present position to the end of the "Classification" section, as it currently separates a discussion on the status of English within the Germanic group.

Because English through its history has changed considerably in response to contact with other languages, particularly Old Norse and Norman French, some scholars have argued that English can be considered a mixed language or a creole – a theory called the Middle English creole hypothesis. Although the high degree of influence from these languages on the vocabulary and grammar of Modern English is widely acknowledged, most specialists in language contact do not consider English to be a true mixed language.[22][23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LombardBeige (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

typo in "Dialects, accents, and varieties" section

Hello, I noticed there is a typo in the beginning of this section, which now reads "Dialectologists identity many English dialects, ". "[i]dentity" should be changed to "identify". You can delete this comment once fixed. 143.58.161.6 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC) anon

 Done Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Except in extraordinary circumstances, talk-page comments are retained. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That map...

Current map is full of crap and far below what Wikipedia stands for. Just sayin'. Warm kisses, take care.Ernio48 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the eloquent, detailed and constructive critique. It will be taken into account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean Croatia, Slovenia, really? And all those Germanic states are marked because they are Germanic? The legend is hard to understand. "official, but unofficial with cornflakes and additional ketchup"???Ernio48 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No, they are marked because more than half of the population speaks English (as a second language). The most recent EU statistics show that more than 50% of the population speak English in Croatia and Slovenia as well. I agree that the map is on the "over-informative" side, and perhaps could be better used in the main body of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Eurobarometer and other EU funded statistics are nothing but unreliable crap. Plus, old map that was used in this article was far less complicated and far more reliable. Some "pseudo-expert" replaced it with that multicolored, unreadable crap.Ernio48 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
For convenience's sake, would you mind linking to the image you'd prefer? (I thought the warm kisses were a nice touch, btw. The pseudo-expert, less so.) RivertorchFIREWATER 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Anglospeak.svg Ernio48 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally I almost reverted the new map when it was initially included, but then decided that I didnt care which map was used in the infobox. What I do find frustrating is the insane amount of drive-by major edits this article receives, by editors who apparently think that hardly any thought or research has been invested in it, and that therefore they need not make any justification for their edits at all. The article in general is the result of a collaborative process by more than a handful of editors who spent a lot of time researching the literature and selecting and organizing the knowledge. Calling official statustics of the EU "unreliable crap" without providing any evidence for why this is is such an infantile posture that it is hardly worth engaging. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
So, the map. What about it?Ernio48 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I can make one by modifying the one I made for Germanic languages. Unless you insist the current one meets Wikipedia's qualities.Ernio48 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ernio48:, you may want to check out the supplement on silence and consensus. I would suggest that most editors who have this page on their watchlists (and there are 1,630 of them) are endorsing the current map by their silence. In the 90 days since you first raised the subject, it would appear that the established map has been considered unacceptable by exactly one editor, namely yourself. If you wish to keep trying to get consensus to change it, you are more than welcome to. Nobody can tell you not to (obviously unless there is disruptive editing). It seems unlikely, however, that you will get any more agreement in the next 90 days than you've gotten in the past 90 days. It's up to you, of course. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I won't be pressing this issue. Just proposed because, apparently, this map has a vague legend and, personally, I have a hard time understanding that legend (as do some other people). And also Croatia has a majority able to speak English? I mean....Ernio48 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely plausible that the majority of Croatians know English as a second language. In Croatian schools, 99.9% of students are taught a foreign language,[1] English is the most widely-taught foreign language and teaching English starts in first grade.[2] Just goes to show, you can't make assumptions about English's rapacious spread. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Croatiaweek. "Croatian Kids Lead Europe for Foreign Language Learning". CroatiaWeek. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  2. ^ European Commission, Education and Training. "First European Survey on Language Competences - Final Report" (PDF). Retrieved 29 September 2017.

preterit vs preterite

There appears to be some spelling inconsistency in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017

Under Phonotactics

Change "four, as in texts /teksts/. This gives an English syllable the following structure, (CCC)V(CCCC)" to "five, as in angsts /ɑŋksts/ . This gives an English syllable the following structure, (CCC)V(CCCCC)" Lodgeh (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Lodgeh -- the "k" in that word is inessential, pretty much due to phonetics. Whorf tried to use an obsolete verb form "thou triumphedst" [traɪʌmpftst], but the same objection applies... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Germanic dialects map

Archeological cultures

This map [2] needs to be removed because it peddles the same myths about the Germanic peoples that were circulated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For one, how can you draw such clear borders between supposed ancient "Germanic" dialects if no written record of them exists?! Also, archeological evidence show a different picture all together, with many inhabited areas referred to as "cultures' because they can't be linked with certainty to any specific group of peoples. --E-960 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree – moreover, this map has absolutely zero source info (as so many maps in language articles on en.wp don't) so it can be removed as WP:OR and unverifiable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm not so sure that this addition enhances the article in any way. @Siddiqsazzad001: I'm curious to know your reasoning here. If we keep it, couldn't it at the very least be in Helvetica (preferably bold)? RivertorchFIREWATER 06:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a map of Anglophone countries might add something to the infobox, a repetition of the text at the top does not. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 06:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
For comparison, Chinese language uses something similar, but I can only see it being useful to demonstrate it when the language symbols might not render on the page. Nihlus 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Han characters not displaying correctly shouldn't be an issue any more. The pic on the Chinese article has some value though because it demonstrates the same word in three different orthographies. Japanese language has something too, which shows the kanji characters as they would be handwritten as opposed to typed - as the order and direction of strokes is important when writing Kanji it captures something. Having an image of "English" in a sans serif font when this is already available at the top of the infobox is not very useful. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This is so dumb. Take it down.Ernio48 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the above consensus, I've removed the image. - BilCat (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's for the best. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The map distinguishes between "unofficial" and "not official"?

What does this mean? Why aren't these in "Not official and minority"? What does "unofficial" mean that's different from "Not official"? I'm guessing there's a meaning that isn't being conveyed by the word "unofficial".Rob984 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This map is a mistake. For another discussion, see "That map" section above.Ernio48 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_language/Archive_25&oldid=1136701239"