Talk:English language/Archive 6

Suggestion: Users may find the FREE BBC Learning English web link(From 25+ Languages)useful if it were added to the bottom of the page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/

past participle
The past participle in the Germanic languages in earlier times was formed with the prefix ge-. Does somebody know, when this prefix was lost in English? And what could have been the reason for the change? --:Slomox:: &gt;&lt; 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was never very consistently present in English. Already in Old English there's variation; the "ge-" prefix is there sometimes but not always. In Middle English it starts to drop out even more, and now it's only found in archaic words like "yclept". In North Germanic languages, it had already disappeared by the time of Old Norse, and it's absent from many Low German dialects too, and I think possibly Frisian as well, so losing it is hardly uniquely English. I don't know if any research has been done into the question why it was lost (linguists very rarely ask "why" but only "when" and "how"), but I can speculate some plausible reasons for you: (1) morphologically, it's not necessary, as past participles can often be distinguished from other verb forms even without the ge-, and can always be distinguished from other verb forms on the basis of their syntactic usage. (2) Influence from language contact with Norse speakers and possibly Low German (and Frisian?) speakers may have had an influence. (3) Phonetically it was an unstressed syllable without a real consonant (it was first pronounced /jə/, not /gə/, and later just ), so there wasn't much phonetic "body" there and the syllable could easily be elided in rapid speech. User:Angr 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What if...
Harald Hadrada had beat Harold the Saxon and William the Conquerer? Would English be a lot more Scandanavianish? Would we have fewer words of Latin, Greek, and French in our vocabulary? Would you and I today be able to speak with modern-day Scandanavians? Would the Great Vowel Shift have occured?Cameron Nedland 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See this page for a humorous look at the origins of the Great Vowel Shift:


 * It's broken dude.Cameron Nedland 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that had happened english wouldn't be the most widely spoken language in the world, English is so wiedly spocken due to britains military and industrial might at the time of empire. yerkschmerk


 * Harald Hadrada was long before the British Empire, Britain probably would have still taken over much of the world.Cameron Nedland 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah we uhh... used to pwn

Missing Words
Is the English Language missing any words to describe your thoughts? There may need to be an article in Wikipedia regarding the development of language. I can't find a word right now to describe a piece of wood that is sized for construction (think building a desk or box) or sculpted. Board is too general, and so is plank. Scantling approaches the idea. I've done a thesaurus search on "plank" and I can't find it. What I want is a word to describe a board cut to supposed desired dimension. Whether or not you agree with my example, the important thing is that we address the formation of words to express ideas, and how consensus is derived. How does a person inject a new word into our language?


 * Simple: you make up something that sounds appropriate and start using it. If other people like it and start using it, it becomes a real word.  Take "dude" for example.Cameron Nedland 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we make up words all the time without realizing it.  I think the only way it can become mainstream is if it's used by a well-known figure (for example, "truthiness" with Stephen Colbert) -67.163.21.39 08:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or "misunderestimated" :-)

Duplication
Further to my comment on 26 July, I have made a minor edit to para 3, where it said that English spread "to the rest of the British Isles... then the to the Republic of Ireland". This is clearly nonsensical for two reasons. Firstly the ROI is part of the British Isles (which is a purely geographical term) and secondly, the adoption of English on the island of Ireland preceeded the creation of the ROI as a nation state.I have therefore deleted the ROI from the list of countries that English has spread to. Nothing against the ROI, and if it is felt that it should be specifically mentioned on the list then the first part of the sentence will need to be changed instead. JeHab 12:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the vast majority of the population of the ROI would deny that the ROI is part of the British Isles. The definition of British Isles is a pretty contentious topic; see British Isles (terminology). User:Angr 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who copied whom?
The text of the first several paragraphs of current page (15 Aug 2006, 1430 EST) is nearly identical to that at http://language.school-explorer.com/info/English_language.
 * I'm not getting any text content at that site at all. User:Angr 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The second to last paragraph on the page is
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language"
 * indicating that they copied Wikipedia. Katrianya 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keywords section
I have removed the following section primarily because it's not really about the English language per se, it's about the usage of individual words in writing. The same comments could be made about the equivalent words in any other language, so there's nothing specifically about English in the section. There are also more policy-oriented reasons to delete the section: it does not cite any reliable sources, making it unverifiable; it seems to be mostly original research. Comments? User:Angr 20:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

- 	Keywords are the words that are used to reveal the internal structure of an author's reasoning. There are many different types of keyword categories, including: Conclusion, Continuation, Contrast, Emphasis, Evidence, Illustration, Sequence, and more. Each category serves its own function, as do the keyowrds inside of a given category. -      The function of these keywords is to signal that the author is about to sum up their thesis.; -      E.g., therefore; thus; in conclusion; believes; so; consequently; it can be seen that; we can conclude that; claims that; -	The function of these keywords is to signal that a continuatino or more support for the same claim is coming up.; -      E.g., and; also; moreover; furthermore; plus; in addition; at the same time; as well as; equally; - 	The function of these keywords is to signal a shift or a comparison of similarities and differences.; - 	E.g., but; despite; yet; however; alternatively; still; although; unless; otherwise; not; though; while; nevertheless; by contrast; notwithstanding; - 	The function of these is to signal as to what the author finds important.; - 	E.g., I think; above all; essentially; clearly; most of all; especially; primarily; particularly; in large measure; indeed;
 * Keywords
 * Conclusion
 * Continuation
 * Contrast
 * Emphasis

