Talk:English language/Archive 11

The countries listed where English is official are not all Countries
British Indian Ocean Territory, Guernsey, British Virgin Islands, and maybe Isle of Man are not all countries but rather dependencies and should not be listed as countries where English is the official language. This creates issues when comparing with other language groups. For instance, in the French language category the Islands of St Peter and Miquelon, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, ... are not categorized as countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.5.198.62 (talk • contribs).


 * Quite true, those territories that aren't countries should be removed, the heading says countries. JdeJ 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are countries never mind their constitutional link with Britain, because they are not part of the United Kingdom, they have their own governments and their own legislation made by their own legislative bodies (the Westminster Parliament does not legislate for them), and their finances are distinct from those of the UK (they are subject to no UK taxation whatsoever). That originates in the British Empire tradition, which differs from the French one.  French territories like Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana or Reunion are simply French departments, proper parts of France and therefore not countries.  So I don't think the UK overseas territories should be removed, they are countries and should stay. Apcbg 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is a (fine) semantic shading, 'country' does not necessarily imply sovereignty. England, Scotland and Wales are all countries, but not sovereign states. Some of the dependent territories in that list would be considered countries, not least by their residents. Some of the territories (e.g. the BIOT)are definately not countries though. Perhaps the best solution is to change the list tile, e.g. to 'Countries and territories...'? Petecollier 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is not how we define the word 'country' but in keeping consistency between the posts. Namely one might look at the French language post and see that there are only 29 countries that have French as an official language as opposed to 71 for the English Language. But notice that out of the 71 we have Anguilla, British Indian Ocean Overseas Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, (Island of Man), Jersey, Montserrat, Pitcairn Island (population 48), South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands (pop 20), Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the US Virgin Islands. These so-called countries number 15 of the total 71. If we are to accept that these are indeed countries should we not accept the fact that Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre et Miquelon, Mayotte, Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthelemy, New Caledonia (all are French Overseas Territory with a large degree of autonomy and are not departments in the way that is claimed above, see Wikipedia page on the subject matter). Furthermore, in the same vein as Pitcairn and the South Georgia islands why not include as official French countries: Bassas da India, Crozet Islands, Europa, Glorioso Islands, Juan de Nova, Kerguelen Islands (pop. 70), Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands, Tromelin Island, etc. Instead of engaging towards a race to the bottom one might be wise to consult a UN or international organization list of official countries and use only those. The key ought to be consistency with an outlook towards completeness. One might consider breaking the list into subsection such as Countries, Dependencies, International Organizations, Regional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.71.110 (talk • contribs)


 * If these French overseas territories are really countries as you say, then you should bring them up on Talk:French language. --teb728 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is more with this page. The countries listed under French (or any other language that I've seen on Wikipedia) are countries, while some of territories listed here aren't. Thus it's not the article French language that should be changed, it's this article. JdeJ 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

*Coördinate???
I have never in all my years seen coordinate spelled thus. At least not in BE. There is occasional debate about whether it should be hyphenated (c.f. co-operated), but even there the trend is towards spelling without the hyphen - cooperation, coincidence, etc. The only words I can think of where I have seen the diaresis quite regularly would be naïve, Chloë, Zoë and (more rarely) zoölogical. In my opinion, unless coördinate is a standard or commonplace spelling in a few of the major English dialects beyond BE, this needs to be changed. Petecollier 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I’ve never seen it spelled that way either. If you have better examples of diereses, feel free to change the article. --teb728 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

number of speakers estimates
The 309 million native speaker estimate is clearly outdated, dating to 1984. That number has grown by about 60 million since in the USA and UK alone. The second language speakers estimate dates of 199 million dates to 1999 and should have grown by 25 million just accounting for population growth. Ethnologue is a great resource for obscure language, but for English I do hope we can find something more up-to-date to establish a low estimate. I assume reasonable estimates for 2007 will be between 750 and 1,000 million, but hardly as low as 500. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

