Talk:Anglic languages

message: this is rather confusing...
Gringo300 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what's confusing? "Anglic languages" is a term used (rarely, admittedly) for English and its closest relatives, especially when one wants to imply that linguistic entities like Scots are separate languages, rather than dialects of English. --Angr/ 22:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just passing through and couldn't fail to notice that the family tree seems to give the impression that Early Scots (was contemporanious with Early Modern English. Is this the case? 81.79.229.119 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just means that they both, as well as Yola, come from a common Middle English, if indeed it can be at all regarded as separate. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The family tree 

message: Shouldn't we discuss the position of the Yola language in all this?--Pharos 08:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It'd be nice if the article acknowledged anything spoken outside the island of Great Britain as Anglic. :) PubliusFL 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be here. It got lost in this edit where someone decided to replace the list format with a table. —Angr 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried to add the dialects in Ireland derived from Middle English; the table thing makes it a bit complicated.  Is there anything else we should add — any other dialects not directly descended from Modern English?--Pharos 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember reading that Pembrokeshire English is – like Yola, Fingalian and the West Country dialects – also derived from Southwestern Middle English, but can't find confirmation right now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Yola

message: Is it really true that traditional Northern English is closer to Scots than to Standard English? saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you're bringing High German into the discussion. The user above you only compared Dutch vs. Low Saxon to English vs. Scots. Also, experience shows that people consistently overestimate their ability to understand foreign languages – which can, after all, be tested objectively. (Not to mention the complication that there are great differences between varieties of Scots, varying widely in their divergence from English, depending on how strongly influenced by English they are.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern English? 

message: This article completely ignores that other, rather large place on Earth where most people speak English... Seems rather peculiar that it would be completely absent. Jersey John (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not absent. All varieties of English outside the British Isles are included in Modern English. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete 

message: To avoid confusion with English language, perhaps this article could be moved?  --jftsang 13:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has two citations that disprove your claim. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 'Anglic languages' 

message: I think it's time to again address the question of merge or move with this article. WP:TITLE's criteria of recognizability and naturalness certainly outweigh the common-name criterion given by the previous mover (a criterion which in fact is nonsensical in this case), since, as all previous users have already agreed, absolutely no common name exists. The mover settled on a name which appeared in two books (one from over 20 years ago and another from over 40 years ago), both in fact sharing an author. In other words, as far as we know, in all the academic scholarship, it's a term linked to one scholar. Other than a move to something clearer for readers, like "English language group" (direct and obvious, if admittedly a nonce usage), if we consider this simple concession still too outrageous, another straightforward option is to merely create a section under an already-existing page. I think a section under Anglo-Frisian, for instance, would be perfectly appropriate, given the limited information we have on this page anyway; at the same time, a section still affords a certain unity and distinctness to the information. Why are we having such battles over a tiny stub? Again, though I'm all game for a rename, the benefit of a merger is it ends the whole naming controversy altogether! Wolfdog (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again: Merge or move