- 	The function of these keywords is to signal support for a claim.; - 	E.g., because; for; since; the reason is that;
 * Evidence

- 	The function of these keywords is to signal that an example is being given as support for a claim.; - 	E.g., one example; for instance; as "reference" says,; In the words of; To "reference"; For "reference"; According to "reference"; - 	The function of these keywords is to signal that there is a structure or order that the author has put together.; - 	E.g., Firstly,...,Secondly,...Thirdly,...; Next; Finally; On the one hand; Recently;
 * Illustration
 * Sequence

(Comments)

Agreed - not practical nor interesting. Reeks of OR. --  the     GREAT     Gavini   17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keywords section
I have created a new page for this entry under keywords. In addition, I have put the link to this page in the usage section of english language

History section
The current opening of the history part is not clear: "English is an Anglo-Frisian language brought to south-eastern Great Britain (a region now in modern England) in the 5th century AD by Germanic settlers from various parts of northwest Germany (Saxons, Angles) as well as Denmark (Jutes)." I initially read the first parenthesis as referring to just 'Great Britain', rather than 'south-eastern Great Britain', which was confusing. Also, the second half then implies to me that Saxons and Angles are two parts of Germany, rather than the people (likewise with Denmark/Jutes). Can't think up a decent way to reword it at the moment though, so hopefully someone else can. --BP 11:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the south eastern Great Britain. It suggests that Great Britain was the nation state at the time the language arrived which has now been superceded my England. It would be more correct to say that it came to the Britain (the name of the island) which now comprimises modern Great Britain in the region of south eastern England, as Great Britain didn't come into existence until 1707 many years after English arrived

everyday speech
"In everyday speech, the majority of words will normally be Germanic." To that paragraph, it would be nice to add that Latinate words are also used in everyday speech without a second thought, i.e. they are not considered formal but simple: delete, school, text, aunt, uncle, hour, push and plumber are all Latinates. PeterMellow
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. User:Angr 05:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but "simple" words with Germanic roots still outnumber "simple" Latinate words by quite a bit. It might be worth mentioning there's also a lot of "complex" or "formal" words with Germanic roots, but these still aren't as many as "complex" Latinate words.  I'd stick with the quoted sentence.  --   the     GREAT     Gavini   17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think it's good to clarify that not all "simple" words are Germanic. Now that you mentioned, I think it would also be a good idea to mention those "formal" Germanic words. The quoted sentence is unchanged, I just added to the paragraph. Please go on with something like "Conversely, there are also..." and do cite the words you mentioned. PeterMellow
 * The whole section smells like OR to me. I say get rid of it. User:Angr 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. While the message seems cogent, I've never seen proof of it. That's one of the reasons I added that contrasting postscript to it. PeterMellow 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template:InterWiki
See Template Talk: InterWiki. &mdash;Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"the language of trade, academia and diplomacy"
The opening paragraph of the article says often earning it the title 'the language of trade, academia and diplomacy' .

A search on "the language of trade, academia and diplomacy" in Google turns up nothing but the Wikipedia article, and its various clones.

I realise this isn't a Googleocracy, but if this title were "often earned" by English, I think there would be some evidence of this on the internet.

I think we should remove that phrase.

Ordinary Person 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Geographical Location"
I have removed a sentence about other languages spoken in certain US States. I did this because this sentence (albeit fascinating) was UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the subject of this article (the English Language, lest we forget). A little more rigour would be welcome, folks. in my opinion, this article has decreased in qualitative terms over the last few months - there is a lot of information of tenuous relevance, and it reads in a very staccato way - do we have robots contributing now?JeHab 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Total speakers
The numbers in the total speakers section are way off from any credible sources (ethnologue, CIA world factbook, etc.) The article cited for the high end figure of over a billion did appear in a newspaper (The Times) but the figures are spurious. Should this number be changed to reflect academic estimates, rather than wild guesses of newspaper columnists? MrAldrich 21:30, 25 September 2006


 * I would prefer academic estimates in the side bar, with some mention in the article which addresses the controversy over estimates. However I personally highly doubt The Times estimate, it seems way over exaggerated. It's also a sort of POV push to try and proclaim English is the 'world language' or most spoken language in the world as is often asserted. It's hard though because some people could just say a few sentences and yet they would be regarded by some as 'able to speak English' but unable by others. The article on list of languages by native speakers claims there are 2 billion English speakers, which I object to but haven't debated it on the talk page or anything. Kyle sb 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with mentioning a highly over-estimated number from a newspaper article in this article. I have now replaced this sentence by a sentence that makes clear that estimates about second language speakers vary greatly, using the numbers already used in the table. Marcoscramer 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions
You might be interested that the following articles were recently proposed as articles for deletion: Please advertise on other places where editors are interested in lists of words. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List of English words of Bengali origin
 * List of English prefixes

Kosovo?
Is English really a non-exclusive de jure official language of Kosovo? Angr 07:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Word origins
This section makes no distinction between Norman and French!

For example: Catch comes from Norman, Chase from French. Warranty from Norman, Guaranty from French. Castle, Mug, Mutton, Beef (etc.)… all these came from Norman, not French. On the other hand, many other later Latinate borrowings come from French (such as "corps"). While, in some cases, it is impossible to tell which of the two a word came from, in many cases it is fairly easy to tell. These two languages are quite distinct, and should not be mixed when determining etymology; "catch" and "chase", though the exact same word (being cognates) in Norman and French (cachi and chasser) are hardly identical! The Jade Knight 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

English official of Israel
Is English an official language of Israel? On the Israel page it doesn't list English under "official languages". 124.177.19.158 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Status in the United States
Going back to Talk:English language/Archive 5, where it is stated that English is the de facto official language of the United States, shouldn't this be represented in the infobox, such as United States (defacto)? -newkai t-c 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I just saw on Languages of the United States that it probably is going to become the official language soon, but still... -newkai t-c 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

South Africa
On the map South Africa is coloured dark blue as a country where "English is the de facto and official language". Is this right? There are more Zulu and Afrikaans native speakers in South Africa. English is only the fifth most spoken language of the 11 official languages.

