Talk:English language/Archive 8

message: I think that Free Online Tools For English Language should be added at external links as useful ESL (EFL) resource? Do you agree? If do, please consider to add it. --217.23.199.99 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online utility 

message: I suppose that any English vowel may be "coloured" into a diphthong, and no doubt is in many regional forms; but as a native speaker I find it completely surprising that the long "O" should be primarily classified as such. Upon what authority, or criterion, does this rest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.107.26 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The formant frequencies of  can be seen changing in spectrogram analysis. You can use praat to see for yourself. Monophthongs have flat (unchanging) formants in spectrograms, as is visible in the "formant" article. --Kjoonlee 06:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for authorities, Peter Ladefoged's A Course on Phonetics (4th edition) shows how all the formants of American/British English change/stay put, and Ladefoged says that the changes are "not just the result of my own listening. The data are taken from the acoustic analyses of a number of authorities." --Kjoonlee 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on where you live. A lot of Brits say it that way. A lot of eastern shore and southern Americans say it that way also. Here in the American midwest, it's a little more clipped, and would be harder to identify as a dipthong. Wahkeenah 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 versions: one as in toe /toː/ and one as in tow /toʊ/.  Not many accents distinguish between these tho.Cameron Nedland 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English long O (as in "bode", "bowed", "boat") a diphthong? 

