Talk:English language/Archive 23

Vocabulary
In the Vocabulary section, it states that "English has also borrowed many words through Romance languages such as Norman French and later French and Spanish"

My question is: are the somewhat meager contributions of Spanish to English vocabulary worthy of mention here in light of such lexical heavy weights as French, Latin? Granted, English does have borrowed words of Spanish origin, however, the majority are still considered "Spanish" (--they refer to things "Spanish", like sombrero, ranch, rodeo, fiesta, siesta, etc. One does not really speak of a "Spanish" influence in English. Perhaps adding "even Spanish", or "and to a lesser extent, from Spanish" and also include Italian as well might be more appropriate? Leasnam (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These sections stand before a thorough revision, with sources in hand. The sources will determine in the end which source languages deserve mention and which don't. But Spanish, does seem like a rather minor source of words.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, completely understood. It just tends to lead one to infer that there is a greater Spanish input than what is real, and that can appear misleading. Italian, as a Romance language, has contributed as much, if not more if I am not mistaken. Leasnam (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as Maunus said, I'll check what the sources say. The section still needs much revision, which I have been doing reading for. (Maunus helped me find a very thorough source on English vocabulary.) For evident historical reasons, North American English has more Spanish loan vocabulary than BrE. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say about Spanish loanwords in AmEng compared to BrEng is true, but it is the difference is a mere handful vs. a scarce few. I am a native AmEng speaker, and there is no material Spanish influence in American English (outside of "taco", "burrito", "burro", etc), still not enough to merit mentioning in the afore-mentioned section. Of Romance languages, I reckon Spanish to come in third out of the major languages as far as input, but objectively the input is tiny in relation to other Romance languages and even others. Dutch, Low German and even Standard German have each contributed vastly more words to English than Spanish has. Leasnam (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable, published sources to suggest? The section is in active editing today, and I'll be checking what the sources say. (The section has been contracted in turn by several editors over the last month or so, but I am inclined to expand it today. I have a lot of sources at hand.) By the way, the issue you mention had already been edited by the time you posted your most recent comment here. Thanks for looking on; come with sources and the whole article will be better in a matter of days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uneasy about singling out Spanish in this way. So many languages have been borrowed from. Let's stand back and view all donor languages that are mentioned, to assess whether the article is misleading in this respect (and it must ration what it does include in this summary form). Also, number of words borrowed isn't precisely correlated with significance in this respect: Gaelic lent only about ?eight words, I think, but its historical relationship with the English is more complex than that of Spanish, and goes back much further. Tony   (talk)  13:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, finding a source stating that Spanish has had little impact on English vocabulary, per se, probably does not exist, the reason being that sources usually list languages that have influenced English, not those that didn't (equally difficult would be a source stating that Mongolian did not influence English vocabulary). What we need is a trustworthy citation verifying the current claim. I have studied English all my life. I have heard countless times about the Norman, French, Latin, Greek, and Arabic influences; but never a "Spanish" influence.
