Talk:British English/Archive 1

message: Can anyone draw up a rough map of the distribution of the dialects? I think this could really help non-Brits to understand what the article is all about. Kokiri 18:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: Also, come to that, why is Canadian English listed as a "Major English Dialect" when it is surely far less different from US-American English than Scottish English is from English English?
Confused : Andy G 20:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canadian English]] 

message: This has just been moved from British English to British English language; I think this is a mistake, as it's not a language, but a set of dialects/accents/&c..
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 11:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no other definitions (that I know of) of "British English". If there were perhaps appending language onto the end may be appropriate but I seriously think this should be moved back.  I've not seen any discussion of this and, though we are encouraged "to be bold" I think this is a bit too much of an opinionated change.  I'm now looking to see if User:Gilgamesh changes the other (related) articles and the template. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: This language "English", originally the language of the people of England, and ought not properly to be called "British English" by anyone with even the most basic grasp of the history of these Isles.
Like others on this page, I find this label both inaccurate and offensive.
It is inaccurate because English comes from England and not from Great Britain. 
It is inaccurate because it creates the altogether false impression that there is a homogenous type of English spoken throughout Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, which may be conveniently labelled as "British". 
It is offensive because using this label shows a complete disreagrd for the fact that the original language of the Welsh people is Welsh, and the fact that the original language of the Scottish is Scottish Gaelic.  
It is offensive because English, to Scottish, Welsh and many Northern Irish people, is the language of those who conquered them and endeavoured to extinguish their respective native languages and cultures. 
It is offensive because there are strong independence movements Scotland and Wales, not to mention in Northern Ireland, and as a label it promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none.
It is offensive because "British" is only used in these places where the adjectives "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Ireland" or "English" would be wrong, for example, a foreigner applies for a British visa because we only have one unified Embassy, but when did you last see the British football team play?  
Since the popularity of Mr Gates' products necessitate such divisive labelling then I advocate that the content on our versions of this language be relocated to pages named "Welsh English", "Scottish English", "Irish English" and "English English", with a link to those pages from the former "British English" page.
(I didn't employ a comma ',' after the last item in my list. That is not a grammatical error, it is a feature of English English).
If those people who are in charge of these pages have any respect for Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English people then this misnomer must be abandoned.
Well, I having just re-read the article I note that it says "The broader use refers to the language of the entirety of the United Kingdom.". Nonsense! Absolute nonsense! English is the language of ENGLAND, there's a little clue in the name that gives it away ;)
----
The 'original' language of Scotland (original from what point?) would in fact predate gaelic by several thousand years, Scots gaelic being derived from the tribe which colonised Scotland from what we now consider to be Ireland, namely the Scotti. In more recent history Scotland has been linguistically divided into three, with English being spoken in the lowlands, Scots (which may or may not be considered a dialect of English; it certainly shares many syntactic links with English - see the poetry of R. Burns) being spoken in Lanarkshire and the Lothians up towards Perthshire, and Gaelic which was spoken in the highlands. Until the 1600s a language very closely related to Norse was spoken on Orkney and Shetland, and a dialect called 'Doric' continues to be spoken in the Aberdeenshire area which retains Norse features, as well as displaying Gaelic influences.
My point is this: if it is so difficult to establish an 'original' language for Scotland (which you so confidently postulate above), how can you then claim that even the term English English, Scottish English etc is appropriate for the description of the vast number of dialects which exist even within these national sub-groups? British English as a term is useful in that it provides a blanket term for the orthographical conventions used in Britain where English is being written down. 'English English', 'Scottish English' and 'Welsh English' are diminishingly different from each other in terms of orthography. Your assertion that British English 'promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none' is plainly ridiculous. While Welsh is spoken by 20% of people living in Wales, English is spoken by all of them; less than one percent of Scots speak Gaelic as a first language; Mandarin is spoken by more people living in Northern Ireland than Irish Gaelic. You are applying political opinions to a linguistic situation with misleading and comically incorrect results.
Gaelic is the original (in its proper sense) language of Scotland, although not the first or only one.  That's just like England with English, where several languages were spoken in the area before the coming of English. But both languages are "original" because the speakers of each language (Gaelic & English) gave their name to each country Calgacus 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should never be called "British English". 

