Talk:Bermudian English

Local opinion
I am sorry, but I disagree with much of this article. I was born and raised in The Somers Isles (Bermuda) and I am not sure what the authors were going on about.


 * I was also born and raised in Bermuda...who wrote this article? I guess it was a valiant attempt, but much of the information is both outdated and just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.221.183 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bermudian English NPOV edit
You wrote: Recently you edited the article Bermudian English under the explanation of WP:NPOV, though NPOV does not seem to cover such an edit. The first change was removing the word "joke" from the sentence "a joke dictionary of Bermudian pronunciation and slang, written for tourists." - it was written† by two members of a satirical comedy group, Not the Um Um, Peter Smith and Fred Barritt, the latter of whom describes it as part of his Curriculum Comediae, so I believe it fair to describe it as a "joke dictionary". The second part of the edit was removing the sentence, "academic paper written by a college student with no first hand experience "; from NPOV: assert facts, and Let the facts speak for themselves; it is also (and, in fact, even more) important to note that neither this source nor the one written by the Bermudian duo exactly fall under the category of Reliable sources...in fact, "...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", with the occasional exceptions for work "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (see: WP:SELFPUB). In short, it is charity to even mention either of these sources,† and we certainly should not be advertising them as accurate.

† The original text of Bermewjun Vurds, that is. The supplied source is a supposedly-accurate copy available on the commercial website of a restaurant, a website whose inclusion here is probably a violation of WP:LINKS (particularly, #5 under the Links to be avoided).

199.172.203.61 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care for this article, but we work with what we have. I stand by the edits to remove comments on the external links. I'll discuss each source.

I removed the comment that the link to the dictionary of Bermudian English phrases is a joke dictionary. Labeling any reference or external resource a "joke" raises skepticism because it may be interpreted as disparaging the source. The other interpretation of such an edit is that the author of the external reference did indeed intend it as a joke. The like you cite seems to indicate that the dictionary is intended as parody. Parody is different than a joke. Both are funny, but parody is an imitation (implicitly based on truth) while a joke is almost always fiction. If you can show that it is indeed intended as a joke, please quote that and cite it. I will happily admit my mistake. If it is parody, I don't mid it labeled as such.

I removed the comment about the author of the paper becuase I didn't think the comment was written with fairness of tone. Neutrality doesn't just mean letting the facts speak for themselves. The facts need to be presented neutrally. I acknowledge that the author has apparently not been to Bermuda to observe the use of language. However, it is conclusory to state that he has no first-hand experience. It is possible, for example, that he talked to native Bermudians outside Bermuda. Furthermore, simply stating that the author has no firsthand experience fails to express that the paper cites apparently reputable sources, some of which are presumably based on original research (and therefore, perhaps, firsthand accounts). It's certainly not a primary source, nor is it truly research, but it fits within the definition of a review. A more appropriate comment about the source would be, for example, "an academic review of the topic."

I hope this clarifies my intent. Again, I invite all to delete inaccuracies, expand the article, and cite proper sources. Bsherr 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

