Talk:National language

message: ===Predicate of the first sentence===
<P>"A national language is a language (or language variant, e.g. dialect) that has some connection—de facto or de jure—with and the territory they occupy."</P>
<P>Proposed Correction: "with the territory within which it is spoken".</P>
<P>Rationale: Cursory reading of the pertained sentence, the phrase "xxx with and the territory they occupy" simply don't make sense in as much as it does not conform with basic grammar. To clarify, a language don't occupy a territory that the term "occupy" is simply not the appropriate term to use to best articulate the sense for which the sentence is constructed. The plural pronoun "they" (xxx territory they occupy) is not only a misrepresentation of the subject being "A national language" expressed in singular form. Said use of pronoun could have been more appropriate had the form of the subject been likewise in plural that is, "National languages". Particularly, the Article "A" and the (linking) verb "is" should have been considered in the use of the aforesaid pronoun "they".</P>
<P>Definition by construction: The complete term subject of this review is "National language" thus be it noted that the term consists of two (2) terms: national and language. More than the scarcity of related literature (assuming the fact of the matter), it more objective for an observation to state that the article seem to have based the focus exclusively  on the latter without taking as much consideration with the former. This observation is better explained given the question; "How is a given language related with the nation where such language is spoken?"</P>
<P>Discussion geared towards qualifying level of preference, usage parameters and perhaps, legislative signification are the paramount topics sufficient to satisfy the topic question. Unfortunately with the Article that is obviously wanting a more objective discourse, the focus and concern of the contributing Lexicographer simply out-of-place. For one, the list provided (which, plain reading gives the impression the purpose is to achieve accuracy by completeness if not otherwise some sublime motives) is simply suggestive that gives away the displaced focus of the composition. It is beyond debate the purpose of the list is to show instances of relevance between a NATIONAL VERSUS OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. That, (if at all necessary) should be a topic of an entry of its own.</P>
<P>Said elsewise, the personal bias and preference -- PARTIALITY -- of the approach or choice of scope of the discussion in so being focused too much on insisting relevance between a "NATIONAL LANGUAGE" and an "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE" caused such flaw in the composition in a manner so palpable it requires attention. Note that the entry intended a technical lexicon not a comparative discourse. While there are instances when said terms are used interchangeably,  it is the opinion of this Reviewing Technical Contributor that the better and preferred approach is to provide both the terms of their separate and distinct entries in the body of the Wikipedia Lexicon.</P>
<P>Perhaps other reviews will agree with the observation that instead of the Article providing a  clear distinctive definition and delineation of principles involved relative the more significant purpose for  which the Article is written (provide lexicographical reference on the term "National Language"), the article unfortunately is constructed in such a manner which composition implies THE NEED to link as per definition and significance the terms "NATIONAL LANGAUGE" AND "OFFICIAL LANGAUGE". Objectivity therefore is palpably compromised that the Contributing Lexicographer sounded not a technical writer but an advocate trying to  disseminate an idea or a cause. Hence, the foregoing review submitted for the appreciation of the community for appropriate revision and development of the subject entry.</P>
:Thank you User:ScriptOriumTerminus, for this review, which was added to the top of the page on 1 July 2017. Given mention of possible other reviews, would it be appropriate to relocate this edit in the chronological stream below (perhaps with section title in CAPS), and encourage other reviews to do the same? (Unless of course there is a WP policy to put reviews at the head of discussion pages.) IMO that would help following the evolution of discussion, such as it has been and as it develops. --A12n (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of the Article