I understand that as white peoples have a dispraportionate share of wealth in South Africa, the language dominates in the media etc. and that many of the Afrikaans (as well as other language) speakers would also speak English as a lingua franca. But should the country be coloured dark blue, we are pushing a view that English is the language of South Africa. Perhaps it should be light blue? I have just found that while the language articles on wikipedia are good, they have a tendency to exaggerate the dominance of a language. 124.177.19.158 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vowels and syllables
This is somewhat a minor point but, from the perspective of non-native speakers (and sometimes even native speakers) it can be a valuable point. Like many languages English tends to have implicit rules about which vowel sounds are acceptable in accented syllables and unaccented syllables (haven't found a citation. I just know this as a native speaker). This means that when foreign words are assimilated into the language their vowel sounds are often changed, not only because some vowels don't exist in English, but also to conform to English syllable rules. As a practical matter a foreigner speaking English, even when they are able to reproduce American or British phones, can often give themselves away simply by missing these accent/vowel syllable rules. Similarly, it is often easier to get a native English speaker to recognize a foreign word simply by deliberately violating the vowel/accent rules. For example, my name is Miguel. If I introduce myself as /mɪ'gel/ using an American accent many English speakers at first miss what I am saying because they try to map the phones to a traditional English name. However, if I introduce myself /mi'gel/, deliberately violating conventional accent/vowel rules, most people pick up my name the first time because they instantly recognize that the name as "foreign."

I wonder if mentioning this subtlety (maybe not in detail but at least in passing) isn't valuable since this nuance does not exist in all languages. --Mcorazao 15:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... if there are citeable sources for it, it could be added to English phonology. It's probably too specific for this general article. —Angr 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I poked around a little on the web and didn't find anything that specifically addressed this. Not being a linguist I wouldn't even know what sort of book to look for to cite. I was hoping one of the linguists out there might be more familiar with the "technical" rules than I am.
 * As far as where it belongs, that is debatable. Although I certainly agree that any detail about this subject belongs in the phonology article, the general idea (i.e. the fact that English has rules about which vowel sounds can appear in unstressed syllables) seems in my mind as relevant as, say, the stress timing of the language (i.e. it would be just as significant to somebody trying develop proficiency in the language). But this certainly falls into the realm of opinion. --Mcorazao 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

James D. Nicholl quote
I've removed the quote because I don't believe it is informative or necessary for it to be there. If anyone disagrees with me, discuss it here. 8th Nov 2006.
 * And I've put it back. It is frequently quoted in linguistics circles, and is useful to put it here with its' citations so that its origins can easily be traced. Over 6000 quotations of it in Usenet. A 2002 thread on rec.arts.sf.fandom (one of the places Nicoll (no "h") hangs out) reports a professor at Rice University thinking it came from a 1950s or 60s book, before being put right, and that the American Bar Associations' SOLOSEZ listserv was also discussing its origin. -- Arwel (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it contributes to the article... ~ UBeR 15:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it really add to the article though? There are quotes from many famous people on the English language (George Bernard Shaw, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde etc) If we're to list every well-known quote, shouldn't they be put in as well?
 * Please remember to sign your contributions ( ~ ). It's apposite, and useful. If others have made appropriate relevant quotes, then in moderation why should they not be included? Frankly, this quote's been in the article since 29 August 2003 (yes, I put it in), and nobody has raised any objection to it since then, in the course of some 3000 edits to the article. I think the force of general opinion is not on your side. -- Arwel (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there aren't very many quotes here. This isn't a quote page. If you wish, however, (and if gauged as appropiate) I'd suggest making a "Notable quotes on English" section, or something to the likes. The former quote, in its location, was unimportant and made little to no contribution to the article.


 * The argument that it hans't been removed in over 3000 edits is irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia is constant updating for further improvement. There are many hundreds or thousands, if not more, complete and thorough articles that undergo constant editing and betterment. The English language article should not be an exception. ~ UBeR 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on a small town in Northern Ireland? Better away! :) It seems to me that it's original location was perfectly reasonable and appropriate, as it was in the section on loan words. I would argue that its survival through 3000 edits is not irrelevant, as all the previous editors would seem to have been happy with it, and it seems a bit confrontational that a user with an edit history barely a month long, and an anonymous editor with no history before today, should take such a dogmatic view. -- Arwel (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my typographical error, truely. Nevertheless, sometimes things are missed upon reviews and edits. Like I said previously, there are items in articles that have been around for many months, if not longer, still being revised, even in featured articles on Wikipedia. It's longevity bears little relevance to how much it contributes. Likewise, my time as a member of the Wikipedia user group should not be the basis of the merits of this discussion. ~ UBeR 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

etiquettical
Hi. Is "etiquettical" a english word?

Economy -> Economical. Etiquette -> ? --Striver 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe it would be. ~ UBeR 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is now.Cameron Nedland 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Etiquettical"? Sounds like something W. S. Gilbert would have made up. Wahkeenah 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbers wrong?
354 million people, that has to be wrong. I've heard larger figures before and the numbers don't add up.