 * And Spanish hasn't been singled out; the current information singles it in and spotlights it (undeservingly, imho), to the exclusion of others that are more appropriate. Spanish is being given special notice in a summary on English vocabulary. Why? Can you seriously tell me that Spanish influence is on equal footing with French and merits special note? Leasnam (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that any claim about specific language's influence should be supported by a source that specifically mentions those languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, please do not forget to check the current text of the article carefully, sources in hand, before assuming there is still a problem here. (The problem still under discussion here was fixed a day or so ago in a previous edit to the article.) Absolutely, positively, let's look at what the most thorough and reliable sources say about what to emphasize and what not to emphasize. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesnt seem to currently mention Spanish as a source of loan words at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How I will proofread later today
I have a few hours ahead of me in two parts of today for revising the Geographical distribution, Vocabulary, and Writing system sections of the article. Once I let go of those sections for proofreading and source verification by other editors, I'll check the other sections of this article (which I've largely left alone for the last month) to check spelling (for British spelling), grammar, clarity of writing (especially from the point of view of what might be puzzling to someone who doesn't know linguistics terminology), smoothness of text flow (do the hypertext wikilinks form a natural part of a sentence, and are the sentences and paragraphs understandable when read aloud?), and conformance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'll have the Manual of Style open in a browser tab while reading the article, and I'll have the article open in more than one browser, on more than one device (at least desktop computer, mobile phone, and iPad) while checking the article. One issue I've noticed already is possibly treating well nativised English words as foreign words by italicizing them, of which the outstanding example is the term "lingua franca," which occurs throughout the article. I will check standard dictionaries, and if they agree in treating a word or phrase as an ordinary part of the English vocabulary, I'll remove the italic markup on those words or phrases (unless those words or phrases are being focused on as words or phrases, as discussed in an earlier talk page section). Naturally, I expect and accept careful reading of the new article text I am committing to mainspace today and look forward to your thoughtful edits. I'll check and double-check all the references as I go (I have most of the cited sources at hand) and will try to add page numbers as I am able. I'll query other editors here on the talk page about anything I find, probably as additional comments in this section of the talk page. The article is very interesting; the recent improvements have made it quite informative and a good guide to the scholarly literature on the English language. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Query for editors: It's the evening in my time zone now, and I'm doing a mixture of expanding the three sections I've been working on and checking the bibliography. Is anyone using the Robinson 1992 book about Old English and Germanic languages as an article reference? I'll read the latest postings here on the talk page meanwhile to make sure I'm in tune with everyone's plans. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's enough for me for now. I thank Erutuon for mentioning the asterisk notation for reconstructed hypothetical forms from proto-languages in an edit comment. I'm letting go of this article for a few days to let the rest of you check it, especially the parts I have been composing, and to devote some attention to the Psychology article. But of course I will be watching this page and my own talk page, so you can ask me any questions you have. I still have huge piles of sources in my office. This article is in very much better shape now than it was when I suggested that it be improved on 30 November 2014. Thanks to all for a lot of great work and a very collaborative editing environment that ought to be more commonplace here on Wikipedia. It's all yours for now. But please let me know how I can help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Vowel system
I'd like to change the list of lexical sets in the Phonology section to a vowel chart similar to the ones in, which I've copied above. But no source is given for the GA table, and I'm not sure if Roach (2004) is really the source for the RP table, since he's also cited as the source for the symbols instead of  for  and  instead of  for  in International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. These symbols are more accurate for recent RP or Standard Southern British, but I'm not sure if they really come from Roach.