message: <P>"A national language is a language (or language variant, e.g. dialect) that has some connection—de facto or de jure—with and the territory they occupy."</P>
<P>Proposed Correction: "with the territory within which it is spoken".</P>
<P>Rationale: Cursory reading of the pertained sentence, the phrase "xxx with and the territory they occupy" simply don't make sense in as much as it does not conform with basic grammar. To clarify, a language don't occupy a territory that the term "occupy" is simply not the appropriate term to use to best articulate the sense for which the sentence is constructed. The plural pronoun "they" (xxx territory they occupy) is not only a misrepresentation of the subject being "A national language" expressed in singular form. Said use of pronoun could have been more appropriate had the form of the subject been likewise in plural that is, "National languages". Particularly, the Article "A" and the (linking) verb "is" should have been considered in the use of the aforesaid pronoun "they".</P>
<P>Definition by construction: The complete term subject of this review is "National language" thus be it noted that the term consists of two (2) terms: national and language. More than the scarcity of related literature (assuming the fact of the matter), it more objective for an observation to state that the article seem to have based the focus exclusively  on the latter without taking as much consideration with the former. This observation is better explained given the question; "How is a given language related with the nation where such language is spoken?"</P>
<P>Discussion geared towards qualifying level of preference, usage parameters and perhaps, legislative signification are the paramount topics sufficient to satisfy the topic question. Unfortunately with the Article that is obviously wanting a more objective discourse, the focus and concern of the contributing Lexicographer simply out-of-place. For one, the list provided (which, plain reading gives the impression the purpose is to achieve accuracy by completeness if not otherwise some sublime motives) is simply suggestive that gives away the displaced focus of the composition. It is beyond debate the purpose of the list is to show instances of relevance between a NATIONAL VERSUS OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. That, (if at all necessary) should be a topic of an entry of its own.</P>
<P>Said elsewise, the personal bias and preference -- PARTIALITY -- of the approach or choice of scope of the discussion in so being focused too much on insisting relevance between a "NATIONAL LANGUAGE" and an "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE" caused such flaw in the composition in a manner so palpable it requires attention. Note that the entry intended a technical lexicon not a comparative discourse. While there are instances when said terms are used interchangeably,  it is the opinion of this Reviewing Technical Contributor that the better and preferred approach is to provide both the terms of their separate and distinct entries in the body of the Wikipedia Lexicon.</P>
<P>Perhaps other reviews will agree with the observation that instead of the Article providing a  clear distinctive definition and delineation of principles involved relative the more significant purpose for  which the Article is written (provide lexicographical reference on the term "National Language"), the article unfortunately is constructed in such a manner which composition implies THE NEED to link as per definition and significance the terms "NATIONAL LANGAUGE" AND "OFFICIAL LANGAUGE". Objectivity therefore is palpably compromised that the Contributing Lexicographer sounded not a technical writer but an advocate trying to  disseminate an idea or a cause. Hence, the foregoing review submitted for the appreciation of the community for appropriate revision and development of the subject entry.</P>
:Thank you User:ScriptOriumTerminus, for this review, which was added to the top of the page on 1 July 2017. Given mention of possible other reviews, would it be appropriate to relocate this edit in the chronological stream below (perhaps with section title in CAPS), and encourage other reviews to do the same? (Unless of course there is a WP policy to put reviews at the head of discussion pages.) IMO that would help following the evolution of discussion, such as it has been and as it develops. --A12n (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Predicate of the first sentence

message: This article needs to include some counterexamples.  It's also unclear whether the term "nation" is intended in a political sense, or one which is closer to "ethnic group". --Tbv 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangential to Tbv's suggestion, the intro to the article could use a rewrite to accommodate wider geographical scope. In particular, "national language" in a number of African countries refers to an indigenous language with some legal status (as opposed to official language). Even in this context, "national language" may cover a few more widely spoken languages, or all indigenous tongues. And then there are some instances where "national language" is used in a sense like "official language" - I agree that the article needs attention from an expert. --A12n 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a "globalize" tag. --A12n 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added a paragraph about C.M.B. Brann's typology of "national language." I think it is a useful perspective. National language is a term variously used and it may take a while to reshape this article to more fully and consistently reflect that. The Brann reference might be better in another part of the article, especially if others find some other ways of categorizing the range of uses of this term. --A12n (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMB Brann reference 

message: Yep, it seems a mistake, looking at the thin sourcing for this article, to regard "national language" as a coherent category at all for an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. This is not terminology preferred by actual linguistics researchers who study the use of various languages in countries around the world. Where are good sources for use of this term in language surveys or specialized studies of language use? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section seems to adequately explain that language surveys or specialized studies of language use is not the only use of this term. Perhaps, if it's important and if a reliable supporting source can be cited, a mention could be added that this term is not commonly used in those regards. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd offer that an encyclopedic (wikipedic) article such as this on "national language" is needed precisely due to the range and often imprecision of usage. That would include who uses it how to refer to what (and as WeijiBaikeBianji indicates, who does not use it).--A12n (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, , I see you've made some commendable efforts here to identify sources for this article. I'll be examining this article for sourcing (not necessarily just the parts of the article that have been edited recently by anyone joining the talk page discussion here) with the  Wikipedia reliable sources guideline in mind. Thanks for joining the discussion of article improvements here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 19:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues since 2007 