There are 300 million people in the US, the vast majority speak english, 60 million in england and 30 million in Canada. Aleady we have more then 354 million and there are still 10's of millions of people I havn't counted who live in other countries (Australia, Ireland). TostitosAreGross 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the 300 million people in the USA, not all of them have English as their first language. Same goes for the 60 and 30 million in England and Canada, respectively. I'm not 100% sure on their numbers, but apparently the number comes from the 2006 Guinness World Records, though prooly sourced (simply links to the Wikipedia article on Guinness). ~ UBeR 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we're assuming rates of 80% in the Anglosphere (which is extremely conservative), it's still more than 354 million. I think it's clear the estimate is off by at least tens of millions.--71.35.109.198 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What rubbish to say not all people in the UK and Ireland have English as their first language, only people not growing up there dont. Australia is the same. 270 to 290 nmillion speak, in the US, 60 million in the British Isles, at least 25 million in Canada, 25 million in Australasia, then there is South Africa, Caribbean Islands and other not so well known regions so 400 million is a kind of absolute minimum and I would question that this figure is too small, SqueakBox 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Mother Tongue Speakers
This article claims that the Chinese language has 700 million mother tongue speakers. This is clearly wrong. Mainland China alone has a population of 1.3 billion, the vast majority of whom speak Chinese. There are also hundreds of millions of Chinese scattered across the globe, who speak Chinese as their first language.
 * It says Modern Standard Chinese, also called Standard Mandarin. This is not the native language of the vast majority of people in mainland China, and actually relatively few people outside China. —Angr 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia
I have read in this article that English is the de facto and exclusive official language in Australia. I need someone to clear this out, because I understand that a number of indigenous languages are spoken (see Australian Aboriginal languages). Please specify this, as I am no expert in the matter, but just thought that this had to be pointed.Archael Tzaraath 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it "de facto exclusive official language" means it's the only language actually used for official purposes, not that it's the only language spoken at all. —Angr 12:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks!Archael Tzaraath 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong country
On the linguistic map, Reunion is highlighted instead of Mauritius as an English-speaking country.

correct.--Darrendeng 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bastardization
Would it be fair to say that English speakers hugely bastardize loanwords? Take debut for instance, in French it is so an appropriate Anglicization would be something like  considering we do not have the  phoneme but a lot of people end up saying. City names are the worse. Los Angeles does not sound even remotely similar to what the original Spanish. Food for thought.Cameron Nedland 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fair"? It certainly wouldn't be NPOV to use a loaded word like "bastardize". It also wouldn't be NPOV to suggest that English is the only language to adapt loanwords to native phonology. Japanese, after all, manages to turn strike into a four-syllable word, and when German borrows words from English, the and  contrasts are completely lost while the  contrast is tenuous at best. I don't think this article would be improved by discussing the issue here, although an article Loanword phonology discussing the issue from a cross-linguistic perspective might be very interesting, if properly researched and sourced. —Angr 10:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have most of the phonemes of Spanish and a lot of the languages we borrow from (French we are significantly lacking in vowels) so something like Los Angeles,  for Volkswagon, etc. would seem a lot less bastardized to me. I am definitely a noob when it comes to linguistics though, so I suppose I ought to keep quiet.Cameron Nedland 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Spanish pronunciation of "los angeles" is not all that far from the way English speakers say it. The guttural Spanish "g" is not that far removed from the English soft "g" (or "j"). Wahkeenah 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still a pretty big difference between [x] (or [h] in the variety of Spanish spoken near L.A.) and . But that isn't sound substitution anyway, it's a spelling pronunciation. My parents grew up in L.A. and said when they were young some people (a minority) pronounced it, which I suppose is as close to the Spanish as you can get while still obeying the rules of English phonology, where /h/ can't stand before an unstressed vowel in the middle of a word, and certainly not after another consonant. —Angr 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the great strengths of English is that whenever a word appears for which there is no obvious English word we simply adopt the foreign word. This has been going for centuries. The most recent example that springs to my mind is papparazi, originally an Italian word. There is no attempt made to anglicise the word. We just say "That'll do." and a few years later it appears in English dictionaries. This will continue as long as the English language exists. SmokeyTheFatCat 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

India Project??
Appreciating the fact that India has largest pool of English speaking people, How come English language features in India project??--Darrendeng 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because some WikiProjects are very aggressive about commandeering articles. (The same reason why Irish phonology is listed as belonging to WikiProject Northern Ireland even though it discusses dialects exclusively from the Republic of Ireland.) —Angr 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion
I don't think the US should be listed as an natively English speaking country, they speak 'American English' which I think is almost completely different to normal-english.


 * I speak American English natively, yet I understood almost every word you wrote. Wahkeenah 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt agree less, any native speaker of English can understandf American English which is easily the most used form so not a chance, SqueakBox 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

^first of all, spelling? Anyway all I'm saying is surely this article should focus on the original form of the language. Also no, American English is not the most used form. American English is used I believe as a native language in the US, Australia and Canada. Original English or British English is used in all of the following as a native language: India, South Africa, New Zealand and Hong Kong, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia.