I would like to have a chart that's accurate for recent RP, as opposed to old-fashioned posh RP (or whatever a Briton would call it). Centering diphthongs are mostly dead, changed into long monophthongs (and anyway they're basically other vowels plus schwa), and the charts should show the phonetic differences between RP and GA in some way, either by different symbols or by placing the symbols in different positions in the tables. We might also want to portray "Standard Southern British" rather than RP, since it's more frequently used nowadays.

But I don't have access to any recent sources, so I can't make the tables. ,, would you be able to help with this? — Eru·tuon 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The latest, i.e. 8th edition of Gimson's Pronunciation of English, chapter 7.10 Recent changes in GB [General British - Cruttenden's name for what in his opinion replaced RP. Below, this abbreviation is always to be read as General British, not Great Britain.] lists the following changes:
 * - Well established: T -> M ; T  -> M, this fronting is also possible in : T  -> M ; T  -> M ; T  -> M  (mid  to be absolutely precise) in some words.
 * - Recent trends: T -> M ; T  (mid  to be absolutely precise) -> M ; T  -> M.
 * - Page 122: in GB, (normally  in this accent) is being increasingly retracted to, which is also the old-fashioned realization of.
 * - Page 126: in GB, T -> M  (slightly below cardinal ).
 * - There certainly are more changes noted, and I can't quote the whole book here. Google Books (or your local library) should be helpful with this.
 * - I know a source that talks about the change in quality of (which is not close-mid in RP). It's Wells's "Accents of English" which, as you know, is from 1982. Somewhere in it, he says that the open-mid  is "typical of newsreaders from 1930s" (I might be misquoting him slightly) and that the typical RP  is mid and more rounded  than the old-fashioned . You have the second and third volumes of AoE, check the chapter "RP revisited". It should be there.
 * - confirms Cruttenden's observation about . On page 45, he says  "It seems to be the case that younger RP or near-RP speakers typically use a closer quality, possibly approaching Cardinal 6 considering that the quality appears to be roughly intermediate between that used by older speakers for the  vowel and that used for the  vowel, while older speakers use a more open quality, between Cardinal Vowels 13 and 6." That also confirms that T  (i.e., not ) has not changed its quality.
 * - Additional citations for the some of the changes listed above are here. Peter238 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't get ahold of the 8th edition of Cruttendon from my library or anywhere else, only the 6th, which doesn't discuss the quality of in Recent trends. Below I've created a table with the features you note. I'm not sure where precisely  should be placed. — Eru·tuon 21:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry not to have responded - I have been travelling. Here are a few thoughts in response to recent postings in this section. To restate an obvious point, we need to keep a clear distinction between the choices we make for the set of phoneme symbols used for representing the standard accent, and observations about allophonic differences relating to particular phonemes. In my own publications I have stuck to the traditional RP symbolization, being nervous about destroying the consensus that has existed for the last 30 or 40 years. But the fact that Cruttenden has revised Gimson's centrally important book to use new symbols has, I think, opened the way for a new standard. The only changes to phoneme symbols that he has adopted, however, are /ɛ:/ for previous /eə/ and /a/ for previous /æ/. If WP were to adopt these, I don't think anyone would object, or cry OR, but we should remember that RP transcriptions are littered over hundreds of WP articles. When I have suggested to Cambridge University Press that I would like to adopt /a/ in place of /æ/ in future editions of my books, the response has been that the latter is preferred in the American market.