/ıŋglıS/ or /ıŋlıS/?
Can someone doublecheck the IPA transcription (infobox)with a couple of reliable sources? The double stop in the middle there doesn't seem right to me: it sounds ve-ry stil-ted. The first $ ends /ŋ/ and the second $ starts /l/, not /g/ - at least to my ears. Maybe I'm just completely mad. Petecollier 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My Chambers dictionary has a /g/, as do I. I think Brits would almost always have a /g/, but I imagine someone moving from an /ŋg/ in words such as long to the standard /ŋ/ might also drop the /g/ in English, but that would be hypercorrection Drmaik 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I've always heard it with a definite /g/. Leaving it out sounds like a typically German error to me (the same way Germans pronounce single as and Pringles as . Yet Merriam-Webster provides both pronunciations (so you're not mad, or at least no more so than the editors of Merriam-Webster are) but puts the one with /g/ first; the AHD only gives the pronunciation with /g/. —Angr 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives only the pronunciation with /g/. &minus;Woodstone 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a relief to know i'm not completely crazy... Perhaps I am not grapsing the intricacy of the IPA transcription but to me /ıŋglıS/ sounds like a word i would imagine was spelt, with a syllable break between the two s - although i accept it can be difficult to determine the precise allophones in your own language. Petecollier 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what about single and Pringles? Can you hear a /g/ sound in them? The /ŋ/ sound is usually spelled n, not ng, when it occurs before the /g/ and /k/ sounds (think, not thingk; finger, not fingger). —Angr 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I must be wrongly ascribing a plosive quality to /ŋ/? This phoneme seems to be universally described as a stop, whereas if it is a pure nasal like /n/ or /m/ then would that really be the case? The nasals are obviously somewhat occluded, but surely they are no more a *stop* than a fricative or laminal? Could I fit any more question marks in here if I tried? I think I'm drifting away from the purpose of this page. Petecollier 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The nasals /m n ŋ/ are all stops in the sense that the airflow through the oral cavity is obstructed. In oral stops (e.g. /p t k b d g/), the airflow is completely obstructed, while in nasal stops the airflow escapes through the nose. So yes, /ŋ/ is a stop, but no more or less so than /m/ and /n/ are. —Angr 10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A fundamental misunderstanding on my part then. So what I now understand is that there is essentially no great difference to an English speaker's ear between [n] and [ŋ], save that the latter is pronounced further back (velar) in anticipation of a following /k/ or /g/. I need to go and hunt in the attic for my Linguistics 101 books. Petecollier 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily. In words like sing and singer, there is no /k/ or /g/ following the /ŋ/. And /ŋ/ is a separate phoneme from /n/ (at least in relatively surface-oriented analyses), as shown by the fact the words just mentioned form minimal pairs with sin and sinner. —Angr 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not the case in all English dialects, however. In Brummie, for example, the ing in finger and singer are exactly the same (like RP finger), as indeed is the ing in Birmingham. TharkunColl 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I say [iŋglıS], note the first vowel... -iopq 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This variant was discussed in the archived section Talk:English language/Archive 8. --teb728 09:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What was not discussed there, but should have been, is the fact that in California English and closely related accents, tense /i/ appears regularly before /ŋ/ rather than lax, so people who speak one of those accents will have /i/ in king and sing and finger as well. It's nothing specific to this word. AFAIK no accent of English contrasts /i/ and before /ŋ/, so there's room for some variation there. In my own speech I'd say the vowel is phonetically about half way between [i] and , but I think of it as an allophone of  rather than /i/. —Angr 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the map? Madagascar adopted English in 2007
Why isn't Madagascar coloured in? English is one of the official language so it should be.

It is coloured now. Aaker 10:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Sudan coloured in? It adopted English in 2005
English and Arabic shall be the official working languages at the level of the governments of Southern Sudan and the States as well as languages of instruction for higher education.

http://www.sudani.co.za/official_constitutionsouth.htm

Infobox
Do you think it would be a good idea to add the total number of people that live in a country that has English as an official languages regardless of whether the entire population speaks it to the infobox. The French language and Spanish language pages just add up the total population of the countries where their language is spoken. English on the other hand seems to try and count as few people as possibile. We could include both numbers. What do you think?
 * I think it would be better if French language and Spanish language didn't do that than if English language did. It's misleading. Sometimes I'm tempted to say we shouldn't even give numbers of speakers for languages, because of the headaches involved in trying to define who counts as a speaker and how to find reliable sources for figures. —Angr 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Map Standard
At Talk:Spanish language the idea has been raised that countries where a language is offical, but not predominant, should be colored differently on the map. For instance, currently on the English language map Puerto Rico and South Africa are colored dark blue, and this would have to changed. Similarly, Equatorially Guinea and Paraguay would be shaded lighter for the Spanish map.

I personally do not care which standard is used. That de facto/de jure official countries being darkly colored regardless of predominance is fine with me. So is changing it. I expect that only three maps will be affected by this -- English, Spanish, and French. However, the Spanish language map has recently undergone a huge change, and I want to make sure that no further changes occur unless the standard is applied to all the language maps. I was hoping to get feedback from some of the English language editors. SpiderMMB 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

English map versus French map
Why is it that many English speaking regions only appear as tiny dots that are only visible when you enlarge the map and know where to look. Can't we change the map to make it more like the French map. I.e. put large circles around small areas so that people will know where to look. Take a look at the French language map and let me know what you think. Thanks.