message: As background information of possible use/interest wrt this article, here are links to a couple of blog posts on how Ethnologue has used the term "national language," and the juxtaposition of that with a (the?) widely used sense of the term in Africa:
* Ethnologue and "national languages" in Africa (5 Dec 2013)
* Ethnologue: "National" and "Principal" languages in Africa (14 Oct 2014)--A12n (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnologue's use of "national language" 

message: In 1979, a "Subregional Seminar on National Languages and Teacher Training" held in Dar es Salaam defined "national language" as follows:
:a national language is defined strictly as either (a) an African language that is also an official language, or (b) a language that has been decreed to be a national language of a country. It must be noted that according to this definition:
:- all mother tongues are not necessarily national languages
:- French, English, Portuguese, and Spanish are not national languages, even though they may be official languages''
This was cited in work in the mid 1980s, but I do not have references that have used it since. However, it is consistent with use of the term "national language" by many African countries. (See here for more discussion.)--A12n (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  An African definition of "national language" 

message: Apparently something in the multiple issues template suppresses listing of the page in its categories. I added |nocat=false but that had the weird effect of moving all articles starting with "N" in each of the categories before the letter "A." So reverted pending a better solution.--A12n (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not appearing in categories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National language. 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/20140209234154/http://www.anc.tn/site/main/AR/docs/constit_proj_26012014.pdf to http://www.anc.tn/site/main/AR/docs/constit_proj_26012014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907081446/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2005/asp_20050007_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2005/asp_20050007_en_1
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) 02:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For info, the NGO FHI 360 has the following definition for national language in its Working Glossary: Language in Education Terms - "A language in a country that is not a colonial language (e.g., in DRC, the national languages are Lingala, Kiswahili, Ciluba, and Kituba)." This is a little different from other definitions, and may be another reference point in discussing how this article covers the topic.--A12n (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  An NGO definition of national language 

message: It seems to me that, in absence of a single definition or clear academic consensus, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to try to define the term 'national language'. Perhaps we should expand the page to include the various definitions outlined here, and any others that might be relevant, and rework the list of country-specific examples to cover all options? Taking Canada as an example, right now it specifies the official languages at the national level as well as some sub-national levels. The United States as another example does not have a legally defined official language but by some definitions, namely what language government business is conducted in, English is a national language. For nations with multiple languages of varying degrees of official-ness, this might be the easiest way to go. If we try to be inclusive with definitions and write everything under the guise of the various definitions hopefully the page will become much clearer and more useful! AntarcticPenguin (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a reasonable approach. I think the original effort was to begin with some overarching description that encompassed the diverse definitions. The term is in common use, present in policy documents (and constitutions), and used in academic literature. A user coming to this article needs to get a sense of diverse meanings. The comparison to "official language" which User:ScriptOriumTerminus's review questions was I think relevant to the extent that on the one hand, the two terms are sometimes confused, and on the other, some policy documents and constitutions actually use both.--A12n (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Although I do have to say I'm a little stuck as to what we would use as an overarching description. Something to the effect of: "the term national language refers, in general, to a language (or dialect?) associated with a particular group, whether that be a geographical region, an ethnic or cultural group, or a political entity like a state"? That seems to cover all of the potential definitions, but it's a little wordy... any thoughts on how to make it a bit clearer?AntarcticPenguin (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Came across another discussion of the ways the term is used (from: BAKER, PHILIP (1997): "Developing ways of writing vernaculars: problems and solutions in a historical perspective". In Vernacular Literacy: a re-evaluation, éds. A. Tabouret-Keller, et al. Oxford University Press, pages 93-141; cited in David Roberts, L'ORTHOGRAPHE DU TON EN KABIYÈ AU BANC D'ESSAI : Thèse pour obtenir le grade de Docteur en études africaines présentée et soutenue publiquement le 29 septembre 2008):
:"[In the 1950s], 'national language' had two distinct definitions (i) 'officially declared to be the national language of a state' and (ii) 'language of a nation'. In the colonial era, (i) was frequently and not always accurately interpreted as meaning 'the indigenous language spoken by the majority of the population', in contrast to the 'official language' of the colonial power. The meaning of (ii) varied according to one's definition of the word 'nation'. In more recent times, in Africa at least, 'national language' has come to be applied to any indigenous language in which literacy is encouraged by the government."
This would seem to support an approach to the article here leading with mention of two broad alternative definitions of the term. --A12n (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I did not see this until after writing my comment above. This looks like an excellent summary of the multiple definitions and it appears to have been cited enough times by other authors to justify it as a reasonably authoritative source. Do you have time to try to incorporate this into the lead, or would you like me to try to do it in the next few days? AntarcticPenguin (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip Baker on definitions of "national language" 