 * In my publications, I have noted the move to a closer realization of the THOUGHT vowel, but never suggested changing the phoneme symbol. For what it's worth, I believe that this shift has to some extent gone into reverse in recent years.


 * The use of /ɪ:/ for /ɪə/ and /ʊ:/ for /ʊə/ has some merit, but it's not yet a clear-cut case and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting making these symbols into a new phonemic standard.


 * The nearest I have found to an up-to-date table of American vowels is in Collins and Mees (2013), p. 159, but it's rather more complicated, having separate sections for Checked vowels, Free vowels, Free diphthongs and Pre-r vowels. If this book is not easily obtainable, I could scan the relevant table or try to reproduce it here in some other way. As for the suggestion that the term RP be dropped from this article, it can be seen in the "Alternative names" section of Received pronunciation article that there are lots of other names in use (I don't usually use the term RP myself, unless not to do so could cause confusion). But again, if you start using "SSB" or something else instead, you will lose compatibility with all the WP articles that refer to RP. Most of the alternatives to RP are more or less interchangeable, but I very much regret that Cruttenden has chosen to use GB (General British) in place of RP in his latest edition. The accent is neither general nor British, so it's a lousy name. RoachPeter (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess there are two competing questions: consistency within Wikipedia, and accuracy in portraying phonetic or phonological differences between GA and RP. Perhaps it's best to just go with the traditional vowel charts for RP and GA and not worry about accuracy. At the very least it will show the slightly different vowel inventories, and be relatively accurate for mid 20th-century RP. And I suppose introducing a new notation system would be better done in the English phonology and Received Pronunciation articles than here. — Eru·tuon 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tables
I see rather a lot of information displayed fully, in tabular form, and line by line (e.g. the verb be). My preference is to examine all of this and consider whether some can be expressed in the running prose, perhaps not so fully in this summary style. And in particular, I've never seen the point of using tons of phonetic symbols, because hardly anyone knows how to pronounce them (I don't, mostly). Would they not be better in offspring articles? Tony  (talk)  13:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this issue. I will consider this in proofreading later today. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree quite emphatically with both suggestions. Language articles are articles that fall within the scientific field of linguistics, and it needs to follow the conventions of that field to be a thorough representation of the field of knowledge about the topic Tables are necessary to convey the systematic nature of grammar, they serve as images that illustrate those systems. Like images they of course need to go hand in hand with the prose text so that it is clear from the text what is being illustrated by the tables. This is how grammatical paradigms are always illustrated in linguistics. Same goes with the phonetic symbols. An article about a language that does not use phonetic symbols to describe the pronunciation of the language and its varieties is not a complete article, and cannot be considered scientifically accurate. We would not ask an article about a chemical topic to have chemical notation in spin off articles, or articles about physic not to have math equations. There is no scientifically accurate way to represent differences in pronunciation that does not use IPA. There is plenty of help in the article for those who do not know IPA, in the form of links, simultaneous use of "layman's" pronunciation guides etc. Please take a look at how other FA and GA level articles about languages represent the grammar and sound system of the languages. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maunus, a while ago (as part of updating this article) I took a look for "how other FA and GA level articles about languages represent the grammar and sound system of the languages", and one problem I immediately observed is how few of the high-page-view articles about modern languages are at FA or GA status. The languages that are most spoken in the world, and thus the topic of high-page-view articles, are written up in articles beset by a lot of edit-warring, and aren't just read or edited by people who know linguistics. Your points are well taken, and I will keep them in mind, but I think Tony's are too, and Tony's points probably better represent the reader's point of view here. For phonetic symbols (which I strongly agree with you belong in the article, as I have lived in a country where every seventh grader learns them) and tables, one issue is just how well they display, and another is how well they are explained as the reader first encounters them. I will examine both issues later today. (P.S., thanks for the edit on the Vocabulary section, which anticipates one of the next edits I was going to do in that section.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a mistake to underestimate the reader. Readers want accurate information, presented at a level of knowledge that is a level higher than the level they already have. Getting bland, pedagogical, but scientifically inaccurate information about English, is easy and there are many places to get that, the article here however I think should introduce the reader to how academic describe English and point them towards sources where they can get to even higher levels of knowledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Making material understandable to readers and keeping it accurate are not mutually exclusive. The ideal is to do both at once. Readers not understanding things may indicate that we're doing fine on accuracy, but not on intelligibility. — Eru·tuon 20:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mutually exclusive if we are talking about removing IPA transcriptions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As a non-linguist, I generally favour tables for basic stuff. I can't understand phonetic symbols myself, but in a linguistics article I'm not bothered by them, and they link to sound clips etc, don't they? Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be excellent if they linked to soundclips, but they don't unfortunately, just to an pedagogical explanation of their values with "layman's" transcriptions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To exemplify the problem: if you're reading this article, you speak English, right? If you speak English, you don't need a full table of am is are was were, etc. Tony   (talk)  07:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is entirely possible to be able to speak and read English natively without being able to understand analytically how English grammar works. Also a large number of readers are presumably L2 speakers and learners trying to learn more about the basics of English grammar.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is to show that "to be" has more person-number forms than other verbs. That could be shown better with fewer words, by moving "to be" up into the section on regular verbs.


