Talk:English language/Archive 24

Reducing the length?
It looks like I was about to drag down the article's GAN, so I'm going to continue this here where it can be dealt with at the editors' leisure.

The article is quite long: 79kb as of this writing. I think the article could benefit by rethinking what's really essential to the article. "English" is a huge subject, and thus has a huge number of articles devoted to different aspects of it. I think it would help to refocus the article from the perspective of a reader who would search for "English language" rather than one of the subarticles.

I've got some suggestions, but I'm going to keep them until the GAN closes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally do not see what is the intended benefit of removing text. English is a huge subject, and the amount of basic information on the topic of each subsection is also large. As you say there are many many daughter articles each of which need to be included with a link, it requires at least a couple of sentences for each link, and ideally those sentences should give a hint about what is in that article as well, so it is only logical that subsections become weighty when links to all these articles have to be included while also maintaining the text as flowing meaningful prose. The sieze guideline establishes arbitrary cut-off points. Our focus here should not be to make the article fit those arbitrary numbers, but to write an article that is a thorough and well written summary of what people are likely to want to know about English grammar. There are still several bodies of literature about the English language that are not even covered: style and prescriptive grammar, socio-linguistic variation and register, English-based Mixed languages etc. So essentially the article ought to be even longer to comprehensively cover the topic, and at a FAC ditors are likely to request inclusion of sections on these subjects. What is more is that when cutting the article to comply with summary style what always gets cut is examples, and specificity. And this in turn actually limits the article's intelligibility to lay readers, for whom examples are often crucial in order to make sense of the main text that is necessarily somewhat technical. So in short: I am unconvinced that length is a problem here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is not with "arbitraty cut-off points", but with readability from the perspective of the average reader. Please don't get it into your head that I'm suggesting the willy-nilly amputation of paragraphs from the article.  I'm suggesting improving readability through improving focus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont see how readability and length has any relation whatsoever. Readability is a function of how easy it is to assimilate information in a given text, whatever its length. Length is a function of how much information is required to cover the article in a way that provides the necessary and sufficient information for the reader. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maunus, you're not just going to put up this wall without even seeing what I have to say, are you? I haven't even given my feedback yet and you're already against it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have said so far contains no valid arguments, but mere adherence to the arbitrary WP:SIZE guideline and its empty claim that length affects readability which is based on the absurd assumption that readers feel compelled to read an article from start to finish instead of looking for the piece of information they are looking for and skipping the stuff they dont need to read about. If you had read the article through and found redundancy or information that was simply too detailed to be in the article, or long walls of rambling incoherent text then that would be an actual argument for reducing the size. But that is not how you approached the issue, you simply saw it had 87kb prose and then saw the guideline and then concluded that "the article is too long it will be better for the reader if it is shortened", without actually considering why it includes what it includes, and how the information that is necessary could possibly be conveyed in less text. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have said so far contains no valid arguments: that's right, Maunus, it contains no valid arguments because it contains no arguments. Did you just ignore where I wrote "I've got some suggestions, but I'm going to keep them until the GAN closes."? ,  Do you agree with Maunus that nothing Curly Turkey might have to say could possibly be valid, therefore he should just STFU before even starting? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have valid arguments then why the heck did you not start with those instead of waving about arbitrary guidelines as evidence that you havent actually read the article?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware that I have read through the article, I think you'd better let us all know you would assert I haven't. Perhaps it'll shed light on this iron wall of opposition you've thrown up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because if you had, then presumably you would have either have concrete examples of superfluous or overly detailed text (and no the two sentences you mentioned are not that), or you would have realized that it only includes what is necessary (and in fact less than that). (Honestly it doesnt even look as if you actually read my resplies here, which present quite detailed reasonfor WHY I oppose your suggestion) It is not a demonstration of respect for others work to waltz in and suggest 20-30kb of cuts without knowing the literature that the article needs to summarize or the choices that went into how represent that article. I am not throwing up a "wall of opposition" I am telling you why I wrote and organized this article the way I did, and that it was not a mistake or an accident that it is long, but a necessity. I am defending my work and my choices against what seems to be mindless sticklerism. So no, I don't owe you an explanation, you owe me one. A good one. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posturing isn't an argument, Maunus. I gave a couple of concrete examples, which you've ignored, and I've promised to come back with more, and you've promised to ignore them, too. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record: Language is currently a GA with 76kb readable prose. Just like this article it would be an incomplete and inaccurate article if it were shorter, and it would fail the FAC comprehensibility criterion. This kind of small mindedness is exactly the reason we have so few vital and general articles among the FAs. Articles about highways or weasels in peoples pants are much easier to keep within the size guidelines. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think 's subjective impression (if that's what it is) should be dismissed because it "contains no valid arguments". It's not the duty of a subjective impression to present itself as a logical syllogism, and anyway Curly Turkey has promised to provide specifics later. I actually agree: the article seems like it's too long and not focused enough on main points. And I'm interested to hear any suggestions Curly Turkey has for fixing that problem. — Eru·tuon 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't merely a subjective impression—when an article is beyound 50kb, more often than not it's a symptom that the article has gone out of scope (there are exceptions). I then took a look through the article (I've actually read it a couple times before), and I started listing concrete examples before I promised to stop until after the GAN closed.  The first example I gave was "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."—how is that possibly relevant at the scope?  I also brought up vowel length—why is that even in this article?  It's hardly a defining aspect of the language, let alone worthy of an entire paragraph.  