Talk:English-speaking world

Anglospeak (subnational version).svg
This map seems very wrong as it relates to the English-speaking Caribbean. Antigua, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana, etc. should all be Blue, not Light Blue. They're all official English speaking countries with vast English-speaking first language majorities. Asoka89 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Philosophone 2
Philosophy as a broad term for language, Philosophone as a way to describe the world map of language; including but not limited to: Anglophone; His/Spanophone; Francophone; Ital(ian)ophone, Bibliophone/Bibliophilosophone/“Biblical Philosophone”.Mintosoares (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As well as other -phones to be used in this case I think the philosophy is base for every -phone, but the most important part is the wisdom of the scripture referred to as the Bible. Mintosoares (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Anglophone merge with Philosophy merged with English Language Speaker
Done in English and French and Spanish Mintosoares (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Anglo-bibliophilosophone
 * Franco-bibliophilosophone
 * Spano-bibliophilosophone
 * Etc, regarding speaker origin or language of speech in text output,Mintosoares (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Done
Thanks for the additional Mintosoares (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The US doesn't have an official language
The US's inclusion in a list where "English is an official language (de facto and de jure)" is misleading. The US at the national level doesn't recognize English, or any other language, as official; only certain states do. It should either be removed or the list should include only the US states that fit the criteria.

73.168.37.85 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * English being a de facto official language in the US is correct. What it means for a language to have official status is that it is favored in state proceedings and generally enshrined as a fundamental feature of the government's operation. Congress does not draft bills in Spanish; the Supreme Court does not deliberate case law in Cantonese; the President has never delivered a speech primarily in Arabic. The US federal government almost exclusively is governed via the English language—it doesn't matter that there's no law saying that is has to, it still does. Remsense  诉  23:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed "and" to "or", which seems better. CAVincent (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would remove the parenthetical entirely. Remsense  诉  04:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So if the parenthetical was removed, where would that leave the US? English obviously isn't an official language at a national level, and obviously is the language of de facto government usage. Should the US be moved to "Although not official, English is also an important language in some former colonies and protectorates of the British Empire ..."? That would be both true and amusing, but probably not helpful for encyclopedic purposes. CAVincent (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a basic misunderstanding at play here. As I've just explained, English is indeed the official language of the US at a national level. If you're saying that it is not, then how would a de facto/de jure distinction be of any value? What would it even mean? Remsense  诉  05:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense English is in no way the de jure official language of the US at a national level. It is obviously the de facto language that we use, but it has never been made an official language in federal law. CAVincent (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right: it's the official language, but not because a law says so. The confusion seems to stem from an unstated assumption that a specific legislative process is the only way that meaningful norms can come to exist. I don't want to overassume, but I would maybe recommend taking a quick glance at Unwritten constitution or similar. Speaking as a fellow American, I also needed it very deliberately pointed out to me at some point that "unwritten constitution" is not a tongue-in-cheek oxymoron. Remsense  诉  05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we are just disagreeing on what the phrase "official language" means. I don't think English is official because it hasn't been legislatively / legally made an official language (at federal level), and you think it is official because (the norm / in practice} everything that the federal government officially issues is in English. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this definition. Honestly, it's probably a pedantic disagreement from people who largely agree. I'll defer to others and not edit this article for awhile. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'll have to insist more firmly that it's not exactly a "agree to disagree" thing. Your sense just isn't what it means for a language, or any societal norm, to be official. This isn't an attempt to play word games: I'm just acknowledging the basic and consistent meaning of words. It goes without saying I wouldn't be so adamant if this were my own original research, either. Official simply does not mean "written in stone". Things are official if they are expected to be used in official contexts, such as affairs of state. Things are official if official persons are expected to make use of them. This elaboration may make you pause, but I hope you'll realize it's trivially the case. Codified legislation is one means for norms to be established or strengthened, but you cannot argue that they are the only way, or the only "true way". If you pull on the threads of your definition a bit, you will have to admit that very little about government or society before the modern era could be characterized as "official" if you apply it consistently. That would this a particularly artificial, unhelpful and recentist definition that just doesn't get at the heart of the matter.
 * —also, I'm not sure whether you realize that your definition would also exclude the UK itself from using English as its official language, owing in part to the Constitution of the United Kingdom being partially an unwritten constitution. Either this is an absurd conclusion, or what it means to be "official" is literally nothing at all. What is the meaningful distinction between the way that English is used in the British government given its profound and obvious importance to its institutions, operations, and its very fabric—a state of affairs that has been constant since the 13th century—versus the way it would be used if a particular piece of paper happened to take note of what language the government should use? That distinction simply does not exist. Remsense  诉  06:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ???? OK, you win. I'm leaving the field. CAVincent (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)