 * I have to admit I find the organization of the Grammar section somewhat baffling. It seems strange to describe tense-aspect-mood forms in one section, then describe auxiliaries in a separate section several sections down, because the two are closely connected; also strange not to have separate sections on Contractions and Negation with forms and pronunciations, because English is notable for having lots of contracted forms and unpredictable negatives. But I'm getting off-topic... — Eru·tuon 09:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Auxiliary verbs are of course also describe auxiliary verbs, because they are used as the syntactic means through which some TAM categories are described. The section on "auxiliary verbs" was first named "constructions with auxiliary verbs" (I renamed it because you didnt like long section names), because it is about the syntactic functions of auxiliary verbs (i.e. not their semantic or grammatical functions)". It is entirely normal practice to describe the semantic/grammatical system first (categories of TAM, person, number etc.) and then the syntactic system that implements those categories (how clauses and sentences are formed). But as I say of course the auxiliary verbs are also described in the section on TAM. Contractions are mentioned in several instances where there are contracted forms, and negations have their own section. I am not sure a subsection on contractions would be useful, it is really more a phonological phenomenon, and it exists in several parts of grammar, so a section would repeat content from several different sections. I also dont see sections on contractions in grammars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems like Huddleston and Pullum restrict grammar in the traditional way to a description of written language, and hence they do not describe contractions. Another way of looking at it is that they define "grammar" as meaning syntax and semantics, but not phonology. I don't like this restricted definition, because I think grammar should describe spoken language as well as written, and anyway we need to have a section on contractions somewhere, because contractions are very important in spoken English. There are many features of contractions that need explanation. Some of them, like don't and won't, have phonological forms that can't be predicted from their etymological constituents, do not  and will not . Others are more predictable, like  's  and  're . Perhaps contractions would be best in a section on strong and weak forms, which would also include other things like the different pronunciations of stressed and unstressed of. — Eru·tuon 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ga review?
I am thinking that the article is close to be ready for a GA review? There is a risk that a review can be exacting because it depends on the reviewers taste and topics of interests, but I think that everything that came up in the 2009 GA review has been addressed. The vocabulary and orthography sections are the article's weak spot - and I think I will concentrate on improving those later tonight and the probably nominate it for GA tomorrow. I'd be interested in hearing the input of some of this page's many watchers as well as my main collaborators and. Do you think we're ready? Currently article size is in the long end with 83kb readable prose, so it shouldn't be much longer, and some condensation may be in order (although this article's gigantic scope definitely warrants its being longer than most). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fairly complete, except in describing regional variation in phonology and (as you mention) vocabulary. Regional variation could be described by giving a few phonological or phonetic features and their occurrence in the major dialects or accents. Vocabulary could include some representative words that originate in different periods of history or come from different languages.