I could easily go on, but obviously nobody'll read it or act on it if Maunus decides to filibuster the discussion like this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in what CT might have in terms of actual arguments that the article is "not focused". But I do expect people to have the decency to provide criticism based on seeing actual problems and how to fix them instead of simply pointing out that the article doesnt conform to x arbitrary guideline. Waving a guideline like this with no intellectual engagement with the article content and the challenges of writing this kind of article is major lack of respect for the process of work and deliberate choices that went in to writing it. That is because the latter assumes that the non-compliance is an accident, instead of a deliberate choice. Once you start from the asumption that I have chosen to make the article the length it is then you have to ask why I made that choice. Then you can understand my reasoning and then present an argument about why that reasoning could be improved. But that is not what happened. Furthermore when someone does come with a criticism that does not seem to be based in actually engaging with the question fo why I made the specific decision I did, then I will of course contradict that criticism by providing the reasoning that I originally made when I made the choice, and that is what I have been doing here. When CT presents a shallowly argued critique then of course I have to explain and defend my choices and that is what I have done. If you all decide that you want to cut the article down to lets say 60kb and that then by definition the article is more "focused", then have it your way. But the consequence will be that you will not have an article that provides an adequate summary of the literature about the English language. Do as you wish. My work here is done when this GA review is over, whether it passes or fails and what happens to the article afterwards will be someone else's responsibility. I definitely do not intend to maintain it, as this is an article that attracts continuous attention. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do expect people to have the decency to provide criticism based on seeing actual problems and how to fix them: which I've promised to do, and you've now promised to ignore. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of promising it you could have brought it out right a way and you might have received a different answer. Lack of substance and lack of respect deserves to be ignored. Ping me when you bring some substance to the table and I'll decide whether to engage. Right now I am unwatching this talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Concrete example one: justify 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. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd expect such an article to be about this length. The question is, how can it be seriously reduced in size without affecting how comprehensive it is? If it was taken to FA it would probably be asked by a few reviewers for a a trim, but for GA, as Tim says, it's acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect any particular article to be any particular length without having read it. I hope you aren't buying the line that I simply haven't read the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As an example: the first trim I suggested was to "Dialects, accents, and varieties". Maunus immediately found 7k to cut.  The section still stands at 12k of readable prose out of 79k, or 15% of the total.  How much of this is really in scope?  For instance: "Some New Zealand accents of the South Island are rhotic, perhaps because settlers here often came from Scotland and Northern England rather than from the Southeast."  Is this really basic information about the language?  Would this article fail to be comprehensive if this entire sentence were cut?  It would also improve readability by cutting down on noise.  Read the section and I'm sure you'll see plenty of such examples best handled in subarticles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But why? Cutting those 7kb was not an improvement, but made the article less informative, and it means that some of the 3 million annual readers will not find the particular information they were looking for, or that because most of what was cut was examples they will not have a good understanding of what they read. Of course global variation of how English is spoken is within scope of the article about English. The literature on this topic is a very large part of the literature on English as a whole. And of course the reader will expect to have an overview of how the language varies across the globe. These pieces of information are not "noise" but valuable content that some readers will find useful, and frankly suggesting that the article is "noisy" is offensive, which is part of the reason I have reacted so strongly against your proposal of cutting for the sake of cutting. Just because you dont see its relevance doesnt mean that it is irrelevant, and it would both be respectful and sensible to consider that editors with expert level knowledge who have written the article actually may be able to judge what is and isn't noise. Each of the subsections of the "Dialects, accents and varieties" section summarize not one, but up to five or six different daughter articles. Summarizing this much content without taking the space that is currently dedicated would make the summary so superficial that it would be meaningless. The article already is not comprehensive, and several sections are actually missing (sociolinguistic variation and registers, style and prescriptive grammar, for example would require sections for the article to be comprehensive). (Maunus editing logged out) 172.0.128.110 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the bit on rhoticity in New Zealand is not notable. I've never heard of it before, and most New Zealand English is non-rhotic and similar to RP, except for some differences in vowels, like schwa in . The most prominent features of NZE should be mentioned, not rare dialectal ones. — Eru·tuon 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not rare, it is a lot of speakers on the south island and it is mentioned in all the three books on NZE that I read for the section. Including by Trudgill and Hannah who only gives a very brief overview of NZE. By the way I am not opposed to removing information deemed to be excessively detailed or superfluous. But I am in opposed to the removal of information solely for the purpose of reducing length. I do not believe for a second in the rationale that sees a relation between length and readability. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I'm somewhat uninformed on NZE, and my brief impressions of it aren't accurate. However, the bit on rhoticity would be best merged with a preceding sentence, the one that says that Aus and NZE are non-rhotic. (I've just done that.) It's not a major distinguishing feature, unlike the interesting vowel shifts. — Eru·tuon 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the New Zealand English article, rhoticity in New Zealand occurs in Southland an parts of Otago—at most, a couple hundred thousand out of a population of 4.5 million. So, yes, New Zealand English is overwhelmingly non-rhotic, and New Zealand English makes up less than 1.5% of the English-speaking population.  Meanwhile, there is no mention, for example, of Newfoundland English, which has half a million speakers and is far more distinctive from the other Canadian varieties—nor would I expect there to be at this scope.  I hope Maunus will come to understand that "valuable information" at one scope is, in fact, noise at another, and that no offense is intended by suggesting so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * New Foundland English should of course be mentioned, thanks for pointing that out. I am entirely amenable to discuss in concrete terms if specific pieces of information can be cut. But the premise for this discussion has been to reduce length as an end in itself, assuming as a given that the 30kb of information in excess of the guideline is "noise". That premise, as well as your rather insensitive intrusion into an ongoing review that was the culmination of a month of a half of intense dedicated work, is the reason you got a harsh reply. The question of which concrete pieces of information is or isn't within the scope of this article is unrelated to the question of size, and is a discussion I am fully willing to have. I think there are good reasons to include specific information about dialectal differences in all regions, but if it is generally found that describing variation of rhoticity within NZE is too detailed, then condensing or removing that information is a proposal I would not oppose.172.0.128.110 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "the premise for this discussion has been to reduce length as an end in itself": no, I have explicitly stated the opposite, so please put that strawman away. It is a questin of scope, as I have repeatedly emphasized.  I've got an FA of my own that goes over 50kb—please take that into account before accusing me of being a length dogmatist.  And please keep in mind my opening statement: "I think it would help to refocus the article from the perspective of a reader who would search for "English language" rather than one of the subarticles." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you misnamed this thread, and the thread in the GA review. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015
Under "dialects, accents and varieties"