message: The edit summary of this revert caught my eye. It says: There is a consensus on Wikipedia to call it Czech Republic, at least until November 29, 2020, legal name or not.
The only interest I have in this is that I have a Czech/Canadian friend; he doesn't follow WP, and I doubt that he would be up-to-the-minute on this anyhow. I dug around a bit and eventually came up with Name of the Czech Republic#Adoption of Czechia. Having found that, I thought I would mention it here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechia  / Czech Republic 

message: A new section should be made dedicated to discussing the history of the concept of national language and how it came about. For starters, it has been said that the establishment of Parisian French as the sole national language of the new republic in the aftermath of the French Revolution was the first time ever that language was associated with nation. KLITE789 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the concept 

message: The constitution of Nepal has entitled "national language" status to all languages spoken in Nepal.  Requesting to edit the current content as follows:
The Constitution of Nepal recognizes all mother tongues of Nepal as national languages. The official language at federal level is Nepali, while provinces can provide official status to one or more than one language spoken by majority of population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by थकुराःमा (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the well-formulated edit request with sources. One important question: which of the two linked documents is relevant here? The second document says in Part I "6. Languages of the nation: All languages spoken as the mother tongues in Nepal are the languages of the nation". This is a charming way to say that Nepal actually does not have a national language, nor any privileged language (like the scheduled languages of India) aside from Nepali as official language. –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we had to choose, we could choose the second one. Because it is the official law website run by government of Nepal. Things get lost in translation. The official Nepali version says ६. राष्ट्रभाषाः नेपालमा बोलिने सबै मातृभाषाहरू राष्ट्रभाषा हुन् । which means 6. National language: All mother languages spoken in Nepal are national language. But the official translation provided seems to use 'language of the nation'. So probably 'Nepal actually does not have a national language' may be misleading. Nepal has national languages, but the problem is how many. The census says 123. Official Summary of Census (2011), Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal   Language Commission has identified 6 additional language last year.  There's also been debate on this constitutional provision as 'vague' because linguists argue that census has recorded foreign languages such as Bengali, Arabic, French and English in the mother tongue list, and that linguists have to identify 'languages of Nepali origin'.यसमा राष्ट्रभाषाहरूको अनुसूची प्रकाशित हुनुपर्दछ । किनभने २०११ को जनगणना अनुसार नेपालमा १२३ भाषा छन् । र तिमध्ये अंग्रेजी, फ्रेन्च, चाइनिज, नागा आदि पनि यसै संविधानको धारा ६ अनुसार राष्ट्रभाषामा पर्ने छन् । --थकुराःमा (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could use mention the use of राष्ट्रभाषा  in the constitution, and also that it can be variously translated as "national language" or "language of the nation". But I think the intended meaning is different from the common usage of "national language", which implies a language that is taught in school and spoken (natively or as a second language) nationwide (in real or at least politically aspired). But nobody will expect that e.g. Kagate can be understood nationwide, so the wide scope राष्ट्रभाषा seems to imply something like recognition for all native languages of Nepal. I guess the main point of the authors of the constitution was to wisely avoid a two-class system of languages as it exists e.g. in India. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is the product of linguistic rights movement. The historical context is that any language apart from Nepali was not considered as national language, and therefore labelled as 'anti-national' or 'ethnic'. Nepali was associated with 'being Nepali' (also people critique the language being named as 'Nepali'. The constitution still places Nepali over all other languages, but the intent was to break this hegemony. --थकुराःमा (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal section : edit request 

message: singula  kɔnsonat leta n exampul 197.215.23.20 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: adit tya 120.188.36.119 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  krio