 * The article needs some shortening, perhaps in the Syntax and Regional variation sections. My typical way of doing this is by rewriting sentence structure, but not sure if I feel up to that right now, and I don't know as much about syntax and regional variation as about phonology. Also, I think some section headers are too long, but that's probably a matter of opinion.


 * The summary of phonology in the intro needs tweaking, because "rich in vowels" and "constrained syllable structure" are both vague and misleading. Chinese, Japanese, and Hawaiian all have far more constrained syllable structure than English, and Italian and Finnish probably have a greater density of vowels than English in a random sample of words. I'm not sure what the true phonological distinctives of English are. Features it shares with most other Germanic languages are stress and vowel reduction, a fortis–lenis distinction in obstruents, and syllabic consonants. More unusual features are r-colored vowels, which only occur in some dialects, and diphthongization. — Eru·tuon 22:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think the syntax section can be reduced, much, but probably the regional variation can - except I am not sure how. I think there is sufficient information on phonological variation in that section to make detailed treatment in the phonology section unnecessary. Lets hear what others think before doing anything drastic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think phonological variation needs to be described more clearly, perhaps with short descriptions of features with examples and a table showing which dialects have which features. At the moment, information is scattered through Regional variation and the Dialect sections, which is not the best, and two important variations, intervocalic alveolar-flapping and the trap–bath split, are not described. These, along with rhoticity and non-rhoticity, occur in multiple dialects and belong in a summary section. — Eru·tuon 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhoticity is in the regional variation subsection of phonology, and trap-bath and flapping can easily be fit in there too. i would be interested in seeing how you would make a table, for it to work it would have to be small enough to float right I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, GA review was what I had in mind all along, after observing before the turn of the year that a previous GA review, and then Maunus's peer review, had both provided a lot of good advice for improving this article. I would like to ask for a few days more (say, that I will declare myself done enough for GA review after midnight United States Central time Saturday 4 Sunday 5 April 2015) to do the following things, in order: 1) make the Geographical distribution section more coherent, make sure all the applicable sources are cited, and update the part of the lede that points to that section, 2) the same for Vocabulary (which will lengthen a little, but not too much, after today's considerable trimming by Maunus, 3) the same for Writing (which may be shorter, and will surely rely less on primary rather than secondary sources), and then 4) read the whole article from top to bottom as it is by then to do whatever light copy-editing may still be well advised by then. I'll query here for the rest of you to consider issues if I see anything that has an impact on the overall coherency or factual accuracy of the article. Great job. Originally, I thought it might take as much as this entire calendar year of 2015 to fix this article up to GA condition, if I were doing all the work myself, but Maunus made a major contribution not only by thousands of keystrokes of new article text (and trimming a lot of former unsourced cruft) but also by identifying many useful sources for improvements in all parts of this article. Other editors have been very helpful too since the turn of the year. Keep up the good work. Please let me have those few days to reach my gut-level sense of "good enough" for those three particular sections, and to savor reading the entire article as a newly coherent whole. Does that schedule work for everyone? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess thats fine for a schedule. Haste makes waste.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrapping up My goal is to let go of my part of revising this article before GA review (except by request from other editors) by just more than twenty-four hours from now (see new time stamp), with sleep beforehand to start soon., I just saw your note about the one paragraph about English as a global language, and of course I agree with your assessment of the paragraph. I expect to be in WP:SOFIXIT mode for a few more hours of editing time in the Geographical distribution section, the Vocabulary section, and the Writing system section (which especially badly needed the fixing), and then to wrap up tomorrow in my time zone with the announced top-to-bottom read of the article, section by section, for English-language copyediting and conformance to WP:MoS. Once I let go of the sections I've been looking up sources for, I will likewise expect and welcome other active editors to copyedit those sections, which is why I have tried to cite sources in advance of finishing the rewrites. Then this article will be submitted, on your schedule I suppose, for the GA review I have been hoping for since 30 November 2014. It's been a pleasure seeing the many improvements in all parts of the article since then, especially since the article joined the Core contest. Cross the finish line strong. See you elsewhere on the wiki when this article goes into day-by-day maintenance mode. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds great. My instinct was to reqrite the paragraph but I realized you were actively working on it so I it just left the note. When you feel all done I will look at it again and change any thing I feel needs changed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, seeing that active work seems to have concluded I have now nominated it for GA. I'd be surprised if it quickfails. In any case the article has gone from having 97 citations a month ago many of them webcitations and entire sections without references, to now having 250 citations mostly to scholarly literature, and no uncited sections. This is a major improvement that in it self - and we have added images, and lots of great accurate content. I think we can be proud of ourselves regardless of how the review fares. Thanks to everyone who has collaborated in getting the article this far.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Calming down heated emotions
I happen to be reading and discussing at home with my family a book about effective communication. The book includes advice on how to calm down a dispute when people's disagreements about a practical issue touch on personal emotions. As a parent of multiple teenagers, I can't imagine how this could ever be a problem ☺ but sometimes the same sorts of dynamics seem to play out while editing Wikipedia. The suggestion in the book, made after noting the psychological research about how everyone finds it easier to acknowledge rationales for their own points of view than for the other person's point of view, is to take time to defuse the emotional clash produced by factual disagreements by saying something like, "Excuse me, but I need to take a break. I'm going to take a walk [or get a coffee break, or answer some emails, or whatever] and try to think about this issue from your point of view. I'll get back to you once I've calmly thought over the way you are looking at this issue. Oh, and I wouldn't mind if you took a break and thought things over from my point of view, but anyway I'm going to take some time to ponder what you've just said." Then really do that. Take a break, and think about where the other person is coming from in regard to the factual disagreement.