 * The "original form" of the language can prove elusive, as it is a living thing that has evolved over the millenia.Wahkeenah 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Aussies and arguably the Canadians speak UK English. All these Brit English countries have minute populations except India which has a minute population that speaks english (about 2% I believe), SqueakBox 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just like the Americans to take something British and improve on it: spelling, empire-building, etc. :) Wahkeenah 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Spelling? lol. Empire building? indeed, SqueakBox 20:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there not articles dealing with American and English forms of English? This after all (being titled just enlish) should be an international representation?
 * There are these, at least: American English and British English. Wahkeenah 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also English English, which is more specific than British English. The original question was simply trolling, however, so we shouldn't feel any need to pay it any attention. —Angr 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Goode pointe. :) Wahkeenah 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadians speak a unique variety of English: Canadian English, which is influenced by American English and British English. Any number of compendia indicate this, far moreso than opinionating above. Psychlopaedist 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A polite request to non-British speakers of English. Please be aware that 'Brit', when substituted for 'Briton' or the adjective 'British' has pejorative overtones. It's rather like constantly referring to an American (citizen of the United States, I mean - I've never found an adjective that discluded a Canadian or an Argentinian) as a Yank. It has become much more common of late and, indeed, has become almost adopted as a badge of honour by British military forces overseas, but do be aware of the nuance that it evokes. Gresham's Law, I'm afraid. Jatrius 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's no more insulting than "Yank" is to me, an American, it can't be much of an insult. Most of us are just fine being Yanks. Wahkeenah 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With due regards SqueakBox, India has second largest (by some accounts even largest) english speaking population only after the United States. Most Indians are bilingual or even trilingual who speak english, hindi and their mother tongue with equal command. So please don't undermine them. sticknstones 14:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, Wahkeenah. Having grown up in Texas, I am most definitely not a Yankee! As for India, it has the largest number of English speakers if you count second-language speakers, but it has very few mother-tongue speakers of English. —Angr 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Angr for correcting me. Yes, i agree that there is very small population in India which has english as their mother tongue. But I was their for my research recently and i realized that english is more than second language to Indians. It is their ticket to be part of globalization, tech jobs and good life. Most urban Indians study english from grade 1 and their higher education, research, business and increasingly urban social life is entirely in English. Also country has about 20 different languages, english integrates the country. I believe you would have seen rarely sites in their native tongues like Hindi, Tamil etc. They use english for almost everything except at home. And it is one of important reason that english has become very part of Indian culture (Indian Population is big really big) that it will not loose its importance in atleast 21st century to other languages. sticknstones 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My anecdotal experience tells me there is a wide range of "fluency" among the Indian population who are internationally employed. To be blunt, some are much better with it than others are. But there is no question that teaching the King's (or Queen's) English to Indians was a great benefit to India in the long run. Wahkeenah 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree totally, but there is perfect reason for that. Primarily as you said Indian english is near to Queen's english that is very different from american english. Even when we americans go to UK or vice versa, it's little difficult. Secondary reason might be US as a country is very different from India, anyone can get overwhlemed. My experience tells that most of them go through a phase of cultural shock. Giving them a fair deal, if we want to judge their english we better go in their country and then judge. Also we have to understand one thing english is a global language and every flavor of it is different from each other none of them being right or wrong. sticknstones 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, I don't think British and/or Indian English is really all that different from American English. However, my vocabulary might be broader than the average American, who might have some trouble with "zed" vs. "zee" or "lorrie" vs. "van" and such stuff as that. I think it comes down to aptitude for language, education level, and the degree of "immersion", which I think is part of what you're getting at. Wahkeenah 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've known Texans who didn't like being called "Southerners", either. Texans are Texans. They are also Americans, and I'm guessing that if you were in England and a Brit called you a Yank in a way intended to be insulting, you would become a "proud Yank" in that circumstance. =|:)# Wahkeenah 22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The English people and language are Romance