English in England can be divided into five major dialect regions, Southwest English, South East English, Midlands English, and Northern English.

The statement says FIVE major dialects but only FOUR are listed.

5.80.25.242 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Kharkiv07 Talk  16:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dog
In the section labelled 'Middle English' there is this


 * other Norman words that continued to refer to the animal are the words dog, [...]

As I recall, 'dog' isn't a Norman word...am I misreading this somehow ? Leasnam (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't dog from Norman dogue replacing OE hound?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OED says its of unknown etymology, so I have simply removed that sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that it came from Old English docga (with double unpalatalized g), so it's possibly not Norman, but it's quite obscure and best not mentioned. — Eru·tuon 22:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is from Old English docga...Norman dogue is a borrowing of the English term. Leasnam (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the source for that?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The OED says pretty much what Erutuon and Leasnam said:
 * "The word occurs in a number of other European languages, considerably later than in English, and in many cases with the identifying attribute ‘English’. All of these instances probably show borrowing either directly or indirectly < English. Compare Dutch dog (16th cent.; in early modern Dutch also dogge ), German Dogge (16th cent. as dock, docke ; 17th cent. as dogg , dogge ), Swedish dogg (17th cent.), Danish dogge , dog (a1700); French dogue (15th cent. in Middle French denoting a type of hunting dog; 14th cent. as an insult used to a Frenchman by an Englishman), Spanish dogo (1644), Portuguese dogue (1789; 1727 as †dogo ), Italian dogo (19th cent.; a1712 in the diminutive doghetto ). In all of these languages the word is applied more narrowly to particular varieties of dogs, usually mastiffs. This probably reflects the types of dogs which were imported from or associated with Britain, and probably has no bearing on the early meaning of the word in English."
 * Docga is pretty late Old English, of uncertain origin. It's actually fairly well known as a minor etymological puzzle. Etymonline is a more accessible source for those without good libraries to hand. Garik (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC) edited by Garik (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) to add the words "and Leasnam".

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
Pluricentric English English is a pluricentric language, which means that no one national authority sets the standard for use of the language.[77][78][79][80] But English is not a divided language,[81] despite a long-standing joke that the United Kingdom and the United States are "two countries divided by a common language". Spoken English, for example English used in broadcasting, generally follows national pronunciation standards that are also established by custom rather than by regulation. International broadcasters are usually identifiable as coming from one country rather than another through their accents,[82] but newsreader scripts are also composed largely in international standard written English. The norms of standard written English are maintained purely by the consensus of educated English-speakers around the world, without any oversight by any government or international organisation.[83] American listeners generally readily understand most British broadcasting, and British listeners readily understand most American broadcasting. Most English speakers around the world can understand radio programmes, television programmes, and films from many parts of the English-speaking world.[84] Both standard and nonstandard varieties of English can include both formal or informal styles, distinguished by word choice and syntax and use both technical and non-technical registers.[85]

The settlement history of the English-speaking inner circle countries outside Britain helped level dialect distinctions and produce a koineised form of English in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.[86] The majority of immigrants to the United States without British ancestry rapidly adopted English after arrival. Now the majority of the United States popularity*** are monolingual English speakers.[87][57]\


 * (( Within the last paragraph under the heading "Pluricentric English", the term "popularity" may make more sense as "population."))