I actually, factually have research to do this morning in my time zone for the next article I will be extensively revising in collaboration with other Wikipedians, namely Psychology, so I have nothing to say here immediately about the GA review for this article. But I will try to take in each editor's point of view, those of the editors who have been revising the article for past few months, and those who are commenting as part of the GA review process. Have a good morning/evening/whatever it is where you are. Thanks for your willingness to think through how to improve the world's largest free, online encyclopedia. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comments from Curly Turkey

 * Per WP:TOOBIG, at 87kb of prose this article is quite the monster—the general rule of thumb is to start splitting at >50kb. As there are already plenty of subarticles, I think this would be pretty easy—for instance, "Dialects, accents, and varieties" is far too in-depth at this scope, and should stick to summarizing only the most outstanding details (rhoticism vs non-, etc) and direct the curious to the subarticles.
 * I have been aware of the size, but think that this is clearly the kind of article that has a scope that merits a much greater length than most articles. I would like to get it under 80kb, and some pruning is in order.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At FAC the question of length may (and should) be crucial, but at GA it isn't a criterion. The prose must be "concise" and "stay focused", certainly, but a huge article on a huge subject is admissible. I was looking recently at the Roman Empire – a GA half as big again as the present article. By all means try to pare down, but I shall not be taking the word count into consideration for this GAN review.  Tim riley  talk    16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cut about 9kb and the article is now at 79kb readable prose. I don't think it is really a better article for that, so I am not going to cut more unless it is considered required. I think quality concerns should trump rule based concerns.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As Tim has said, it's not required. I think the article could benefit greatly by reducing the length, but let's disuss it on the talk page where tehre are no "deadline" pressures. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another way to cut length is with things like The consonant inventory shown below is given by Peter Ladefoged for the southern Californian dialect of American English,[123] and by König (1994:534) for RP. There's no reason any of this should be in the text—who compiled the table is not pertinent at this scope and is covered by the citations.
 * Cutting the paragraph on vowel length, for example, would also reduce length and improve focus. Vowel length is not phonemic in most English variants and hardly merits this kind of focus at this scope.  Skimming through the article, I can see a lot of details like this that could be pruned and left to more appropriate articles.
 * Not sure if "most English variants" lack vowel length as a distinctive feature. It's true that General American and Canadian lack it, and I think they contain the majority of native English speakers, but it seems that RP, Australian, and New Zealand have it. However, tense and lax vowels, or free and checked, should be mentioned, since they're more phonologically important. — Eru·tuon 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, here's what the paragraph says: "Vowel length is phonemic in that it distinguishes different words."—but more than than, I'm talking about "In both RP and GA, vowels are (phonetically, but not phonemically) longer before voiced consonants than before voiceless consonants: thus, the vowel of need [ˈniːd] is longer than the vowel of neat [nit]."—what distinguishes these words is the final consonant—if you were not to lengthen the [i] in [ˈniːd], nobody but a linguist would even notice the difference. This is what I mean by being out of scope—it's  a nitpicky detail, and hardly a distinguishing feature of the language. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, what the article says and what is the case is that the vowel length and NOT the consonant is the phonemic aspect because the consonant in those two words is pronounced the same. So your misunderstanding shows exactly why it is important to include. The point is to inform the reader about what is actually the case, not to let the persists in their misunderstandings. (Maunus, editing logged out)172.0.128.110 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says no such thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It does in fact. That is what it means to say that vowel length is phonemic but realized in different ways, whereas the d/t contrast is a fortis lenis contrast. That you dont understand it is perhaps a sign that it could say so clearer, for those who do not have basic linguistic knowledge. Also it seems absurd to say that the fact that something that is specialized linguistic knowledge is out of scope for an article on a language.  One might say that that is exactly the scope - the article should make specialized linguistic knowledge about the language available for the lay reader. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "it seems absurd to say that the fact that something that is specialized linguistic knowledge is out of scope for an article on a language": Could you stop putting words in my mouth?  I've never made such a ridiculous statement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the length contrast between a vowel before a fortis consonant and a vowel before a lenis consonant is pretty big, and it doesn't occur in most other languages, like Dutch. (I say Dutch because I came across this in Collins and Mees, who discuss differences between English and Dutch.) In RP, a phonemically long vowel is shortened before a fortis consonant so that it's about as short or shorter as a phonemically short vowel in another environment. So, the vowel of reach (which is phonemically long) is allophonically about as short as the vowel of ridge (which is phonemically short). In North American English, which you and I speak, I think the vowel in reach might be even shorter than in RP, because there's no phonemic length, but I'm not sure.


 * As the IP says, both t and d (and obstruents in general) at the end of a word are frequently voiceless, and the length of the preceding vowel is really the main distinction between words like neat and need, because both words have a voiceless or partly voiceless (though there may be glottalization or other phonetic features distinguishing the two consonants). If you take a recording of need, and artificially cut the long vowel shorter and shorter with a program like Audacity, you'll eventually make need sound like neat, at least to a native speaker. That's the best proof that this contrast is noticeable.