 * I think it's a good idea and I all also think it would be a good idea to find a standard for these linguistic maps, otherwise we will never reach consensus. Aaker 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your right we really do need a standard. However, since both the French and German maps highlight small areas we should do the same.

Number of Words in Language
The article indicates that there are APPROXIMATELY 990,000 words in the language, but then goes on to say that 25,000 are added each year. This surely indicates that either some get dropped each year (how?) or else this growth is only a recent feature of the language --- otherwise by my calculations we'd have had no words at all some 40 years ago, which I don't think is true! :)

I realise that word counts will only ever be estimates, but the 25,000 point does jar...

85.140.0.183 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)MAVEN 17AUG200785.140.0.183 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While there is phenomenal growth in the English vocabulary, I think I've heard the much more sober statistic of four to six thousand new words a year, though I can't link it ("to link" being an example). And yes, of course, this growth is accelerating; I'm not sure, but I've got the impression that people are more tolerant to word inventions, neologisms, and portemanteaus then they were back in, say, Victorian times.  Words are dropped as well, simply by falling into disuse, though some dictionnaries still cite them.  However, I still think the net result is an increase in vocabulary, since we are also dealing with new technologies, diseases, social phenomenon, etc.  Take the word "hippie"; it didn't replace an old word because it was a label for a new phenomenon, so that's a net gain.

PheonixSong 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

English map versus German map
If people don't like the idea of putting circles around small regions where English is spoken such as Singapore to make them more visible what do you think about a square? Have a look at the German language map and let me know what you think. The map as it is at the moment is missing many English speaking areas from Gibraltar to Singapore. I know that they are there as tiny dots that are visible when you enlarge the map but even then you have to know where to look.

Ethnologue
I have a negative view of Ethnologue. It is terribly inaccurate in many ways: As an example (I could give numerous others, but I think this demonstrates my point), having lived in St-Lucia for a while, I know that the use of Patwa is discouraged among children and is not usually learned with any great skill until reaching adolescence. Suggesting that only 1% of the population speaks English as their first language--because most speak Patwa--seems completely wrong; I would venture that most St-Lucians would actually be insulted by this assertion, despite their pride in their local Patwa.

As such, I really wish that Wikipedia would give up on using Ethnologue as the primary reference for languages. Data is available to some extent with the UN based on national censuses submitted by different countries. While the UN notes that there are many problems in comparing countries' figures because of different methodologies, extent, and scope of their census questions, the available fiugres certainly don't compare well with Ethnologue. IMHO we should put more confidence in the UN. See a partial list at.

Further, as noted earlier, there are many problems with establishing exact numbers of native speakers and even more trouble with secondary speakers. I strongly encourage the use of ranges on ranking languages or simply the elimination of it. There is no credible evidence to prove that Spanish is more commonly spoken than English--not because English is necessarily more spoken--simply that Ethnologue is highly contestable and no other sources are given. If someone can find complete figures from the UN, or would venture to compile language figures from official census bureaus of every nation on the planet, I will accept rankings...but otherwise i think it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.160.208 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true Ethnologue has problems. However, there is no resource available that even comes close to its comprehensiveness. To take your example, if we want to report on the languages of St. Lucia, the PDF you linked to above doesn't even mention St. Lucia, so we pretty much have two choices: use Ethnologue (keeping in mind to use it cautiously), or to rely on the personal observations of users who live or have lived there, which violates Wikipedia policy. If you have a more reliable source, a published one, that we can cite to correct the figures, that's great, but until then, you can't really expect Wikipedia to stop using a very useful resource just because it isn't 100% accurate. —Angr 12:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that there is virtually nothing other than Ethnologue to establish numbers on a world basis for first languages spoken. This does not, however, make it a reliable resource. Nor do I do expect anyone to take my word on languages spoken in St Lucia; it was simply intended as an example that I am confident many people could find parallels to with other entries found in Ethnologue. The best I could find to back my contention was an article written on children's code-switching in Dominica. Unfortunately, you must have a subscription to a journal to read the article in full, but you can find an article abstract at . I don't have any proof of the similarity to St Lucia, but I hope there are people out there who can recognize that the two islands have great common historical, cultural, and consequent linguistic profiles. Ethnologue gives a greater percentage of English speakers in Dominica than in St. Lucia, but it is still substantially less than the Patwa/creole speakers. As much can be said for Guadeloupe and Martinique, but with French and not English as the underrepresented language.