Raywillis (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for noticing!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Change basolect to basilect
In the section Africa, the Caribbean, and south Asia, the word to describe a Creole quite distinct from Standard English is "basolect". I looked the word up on dictionary.com, and did not find that word, but instead a fairly close definition under the spelling "basilect". Neither word is in my printed Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, but I believe that is because the word is fairly new and specialized. In the article, after all, it's in quotes. I think the spelling should be changed, but I don't have permission to do it myself. Mishaweis (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for being a diligent reader!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Pet Peeves
I have written this essay on how to avoid pet peeve wars: WP:No Pet Peeve Wars, some regulars here might find it interesting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

British rhoticity
Can someone please take a closer look at this?

Dialects, accents, and varieties > North America It states ''General American is a rhotic accent. Whereas in Britain rhoticity is the socially marked accent, in the US non-rhotic accents are marked and often associated with lower prestige and social class.'' --Is this statement written as it is intended to mean? I would expect it to state "Whereas in Britain, non-rhoticity is the socially marked accent". Am I missing something here? Leasnam (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you misunderstand the use of "socially marked". When something is marked it means that it is considered to be outside of the norm. In England the norm is non-rhoticity, and rhotic accents are noticed as "anormal". For example someone who speaks with a rhotic accent will frequently get questions about where they come from, and in movies all non-standard british accents tend to be stereotyped as rhotic. This is the standard use of the term "marked" in sociolinguistics (and in structural linguistics), but I will see if I can find a way to formulate it that is more immediately intelligible to the average reader.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you!! Leasnam (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015
hi wikipedia' i was wondering if you can make me a wikipedia page? my name is sara pountybam and i just want to be famous... thanks in advance! sara pountybam

81.218.251.252 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) A - you are in the wrong place - this page is solely to discuss improvements to the English Language article. B - If you are not already "famous" (or Notable as we would call it) you can't have a page in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

American English and British English
With all the great work being put into this article, perhaps a little could spill over to these? British English, for example, was described as the "dialect of the English language as spoken and written in the UK", despite it not being a dialect. I remember Huddleston & Pullum describing it as Standard English as it is in most of the Commonwealth, with American English being Standard English in the USA and Canada. We don't want to pretend that dialects and accents stop at national borders, so if we keep the national focus of the articles, maybe we could move them to the more precise titles "English in the UK" and "English in the USA"? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible, and is what the sources do - RP and GA already have their respective articles. I don't have any immediate plans to work on those articles though- but someone could certainly use the sources I am using here to improve them. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I see Southern American English perpetuates the fiction that the dialect originated in where English etc. immigrants came from, rather than the mix of European immigrants with African slaves. (White plantation owners would even send their sons to New England for their education so they would lose their "thick Negro speech", as one commentator put it.)  I added a short comment about that, but don't have sources handy. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The term "fiction" seems a bit strong for a historical description that occurs in just about all the sources on the topic. All of the better linguistically informed sources also say that there was two-way language contact and language influence between the enslaved population of the south and the other inhabitants there, but we should check the sources specifically to see exactly what they say in contemporary descriptions of speech in the south before the era of sound recordings. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found one source specifically on the origins of SAE, it states that the traits did not start to become widespread untill the 19th century - it doesn't seem to make an argument about the particular social context that led to its spread. The civil war and reconstruction seems a good fit though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In principle it can be said that English is nothing else than a German dialect without grammar and with many loanwords. But this dialect has several armies and navies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.60.159 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Britain vs. England
English is accurately described as having been first spoken in England, since the earliest English speakers inhabited the Southeast of the island of Britain which is today England, regardless of the fact that OE subsequently spread into what is today Scotland. Linking to Great Britain instead of to Anglo-Saxon England is anachronistic (since there was no Great Britain in this period), uninformative (since the article has no information about the earliest period of the English language), and inaccurate (since English was indeed first spoken in England and only later spread into other parts of what is today Great Britain).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion whether the text should say Britain or England, but it is certainly incorrect to say there was no Great Britain in the period: There has been a Great Britain since rising sea levels cut off the island from the continent over 8000 years ago. Are you are thinking of the UK? —teb728 t c 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is true - I was confusing GB with UK (or with the Kingdom of Great Britain). The other points however still stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree; "Great Britain" is the name of an island. It is the lump of rock in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean which is currently occupied by the majority of the territories of England, Scotland and Wales which in turn are constituents of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the largest island of the archipelago commonly known as the British Isles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "Britain" is more appropriate because English formed as a distinct language over time, rather than spontaneously when the multiple Saxon tribes settled in the south-east. As there were multiple anglo-saxon dialects at that time, you could equally say English was "first spoken" in Lower Saxony. Also, there were many parts of modern England where English was not yet spoken, while at the same time was widely spoken in south-east Scotland. I accept it is called "Anglo-Saxon England" not "Anglo-Saxon Britain", but I think in this case, given the context, "Britain" is more appropriate as the reader may not distinguish modern region named "England" from the 5th century "land of the English". Rob984 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use England per Maunus. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dominance of English
The prohibition of the German schools in the US -  prior to the outbreak of world war one -  was the highpoint of the fight of the English dialect against the language, which finally has led to the worldwide dominance of English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.39.30 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that says that? I know of American-born American citizens (including some of my ancestors) who were taught to read in German on American soil, but it's hard to say how much that had to do with the spread of English, as all of those persons could speak English as well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You probaly don't know yet that the German Americans are the largest ancestry group in the US, and that they represent 26% of the white population. Still in the 1990 U.S. Census, 59 million Americans claimed to be of German descent. But, due to the above mentioned repressions, today doesn't exist an American German language. Moreover nowadays only 1,5 million people declare that they speak German at home. Have you got it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.191.120 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I know all of the facts you have mentioned, but you have just contradicted yourself, because you say there are 1.5 million Americans who speak German at home (I know some of those) and yet there is no "American German language". How can both statements be true? I happen to know that there is a book published in the 1970s (just before when I began formally studying linguistics) called Linguistic Atlas of Texas Germans in the Deutscher Sprachatlas: regionale Sprachatlanten series that describes the use of German as a living native language in Texas. Why don't you cite a reliable source if you are interested in this issue? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You refuse to acknowledge the reality and are therefore looking for an imaginary contradiction. Under normal conditions, today there would be at least 60 million German speakers in America. But the forced closure of all German schools prior to WWI and the following anti-German hysteria in the American society have impeded the normal unfolding of the German language in the US. If you search the Internet for "German Language in the US during WWI", then you will find enough reliable sources on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.35.10 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy requires us to rely on reliable sources and not on personal opinions expressed on article talk pages. If sources on this topic are as easy to look up as you say they are, how about citing a few here? Remember, this article is about the English language in general during all periods of history, so your best source for the issue you desire to have the article mention is a history of the English language that refers to the experience of German-speaking immigrants to the United States. Again, I am a descendant of such immigrants myself (for more than half my ancestry, as it happens), so I am very aware of people being born and growing up in the United States and attending German-language schools (fully half my ancestors in the relevant generation) who also learned from participating in community life to speak English outside school. I still have the German-language reading textbook used by one of my ancestors here in the United States, as well as German-language books originally printed in the 1600s that were brought over here by various ancestors of mine. I have children who speak German at home. The German language is alive and well in the United States today, and, yes, descendants of native speakers of German make up about the same share of the United States population as descendants of native speakers of English. (I also have ancestors who spoke English since the period of Old English.) But where is your published reliable source? What is its citation? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right: your personal opinions don't matter here. Important are the historical facts and reliable sources that describe this facts.