 * However, the article is actually misleading: long vowels are shortened before fortis consonants (as in neat) rather than being lengthened before lenis consonants (as in need). And the vowel length difference before fortis and lenis obstruents is not what's being referred to by phonemic length: instead, it's contrasts like between vowels like and  (ridge and need) that are phonemically short and phonemically long. So if the pre-fortis, pre-lenis contrast is mentioned, the paragraph needs rephrasing. — Eru·tuon 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been educated—but it's also become clear there are serious issues with what's there. It would be nice to be able to discuss these things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that obviously could be stated clearer in the article. But it has also become clear that people who don't know the subject at hand or are conversant with the literature are not the right ones to be making bold yet unsubstantiated suggestions about what to include or exclude and how best to "focus" the article. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, like it or not, I'll be making suggestions, and the other editors will decide whether they're valid or not (since you've made it clear you will simply block it all out). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of putting words in other peoples' mouths... You really haven't read a word of what I have been saying here have you? Talk about projection and setting up "walls". God luck working to "focus" the article on a topic of that you clearly know the basics of, all while flipping the bird to those who actually have specialized knowledge in the topic and have done the hard work to write a bloody good and comprehensive article. I am sure a good result is going to come out of that. Cya later Randy. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people can't accept any form of feedback without considering it "flipping the bird". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to shut down conversation. I was just explaining what the paragraph on vowel length is trying to say, because it's not very clear. Two different points regarding vowel length: phonemic vowel length in some varieties of English, and vowel shortening in most varieties. Now, the question is whether to include them in the Phonology overview or not. Before deciding that question, the paragraph needs rewriting so that it makes sense... — Eru·tuon 03:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the paragraph. Actually, not sure if General American and Canadian don't have long vowels. Don't have a ref for that. — Eru·tuon 04:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood what you were saying. The paragraph caught my eye with the opening sentence: "Vowel length is phonemic in that it distinguishes different words."—this makes it sound far more general in the language than it is.  My perception is coloured by Japanese, my strongest L2, where phonemic length is of importance with every vowel in every context.  In English, there's no perceived difference between, say, /bʌs/ and /bʌːs/, is there?  Or /nidz/ and /niːdz/? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah; quite right. In some languages, like Japanese, long and short vowels have similar quality (height and backness), but in other languages they don't. (Another phrasing: not all languages have long and short versions of every vowel quality as Japanese does.) English usually has different qualities in long and short vowels: for instance, RP has long and short close front vowels, as in bead and bid, but the long one is closer than the short one. Other varieties of English have long and short vowels with similar quality; for instance, Australian has bed and bear , and muck and mark , among others. (I'm going off the charts in here.) However, not even Australian has long and short versions of every vowel quality, and no variety of English is like Japanese. (Japanese basically has vowel doubling, I suppose, unlike English.) Not sure how this fact should be written into the article, though... — Eru·tuon 06:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've largely solved it by removing the opening sentence—it's better simply to state where vowel length is relevant, rather than to say "Vowel length is phonemic in that it distinguishes different words", which can be interpreted too broadly. By the way, is this the kind of source you were looking for? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, kind of; though that's a bit of an old book. It seems to indicate that General American actually has phonetically long vowels, but vowel length isn't considered phonemic because it's always accompanied by quality differences. And the English phonology article actually shows GA as having long vowels. However, the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, and Trudgill and Hannah (International English), don't; T&H show North American English vowels without any length signs, but don't say why. Several possibilities: NAmEng lost vowel length recently, if it never had vowel length, or if vowel length is just not marked because it isn't considered a phonemic feature. Not sure which is true, because I haven't read any good sources on NAmEng in working on this article. I guess I've focused on RP because it isn't my native dialect. — Eru·tuon 06:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * English has developed over the course of more than 1,000 years: why "1,000 years"? Has there ever been a time when the language wasn't undergoing change?  I might reword this from scratch, making it clear what "develop" is meant to indicate—perhaps something like "English has undergone great change in grammar and vocabulary over its history" or something.
 * The reason for saying 1,000 years is that though the ancestry of English goes back many thousands of years, English is (arbitrarily) defined as beginning when Germanic languages came to England, perhaps around 400 AD. And it's been documented since 650 or so, reducing the period of directly observable development to about 1,350 years. I guess that figure was rounded down to 1,000. Perhaps not the best phrasing to give such a specific figure, but let me know what you think based on this information. — Eru·tuon 06:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing—both 1350 and 1600 are considerably longer than "more than 1000 years" would suggest. Of course, the phrasing is "correct", but only in a hairsplitting sort of way—a casual reader will read "more than a thousand" as "a thousand and a bit". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good point; I suppose "about 1,000" would be interpreted as "between 1,000 and 1,100" rather than "between 1,000 and 1,500", so it may be a good idea to add a few hundreds to the number so as not to be misleading. But it looks like has already made the change. Excellent. — Eru·tuon 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see a lot of places where the article could improve, but not in ways that are necessary for GA. I'm going to continue my comments on the article talk page so as not to gum up the works. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on the improvement to good article status
Congratulations to all the recent editors for the improvement of this article to good article status. Near the end of November 2014, I wondered if it would be possible for this article to reach that level of quality within the calendar year of 2015, but several editors looked for sources to resolve the edit wars going on then, and the push to good article status eventually happened much faster than I imagined possible. Thanks to all the editors active here on the talk page or on the article text in the last four months. The article is much improved, and my prediction is that it will enjoy increased page views during this year, up from 3 million page views it had in 2014.

Looking ahead to the now inevitable submission of this article for featured article review after further improvement, I might suggest looking at reliable secondary sources that have short, not too detailed articles about the English language, to see what subtopics are most frequently emphasized (and to what degree) in encyclopedic articles about English. That will probably be the most collaborative way to gain consensus about which article sections may still need to be lengthened (!) and which could fairly be trimmed (with sourced content moved to Wikipedia subarticles) as this article is further refined for the featured article review. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Great job guys, now this is a core article, care to say something to mark the occasion ?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)