Talk:English language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article English language has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Content moved from the phonology section[edit]

Regional variation in consonants[edit]

There are significant dialectal variations in the pronunciation of several consonants:

  • The th sounds /θ/ and /ð/ are sometimes pronounced as /f/ and /v/ in Cockney, and as dental plosives (contrasting with the usual alveolar plosives) in some dialects of Irish English. In African American Vernacular English, /ð/ has is realized as [d] word initially, and as [v] syllable medially.
  • In North American and Australian English, /t/ and /d/ are pronounced as an alveolar flap [ɾ] in many positions between vowels: thus words like latter and ladder /læɾər/ are pronounced in the same way. This sound change is called intervocalic alveolar flapping, and is a type of rhotacism. /t/ is often pronounced as a glottal stop [ʔ] (t-glottalization, a form of debuccalization) after vowels in British English, as in butter /ˈbʌʔə/, and in other dialects before a nasal, as in button /ˈbʌʔən/.
  • In most dialects, the rhotic consonant /r/ is pronounced as an alveolar, postalveolar, or retroflex approximant [ɹ ɹ̠ ɻ], and often causes vowel changes or is elided (see below), but in Scottish it may be a flap or trill [ɾ r].
  • In some cases, the palatal approximant or semivowel /j/, especially in the diphthong /juː/, is elided or causes consonant changes (yod-dropping and yod-coalescence).
    • Through yod-dropping, historical /j/ in the diphthong /juː/ is lost. In both RP and GA, yod-dropping happens in words like chew /ˈtʃuː/, and frequently in suit /ˈsuːt/, historically /ˈtʃju ˈsjuːt/. In words like tune, dew, new /ˈtjuːn ˈdjuː ˈnjuː/, RP keeps /j/, but GA drops it, so that these words have the vowels of too, do, and noon /ˈtuː ˈduː ˈnuːn/ in GA. A few conservative dialects like Welsh English have less yod-dropping than RP and GA, so that chews and choose /ˈtʃɪuz ˈtʃuːz/ are distinguished, and Norfolk English has more, so that beauty /ˈbjuːti/ is pronounced like booty /ˈbuːti/.
    • Through yod-coalescence, alveolar stops and fricatives /t d s z/ are palatalized and change to postalveolar affricates or fricatives /tʃ dʒ ʃ ʒ/ before historical /j/. In GA and traditional RP, this only happens in unstressed syllables, as in education, nature, and measure /ˌɛd͡ʒʊˈkeɪʃən ˈneɪt͡ʃər ˈmɛʒər/. In other dialects, such as modern RP or Australian, it happens in stressed syllables: thus due and dew are pronounced like Jew /ˈdʒuː/. In colloquial speech, it happens in phrases like did you? /dɪdʒuː/."

Regional variation[edit]

The pronunciation of some vowels varies between dialects:

  • In conservative RP and in GA, the vowel of back is a near-open [æ], but in modern RP and some North American dialects it is open [a]. The vowel of words like bath is /æ/ in GA, but /ɑː/ in RP (trap–bath split). In some dialects, /æ/ sometimes or always changes to a long vowel or diphthong, like [æː] or [eə] (bad–lad split and /æ/ tensing): thus man /mæn/ is pronounced with a diphthong like [meən] in many North American dialects.
  • The RP vowel /ɒ/ corresponds to /ɑ/ (father–bother merger) or /ɔ/ (lot–cloth split) in GA. Thus box is RP /bɒks/ but GA /bɑks/, while cloth is RP /klɒθ/ but GA /klɔθ/. Some North American dialects merge /ɔ/ with /ɑ/, except before /r/ (cot–caught merger).
  • In Scottish, Irish and Northern English, and in some dialects of North American English, the diphthongs /eɪ/ and /əʊ/ (/oʊ/) are pronounced as monophthongs (monophthongization). Thus, day and no are pronounced as /ˈdeɪ ˈnəʊ/ in RP, but as [ˈdeː ˈnoː] or [ˈde ˈno] in other dialects.
  • In North American English, the diphthongs /aɪ aʊ/ sometimes undergo a vowel shift called Canadian raising. This sound change affects the first element of the diphthong, and raises it from open [a], similar to the vowel of bra, to near-open [ʌ], similar to the vowel of but. Thus ice and out [ˈʌɪs ˈʌʊt] are pronounced with different vowels from eyes and loud [ˈaɪz ˈlaʊd]. Raising of /aɪ/ sometimes occurs in GA, but raising of /aʊ/ mainly occurs in Canadian English.

GA and RP vary in their pronunciation of historical /r/ after a vowel at the end of a syllable (in the syllable coda). GA is a rhotic dialect, meaning that it pronounces /r/ at the end of a syllable, but RP is non-rhotic, meaning that it loses /r/ in that position. English dialects are classified as rhotic or non-rhotic depending on whether they elide /r/ like RP or keep it like GA.

In GA, the combination of a vowel and the letter ⟨r⟩ is pronounced as an r-coloured vowel in nurse and butter [ˈnɝs ˈbʌtɚ], and as a vowel and an approximant in car and four [ˈkɑɹ ˈfɔɹ].

In RP, the combination of a vowel and ⟨r⟩ at the end of a syllable is pronounced in various different ways. When stressed, it was once pronounced as a centering diphthong ending in [ə], a sound change known as breaking or diphthongization, but nowadays is usually pronounced as a long vowel (compensatory lengthening). Thus nurse, car, four [ˈnɜːs ˈkɑː ˈfɔː] have long vowels, and car and four have the same vowels as bath and paw [ˈbɑːθ ˈpɔː]. An unstressed ⟨er⟩ is pronounced as a schwa, so that butter ends in the same vowel as comma: [ˈbʌtə ˈkɒmə].

Many vowel shifts only affect vowels before historical /r/, and in most cases they reduce the number of vowels that are distinguished before /r/:

  • Several historically distinct vowels are reduced to /ɜ/ before /r/. In Scottish English, fern, fir, and fur [fɛrn fɪr fʌr] are pronounced differently and have the same vowels as bed, bid, and but, but in GA and RP they are all pronounced with the vowel of bird: /ˈfɝn ˈfɝ/, /ˈfɜːn ˈfɜː/ (fern–fir–fur merger). Similarly, the vowels of hurry and furry /ˈhʌri ˈfɜri/, cure and fir /ˈkjuːr ˈfɜr/ were historically distinct and are still distinct in RP, but are often merged in GA (hurry–furry and cure–fir mergers).
  • Some sets of tense and lax or long and short vowels merge before /r/. Historically, nearer and mirror /ˈniːrər ˈmɪrər/; Mary, marry, and merry /ˈmɛɪɹi ˈmæri ˈmɛri/; hoarse and horse /ˈhoːrs ˈhɔrs/ were pronounced differently and had the same vowels as need and bid; bay, back, and bed; road and paw, but in some dialects their vowels have merged and are pronounced in the same way (mirror–nearer, Mary–marry–merry, and horse–hoarse mergers).
  • In traditional GA and RP, poor /pʊr/ or /pʊə/ is pronounced differently from pour /pɔr/ or /pɔə/ and has the same vowel as good, but for many speakers in North America and southern England, poor is pronounced with the same vowel as pour (poor–pour merger).

Classification[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

That map...[edit]

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. 

Reordering "Classification"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

typo in "Dialects, accents, and varieties" section[edit]

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)

preterit vs preterite[edit]

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