Such a reliable source is the article "German language in the United States" by Wikipedia: German became the second most widely spoken language in the U.S. starting with mass emigration to Pennsylvania from the German Palatinate and adjacent areas starting in the 1680s. Many newspapers, churches and schools operated in German as did many businesses. It was a German-language paper Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote that on July 5, 1776, was the first paper to report the American Declaration of Independence. When the U.S. joined in World War I, an anti-German hysteria quickly spread in American society. Many German-American families anglicized their names (e.g. from Schmidt to Smith, Schneider to Taylor, Müller to Miller), and German nearly disappeared in public. Many states forbade the use of German in public and the teaching of German in schools. Later the Supreme Court case in Meyer v. Nebraska ruled that these laws were unconstitutional, but German never recovered its position as the second language in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.80.138 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "the article 'German language in the United States' by Wikipedia" is not a reliable source: see WP:CIRCULAR. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Another one of many reliable sources is "German-Americans during World War I" on www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org. World War I had a devastating effect on German-Americans and their cultural heritage. In the fall of 1917, the fight against Germans in Europe was extended to their Kultur in the United States. This battle against all things German included a ban on the use of the German language in schools, universities,libraries, and religious services. Additionally, German societies, musical organizations, and theaters were shuttered and the German-language press in America was forced to shut down. Patriotic organizations claimed thatthe preservation of the German language would hinder German-Americans’ assimilation into American life and, even worse, brutalize young people: Any language which produces a people of ruthless conquestadors [sic] such as now exist in Germany, is not a fit language to teach clean and pure American boys and girls. In most public schools, teachers were forced to sign loyalty pledges, and many pupils no longer dared to enroll in German-language courses. By March 1918, thirty-eight out of forty-eight states had restricted or ended German-language instruction in schools. Ohio, Iowa, and Nebraska passed the strictest language laws in the country; since their laws also prohibited the use of any foreign language in public places or on the telephone, the U.S. Supreme Court declared them to be unconstitutional in 1923 and 1925, respectively. Public and university libraries ended their subscriptions to German-language newspapers, books written in German and even English books that dealt with Germany and Austria-Hungary (such as history books or tourist guides) were stowed in basements for the duration of the war. However, some libraries went so far as to destroy them or to sell them as wastepaper; several of these books were actually publicly burned along with German-language newspapers during local patriotic celebrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.85.41 (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. If you would like to propose a particular edit, do so.  Otherwise you are just ranting.  --JBL (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I only attracted the attention on an historic event that was a decisive hindrance for the further spreading of the German language in the US. But some editors have tried to negate incontestable facts, which today are well known in the whole world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.192.212 (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015
{{edit semi-protected|English language|answered=y}

In the section Grammar/Nouns and noun phrases/Adjectives, the first paragraph contains a duplicated "they do not" (context: "and they do not they do not agree in form") which can be deleted.