message: the argument about the ellipsis of "accent" sounds ad-hoc and homegrown. The question isn't whether the English say that they speak "English". The question is whether the term "English English" is in actual use: the question is, does "English English" have any sort of academic credentials?  In either case, we should merge the articles, it won't do to have two articles about the exact same topic. dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English English 

message: I disagree with this page just being a redirect to English English. This implies that Britain=England. If the term is controversial then lets explain it - is it a political, linguistic term or what? We can NPOV this - it's not atm. 81.187.43.179 07:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It would be wrong to simply redirect, but with the article as is, there should be a clear link in the first paragraph (or as a disambiguation preamble) to the English English article which covers the same basic subject in much greater depth... Otherwise there is a risk that this article will just become full of lower quality repeat information. 69.140.65.251 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: I have reverted the edit by Vedek Dukat which added a reference to Webster's Dictionary into the sentence about "authoritative dictionaries".  This is an article on British English: Webster's Dictionary is American and is not authorative on British usage.  This is borne out by the section about Webster in the American English article, which indicates that Webster's contribution was to show the differences between the two dialects. TrevorD 11:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in reading the full sentence I see what you mean. I apologize - I'd not read the beginning bit and was referring to the fact that Webster wanted to standardize things, but read in context (and fully awake) it sounds very out of place. --Vedek Dukat  Talk 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webster's dictionary 

message: 88.106.159.73, you've deleted the suggestion that linguists and lexicographers use the term "British English" with the comment: "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.".  This leaves unanswered the questions:
* What terms do British lexicographers use to distinguish between "British English" and "American English"?
* What about non-British & non-American lexicographers?  Do they use "British English"?
TrevorD 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment.    and I could go on and on. If I, a linguist, were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in New England, North, South, Midland, and Western U.S., the title would be Dialects of American English. If I were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in Northern England, Southern England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, what do you think the title of such a book would be? I'd say, The Dialects of Standard English? The Dialects of English?. 88.106.159.73, the only POV thing here is your patent insularity. --JackLumber 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack - I was supporting you - agreeing with you!  Someone else changed the article and commented "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.".  I questioned it!  I wanted to put it back, but asked for another viewpoint first! -- TrevorD 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 times did this user revert it. Cheers (!) for your support. JackLumber 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British lexicographers 

message: "Although British English is often used to denote the English spelling and lexicon used outside the US, this usage is not completely accurate, as almost all British spelling rules and the vast majority of British vocabulary are actually shared among the whole English-speaking world outside the US (except Canada as far as lexicon is concerned)"
Is it just me, or is this contradictory? It seems to be saying: 
Although British English is used to describe English outside the US, this is not accurate, since most English outside the US is British English.
Is the point that it's rather odd to call in British English if it's not really specific to Britain?  Then this should be much more explicit. garik 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, is the English of Australia, or India etc really commonly referred to as British?  This seems a bit dubious to me.  I've removed it anyway - if anyone has rather more confidence in (or evidence for) the claim, and a way of making it less ambiguous, please reinstate it. garik 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory? 

message: I think the links to Australia, New Zealand, etc.  should point to the pages for the respective
versions of English (Australian English, New Zealand English) rather than to the pages for the countries.  This is also true for the article on Standard English.  Opinions?  Jpg 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other dialects 