The picture should combine Latin and French as Romance languages, just as is done for Germanic languages. It is quite clear that the English language is more influenced by the Greco-Roman Britannia than the Barbarian England. Explain the presence of Greek Ss. George and Andrew in England and Scotland, rather than some other sort of patron. Who can forget the Roman heritage of Ireland's St. Patrick, or Wales's St. David? On the whole, I would say that Anglophonic culture is a more northerly version of the Francophone. That would make us an extension of Mediterranean Europe, just as in the time of King Arthur and Old King Cole. There is nothing comparable in the truly Teutonic countries, where they have a mere culturally imperialistic accumulation of our Classical heritage and not the other way around. The British Isles are more Roman Catholic (and Liturgical, as opposed to Evangelical) in attitude than any truly Germanic nation, including the region of Bavaria or Austria and German speaking Switzerland. Even Mediaeval England (Angleterre) was more Romance than the Holy Roman Empire, which is evidenced in our culture then and now. Even in Offa of Mercia, Alfred the Great or Ethelred the Unready's era, the essence of English culture and ways was decidedly Mediterranean in rejection of the Nordic. England, as in France, was Roman Catholic when Arianism spread like a virus throughout the Germanic world. No Germanic Protestant nation would have founded the United States, a Neoclassical older brother of Napoleonic France--completely rife with Greco-Roman revivals. Does anybody remember the importation of a Germanic Protestant political establishment in the British Isles, from Cranmer and Knox at the expense of native Roman Catholics? America is stereotyped as Protestant and "Nordic", but we are just the opposite. Our country's name (America, Amerigo Vespucci), federal district's name (Columbia, Christopher Columbus), major political parties (Democrat of Greece, Republican of Rome) and government architecture are all Mediterranean. The Federal Government was built on the soil of a Catholic colony (Maryland), although once holding some land of another Anglican colony (Virginia). Even the term "Anglican" is Latin. If we were so Teutonic, our culture would be like Iceland and it is assuredly not. To counter these assertions, you will have to explain the nonexistance of Germanic first names in my family--apart from Norman origins of course. Explain the multitudes of Greek, Romance, Biblical and Celtic names--but lack of others. In World War Two, England had Fascists like Italy or Spain and not National Socialists like Germany or Austria. If we are not Latin, then explain our preference for "Cool Britannia" or "Rule Britannia" instead of some Teutonic equivalent... Rhode Islander 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can say that again. Wahkeenah 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I may sound rude in asking, but what is your point? Rhode Islander 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He dude, try your revisionist theories somewhere else. Should English be classified as a Romance language? Let me put it simply; does an English speaker say "I'm going to give food to the dog" more often than "I'm going to provide nutrition to the canine"? There's your answer.Rex 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your accusations imply that Wikipedia does not present a revisionist, intelligentsia-style outlook already in contradiction to the established living, that I myself am attempting to address right here. Those types of speech you compare, are interchangeable in my household just as in my parents' and grandparents' households.  Rhode Islander 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What language family a language belongs to is not determined by the percentage of its vocabulary deriving from some other language. Every linguist in the world agrees that English is a Germanic language. The cultural speculations are even more ridiculous. Maryland, BTW, was founded by an English Catholic family, had no connections to France, and had Anglicanism as its established religion from the end of the 17th century. By the way, the major political parties of Germany, the Sozial Demokraten and the Christliche Demokraten, both have names with Latin and Greek roots. This is because most political words used in all European languages derive from Latin and Greek. Also, "England" was never Catholic during the Roman period, as it didn't exist. The early Anglo-Saxon invaders were pagans. They converted to Catholicism in the 7th century, by which time Arianism was already almost entirely decrepit. this kind of nonsense has no place on wikipedia. john k 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The categorization of the English language is most assuredly political and based in the "Age of Enlightenment", when England had been usurped by the Teutonists and the old version was undone to serve a new class of aristocrats and their foreign contacts. Not every linguist has always agreed on this matter and it was a most contentious decision to finally classify English as Germanic.  You are hurling a straw man at me about Maryland and France, which were never associated in the slightest.  The issue was Roman Catholicism and the majority Mediterranean vis a vis minority Nordic elements in our culture, with the minority recieving undue weight of importance to character and culture, as well as composition.  England is just as Roman British as France is Roman Gaulish, but Germanic countries and peoples didn't have that background to start off with, just our cultural imperialism based on the power of the Papacy.  Since these Teutons were originally heretics and without Roman heritage, it makes perfect sense for them to revert during the Reformation.  It is clear that Protestantism had to be imported into England.  Wycliffe had to go to Germany, just as Cranmer and Cromwell did.  This was a new minority establishment of merchants and civil servants rather than the old families and common populace of a rural nature.  Democracy obviously took a backseat in the name of Germanism.  Your kind of nonsense is best left for that Yale Taliban guy, rather than a hopefully decent encyclopedia where we learn the whole truth and nothing but.  Rhode Islander 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish, French and Portuguese are mutually understandable to a remarkable extent, whereas English isnt mutually understandable with either the romance languages or German, SqueakBox 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * French and English are easily intelligible with one another. I know from personal experience in Quebec.  Spoken words are harder than written communication.  Latin based languages are the easiest for native English speakers to learn, or at least comprehend in passing.  Greek comes second, whilst Teutonic or Slavic require retraining of the mind.  Could we at least agree on fixing the graph?  Rhode Islander 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is naive to measure the similarity betwen two languages based on the similarity of their vocabulary. Creole languages often have a lexicon heavily based on European languages, yet they are totally different entities from their superstrata. Why? One word: grammar. Core vocabulary, grammar, and history are what should be used to classify a language. FilipeS 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not see the forest for the trees? Rhode Islander 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest ignoring Rhode Islander, who is a crackpot. Thanks. john k 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest ignoring John Kenney, who is a name-caller. Thanks.  Rhode Islander 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If English people understood French intuitively we wouldn't be so bad at it, I failed my basic exam (O level) but once I learnt Spanish it was easy to grasp. There is a debate about whethr German or French is easier for English speakers, arguably the German grammar is more difficult. I agree with John this debate isnt going anywhere, SqueakBox 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my personal attack, which was out of bounds. Could you please provide a reliable source that argues that the English language is a romance language? If not, then you are pushing original research (AKA are a crackpot), and we should ignore you. But perhaps there is a large community of respected linguists who make this claim, in spite of nobody ever having heard of them before, in which case it deserves to be represented in the article. I'm not holding my breath. john k 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are there links to this discussion in so many different pages?