message: Please keep all the countries where English is spoken in the infobox. The list may be very long but it is not up to wikipedian editors to decide which coutries are the most important. All should be listed. Thank you.
:The infobox is for brief information only. It should not be overloaded. The full list is in the article, which is appropriate. No information is being suppressed, but listing fifty countries in the infobox completely defeats the purpose of having an infobox. —Angr 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And who determines that what is important? Like India has second largest english speaking population yet it is not an important information to be included in the infobox. Give me a break. I know your only argument would be Indians are bilingual. But here in canada most of us are too. —sticksnstones 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English is not the primary language of India, but a "second language". It is the primary language of UK, USA, etc. Arguably, English could be claimed to spoken in every nation on earth. That doesn't mean it should be in the infobox. If India is to be included, then some criterion must be determined for a minimum percentage of speakers of a second language in a country. Wahkeenah 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting debate now. More than 100 million Indians use english in daily life except at home (see list of countries by English-speaking population, it claims 350 million). No country can claim that kind of figure. So your point 'every' nation is irrelevant. Indian figures are huge, no other country has that kind of population. Why do you think that all the service sector jobs going to India? You know what wahkeenah, whether some editors at wikipedia agree or not, english will be dominant language in 21st century (may be even in 22nd) because of major role of India. The number of graduates they produce in a year is whooping - 2 millions, all of them speaking english as all their research and education is in english. Don't you see a point there. I am not cliaming that indians will start using english at home but that they use it everywhere else and they are basically bilingual people and that too in huge number. —sticksnstones 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you even bringing up India? India is included in the brief version of the infobox anyway, despite the fact that the influence of India on English is minimal. —Angr 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How hard is it to find families in India that speak english at home?  If such families are seldom encountered I'm not sure English has a truly permanent presence there.Zebulin 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say then you know nothing about India and the complexities of that land. Okay, here is a analogy that might help your understanding. European Union that you are trying to build in europe, India is a very advanced version of that concept. Every state (28 in number) of India is a nation in itself - diffrenet langauge, customs, festivals, fooding, clothing and what not. Most of these states have poulations more than indiviual countries in Europe. You cannot convince any of these state to give up their native language and accept language of the biggest state (read hindi). Can in europe you convince frenchs or spaniards to give their language and start speaking english at home. No, you cannot. Now talking again about India, english integrates such a complex  nation and thus can never go out. Indians are by nature, multilingual people and they have been fine with it for ceturies. Talk to a linguist and he will tell you what we call as hindi is not a single language in itself, it is group of atleast  eight smaller languages. And most indians will speak/understand all of them without any effort. Whole point is India is as complex land as you can imagine and it normally assimilates every thing into it. English is now part of India and thats the way it is. -Adork 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is english the first language that has filled this role in India?  Prior to the arrival of the british Indians did not have a common second language for communication between linguistically different groups?Zebulin 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer you very frankly, yes english is first langauge that fills that role for common educated man. Before british and mughals (about 400 years back) common man travelled very less and hardly any chance to interact with others. Scholars used some derived languages from Sanskrit. But these languages are long gone, now they are studied by very limited people and that too for research. After british there was no consensus on making any native language (read hindi) as national language so hindi+english was used for official purpose. English became langauge to integrate India and to integrate it with rest of world. Indians who always have tons of langauge with them never had problem accepting one more. And english is percolating even more and more down the society with passage of time.  -Adork 11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What would prevent English from being abandoned as those Derived languages from Sanskrit were?  Do english speaking Indians nearly always learn the language at school?  That seems to make it far less established than languages learned from parents since all that is required for it to vanish from the country is a couple generations of curriculum changes.  Suppose Mandarin chinese becomes the defacto world wide lingua franca in the next century.  Wouldn't it be easy once nearly everybody is learning Chinese to stop also teaching English?  With no native speakers a language can vanish from a population much faster than is the case for populations who use it as their first language at home.Zebulin 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because India is a democracy now, world biggest and most complex democracy. Comparison between what was possible in 19th century and something in 21st century is stupid. British introduced english with purpose creating a elite classs of Indians who can help them in rule india. And they were successful. Doing away with english was possible in 1950 when people were less educated, government even tried it but failed. Now they don't even imagine doing away with it. In india you simply cannot introduce a law which does not satisfy every state. Making Hindi national language will never be accepted by 20 other lingual groups. English for education, research, work place, government work and hindi (or other native tongues) for use at home. Their complete education, research, business and service industry is based on it. I know, probably you are not able to imagine the complexity of India, thats why you are not convinced. But that is the way India  is, complex and diverse.  -Adork 8:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Adork. English is now inseperable part of urban India. There is a new class of urbans parents who communicate with their kids in english at home and these kids use english as first language. This is a new phenomenon - may be 5-10 years old and limited to urban higher middle class but this is a new beginning adding even more complexity to a already complex country. I think english is flourishing in India because it gaurantees you a good future job and helps you to rise in society. -apurv1980 9:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: This being an article about the English language, I expected the vowels to be those of the Received Pronunciation, not General American. The symbols put me off a bit, as some seemed to be missing and some were a bit unusual, but I didn't think much of it.
Imagine my surprise when I later came back to the article and read the footnotes that these vowels are for NORTH AMERICAN English.
It'd be nice if someone could put a frickin' warning somewhere. For anybody from outside North America it is not clear that the article on the English language would list the North American (what the heck does that mean anyway? General American, I presume? There are too many dialects in the US alone to make any meaning of that term) vowels without explicitly making this clear.
In all phonological literature on English that I have seen so far, RP was considered the default unless mentioned otherwise. I'm sure this will be differently in countries where a non-RP form of English is spoken natively, but it's a bit annoying when you learn that you just spent a few hours memorising the wrong symbols for the proper sounds. 91.0.116.92 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phonology section does not only discuss North American English; it covers both British and American varieties. And while it's true that American English should not receive undue prominence in this article, neither should British English. Treating RP as "the default" variety of English is just as non-NPOV as treating General American as such. —Angr 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at global speakers of English (not native/primary speakers only), those speaking American English are a clear but significant minority.  Put another way, among all the world's accents, only North American accents and dialects derive from American English/General American.  The rest of the world's accents derive from Received Pronunciation.  It would seem to make sense for the article to give preference to RP where preference can be given, provided American isn't unduly marginalized.  Equal attention/representation would seem to be a violation of WP:NPOV, since they are not equally represented in the world.  In particular, the phonology section should be updated to either eliminate the American pronunciations (and qualify the section to make it clear that the pronunciations there reflect RP, along with a link to General American), or to make it a secondary, alternative pronunciation where it disagrees with RP (in other words, swap the ordering so that it appears second, not first).  —Fastolfe00 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why replace one minority variety (General American) with another even smaller minority (RP)? Most English-speakers speak neither! Snalwibma 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put another way, most speakers of the world have accents that are derived from (are most similar to) RP, not American.  RP is what is usually taught outside of North America.  Any accents that you get on top of that aren't usually because that's what is taught there, but because people are learning it as a second language, and their primary language is influencing their ability to speak RP English.  (Australia, of course, has its own English, and could stand its own mention on this page.)  The bottom line is that if you took a representative sample of people that can speak English from all over the world, and asked them which pronunciation best matches how they speak or learned English, RP will be favored over American.  This would suggest RP needs to be given preference, at least where it is impossible not to give preference (implicit ordering of pronunciations in the phonology section).  —Fastolfe00 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional bias 

message: I've made a small but significant change to the top of the article, moving English up one place to the most widely spoken language behind Mandarin Chinese, which is where it appears in most sources. It is possible to make claims for both Spanish and Hindi (and it is notoriously difficult to be accurate about the figures for language-speakers) but it seemed odd for Wikipedia to be claiming that English is less widely spoken than Hindi, when Wikipedia's current figures give 370 million for English, 364 million for Spanish and 333 million for Hindi. I have no particular axe to grind on this - figures can be interpreted in umpteen different ways, as the source I've cited discusses quite admirably, but it would seem logical that Wikipedia rankings (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) reflect the current numbers of native speakers currently quoted by Wikipedia (1.1 billion, 370 million, 364 million, etc).
--Quywompka 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second most widely spoken language 

message: *How many exactly are there?  An anon keeps adding a sourced claim that the numbers are 1.4-ish billion, but the source actually says "370 million" in one place, and "1 in 5 people in the world" in another.  The former doesn't seem to be quite enough, and creating a number out of the latter constitutes original research.  Can someone who actually knows what (s)he's talking about clarify? JuJube 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elementary arithmetic doesn't fall foul of OR, IMHO. I think 370m is the first language number. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55 14  February 2007 (GMT).
375 million may be the number of people who speak English as 2nd language, and "1 in 5 people in the world" may includes people who are learning English and who do not speak it. However, it is said that about 380 million people speak English as their 1st language, and a third of the world's population(about 2-2.5 billion) are in some sense exposed to it now. --220.217.87.84 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English as 2nd language numbers 

message: I have listed this page for a review of its GA status. You can review my reasons, and submit your comments here. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I wonder why is got: interwiki written by entities with note please don't change to utf-8. interwiki bots will allways change it, because of their nature. JAn Dudík 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  got interwiki? 

message: ===English language===
:result:Delist 5-0
I believe this article no longer meets GA criteria, as it it not factually correct or verifiable. Many sections currently have citation needed tags, while others have the entire sections tagged as missing or needing citations. It's clear that statements that may be questioned are not properly cited. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many unreferenced parts, Delist. Homestarmy 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone mind if I WP:SNOW this as unanimous? Homestarmy 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: this is probably a stupid question but if the article used to qualify for GA status can't we just flip back several pages and revert to a version that qualified?Zebulin 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the GAR 

message: :result:Delist 5-0
I believe this article no longer meets GA criteria, as it it not factually correct or verifiable. Many sections currently have citation needed tags, while others have the entire sections tagged as missing or needing citations. It's clear that statements that may be questioned are not properly cited. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many unreferenced parts, Delist. Homestarmy 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone mind if I WP:SNOW this as unanimous? Homestarmy 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: this is probably a stupid question but if the article used to qualify for GA status can't we just flip back several pages and revert to a version that qualified?Zebulin 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[English language]]

message: Isn't English the official (de facto?) language of New Zealand?  Shouldn't it be included in the "Official Language of" list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.78.52 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English is a de facto official language of New Zealand, alongside the two de jure official languages (Māori and New Zealand Sign Language). I see we're listing some countries with English as a de facto official language, so it seems to New Zealand would also fit. -- Avenue 07:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: I don't understand the sentence "English has an ordinarily rich vocabulary and absorbent prowess" - can someone rewrite, simplify or clarify it? Thanks --Brian Fenton 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining that Wahkeenah, I wonder did the original author mean to say "extraordinarily" rather than "ordinarily"? That would make more sense to me. "absorbent prowess" is pretty unclear too - I much prefer your explanation! --Brian Fenton 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mis-read it as "extraordinary", which is what it should say, otherwise there's no point in saying it. :) And terms like "absorbent prowess", while proper English, are an example of the language being just a tad too rich at times. "Plain English" is better. I might say "extraordinarily rich vocabulary and willingness to absorb new words". Wahkeenah 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I made the suggested change.  I'm a fan of precise and descriptive language but it also needs to be understandable to the intended audience.  --ElKevbo 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if "capacity" would be better than "willingness". But maybe we could leave it as is and see what comments it provokes, if any. Wahkeenah 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the historical record of willingness of English speakers to adopt foreign words but what is the nature of the *capacity* to absorb those words?  Is it impossible in many languages to absorb foreign words directly as english does?  Perhaps there are grammatical barriers to doing so?Zebulin 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, "willingness" is better, then. Not willingness of the language itself, but of those who speak it, as you say. English is not run by some academy obsessed with keeping the vocabulary "pure". If a word works, we use it, no matter where it came from. Wahkeenah 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: English also does lack grammatical barriers found in some languages, for a word can be used a verb, noun and adjective without changing its form. --teb728 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for the changes - although I think I'd replace "willingness to absorb" with something like "has shown an openness to absorbing". Also do these statements need a citation? Cheers --Brian Fenton 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could find endless citations about its widespread use and large vocabulary. I've heard English called "the most democratic language". Wahkeenah 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand "English has an ordinarily rich vocabulary and absorbent prowess" - can someone explain? 

message: "The influence of the British Empire is often cited as one of the primary reasons for the language's initial spread far beyond the British Isles."
Whilst the above statement is undoubtedly correct, it could also describe every other in Wikipedia - which is, of course, built on citable facts. The wording appears to imply that there is some doubt as to the primary role of the British Empire in spreading the use of English around the world. Since there is actually no doubt about this, why the equivocal phraseology? TharkunColl 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: primary is something of a loaded word.  It implies that the british empire has been at the center of *all* english language spreading trends.  I hardly think that has been the case for at least a few decades.  However, the quoted sentence doesn't refer to the spread of english in general terms but rather to it's "initial spread far beyond the British isles."  Thusly qualified I agree that the words "one of" should be removed.  I'll go ahead and edit them out and we'll see if anybody minds.Zebulin 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fair to say that the extensive use of English in India, for example, is a direct result of the influence of the British Empire. You could argue that the USA has played a role in all this as well. Of course, the USA was once part of the British Empire also, yes? Wahkeenah 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If anyone questions this premise, it would be like questioning whether the spread of Latin was due to the Roman Empire. It's not just English, of course. It's other important cultural influences, such as the Parliamentary system of government.  And cricket.  (Which we Americans call "baseball"). d:) Wahkeenah 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball is in fact derived from the English schoolgirls' game rounders... (smile). Actually, in the above quotation, I was mainly asking why it was explicitly stated that the British Empire was "often cited" - as if there were some argument about it. I'll reword the sentence. TharkunColl 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans decided it was more fun to run "round" the bases instead of just back and forth. "Often cited" is indeed silly. Who was going to spread English besides the English? One can argue for America's role, but America speaks English because of England. Wahkeenah 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks better with the new wording in any case.Zebulin 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words?

message: 1- English is not an official language in Spain: You cannot use it in the administration. The only official language in all Spain is Spanish. There are also regional official languages whose usage is restricted to certain regions.
2- The European Union publishes its laws in 15 languages, not only in English.
3- Come to Spain and try to speak English with the natives.
Fmercury1980 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will never happen! English is not an official language in Spain, SqueakBox 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be ironic if Spain became English-speaking and the USA became Spanish-speaking. Wahkeenah 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is likely. Spain is one of the least English-friendly countries in Europe and Spanish is soemwhat of a political hot potato in the US, SqueakBox 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish is all over the place in the USA and is becoming a de facto second language, in a country which has no official first language, just a de facto first language of English. As for Spain... that little Armada incident was like 400 years ago. Some folks just can't get over something and move on. :) Wahkeenah 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irish used to be spoken in Boston. The same is true of Italian in New York. Irish is gone, and Italian is on its way out. I can't think of a single time in history when immigration alone caused a change in language. There's also a huge immigration crackdown building up right now, in case you didn't notice.--Wishbone 676 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sorry, but did the immigration of the English and Spanish into the Americas not change the main language there?−Woodstone 11:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It established a main language. There were many individual tribes and languages across the Americas. In terms of languages, the English and Spanish did to the Americas what the Romans did to Europe. Wahkeenah 11:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no actual American crackdown on immigration, just a token effort here and there to generate headlines. Wahkeenah 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish cant be compared to Italian and Irish in the US because of the enormous number of Spanish speakers on the continent and the fact that chunks of the US were taken from Mexico in the 19th Century, SqueakBox 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "chunks" like Texas and California. And, Hey! We stole that land fair and square! Wahkeenah 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sí, tiene razón... es una buena pregunta. Wahkeenah 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's exactly the sort of English they speak in Spain.  Clearly an English-speaking country.  The Jade Knight 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactamente. :) Wahkeenah 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain as an anglophone country!!??? 

message: A much more precise estimate (without the 5 million either way confusion) is available from the "Mother Tongue, 2001 Counts for Both Sexes, for Canada, Provinces and Territories" table from the 2001 Census: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/LanguageComposition/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1a&Table=1a&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Counts&B2=Both
The counts according to that table are:
English as mother tongue: 17,572,170;
French as mother tongue: 6,741,955;
English and French: 122,660
These seem like more useful stats than the "Knowledge of Official Languages" currently cited in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.20.198.70 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native English speakers in Canada 

message: Other languages have done this and it makes a lot of sense. I'm not asking to list all the countries that have English signs in their airports.
*How about if you post the list right here? Wahkeenah 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we list all the countries where English is an official language in the infobox?

message: In English language#Grammar is says
*Modern English, unlike Modern German or Dutch and the Romance languages, lacks grammatical gender...
I think that may be an oversimplification because English does distinguish between he, she and it - compare that with languages which really lack gender like Turkish or Armenian, where o in the former case and na in the latter are used for everything. The Columbia Encyclopedia makes a few good points on this issue . Can the article be reworded?--Domitius 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could say it lacks grammatical gender in nouns, to be more precise. Then again, the kind of gender it has in the pronouns is really not quite "grammatical gender", it's "natural gender" (sensitive directly to natural sex and animacy, with few exceptions). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the initial comment, I think you may be confusing gender with grammatical gender. English has gender (he, she, it), but not where grammar is concerned (as in all nouns being classified as masuline, feminine, neuter, animate, etc.) Leasnam (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical gender 

message: «This is much greater than the 185,000 terms in German, and the 100,000 in French»
Such comparison is incorrect and chauvinistic and must be removed. It's not correct to consider internationalisms and loanwords as being English words. Greek, Latin, French, Spanish etc loanwords are not English words. So any language can borrow thousands of words from other languages and say that it`s the richest language in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, part of the point of the section is that many other languages cannot borrow vocabulary the way that English does because they have official academies to protect the “purity” of the language. English also has few structural barriers to borrowing (like word endings). Borrowed words (like “language”) can become just as much a part of the language as those of Anglo-Saxon origin (like “the”). This doesn’t make English “better” (for having more words): the foreign language academies would say it makes it worse (for being “bastardized”). Indeed, a very real sense we all suffer from it by having to learn more vocabulary (and with inconsistent spelling reflecting the word origins at that). --teb728 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a way, all of English is foreign borrowing - both the Celts and the Anglo Saxons were invaders and I believe there is little trace of the earlier inhabitants other than monuments like Stonehenge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.201.98.210 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sucks having all the damn Latin and Greek words, we should get rid of them.  All that bullshit about not being able to speak without Latin and Greek is stupid.  We should be more like German, with calques and stuff and only very limited loanwords (like calque).Cameron Nedland 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: without the Latin words and its derivatives (french too clearly)
It * * all the * * and * words, we should get rid of them.  All that *shit about not being * to speak without * and * is *.  We should be more like * , with * and * and only * * loanwords (like *).
I have included the shared words .Source http://en.wiktionary.org
Funny not?
--Userreus (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, what a silly discussion. Tony 00:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of words in English 

message: This is a pointless statement - shouldn't it be removed?! Anybody who is reading the page is going to be aware of that fact by nature of the fact that they understand the preceding sentences and that they are reading the English version of Wikipedia! 82.27.233.225 09:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed. Snalwibma 09:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, good catch. I didn't notice before. That statement made me laugh, because it seems so absurd, almost like a joke, for the fact that User:82.27.233.225 provided. Glad it was removed. Thanks! Jeeny 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English is also the language that this page is written in 

message: This section makes no distinction between Norman and French!
For example: Catch comes from Norman, Chase from French. Warranty from Norman, Guaranty from French. Castle, Mug, Mutton, Beef (etc.)… all these came from Norman, not French. On the other hand, many other later Latinate borrowings come from French (such as "corps").  While, in some cases, it is impossible to tell which of the two a word came from, in many cases it is fairly easy to tell.  These two languages are quite distinct, and should not be mixed when determining etymology; "catch" and "chase", though the exact same word (being cognates) in Norman and French (cachi and chasser) are hardly identical!  [FYI:  I'm reposting this from the archive because it never received a response…] The Jade Knight 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think there should be some distinction made between borrowings from norman french and continental french., or perhaps a link to the anglo-norman article which goes into more detail on this. (89.242.13.14 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously mean the Anglo-Norman language article. --teb728 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word origins 

message: Now is official also in Madagascar (since april the 4), but no one speak it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.199.9 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madagascar 

message: The IPA pronunciation given in the article is /ˈɪŋglɪʃ/, with the E pronounced as a short I. I’ve always said it and heard it said as a long E, or /ˈiŋglɪʃ/. I tried editing it (before realizing I wasn’t logged in) with this same explanation in the edit summary, which Woodstone completely ignored when reverting it. Is there a source for the given pronunciation? —Frungi 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel Jones’s English Pronouncing Dictionary gives pronunciation “ˈɪŋ.glɪʃ”; Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives pronunciation “ˈiŋ-glish also ˈiŋ-lish,” which in their pronunciation symbols correspond to /ˈɪŋ.glɪʃ/ and /ˈɪŋ.lɪʃ/, respectively. (They use “i” for /ɪ/ and “ē” for /i/.) Neither gives /ˈiŋglɪʃ/ as even an alternate pronunciation, nor have I ever heard it pronounced that way by a native speaker. (I speak General American.) --teb728 05:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak IPA, but in "plain English" I would say that in the USA it is normally pronounced "ING-glish", although I have heard some say "ING-lish". Wahkeenah 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My accent is GA, and ˈiŋ.glɪʃ  or perhaps ˈiŋ.lɪʃ sound more correct to me than ˈɪŋ.glɪʃ or ˈɪŋ.lɪʃ.  However, we should use the pronunciations that we can attribute to a reliable source.  Our own personal observations are simply anecdotal and are not necessarily correct or even representative.  —Fastolfe00 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm saying is that the IPA gibberish doesn't tell me much of anything about how the word is pronounced. I shouldn't have to have a degree in linguistics to read wikipedia. Also, besides an n with a "tail" (which I imagine means an "ng" sound) along with i and g and l, all I'm seeing is little boxes. Wahkeenah 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wahkeenah, IPA is the standard alphabet for documenting pronunciation.  There's no other way to do this in a Wikipedia article.  You don't need to understand IPA to understand the article, but you do need to understand it to understand pronunciations as documented on Wikipedia.  Your use of "ING" above is ambiguous because the way it is pronounced depends on how you pronounce it.  The discussion above is, effectively, whether the "Eng" in "English" should be documented as starting with "ɪŋ", which sounds like your "ing" using a short I, or "iŋ", which sounds like your "ing" using a long E sound in the US.  The difference is very subtle at the start of the word, and I believe both are at least somewhat common, but only the "ɪŋ" form (short I) appears to be documented as correct, according to the resources helpfully provided by TEB728 above, which is why I think it should be used (per WP:OR).  Does this help? —Fastolfe00 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we should get an audio pronunciation like many articles have, see Wikipedia but ideally from an English person, SqueakBox 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm seeing boxes instead of letters in the IPA gibberish. Fastolfe is saying it should be pronounced "EENG-glish". I've lived in America all my life (so far), for several decades and I've never heard anyone say it that way, on TV, radio, film or anyone first-hand. That's way too broad to be "anecdotal". In short, the first syllable rhymes with "ring", or "bring" or "king", all with the short i. If you say those words with a long "I", I don't know what kind of English that is, but it's not American English. And I don't recall any Britishers every saying it like "eenglish" either. Wahkeenah 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lived in America all my life, too, and everyone out here in the West (except, perhaps, for a few of the older people in Utah) pronounces "ring", "bring", and "king" with /i/ (the long i).  The Jade Knight 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, indeed not. We Brits pronounce it correctly, In-glish sounds about right, SqueakBox 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it help if it is enclosed in  tags like  and ? Or is it still boxes? (This tag is supposed to work around a font selection problem in IE6.) --teb728 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it should be pronounced with the long E, I'm saying that's my anecdotal experience.  But the important part about my statement is that I don't think we should defer to anyone's personal beliefs about which is correct and go with cited authorities instead.  Your experience in America, all your life (so far), for several decades, apparently differs from my own experience in America, all my life (so far), for several decades.  You might even be right here.  But it doesn't matter, since we are not published linguists that can be cited on Wikipedia.  The discussion about which is correct is therefore moot.  WP:OR  —Fastolfe00 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To my Western American ears, /ˈiŋglɪʃ/ sounds right, especially when enunciated (where /ˈɪŋglɪʃ/ would sound affected).  When not enunciated, it sounds like something in between /i/ and /ɪ/, but if I had to peg it to one, I'd say /i/.  The Jade Knight 06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Deaths is pronounced , with both the th and the s unvoiced. Baths is pronounced  (British) or  (American), with both the th and the s voiced. As a general rule the th and the s will always be voiced or unvoiced together. In most words I think they are unvoiced; so you just have to memorize the voiced exceptions. Or… just pronounce everything unvoiced: I don’t say or , but they don’t sound wrong to me. --teb728 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This American pronounces "baths" //, FYI.  The Jade Knight 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of “English” 

message: I tried to delete the "extremely", but it was reverted. "Extremely extensively" seems reduntant to me; is it really necessary to add to the extensiveness? And even if it isn't, wouldn't it be better to write "very extensively" instead?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there's no need to further emphasise the extensiveness. -- Avenue 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "extremely extensively"

message: 144.122.251.18 just changed a British-English spelling to an American-English one. This leads me to wonder which form is the appropriate one to use. The Manual of Style (national varieties of English) gives two examples for where there isn't an obvious choice, but these examples are people and can't really be easily generalized to include a language. Any thoughts?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's an obvious reason for preferring one over the other here, so one guideline is to stick with the variety of English used first (WP:ENGVAR - "Stay with established spelling"). Reading through the article, I saw a few British spellings, but no American ones (except the new one you noticed), so I've presumed that British spelling was the original standard and reverted the change by 144.122.251.18 accordingly. Another option would be to reword it to avoid using words whose spelling varies. -- Avenue 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also assumed that this article is in BrEng. I think that's the way it should stay. Tony 09:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version of English to use in Article

message: This page was 65KB until I made an edit a few minutes ago, which was to replace the big section See also with a link to a category. This doesn't decrease the size very much, it only went down to 63KB. Anything else?? Georgia guy 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size