2001:470:1D:235:0:0:0:D5B4 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015
please add that english is replacing Irish language in Ireland

65.175.134.44 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Number of words from oxforddictionaries.com - deleted - why?
Ad WeijiBaikeBianji's revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_language&type=revision&diff=697626999&oldid=697577832 of the contribution of mine with comment "Reverted good faith edits by Jiří Janíček (talk): Good-faith edit, but the quotation already has a reference. (TW)" - sorry, but which quoation and reference are you talking about? I added a new ( = something new saying) content to the article, you deleted it, there is nothing from it now - I really don't know, what are you talking about. Another thing is that I don't understand, why in the article should't be such an info (reffed). The question is the extent and form, but to delete it all is the worst solution, isn't it? Plus it is from a source of first rank (oxforddictionaries.com) of course... There can be another reliable sources, there could be a special article about the number of words of English as well (and I would be for it). Why is less info better then more / more accurate info worse then more vague one? --Jiří Janíček (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Without taking sides on sides on whether information in your quotation should be added to the article. The quotation itself cannot be included because it is copyright-protected, and Wikipedia's policy on non-free content says not-free content is not used if it could be summarized or rewritten as free text. (Such summarization is what is done with virtually all the sourced material in the article.) —teb728 t c 03:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that the number of words in English is a very ill defined property. There have been numerous discussions in the past - see the archives.  Rwessel (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The number of words in English or any language is a non-topic in terms of its relevance for the article and should not have undue weight. The proposed source is low quality and cannot be used to contradict the high quality sources already in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of words, and "two largest dictionaries"
I realise that this has been discussed before, but I think that the present solution in the article - using the term "vast" as an approximation, and saying that "...counting exactly...is impossible..." could be improved upon.

I think that some sort of estimate of the number, or discussion of what is involved when talking about this number of words, could be included.

As there has been previous discussion, I have not gone ahead and changed the article.

A think a lower-limit could be most easily be included - the number of entries in a large dictionary for example.

There is actually a way of computing this lower-limit included already in the article: "The two largest dictionaries of the English language overlap with each other very little, so the vocabulary of English must be even larger than the count of words in the most complete available English dictionary." but it does not provide the resulting number, and I find it surprising that the names of these two dictionaries are not mentioned.

(I find the statement that they "...overlap with each other very little..." even more surprising. Is it really saying that if I open two different English dictionaries they will have few words in common? But there again how much overlap is "very little"?)

(I have tried following the references given for the statements about these two dictionaries but have been unable to find clarification.)

The number of words in some version of "common-use" could also be reasonably included.

An upper-limit is more problematical, but possible if one defines what means.

There are a number of sources already provided in the article that relate to this information.

More specific information about the number of words in the English language I think is the sort of information that one might expect in WP.

The number of words is probably also a useful concept when comparing languages I think - but I am not an expert on this. FrankSier (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right that the "...overlap with each other very little..." is absolute nonsense. I'd stay away from any mentioning of number of words, though, as it is a WP:OR-minefield. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also irrelevant. Number of words is not a meaningful concept when comparing languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Computer/internet-based estimates of number of words
It seems that there should be some reference made to the fact that estimates of the number of words have recently been made separately (but in concordance), by Global Language Monitor and by Google. See http://www.languagemonitor.com/number-of-words/number-of-words-in-the-english-language-1008879/ —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC))

Discussions in other sources
See also the Economist's blog for an insightful discussion on this point: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/06/counting_words/ It could be added as another useful reference in the article, perhaps. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC))

Redefining what constitutes the aboriginal English language on Wikipedia and what are 'variants' or 'dialects'.
English is erroneously defined in Wikipedia as

"English language in England, a variant of the English language.


 * 1) Yet variant is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard, e.g.: "clinically distinct variants of malaria" or, (as modifier): "a variant spelling".
 * 2) At the same time English is described as, "an adjective referring to something of, from, or related to England
 * 3) '''To refer to English as a variant is both, incorrect and insulting to the English State, its people, their tradition and culture
 * 4) There is only one English: the official language of the United Kingdom, historically the language of the Nation of England
 * 5) All other forms of English are variants or dialects

Cultural appropriation.

The IT Industry, which mostly evolved in the U.S.A., culturally appropriated the term "English" as a descriptor for American English dictionaries, in software packages, assigning the descriptor British English to the aboriginal language; yet:

 Thus British English is the aboriginal English and the ONLY language that can legitimately describe itself as simply "English" by default!
 * English became the official language of the English Kingdom from at least 1066 (signing of the Magna Carta)
 * 426 years before the discovery of the Americas
 * 710 years before America became a sovereign Nation.

As a former Colonial domain of the British Empire American English - or United States English (U.S.) - "is the set of dialects of the English language native to the United States" and therefore its spelling and colloquialism are the "variants", departing from established spelling and lexical rules of the aboriginal British English ("English"). The convention used in articles about the English language should therefore defer to this sovereignty - and linguistic roots that precedes all other forms of English by many centuries - and follow the same convention as other languages with former Colonial domains eg.
 * Spanish as opposed to, say Mexican Spanish, Venezuelan Spanish, Cuban Spanish etc.
 * French as opposed to, say Belgian French, Canadian French, Swiss French etc.
 * German as opposed to, say Swiss German or Austrian German etc.

It is profoundly disrespectful to Great Britain, to misrepresent its language English as a "variant" or "dialect" and insulting to many Britons.

Moreover, when compared with the convention adopted for other European languages on Wikipedia (as above), there is a discrepancy of treatment that amounts to discrimination, deliberate and not acceptable on Wikipedia, the world's most used Encyclopedia.

I should be grateful if you could kindly discuss this as per your internal protocols and procedures and address at your very earliest convenience.

Many thanks.

GeaVox (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have overlooked part of the definition you gave: "A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing". British English is not described as a variant from some standard, but rather as one of several dialects that vary from each other. Each is equally a variant just as Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14 are all equally isotopes of Carbon with none of them being considered "standard". --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You also seem to overlook the fact that Peninsular Spanish, Metropolitan French, and German Standard German are all identified as "dialects". --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article follows the usage of the literature. We are not in the business of inventing new conventions for naming languages in order to avoid imaginary offenses to Her Majesty.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are so many factual mistakes (dates, definitions, etc.) in the thread-opening comment here that it makes clear that your first task as a new editor on Wikipedia is to read the fine sources already cited in this article. There is no reason to accept any of those proposed changes in the article text of what is rated as a good article meanwhile--this article has undergone extensive line-by-line editing just in the last year, with many editors' eyes checking every edit with reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange phrasing in second sentence
Hi

I think the second sentence would sound better if it were expressed either as 'It is THE official language of almost 60 sovereign states', or, 'It is an official language IN almost 60 sovereign states'.

At the moment it is written: 'It is an official language OF almost 60 sovereign states' which, to me, sounds weird.

But, obviously, you are welcome to disagree.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:24C1:5D00:684D:709D:CD6B:2D8E (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem in the text, grammatically. Thanks for checking with us here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree / bad picture
Saying that low german stems from low franconian is misleading if not outright wrong. Low franconian already is a low german dialect but there are other low german dialects that have nothing to do with low franconian, most notably low saxon. --92.202.39.184 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Spread of Modern English
The section gave far too much prominence to a set of small ex-English colonies in the 18th century, my sources show that it wasn't until the early to middle 20th century that the USA starting facilitating the spread of English and gave far too little prominence to the British Empire and the Commonwealth. Most reliable sources show that English was spread by trade, colonisation, Empire, learning, the need for a standard methodology as well as science and technology. In the early part of the 20th century most movies were silent, then dubbed outside of Great Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA which at that time generated the most English-language films. Subsequently, I have corrected the chronology and given more weight to reflect the sources as well as reducing the impact the article suggested the 13 colonies and then America had on the spread of the language during the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, I have given some weight (backed up by sources) to the BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, which has helped propagate English world-wide, regards. Twobells''t@lk 23:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll check the sources. For geographic spread, through about the first world war, Britain and its empire were plainly the major force. For increase in the number of speakers (a different section of the article, I suppose), the influence of the United States was early and decisive--and predicted by contemporary observers before the British colonies in North America became independent. Thanks for visiting the article talk page to discuss these edits and thanks for citing some new sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 23:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing some balance to this section. Long overdue. Would it be worth spelling out BBC acronym? Some readers who are unfamiliar with the subject might misunderstand it to be a US broadcaster. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Until to the end of WWII, English was regarded in large regions of Europe just as an odd German dialect. Only after the emergence of the United States as a global superpower, English has become the leading language of international discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.103.207 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment is ridiculous. The writer should at least read some history. Even people in Europe knew the British Empire was massive and spread all over the world using English as its core language. My uncle went from D-Day up to Denmark in WW2. He said he was surprised at how many people could speak some English in the places he went to along the way. He said, "we never knew a word of a foreign language". 90.220.27.146 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I dispute that last comment, as in shown in the article, most countries that speak English such as Australia, New Zealand and India use British not American English. I think that the US use of English spread more after the Vietnam war and the explosion of US films and TV shows in the 1970s. This can be seen by the amount of people in Asia (not India or Pakistan areas) who tend to use American English. Solatiumz (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I spoke about Europe but not about Australia and New Zealand

lingua franca
In the lead, the phrase lingua franca should be in italics, just as the title of the article is in italics once you go to it. As unregistered and/or non-logged in editors can't edit the article due to it being semi-protected, I would ask that that someone be kind enough to do so on my behalf. Thanks in advance. 98.26.248.199 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that phrase is used 5 times in the article, which might be excessive, but nonetheless each instance should be italicised. 98.26.248.199 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view there's no need for italics, it's well enough established as an English phrase. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no need, but I have added them anyway. No harm either, I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Questions" section
I don't like it much.

I fixed a few things, and removed what was the final sentence, which was rather too opaque and winding to be worth including, don't you think? "For those speakers who do use it, it distinguishes between questions where the theme of the question is the grammatical subject of the verb, from those where it is the object or another grammatical role that is being questioned. E.g. who saw you?, but whom did you see?