message: Right, its bloody annoying when I look at pages regarding British things (such as Bands/teams) and the first line is always "Def Leppard is an English Rock band.." Now, this is totally wrong, in Britain it would be "Def Leppard are an English rock band"
I'm aware Americans say things like "Bon Jovi is a great band" whereas here it would be "Bon Jovi are a great band".. it just really gripes me to see things like "Arsenal is a great team!" etc, British media etc always would say "Arsenal are.." 
Whats the official "term" for these differences? Is it British Pluralisms?
Seems to me an article about a British band/team should use the British examples! "Def Leppard is..." just sounds so wrong to a native English speaker! TheMongoose 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Def Leppard is an English rock band, because there is only one band.  The band is English but its members are English.  Bon Jovi is a great band, but Def Leppard and Bon Jovi are two great bands, because they are two bands.  Cliff Richard is from England (well...India, actually) but the Proclaimers are from Scotland.  Quite what we do when we are down to our last Bee-Gee I don't know.  See...clear as mud :-) ChrisRed 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, ChrisRed, up to a point. [I am interested to know, though - are you using BrEng or AmEng?] To expand/clarify (I hope!) what you say - I think it would be fair to comment that in AmEng it's more fixed - use the singular verb with a band, team, etc, regardless of the form of the name - but in BrEng it's more a matter of using whichever form sounds best. The Beatles are ... Led Zeppelin is ... But (sticking my neck out) "Def Leppard are ..." is certainly OK in BrEng, especially if the sentence is somehow drawing attention to the separateness of the different members of the band, treating it/them as a collection of people rather than as a single unit. And many people would use "are" anyway, and they are NOT WRONG to do so! Whether that means that all articles on British bands and teams should have their is'es changed to are's is another question, however. Now - is it "The Who is ..." or "The Who are ..."? Snalwibma 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I was just having a bit of fun.  Fowler says that it's OK to use both for collectives, and I hate pedantry anyway.  "The Who are..." and "Led Zeppelin are..." sounds fine.  I'd just count the legs, and if there are more than two then it's 'are' (except with Rolf Harris).   I know; it's just shocking what us Brits do to the American language. ChrisRed 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I know! Imagine not knowing the difference between "that" and "which"... Tut tut etc. Snalwibma 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone help me..... 

message: The article Tees speak deals with a specific dialect of British English. Should that article be merged into this one, or should some information from Tees speak be added here? --Eastmain 04:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a very bad idea to merge anything from Tees speak, or any other article covering a specific dialect or variety of British English, into this article. If we allow this general article to be diverted into all sorts of dialects it would grow into a bloated monster and become quite unmanageable and meaningless. Just my humble opinion... Snalwibma 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tees speak]] 

message: As a merge tag has been added and there's no discussion, should the tag be removed?  Personally merging just Eng.Eng into Br.Eng, but not the other neighbouring versions of English makes as much as sense as merging England into Britain.  Bevo74 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agreed. I saw little point on commenting simply because the proposal is clearly missing the point about the huge differences between the two articles, and the need for there to be different articles as they are on totally different topics. The two articles should not be merged at all, and as you say there has been no discussion until now s surely the tags can be removed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal Sep 2007 

message: Is the paragraph about British people "considering" their version of the English language to be "just English" (as opposed to British English) really necessary? The sentence seems to imply that they are wrong and that there is some other definitive version. It seems pretty trivial that all people who speak the English language would just use the term English. It is, after all, the same language. Shinigami27 11:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Each to his own 

