Talk:International English/Archive 2

message: "International English" is somewhat analogous to "ghost" or "array". 
Regardless of whether ghosts exist, there is a commonly understood concept of "ghost". Regardless of whether "International English" exists, there is a concept (or two or three) of "International English" that is understood by a number of people, and that understanding has been documented (although the documents may be lacking).
An "array" is essentially an "assemblage". But many people use the word to mean "variety". I say that usage is incorrect, and I fix it when I can.
Jallan is not saying that "International English" actually means "British English". At least roughly speaking, Jallan is saying that some people use it to mean the same thing. As far as I can tell, that statement is both true and verifiable. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Analogies

message: Whether Jallan's work is original research I will not address now. I can see how that question is debatable. But, as far as I can tell, user:Jallan/International English does not meet the criteria as outlined at Wikipedia: No original research#What is research and what is not, which says: "A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas."
Between the references Jallan has provided and use of the expression "International English" elsewhere in Wikipedia, my view is that Jallan is not proposing anything new.
It could be argued that Jallan is "defining new terms". But I see that as a weak argument, in that Jallan is reporting definition by others. One of the better examples is this:
* Bible Society: Machine Assisted Translations: Anglicisations ("The standard English of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Commonwealth and some other countries where English is used follows the conventions of British English. It is often therefore called International English to distinguish it from American English.") Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Original research"

message: Just in case anything goes badly … if either of you ever thinks what I'm doing here is not helping, please let me know. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: I agree with the general sentiment here: "It's important to point out, if it's true, that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
But I often disagree with using absolutes. We can't know with any certainty that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
From Web searching, it appears that there are some "International English" reference books. From cursory knowledge, it also appears (and only appears, I don't state this definitively at all) that those do not codify any particular variety. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Codification

message: I also agree with this sentiment expressed earlier by Jeff Q:
:::The statement that "International English" is frequently assumed to mean "British English" is no doubt accurate, and it's important to note that this happens. However, it is also true to say that "its" is frequently mistaken for "it's", "affect" and "effect" are commonly confused, and millions of people couldn't identify where the U.S., Britain, Australia, or Canada are on a map without colors and labels (and frequently not even then). It's not so much a question of what is common, but what is correct. If there are no language authorities who are willing to state that International English is essentially British English, then that should strongly suggest that this usage is just plain wrong. It would be acceptable, however, if this is the case, to mention this usage and point out that it's misleading or possibly incorrect. 
And this: "If there are conflicting meanings (which is obviously the case), they should all be listed." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Usages