The use of "whom" depends on register and grammatical context rather than the speaker/writer. Most people still say "with whom", not "with who", which sounds decidedly thuddish, even to the casually incorrect speaker. But "Who do you like?" is commonplace, even in writing and fairly formal speech registers. Tony  (talk)  09:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IN general your changes were fine. I think they would be better if they incorporated a reference, but I guess I will have to add those myself. Your intuition about how "with who" sounds to most people is speculation and the and that most people actually say "with whom" is empirically wrong - I think it is well established that most English speakers never use "whom" and that within a few generations the last remnants of "whom" are expected to be gone. Sure there is a higher incidence in more formal registers, but there are many many speakers for whom it is simply not a part of their vocabulary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm when searching the literature I can find many references stating that whom is dissappearing from some speech communities, but I can find no actual empirical studies of the sociolinguistic correlates of whom vs. who. May be simply one of the linguistic articles of faith since Sapir predicted the dissappearance of "whom" in 1921. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes good, except that the mention of do-support should be retained, as this is a very characteristic feature of English question formation. Should be links to that article and probably to several others. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with mention of do-support needing to be retained.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT PROPOSAL: ungrammatical misuse of the word "despite" in reference to North American English rhoticity
"In GA and Canadian English, rhoticity (or r-fulness) is dominant, with non-rhoticity (r-dropping) becoming associated with lower prestige and social class especially after World War II, despite non-rhoticity's rising regularity and dominance in England."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/despite?s=t despite [dih-spahyt] 1. prep. in spite of; notwithstanding. 2. n. contemptuous treatment; insult. 3. n. malice, hatred, or spite. 4. v. trans., obs., despited, despiting: to anger or annoy (someone) out of spite. Idioms 5. in despite of: in spite of, notwithstanding. He was tolerant in despite of his background and education.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despite despite prep. de·spite \di-ˈspīt\ Simple Definition: without being prevented by (something) Full Definition: in spite of

Perhaps the Brits will correct me of my Western eccentricity, but in American English, the preposition "despite" is often used to imply that a relationship of contrast has occurred; and not just even in contravention to one's own expectations (as normativizing as even that would be), but also in contravention to nature (worse yet). This comes from its relationship with the concept of spite; one who does X despite Y (who does X in spite of Y), does X in the spirit of spite for Y (is spiting Y by doing X). The word "despite" is not fully assimilated into a context of mere contrast, but assumes that the contrast is not to be expected.

The only way that use of the word "despite" makes sense in this context is if it should ever have been expected that Americans would have maintained linguistic identity with Brits despite the vast contrast in ethnolinguistic heritage between the two polities (for example, unless I am mistaken, in England ethnic-Germans do not outnumber the ethnically-English). Perhaps there are sociological models of linguistics out there which would predict a lack of divergence between American and British English in light of geographic and human migratory conditions; frankly, such speculations don't matter until they're cited: and I can't find them anyway. I even searched.

Therefore, I propose at the very least that we drop the word "despite" and replace it with the prepositional phrase "in contrast to", since "in contrast to" means exactly what it must and nothing more:

"In GA and Canadian English, rhoticity (or r-fulness) is dominant, with non-rhoticity (r-dropping) becoming associated with lower prestige and social class especially after World War II, in contrast to non-rhoticity's rising regularity and dominance in England."

However, I also question the idea that r-dropping is truly associated with lower prestige and social class. We're also quite aware of stereotypes about British people, and mock you duly (gently) for them (I can even grant this as evidence perhaps of rhoticity being associated with lower prestige); but since the stereotype is that you're all posh, it's fairly normal for a person to start faking a (non-rhotic) British accent if they're trying to make a wry portrayal of high-classiness (for example, if someone's going off to University). Moreover, there are various thickly rhotic rural accents (ones which heavily labialize the alveolar approximant) which are mocked just as strongly as non-rhotic Southerners'; certainly, the situation is more complex than a mere relationship of "if you drop your 'r's, you will be thought of as low-class".

Therefore, I further propose that, to ensure that people don't get the false impression that this is some universal thing for Americans to hate non-rhotic accents, we add the word "often", like so:

"In GA and Canadian English, rhoticity (or r-fulness) is dominant, with non-rhoticity (r-dropping) often becoming associated with lower prestige and social class especially after World War II, in contrast to non-rhoticity's rising regularity and dominance in England."

I would love to simply make this edit myself as it seems like just the right combination of innocuous and meaningful; but of course there's that little problem that this page is semi-protected... anyone care to help a brother out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.120.119 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "ungrammatical" about this use of "despite", it could however simply be changed for "notwithstanding" or "in spite of the fact" or some other solution such as the one made by W. P. Uzer. Your argument about rhoticity is based on US stereotypes about British English, which are of course irrelevant here since the we are not talking about British evaluations of US english or US evaluations of British English. It is a fact that within Britain r-full accents are non-standard and low prestige, whereas in the US r-full accents are non-standard and low prestige. Regardless of the fact that Americans of course realize that the r-full RP accent is highly prestigeous in Britain. And just as Brits realize that an r-less Brooklyn accent is low prestige in the US.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. What troubles me more is the clumsy "with + ing" as an agent of clause linking. The sentence in any case is rather large and could be improved by a split into two. Tony   (talk)  13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)