 * Regardless of this, I think you are missing the point. Our choice is not between a questionable source and personal anectdotes. We can, to be as truthful as possible, state that we do not know. I do expect Wikipedia to stop writing things as fact when the sole source is questionable. Questionable not simply because of the tiny example I have given about Dominica (and the other islands), but also because of the Table 5 reference explanation from the UN--for whom I believe the world probably has more confidence--that points out the inaccuracy of making comparisons between countries because of the limited and differing information available. Why it is necessary to put rank when it is, at best, a ventured guess, is beyond me. But, if it must be done, could it not at least be presented as a range as they have done on the Spanish Language page? (admittedly, it would appear there was much discussion there as well.)


 * I have added similar notes to some other language pages, but I of course left most languages untouched. I think numbers for other widely spoken languages, such as ARabic, Hindi, and Mandarin, are extremely difficult to assess for different political, dialectical, and censorial reasons. I hope a regular on Wikipedia, not just a passer-by like me, can take my point seriously and try to improve these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.160.208 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you use the numbers given in the Guinness Book of world records 2006??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If Ethnologue, which was written by linguists, can't be considered a reliable source, why should a book written by alcohol manufacturers be considered one? —Angr 09:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Because ethnologue is extremely out of date.

One Billion people are in the process of learning English at the moment
http://esl.about.com/od/englishlearningresources/f/f_eslmarket.htm


 * This is the last sentence in the 2nd opening paragraph, but is then repeated (in more detail) in the next paragraph. Seems redundant to me 210.5.36.1 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

309 million first language speakers is too low
The US has a population of 301 million alone so this figure has got to be wrong. I am aware that many people that live in the US are not first language speakers but many people are bilingual there. If you then add Canada (30 million), Australia (20 million), New Zealand (four million), Great Britain (60 million), Ireland, South Africa... you've got to get way more first language speakers. Other languages that have wikipedia articles just seem to add the populations of the countries where their language is spoken. There must be around 350 million first language English speaker at least. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are various definitions of a "native speaker", and I agree there's probably a good case for counting at least some bilingual people. But if we want to quote reliable figures, then we are generally limited to the definitions used by statistical offices, such as "people aged 5 or more who speak English only at home" from the US Census Bureau. Do you know of any good figures that use a less restrictive definition? -- Avenue 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Native Celts adopted English ?
What proof is there that the inhabitants of what is now England spoke a Celtic tongue, and not a Germanic one, during the Roman period? There really is none. It is assumed to be thus. Why don't we simply remove this assumption from the article. The Anglo-Saxon invasion should be written as "giving their name to the language", since the idea of language-replacement cannot be substantiated by anything more than Victorian era fantasy stories. Even Gildas and Bede don't assume language-replacement; they describe political takeover.Kozushi 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the place name evidence, the personal name evidence, the evidence from Roman coins, etc., etc. It is uncontroversial that the Britons were speakers of a Celtic language during the Roman period and that Germanic languages arrived in the mid-5th century with the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Whether the Celtic languages were displaced by English by language replacement or by political takeover is a separate question, but there is simply nothing to suggest a Germanic language was already being spoken in Britain during Roman times. —Angr 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a theory of Oppenheimer, tacked on to his population genetics researches. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.  His argument is that English didn't absorb many Celtic loan words because the Anglo-Saxons took over an area (Eastern Lowland Britain) that had been Germanic speaking for hundreds or thousands of years.  If the two languages had been in close contact for such a very long time you would expect there to be more not less loanwords!  The other downside is that all the personal names of leaders and tribes (such as Caratacus, Commius, Tincommius, Cassivelaunus, Cunobelinus, Tasciovanus, Catuvellauni, Cantiaci, Attrebates, Trinovantes etc etc.) are Celtic.  If this were the case then the putative Germanic-speaking peasantry would have been ruled over by Celtic overlords.  When a language is socially superior to another then the number of loanwords from the superior tongue to the inferior is usually numerous.Urselius 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Kozushi's been propounding the same pre-Roman Germanic Britain stuff on Roman Britain and  History of the English Language.
 * For a pretty thorough demolition of Oppenheimer's linguistic ravings, see this series of Language Log posts:,  , and . -Ben 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I'm currently in a class on Latin & Greek in the English language, and we have been studying the history recently. Our textbook was written in 1986 and states, without doubt, that when the Romans left in 410 AD the people were speaking a Celtic language and that the Saxons came later and brought their Germanic language. Though I'm not the most versed in this area, there doesn't seem to be doubt in anyone else's mind about this. Avi 70.185.107.197 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)