 * Talk:Germanic_Europe
 * Talk:Romance_languages
 * Talk:Latin_Europe

Also, what is the source of your graph, and what does it represent exactly, Rhode Islander? FilipeS 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could we at least agree on fixing the graph? My main reason for noting the Romance heritage, is that Wikipedia (and online sources in general) seems to revel in the Teutonizing of English culture--at the expense of our ancient Roman background. England is no more seperable from Britain than France is of Gaul.  Disprove that and I won't think you're a hypocrite for it.  Rhode Islander 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is more or less no ancient Roman background to the English language. And why should we agree to add any nonsense you have decided to focus on?  You'll just use it as a wedge to add more nonsense. john k 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of perception, which in your case is belligerantly Aryanist. I've witnessed a lot of that Georgian/Victorian nonsense in old books (dating from the time of the Empire) and foolishly resurrected for online contributions. The question is, which side you're on? The side of the fallen or the victors--the side of Beaufort, FitzRoy, Gordon-Lennox, Fitzalan-Howard or Cromwell, Nassau, Welf, Wettin and Battenberg? Which presentation of the facts? A Victory of those representing the undue weight is not factual, but state-sponsored propaganda. Perhaps you would like to visit Georgian era Ireland, for a refreshing look at the reality of this discussion. Perhaps the victory of Calvinists in the French Revolution means a lot to you as well? Teutonism rules, huh? Rules by what methods? Certainly not the liberty to oppress others and rewrite to suit themselves? Who could concieve of Anglo-Saxon liberty from Norman yoke to be a doorway into the pockets of far flung peoples across the globe, such as America or India? Nice try, crackpot propaganda minister. Rhode Islander 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that the graph is from the article itself. (I was a little lost, with all the moving around of the discussion.) Rhode Islander, I think this matter is simple, really. Wikipedia is based on verification. Sources. You have been asked to provide some sources for your claim that English is really a Romance language, but so far you have not produced any. FilipeS 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The real issue is the graph, rather than my thought-provoking statements. Please fix the graph, rather than fight me on a separate issue. I am not skilled at image editing. Rhode Islander 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that Romance words survived in English from the Roman period is simply false. Old English had almost no Latin in it at all. All the French words were introduced as the result of a foreign military conquest in 1066. They represent the language of an alien, aristocratic elite. TharkunColl 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you source this very interesting statement and then, once sourced, add it to the article (which has no mention of 1066) SqueakBox 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's already in the article, in the history section. TharkunColl 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More straw men! What is with you people? TharkunColl, I never said anything like that. On the other hand, Latin's reintroduction to Britain, through the English language is most definitely because of the Roman past. Rhode Islander 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The alien quality of the Normans was not their Roman, Continental heritage, but their Scandinavian heritage. The Anglo-Saxons were notoriously opposed to the Nordic world, because they chose in the time of Offa of Mercia to establish permanent ties to the Carolingian world. Perhaps you (TharkunColl) forget that Canute introduced English customs to Scandinavia? Rhode Islander 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please can you source this somewhat more vague statement about Latin being reintroduced because it already existed centuries earlier rather than because of other reasons. Rhode. What is this with straw men? its a serious obsecenity in Latin America but not in the English speaking world, I believe.SqueakBox 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin was reintroduced through the Papacy's designs for the Catholic Church and this is a well known, neutral fact. The Mediaeval Church used Latin as its exclusive language. Besides, I have not put any of this in the article, so asking for sources is a diversion. Rome under the Pope wanted to reassert Christianity throughout the former Roman lands, where Christianity was most easily assimilated through historical precedent. When the Roman Empire was Christian, it included Britain and the major administrative language was Latin. These are all uncontroversial points made: The Greek, Latin and Gallic (inc. Frankish; Britain was ruled by the Gallic Tetrarch) tongues were all spoken in the Roman Empire, which Britain was once part of and primary cause for their influence on the English language.  Rhode Islander 01:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl presents nonsensical crackpot statements about 1066. The English were just as foreign in the land as the French, each having supplanted old Roman lands. The Gallic Tetrarch ruled Britain, so what is irregular about a Norman Duke being King of England? How strange an ideology of yours, Mr. TharkunColl. Rhode Islander 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhode Islander, are you aware that Latin was utterly forgotten in Britain after the Roman armies deserted the island to its fate in the 5th century? FilipeS 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You aren't reading what I've stated in the slightest, again and again. You are making a repetitive straw man. I ANSWER AGAIN: LATIN WAS REINTRODUCED FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ON THE BASIS OF BRITAIN'S ROMAN PAST. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO IT, NO LEFTOVER LATIN AS AN ADIMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE BETWEEN THAT TIME. GODDAMN IT! LISTEN TO ME! I NEVER SAID THAT LATIN CONTINUED IN OFFICIAL USAGE BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS AND THE ARRIVAL OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. PAY ATTENTION, INSTEAD OF MAKING THESE STRAW MEN! Rhode Islander 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did read what you wrote, including the following:


 * "The Greek, Latin and Gallic (inc. Frankish; Britain was ruled by the Gallic Tetrarch) tongues were all spoken in the Roman Empire, which Britain was once part of and primary cause for their influence on the English language."


 * If you are talking about the Latin that was brought to Britain by the Catholic Church, then it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Roman Empire, Greek, Gallic, or whatnot. Two completely separate periods and realities.