message: Strange. In general no-one in England says "English English" or "British English" as a rule, just "English". As a child, rightly or wrongly, I learnt that there is one language called "English" in the native tongue but many different "usages". Thus there is American usage, Australian usage, Irish usage, but only one language: "English". At least, this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defined it! "British English" and its derivatives are regarded as an Americanism. Now, native English speakers tend to adopt Americanisms when speaking to people who are familiar with this usage, simply because doing so is expedient as native English speakers are generally familiar with most American, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, South African, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian usages through the media of tv, film, music, the internet, direct contact or through relatives in these countries. Thus you will hear English natives use the term "British English" or "American English" for this reason, or simply because they do not know better and that, in fact, this is simply American usage of English to describe the usage spoken in Britain.
"British English" used by non-English nationals can be construed as slightly offensive by some English people depending on their mood and inclination perhaps because it comes across as something of a slight, since it implies "loss of ownership" of their own tongue, something that native speakers from England might find somewhat preposterous because by definition it is the language of the English nation. I think a lot of English feel the English language "belongs" to them. It's ours! Not in an over-the-top "Rah! Rah! England!" way, but in a reserved matter-of-fact way. If you know what I mean? Insofar as, anything else is absurd. In pub talk I have often heard people comment along the lines of: "No one says 'French French or Spanish Spanish in English because that is ridiculous, almost equally so is 'British English' or 'English English' though 'we know what you mean!'". This is probably because the phrase "English English" sounds tautological and is probably a genuine pleonasm, especially in the context of discussing different English usages. Nonetheless, "we know what you mean" but it sounds contrived, gramatically odd in fact.
Interestingly English spoken as a second language is usually the most difficult "usage" for native English speakers to comprehend because of pronunciation, intonation, inflection, and mixed registers and use of native language grammar. However,once a decent fluency is acheived, foreign accents sound positively exotic and are very pleasant on the ear! IMHO, anyone who take the time and effort to learn a foreign language (and way of thinking, openess to new cultures, views and history) deserves a pat on the back. No doubt my attempts to speak other languages is just as tricky for native speakers to understand despite my best attempts to get it right. So I sympathise totally with all sencond/third language speakers of English! I suppose this is so for all native speakers listening to second or third language speakers :-)
Spelling-wise, I learnt the major reason for different American spelling of the same words was due to the publication of the American Heritage Dictionary which introduced simplified spelling based on pronunciation to help improve literacy in post Civil War America. Fair enough. It does cause gip in spelling tests when the teacher goes off on one about American spellings though! Good for a laugh, innit?!
At the end of the day, we English shouldn't take ourselves so seriously or be too sensitive about the use of the term "English English", there is no harm meant, after all.
Just some observations as an English person. Hope this is helpful!
P.S.: I've added the same comments to the English English discussion. 
 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just tried making it clearer that the British do not consider they speak "British English".  In the international circles I'm in, I'm finding many English professionals referring to the English in the USA as simply "American" rather than even mentioning English.  After all, if "English" isn't the language spoken by the English, what is it?  --Douglas (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One English Language and different usages? 

message: I think it should be noted that only British English is taught accross Europe (even though the subject is simply called "English". So much so that to spell something the US-american (or any other way for that matter) in an exam would be marked as erroneous. --Camaeron 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English as a standard accross Europe 

message: "Perhaps the most remarkable finding in the Voices study is that the English language is as diverse as ever, despite our increased mobility and constant exposure to other accents and dialects through TV and radio."
...
However, modern communications and mass media have reduced these differences significantly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.27.78 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Why is "Johnson's team are" with its incorrect noun-verb agreement  "appropriate in British English"? It was recently corrected, but reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually hoping for for some reliable sources, rather than an assertion, by way of a reply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote added. The usage depends on context and isn't definitive one way or the other. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noun-verb agreement in "Dialects" 

message: From the point of view of an Irishman, 'Hiberno English' is a sub-set of British English. There are no more differences between English in the south of England and that in Scotland than there are between that in southern England and that in Ireland. The 'British' would refer to the British Isles - there is a commonality in written and spoken English throughout the isles that shows disctinction with that in the US. Attempting to imply 'Hiberno English' as something distinct and outside the sphere of the language spoken within the rest of the isles seems to me like a case of petty and dishonest Irish nationalism - the inclusion of such in the very first paragraph seems a little PoV to me! Cauleyflower (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: This probably seems a very picky comment, but I don't understand the intention of the following prominent sentence:
:There is confusion whether the term refers to English as spoken in the British Isles or to English as spoken in Great Britain, though in the case of Ireland, there are further distinctions peculiar to Hiberno-English.
When I hit the word "though" I expect it to be followed by a statement that mitigates the confusion, or makes it less important or relevant. In fact, what follows seems to be doing the exact opposite. If there are "further distinctions peculiar to Hiberno-English" then doesn't that make it more important to distinguish between "English as spoken in the British Isles" and "English as spoken in Great Britain"? I don't get it. 81.156.127.15 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpfully, the citation for the statement includes a quote. Bringing the text closer to the quote, and removing the part not cited, might help.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brought  OED quotes from the footnote into the text: see if that makes any improvement.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks a lot better to me now... 86.134.72.109 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording