Talk:American English/Archive 1

message: From Japanese
kamikaze	suicide attack. Japanese for Divine Wind
karate  	Japanese for the Unarmed Way
origami 	paper crafts
tycoon  	wealthy and powerful businessperson. Japanese for big monarch
tsunami 	tidal wave
sake    	a Japanese liqour
I've removed this table because this article is supposed to be about American English, whereas all of the above terms are used also in British English. --Zundark 09:28 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
:
kosher                                                                                                                                          	correct, proper, ("That's not kosher" is similar to "That's not cricket".)
patio                                                                                                                                           	an outdoor paved area of a house
incommunicado                                                                                                                                   	lack of communication
OK                                                                                                                                              	'yes' or 'you are correct'. A word now used by many languages.
Its origin is not clear - for more information, read the "Ask Oxford" article at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/ok.	Its origin is not clear - for more information, read the "Ask Oxford" article at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/ok.
:Likewise I dumped the above as being very common in the UK.  I wondered about "fiesta" and "cookie" too, but I think they're not that common.  Honestly who thought us Britons don't use "kosher" or "ok"?
::The way OK was included was a little odd, I agree, but OK originated in the United States, and furthermore, its origin is well known and has been since approximately 1965.  But I don't like working on articles with tables in them and usually avoid them, so it is up to someone else to fix this.  (If I worked on the article, the tables would go.) The story on OK is, briefly, that there was a word game popular in the United States in the early 19th century of misspelling phrases and using only the initials -- not unlike the transformations of Cockney rhyming slang -- in which "O.K." stood for "oll korrect".  This origin was obscured by the subsequent combination of the phrase with the nickname of Martin Van Buren in the campaign slogan "Old Kinderhook is O.K." and the proliferation of many, many a folk etymology in later years.  The research by A. W. Read tracing the origin as stated here is accepted by both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's III.  OK is, perhaps, the best known of all Americanisms and certainly belongs in the article on American English as well as in an article of its own, which I have just half written.  (Why the "Ask Oxford" article is less positive on this is a mystery since their own, more authoritative OED presents it, but "Ask Oxford" is a good source for all the folk etymologies.) Ortolan88
::: OK.  There could perhaps be a table of words of US origin put in this article. Bagpuss
: I have removed all of the words that were aparantly derived from Hindi. These words are commonly used in British English and not peculiar to American English. AreJay 05:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese loanwords removed

message: I've removed the table of loan-words from English. American English is a form of English, so there can't be loan-words from itself. If it was meant to represent loan-words from British English, then that's wrong too; such words as draperies, rooster, skillet just don't exist in current British English. To say they come from an earlier from of British English is hardly an argument, since the great majority of American English does derive from an earlier form of British English!
What the table was listing was differences between American and British usage - not loan-words - so I've moved the relevant entries from that table to List_of_American_English_words_not_used_in_British_English.  Spellbinder 14:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Loan words from British English

message: I am confused why the definition of hacienda 'a type of ranch house' replaced 'principal house on a ranch'.
Dictionary.com/hacienda has:
#A large estate or plantation in Spanish-speaking countries.
#The house of the owner of such an estate.
Merriam-Webster Online has:
# : a large estate especially in a Spanish-speaking country : PLANTATION
# : the main dwelling of a hacienda
Are these American dictionaries incorrect? Pædia 15:17, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
I'm confused by this too.  The first definition of 'hacienda' isn't distinct from 'estate' as used by Americans, so I figured not to include it.  A house is a hacienda because of its function as the main house, not because of any sort of architectural features implied by 'a type of ranch house'.  The dictionaries jibe with how I've heard and seen the word used. --Atemperman 22:59, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  American English#Loanwords not common in British English 

message: I wish to question the inclusion of cape with the meaning headland as being American English. Even if derived from a native american language, it seems to have entered both American and Brtish English quickly and equally.
Witness: Cape Town, Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Province (all 17th-18th century, some possibly earlier). And 18th century English explorers named many capes in Australia and New Zealand - the majority of headlands in NZ being named cape.
-- dramatic 00:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cape

message: I have removed the following "Loanwords not common in British English", because they are common in British English:
*Cape (this may be similar to an American Indian word, but is derived from Latin and pre-dates the discovery of the new world)
*Toboggan
*Squash
*Barbecue
*Hammock
*Tycoon
PhilHibbs 16:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Loanwords, again

message: I know there are a lot of phrases that the English think of as "Americanisms", that are in fact phrases that have merely fallen out of use over here, but were maintained in the US. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I think this would be a worthwhile addition to this page. I certainly came here hoping to find some. PhilHibbs 16:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The two most conspicuous ones I can think of are fall, the season; and gotten as a past participle for get.  Do they speak of bluffs or creeks in the UK?  Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluffs yes, creeks not so often. If I saw a sentence with creek in it I would think it about 75% likely to be of US origin. I would't say that it has gone entirely out of use. PhilHibbs 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words that have dropped out of common usage in British English? 

message: I took out this content:
:A key area where American English has grown (on both sides of the Atlantic), is in the world of business and commerce, where use of the rhetorical euphemism is common. One example would be the phrase "are you comfortable with that". This phrase will typically be used by a business manager introducing a change which may, or may not, be welcome. A negative answer is neither expected nor, indeed, invited. However, the question is, at least on the face of it, conciliatory.
:However, it was the British composers Gilbert and Sullivan who felt it necessary to point out that their ideal officer in HMS Pinafore "almost always said 'If you please.'".
because there didn't seem to be any evidence and it seems like an awfully vague assertion. Also, it only really applies to the "corporate-ese" variety of American English. It just seemed out of place here. If anyone could show a reasonable justification for why it should be put back, I'd be glad to entertain it. Nohat 06:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed claim

message: Can we (meaning "I") get rid of the SAMPA annotations? The beginning of the article has a box telling the reader that IPA is going to be used, and links to an article providing assistance if eir browser is having trouble with it. IPA is really the only standard we need for phonetic notation — it appears in every dictionary I've seen, it's all we use in the linguistics community, and it's very well-defined. The SAMPA annotations are cumbersome, not as well-understood or commonly used, and pointless in the dawning age of Unicode. The doubling of pronunciations in IPA and SAMPA makes for very unattractive clutter in my opinion. Maybe there's something I'm overlooking here, but I really don't think we need SAMPA in this article (or in many others). Comments? Jeeves 05:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IPA vs SAMPA

message: seriously, "English is considered the de facto, "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law", language of the United States because of its widespread use" requires a citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: citation creep?

message: The map on the left near the top of the page mentions AAVE as being spoken by Black people. Should this be changed to African Americans? I not aware of any non African-American black people who speak it. --69.248.225.198 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AAVE mention on map

message: The topic has not been covered. --Phleer, Yeoman Editor (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexism/sexist language 

message: I have removed the reference to 'different from', as it was incorrect in suggesting that this is not used in British English. It is in fact the standard form there. I have also weakened the reference to 'the team are...', etc., as this usage is not universal in British English. (In fact the singular is used when the group is seen as one unit, e.g. 'The government is unpopular', but plural when seen as a group of individuals, e.g. 'The government are discussing a reform'). APW (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There clearly is a difference between UK and US uses, in regards to "the team are...", since as an American I would consider "the government" to be one unit no matter what the context (although of course in a sentence like "the government is discussing a reform," it's understood that the government is comprised of individuals). Interestingly, without even thinking about it, we shift from the singular to the plural at times, for example: "Nirvana IS my favorite band. They ARE one of the best bands of the '90s" (we wouldn't say "It IS one of the best bands of the '90s").Commonparlance (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Different from and plural after collective nouns

message: American English pronounces education and opportunity with velar 'd' and 't' as opposed to palatized 'j' and 'ch' like the rest of the English speaking world.
Should add this to phonology  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.221.7 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you don't mean alveolar? I have never heard anyone say "egg-ucation".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Velar shift of t and d

message: Is American English merely a variety of English, an accent, or a dialect?  Is the syntax, pronunciation, gammar and vocabulary of American English significantly different enough to warrent the term 'dialect'?  In comparison, I point to the dialects of other language groups, such as the dialects German (Upper Bavarian, Saxon, Low German Platt, etc.), Italian (Venetian, Sicilian, Calabrese, etc.).  The syntax, vocabulary and grammar differences within these dialects are quite high and often so complex that mutual intelligibility can be either difficult or impossible, whereas the minor differences between spoken or written American- and British English are rather small, and are more a matter of accent than dialect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkaempfer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say American English is a dialect of English, while Upper Bavarian, Saxon, Low German Platt, Venetian, Sicilian, Calabrese, etc., are separate languages, not dialects of German and Italian. Angr (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Variety, American Accent or American Dialect?   

message: Surely American English is a dialect of English, not a separate language.  Therefore rather than saying "American English is a language used mostly in the United States", shouldn't the introduction say "American English is the dialect of English spoken by the majority of English speakers in the United States".203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone the edit that changed the article to say American English is a language.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language or dialect? 

message: I believe the article should be renamed "Modern American" rather than "American English"  ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.9.150 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 11:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Article Name Change 

message: It seems that the recently-created American Accent has a very similar scope to this article.  Its content is a mix of redundant statements and incorrect statements, so I'm pretty sure a merge would involve very little content movement.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure which would be better, at first, but then noticed that American accent (lowercase) redirected here until yesterday. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr's suggestion to redirect to North American English regional phonology is an excellent one.  I was bold and made the edit.  little green rosetta 15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we look at what links to American accent, it looks like people tend to be referring to what's covered at this article, not that one. Am I wrong? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure of that.  Those articles are clearly referring to the spoken dialect (Noo Yawk) and not the written word, of which this article describes both.  little green rosetta 17:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I can get behind your change. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Note that User:Sourov0000 undid little green rosetta's edit redirecting the name. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

text: little green rosetta made the edit without any prior talking. He just made it without even noticing. The proposal was to add it to American English. — Sourov0000 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not let the discussion depend on what the live version is.  Sourov, it seems that you oppose merging American Accent anywhere, but your arguments so far don't speak for a separate article from either American English or North American regional phonology.  Even if you can find content for American Accent, it seems to me that having a third article is a form of content forkery that spreads the knowledge too thinly.  That helps nobody. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also vote for Angr's idea. garik (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: No. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I think this pronunciation map/graphic may need attention.  First, I agree with the comments on the Washington, DC area on the .  
Secondly, I can't figure out why most of the speakers live in the ocean.  I feel like this map needs work, but I'm not an expert in this or maps.  --JC1008 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation Map 

message: I have update the page to include the history of the American Language
Taoism74 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced history removed, please don't do that again, thanks.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I assert this article is overly technical, and is written for linguists in academia, when in fact there are plenty of everyday adults (not to mention some poor fourth-grader trying to do their homework) that find the current article unbelievably stuffy and jargon-filled.  
There is *already* a separate Phonology of English article, which covers *all* the morphology and phonology stuff in excruciating detail.  I prefer that article, for my own use-case, but why is all that stuff duplicated here, in this article?  The MOST important thing, the very first subsection, in phonology?  What about calling the first section "general similarities among dialects" and calling the section section "regional differences".  There can also be a section which gives historical context, and modern linguistic contrasts (uk vs us / us vs india / etc) as well as modern demographic contrasts (number of speakers of this flavor of english compared to number of speaker of the main flavor of chinese and french and spanish and so on).  
Anything that is overly technical, should be summarized in layman's terms here, then moved to the phonology/morphology/etc articles designed for specialists in those fields.  We can *link* to the tech stuff, but *this* article should be aimed squarely at a general readership.  Right now it is too dern high-falutin'!  :-)     Which is ha-ha, only serious.  Criticisms welcome, if I don't respond promptly please ping my talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  artikle two hard to grok rite now 

message: The article claims that:
Gotten (past participle of get) is often considered to be an Americanism, although there are some areas of Britain, such as Lancashire and North-eastern England, that still continue to use it.
I am certain that is wrong. I don't know about North-eastern England, but I was born, educated and have worked, lived and travelled in Lancashire for almost 50 years without seeing or hearing "gotten" used by any of its residents - including a wide variety of dialect speakers and writers.
:: I was born just outside of Manchester and have heard both gotten and putten before. It's not something I'd expect to hear from someone talking in a formal context... or dare I say it, "educated".
--72.225.225.28 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gotten 

message: I'm a native speaker of American English, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone pronounce "resume" with the final "e" silent, as indicated in the "dropping of /j/" portion of the Phonology section.  Unless some very substantial citations to the contrary can be produced, I think this should be changed.  
67.252.132.138 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation indicated in the article (re-ZOOM) is that of the verb "to resume" – you seem to be thinking of the noun "resumé" (sometimes spelled without the accent) as in "job application/curriculum vitae", which is RE-zoo-may and does indeed not have a silent e. Maybe someone could make this a bit clearer in the article? 217.226.20.93 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's actually "résumé", with two diacritics. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: /ɹɪzum/ ?

message: The article claims 'The term "soccer," the term normally used for association football in the United States, originated in Britain, but died out there.'
No, 'soccer' is still current in Britain; for instance if both rugby and association football are played at a school, they may be distinguished as 'rugby' (or 'rugger') and 'soccer' respectively. In Britain 'football' means soccer unless the context implies otherwise (in the minutes of a Rugby Union committee meeting, say); so normally it's not necessary to use 'soccer'. In the US, 'football' means grid-iron, so 'soccer' has to be used.
Since 
* a Google search for 'soccer site:.uk' shows examples of current usage, and
* the statement is itself not supported by a citation, and
* the main article Comparison of American and British English contains a more accurate discussion of 'soccer', and additionally
* the statement is irrelevant to the paragraph that it ends,
the statement should be removed.
87.112.7.27 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete and utter nonsense. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he's mistaking BrE for Australian English. Peter238 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'soccer' is alive in Britain 

message: There are around 400 million native speakers of English and only (according to this article) 225 million native speakers in the US. Rob984 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "two-thirds of the world's native speakers of English" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on American English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140923055916/http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/ to http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone clarify on this?  Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "From-rum merger" is not a real term, and definitely not a merger, but it seems to be someone trying to point out that function words such as of and from have /ʌ/ in American English (whereas in British English they have /ɒ/). This is true, as far as I know, but I'm not sure that whole entry isn't OR. AJD (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  From-rum merger? 

message: Where even does this come from? I've never heard it before until I read this article. It sounds incredibly unnatural for me and doesn't feel like standard English. And I'm a native speaker of English! 8.40.151.110 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying the term is unnatural or the dialect is unnatural?  I can understand your confusion more if it's the former than the latter.LakeKayak (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

text: The "The" was added by an a now-blocked disruptive IP user a couple of weeks ago. I reverted one of his diffs, but missed that one. Thanks for catching that. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it seems I misunderstood.  Thank you, BilCat.LakeKayak (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United States English? 

message: I have a question on some content which, according to the page history, that you have added a little while ago.  (See [this link.)  As I have limited access to the source, can you please verify that one of the sources says the father-bother distinction is potentially maintained in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many Southern dialects?  Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father-bother merger 

message: There is a problem in the mobile version of this article where the other sections are hidden after hiding the "Varieties" section (Only the "Varieties" section appear. The "See also", "References", and "External Links" are all hidden under the Varieties section, though they are considered sections, per the existing wiki code). I tried to fix those, but, the "Varieties" section still appear as the only section in the article when on mobile. Is this a bug on the mobile version, or a problem with the wiki coding, that the other main sections have become subsections of the "Varieties" section? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it's fixed now. Nardog (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah,  thanks.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile version of the article problematic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on American English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160401151700/http://us-english.org/view/1034 to http://www.us-english.org/view/1034
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309172328/http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/images/elt/oald7/synald7_angry.gif to http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/images/elt/oald7/synald7_angry.gif
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309172334/http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/images/elt/oald7/synald7_intelligent.gif to http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/images/elt/oald7/synald7_intelligent.gif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: pavement is not American English. who ever put that it isn't common in Britain is clearly an idiot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.148.141 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a different idiot, not the person who contributed the word "pavement". I have not had so much direct contact with the British, but this is a usage difference I have often noted in comparing American English with Hong Kong English. In America, the word may refer to any hard paved surface, but usually indicates a paved street for motor vehicles. In Hong Kong, I have seen the word applied only in reference to a sidewalk. The Hong Kong primary school books have all kinds of advice that would not play well in America. E.g., "We should always walk on the pavement." That one is a distant second to my favorite, "We can wash our hands in the public toilet." Geometricks (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: pavement?

message: Does it use American English with Archaic English? 124.106.141.70 (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about King James 21st Century? 

message: I had an idea to collapse the Eastern New England, New York City, South, North, Midland, West sections all down into one "Regional varieties" section. There's not a lot to say about some of these, particularly the North, Midland, and West (especially not for lay readers to really get -- I can keep the links to each dialect's own page of course), and there seems to currently be a decent amount of fluff. Are there any objections to this that I'm missing? Wolfdog (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: With no response in more than a week, I'll go ahead a be bold. Come talk here for any follow-up.Wolfdog (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsing down the "Varieties" sections 

message: It's usually said that in American English, if a person, place or thing has been named in honour of another human being, they have been named for that person; and in British English, named after.
 
Although, in fact, the two usages were originally distinct: if a person or thing takes its name in imitation of another person or thing, it is so named subsequently and in homage thereto (named after). 
But if a child is christened with the name of an elder relative, especially if that relative is now deceased, the child has been named for that relative (as a memorial to them).
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? How does this relate to improving the article? - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I’m American, and I have heard the phrase, “I was named after my grandfather,” far more often than the alternative. In fact, I don’t recall ever hearing the phrase, “I was named for my grandfather.” I usually hear “named for” in sentences like, “He was named in his yearbook for being ‘Most Likely to Succeed.’” WikiWinters (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named for & named after 

message: "There is no "native language", as the article is written in American English already; also, WP:HYPOCORISM also applies here"
All American sources, including school curriculums call this "English" when not comparing to other English dialects, not American English. The `nativename=English` designation is correct. Erkin Alp Güney 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary still applies, and you have not addressed either point. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native name 

message: Greetings! Regarding this revert, I'm looking for clarity on the claim that "some divisions" use languages other than English in courts. Does "some" mean in fact only Puerto Rico? Or does this apply to all the jurisdictions mentioned in note "a" that have a second official language? Do all federal courts use English exclusively? I don't see anywhere in the body of the article that talks about the language used in courts. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fuller explanation. I honestly have no idea. However, is it really appropriate to add all these details to the lead section? Perhaps we can just reword the sentence in a way that allows us to be clearer but also avoid raising these types of more in-depth questions. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree; details belong in the body. After poking around some more, I found a lot of detail is actually already in Languages of the United States#Official languages. That seems to be a better article for this content, since that article is about usage of various languages (including English) in the U.S., but this article is about the dialect, which is used in the U.S. but also by media and expatriates in other countries. So, I merged details there and left behind links here. -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of non-English languages in courts