a) It could be called a parody, just as it could also be called a prank or a hoax. Your edit, however, describes it as a a dictionary of Bermudian pronunciation and slang, written for tourists.   It is, in other words, claimed to be fact and given undue weight; quite the opposite of NPOV.  As to what it should be described as, the problem with calling it a parody, or satirical, is that that implies that there is an actual dictionary of Bermudian pronunciation.  Calling it a prank or a hoax implies malicious intent; "joke" seemed to be the most neutral.  By the way, the argument that "parody is based on truth, joke is based on fiction" does not particularly apply, as there is no source to support whether the "dictionary" is truth or fiction.  Nor have you addressed the fact that the actual source is a commercial website; I would also like to mention that said source is a copyright violation. b) Regarding the student paper, I must confess that you give the impression of having not read it. Firstly, regarding "...it is conclusory to state that he has no first-hand experience.  It is possible..."; the student describes his personal communications: they are with firstly "contemporary researchers" and secondly with "students at Stanford" who describe how Bermudian students write in a nonstandard fashion.  Swartz's omission of any mention of having encountered what he was writing about is an extremely strong implication of his experience.  Secondly, regarding "...fails to express that the paper cites apparently reputable sources..."; Apart from the subjects of his "personal communications", he only lists four sources on Bermudian speech: the "dictionary", two newspaper editorials — one of which Swartz claims to have been written by somebody ignorant of Bermudian dialects — and what appears to be a scholarly piece, published in 1933. Calling it "an academic review of the topic" gives it far, far undue weight; such a description implies that it has been published and peer-reviewed, not to mention written by a linguistics scholar. It is, rather, a brief student essay written by a computer science student, and, again, should really not even be on here. 199.172.203.61 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Just trying to assume good faith. I don't think calling something an academic review implies publication, nor peer review (which is usually a feature only of journal articles). I'll review the article. I'll ask frankly, is the dictionary a joke? Is it a hoax? I don't think calling it a joke or a hoax is inappropriate if it can be be shown that it is, as opposed to parody. If it is, then it should be removed. But in your last comment, the only information you gave was it's source, which didn't demonstrate that it was worse than parody. Bsherr 04:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't think..." Well, I do. And anyone who looks up academic review probably will.  Furthermore, is there even any proof that it is academic?
 * I am getting the impression that we are having two different discussions when it comes to the Smith & Barritt. What would you like the description to read?  As to "...then it should be removed", that is a moot point, as the link needs to be deleted from the "External Links" because it is a violation of Wikipedia policy (and possibly an illegal copyright violation).
 * Bsherr, you wrote that you made the changes on the basic of fairness, but fair to who? People reading the Wikipedia entry?  The subject of the Wikipedia entry?  Peter Smith and Fred Barritt?  Stanford University?  Luke Swartz?
 * 199.172.203.61 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding academic review, I didn't mean it as a phrase. I simply intended to put two words together, academic and review.  I think the article can be called academic.  It fits two definitions of the word: 1. of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, esp. one for higher education; 2. pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.  And I think it can be called a review, which definitionally is "a general survey of something".
 * We don't have any way of determining whether the dictionary is used with permission or not. To clarify, I am trying to be fair to the authors of the sources.  I would no sooner call these sources "jokes" than I would Animal Farm or any other work of satire or parody, assuming they are legitimate.  Am I correct in understanding you to say that the link should be removed for a reason other than that it should be if it is a joke?   Bsherr 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Regarding...something"." But a phrase it is, and your intentions do not change that; both "academic" and "review" are loaded terms and should be avoided. This is, simply, "a paper by a college student".
 * "We don't have...or not." Yes, we do not have proof that the source is even legal.
 * "To clarify...sources." It is fair to hold them up to the standard of being fact in an encyclopaedia?
 * "I would..."jokes"..." I have never called Swartz's article a "joke", do not imply that I have.
 * "...than...legitimate." I must admit, this is the first time that I have ever heard of Animal Farm being likened to a work of comedy.
 * "Am I correct...a joke?" Yes. Please refer to my comments on the 12th, the 13th and the 15th.
 * 199.172.207.173 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As there has been no reply in over a week, I have modified the article. 199.172.207.173 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable
Although having survived a deletion, I fail to see how this stub is notable. --andreasegde (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The stub isn't notable, the topic (Bermudian English) is. Reliable third-party sources (reference works, scholarly studies, etc.) talk about it as a distinct thing worth independent consideration - that's what counts as evidence of "notability". It's a slightly odd definition, but it's the one wikipedia works with (see WP:N). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, Paular -- andreasegde left that comment here because you voted to delete at Articles for deletion/Relatives of John Lennon (see this). S/he did the same thing to an article of mine that s/he found not-notable (The Green (Dartmouth College)). I think in both situations, his/her intention was to expose an alleged hypocrisy on our parts by not finding Mimi Smith or Julia Lennon notable. I think that this comment is mostly one of retaliation and minor disruption to illustrate a point rather than a real objection to the content. Dylan (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification :o) --Paularblaster (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
I notice the Bermuda Govt. website uses both the spellings "defense" and "defence"! 81.154.49.23 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Being mid-way between the US and UK, and with strong influences from both, the place does use a mix of spellings (as well as words - I still use 'spanner', instead of 'wrench'). I was taught purely UK spellings in school in the 60s, but I'm not surprised that with the Internet, there's now a mix. Noel (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple accents
I feel that there is/was more than a single 'Bermudian' accent: there's a very pronounced 'lower-class black' accent, but there also use to be a 'lower/middle-class white' accent which was quite distinct. The latter is almost extinct now, except among older people - it might be worth trying to record before it's too late. Note that it was not universal: e.g. my father didn't have it, but my 'uncle' (first cousin twice removed, if my naming of the exact connection is correct, but only a decade older than my dad) did. Upper-class whites generally either had a pretty middle-Atlantic 'non-accent' (especially those who had spent time overseas), or a 'white Bermudian' accent (often a milder form); a few (especially for those who had schooling in the UK) a UK accent.

I lack the time/resources to add this to the article, but I thought I'd note it, so people are aware of it. Noel (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bermudian 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/20101222084017/http://www.bermudatourism.com/Press/skins/aqua/Cover_Letter.pdf to http://www.bermudatourism.com/Press/skins/aqua/Cover_Letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Phonology
I recognise that this isn't the most active of talk pages, nevertheless i hope someone knowledgeable will see this an help me out. The "Phonology" section contains two lines/bullet points which appear to me to be saying the same thing; if they are, i'm happy to remove one but, should there be some difference i'm not understanding, of course i'd leave both alone (though maybe try to clarify). They are:
 * Pronunciation of "r": In Bermudian English, the "r" at the end of words or before a pause tends to be vocalized or even omitted, similar to other Caribbean English accents. For example, "car" may sound more like "cah" or "ca"; and
 * "R" Pronunciation: Bermudian English, like many other varieties of British English, is non-rhotic. This means that the letter "r" is not pronounced at the end of words or before a pause. For example, "car" would be pronounced as "cah." Do these mean different things? Thanks.  Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)