Talk:English language/Archive 3

message: Sorry if I missed this subject on this page anywhere but I don't understand the claim in the "related languages" section that Frisian is the closest related living language to modern English. Actually Frisian is refered to as the closest undoubted language- sorry but I have never encountered the term "undoubted language" before, is there actually any such thing. My point is however that Scots is undoubtedly the closest related living language to English and not Frisian. There are probably still some people who do not accept the validity of Scots as a real language and consider it a dialect but the important point is that it is widely recognized as a seperate language, a descendant of Anglo-Saxon like English. 
Scots is now recognized by the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom government, the Scottish Parliament, and by most linguists as a seperate language. I think considering this there should not be any serious doubt as to whether or not Scot constitutes a seperate language. Unless somebody has any counter argument I suggest Scots be listed as the closest living relative of English.
Haraald 2 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
:Okay, but Frisian should still be listed. Many people still consider Scots to be an English dialect, and in any case would say, 'Well, yes, of course - so what?' Maybe it could be reworded that Frisian is the closest language on the continent. kwami 01:25, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
I did not remove Frisian, it is still in the section. But no longer listed as the closest related language to English. 
--Haraald 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest Related Language??? Scots or Frisian. 

message: I think the reference to the native Celtic languages should be removed from the opening, because it was relatively trivial. Only eight Celtic-derived words survive in modern English (all or most of them topographical); there was virtually no grammatical influence. It's one of the mysteries of the history of English that Celtic had such little influence.
'English has been influenced by the languages of the native Celts, and after the Norman Conquest by Norman and French.'
Does anyone object?
Tony 05:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para—Celtic influence? 

message: Just to make a very basic point: a pidgin may lead to but IS NOT EQUAL TO a creole. I have noticed a conflation of the terms here and elsewhere. English may have been and may (more interestingly) be considered a creole, but it was never a pidgin. Marskell 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that pidgins and creoles are different, and it is also true that a pidgin may become a creole, but doesn't necessarily do so. But as far as my understand of the terminology goes, a creole doesn't come into existence without having been a pidgin first. So the claim that English may be considered a creole but it was never a pidgin seems to directly contradict the definitions of those terms. Or is there some other definition of creole that I am overlooking? Nohat 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: I removed this statement, added recently:
' Contrary to popular misconception, the English language did NOT originate in England. "The earliest period begins with the migration of certain Germanic tribes from the continent to Britain in the fifth century A.D." -- http://www.m-w.com/help/faq/history.htm '
We can argue about whether it's true or false, but it doesn't look good to have a statement that contradicts an earlier one, not to mention itself.  If it's true then it needs to be worked into the article more skilfully than this.  I think there is enough detail in the article to make it obvious that the proto-English West Germanic languages germinated on the Continent before being transplanted to Great Britain. --Heron 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of English 

message: "English is also one of the primary languages of the United Kingdom"? Well, let's be honest, whether or not Welsh, Gaelic etc. speakers like it, English is THE primary language of the United Kingdom. Can we change this?
:It certainly doesn't make sense to say that English is one of the primary languages in the UK, while saying in the previous paragraph that it is the primary language in the US, where a far greater percentage of the population are non-English speakers, mostly native Spanish speakers. English is one of the languages of the UK and it is also the primary language of the UK. Adrian Robson 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  too PC? 

message: "English has a lexical similarity of 60% with German, 27% with French and 24% with Russian."
Can anyone explain this?
:That seems a bit silly. I don't know whether the 24% Russian figure is what someone calculated for common Indoeuropean roots, or shared French and Latin vocabulary. By applying similar criteria English would have a good 60% similarity with French (28% French borrowings, 28% Latin borrowings also found in French, plus common Indoeuropean roots). I'm just going to delete this until someone can justify it, okay? kwami 06:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  russian lexicon? 

message: I have been thinking about the creation of an English language template.  This is what I made recently:
The English language
----
Grammar | Phonology | History | Spelling | Slang  Dialects | Literature | Foreign influences
----
Grammar
Disputed English grammar
English verbs
English irregular verbs
English plural
Split infinitive
----
History
Old English
Middle English
Early Modern English
Modern English
----
English Across the World
English as an additional language
Teaching English as a Foreign Language
International English
What do all of you think of the idea of a template and my prototype above? --Der Sporkmeister 15:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Language Template 

message: The percentages in the table (French 28.3% etc.) don't add up to 100%-- 4.83% are missing.  Perhaps someone can check the original source and look for typos or a missing line?  Zompist 15:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word origins 

message: (The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)
The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:
It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:
*Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
*Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
*Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
*Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
*Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?
I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my POV, it is either 'errors due to (inexcusable) ignorance of the omitted items' or 'cultural snobbery', depending on who made the map. ::shrug::  --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate map 

message: I'm not sure how this should be dealt with, but in the sidebar at the side of the page it is stated that English is the official language of the United Kingdom.  The United Kingdom has no official language - English is de facto the language of the UK, but there is no official (de jure) language.  I'm fairly certain this is different from the other countries listed as having English as an official language.  (As a point of interest, Sweden is in a similar position to the UK, also having no official language.) Matthew 15:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States also does not have a official language and, as in the UK, English is the de facto language.  English is, however, the official language in 29 of 50 states. Movementarian 15:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Australia has English as an official language either. Mark 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many cases where we do not have sufficient data as to how official a certain language is in a certain country. Turkish, for example, in Bulgaria, or Yiddish in the Netherlands. English is obviously different in the UK or Oz than it is in Switzerland with its large expat community, regardless of its legal status. I think the solution might be to modify the sidebar template to display 'Official or national language in'. kwami 02:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a footnote that read: English is de facto official in these countries suffice? I mean, how would one determine the national language of the USA. English doesn't really fit into the marked slots of national and/or official language in that case (at least).  Izehar 13:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the nub of it, though, isn't it?  That English is de facto the language of the UK means that it's not an official language.  An official language would be codified by law or enshrined in a constitutional document.  Indeed, 'de facto official' would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. Matthew 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Surely Turkish either is or is not an official language in Bulgaria (and Yiddish in the Netherlands, and so on)?  If it is stated in Bulgarian law that Turkish is one of Bulgaria's languages then it's official; if such a thing is not stated then it's not an official language.  Just because a language is widely used in a country does not make it the official language.  (If something were made official by its widespread usage, then I see no good reason why water should not be an official drink of every country, bread an official food, and so on.) Matthew 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What I was getting at is that English is the only language used in Parliament, in the courts, in all official documents etc ... etc. Does that not make it official in practice (de facto)? Especially, when no other language is used in that way. If everything were to go by the black letter, then we could say that English is the official language of Wales, because the Welsh language Act made it so (alongside Welsh). Izehar 19:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I noticed this too. There is a bit of US bias in the article with the smell of that annoying 'America is the only home of peace and freedom' bs through it getting something written on its unofficial status but Britain being unfairly dismissed as having a official language.
IMO the US bit should be snipped and something written about it being de facto  in the UK and US or maybe even lying about the US like the UK and saying its official. The US bit certainly looks untidy.--Josquius 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Language