 * Incidentally, I remind you that writing in all caps is considered bad form on the Internet. FilipeS 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church revived what was lost, that is all--a Classical light in the Dark Ages. Greek and Romance influences are both part of the English language, due to both geographical and historical reasons. These same reasons are why truly Germanic languages don't really have a Greek or Romance heritage, nor have they much engaged in the Mediterranean world as England has (Crusades, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, Egypt, etc). Such a place would be Iceland, or Sweden, or Finland. They never experienced the Roman Empire, but Britain, like Gaul, did and pride themselves on whatever Roman heritage has contributed to these places and people. The same cannot be said for most of Germany, as well as Denmark and Norway. England has a Mediterranean heritage, like France. The Germanic heritage of these peoples is similar, in differentiation from other countries that have had dominant Teutonic ethnic groups. I am not saying that the level of Germanic contribution in Britain was as light as Spain or Italy, but certainly not markedly different from France. Each had the initial Germanic tribes, then the Viking settlements. Each has the Celto-Romance basis. This is confirmed in all sources. It is POLITICAL or PARTISAN, or SECTIST to state that England is not of this community but is rather part of the Teutonic world. You perpetually misunderstand me, which is why I am shouting with a keyboard--in all caps. Rhode Islander 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * English is definitely a Romance language. When Frenchmen get Romantic with their ladies, they often lapse into English. Wahkeenah 02:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In cyberspace, noone can hear you scream ... and doing so regardless will ensure that. Psychlopaedist 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic flaw in the argument is that adding up the words in the dictionary, and grouping them, assumes that everyone talks the same way. How many times have you heard someone ridiculed for using too many multi-syllabic Latin-based words, rather than speaking in "plain English"? Wahkeenah 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Rhode Islander really ask above whether we range ourselves alongside the Duke of Norfolk or not? What the hell? john k 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhode Islander, please stop leaving nonsensical rubbish on my talk page. That Britain was part of the Prefecture of the Gauls has got literally nothing to do with the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Normans were French - just read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. They spoke French and their culture was French, this was why they were so alien. The Danes, for all their violence, at least spoke a language that the English could understand. The English participated in the general Northern culture, they shared the same deities, myths, and worldview. TharkunColl 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's all this about? Rhode Islander's contributions here prompt one thought only: WP:DNFT. Snalwibma 09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fittingly, "troll" is a Nordic word. I wonder what its Latin equivalent is? Wahkeenah 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A French-derived synonym for troll is ogre, ultimately derived from the Latin orcus (which has also given us orc). TharkunColl 13:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

'''John Kenney, the question is if you accept one establishment's version of culture and events or another's. Who do you celebrate? Thomas Cranmer or Saint Thomas More? The former would agree with you on the Germanic culture of England and the latter, on the Romance. So, pick your side of the battlefield. The Duke of Norfolk and others in his camp deserve a lot more than those in the other camp, at least, that's how I and others see it.'''

'''In response to TharkunColl: You sir, are absolutely fantasizing. The Christian Anglo-Saxons hated the pagan Northmen, from Alfred the Great, to Ethelred the Unready, to Harold Godwinson. Leofric of Mercia and Edward the Confessor betrayed the Anglo-Saxons to the Northmen/Normans. The Normans were barbaric and semi-Christian Northmen, not the cultured and devoutly Christian Franks. The Anglo-Saxon/French trendsetting in Europe was disrupted in 1066, the pact between Offa of Mercia and Charlemagne lapsing later as a result of the Angevin dynasty's success. Please don't insert pagan fables. Your "religion" is a 20th century form that has nothing to do with reality or the past. Your revanchist dreams will not suffice a "serious encyclopedia" such as this website. We compile from Classical and Latin sources, without regard for your fringe hypersectarian and nationalist element.''' Rhode Islander 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Writing everything in bold not only makes you look rude, it also means you can't emphasise some particular point when you need to. And furthermore, what the hell is my "religion"? TharkunColl 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are a pagan Anglo-Saxon revivalist, a true fanatic in every degree. You can't let history go when it did. You worship one band of Northmen and condemn another; how arbitrary. I stick up for the Anglo-Saxons' Christian allies in Europe, but you attack me for it. You are just a paganist, much more than an Anglo-Saxonist. You prefer to overlook Offa of Mercia for Penda of Mercia. I look to Alfred the Great and you look to Leofric of Mercia. Traitor to no pagan, that's who you are. Rhode Islander 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you appear to know far more about me than I ever knew myself. Thank you for filling me in, I'm much obliged. And by the way, in reference to your rant on my talk page, Aleister Crowley was no pagan - he despised them. TharkunColl 16:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut out the Scandinavian elements and you'll have a nice Anglo-Saxon/Frankish relationship, on the same Christian, Mediterranean and Romance stoic attitude in defense of their mores, against the Nordicist and pagan elements. Ooh, now that was so hard to understand? Rhode Islander 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be frank, yes, I do find you phraseology a little hard to understand. Do you actually know anything at all about England? Have you ever been here? The dialects spoken in the north and parts of the east of the country are directly descended from that of the Scandinavian settlers. They are an integral part of us. TharkunColl 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM, WHAT YOU ARGUE IS RIDICULOUS, COME BACK WITH SOURCES.Rex 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, everyone. Cool it. Please do not feed the troll. Snalwibma 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor the ogre. >:) Wahkeenah 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that England is more Germanic than Romantic in terms of its culture, SqueakBox 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What defines a 'Germanic' culture and a 'Romance' culture? (22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

OOOHHH, praise Martin Luther and his hordes of barbarian heresy fanatics, more attuned to the world of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, or even the Ottomans than Rome. No, really. Let's not be certain of England's greater dignity and glory in the world, when neither the King of France, nor the Emperor had more power than our own dynasty. Let's worship pagan pirates and their asslicking gods, or go romping on the steppes like wild banshees. Rome must be destroyed and all its greatness extricated from lands which have recieved her bounty, to pave way for the barbarian ways. It would suit you lot, but that is not what I see in my English heritage. You lot are the trolls, making a serious defilement and mockery of Anglia. Bah. Rhode Islander 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a personal insult from Rhode Islander, SqueakBox 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the flame by SqueakBox. Rhode Islander 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced my comment. Rhode thinks he can insult my wife with impunity, lol, SqueakBox 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just redeleted his flame. He thinks it is better to engage in this retarded tripe, rather than discuss the topic by analyzing subject matter. Talk about the subject, not the people talking about it. Thanks. Rhode Islander 23:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhode Islander, you know nothing about England or its people, and you are not English. Please stop trying to impose your fantasies on a country of which you are so patently ignorant. TharkunColl 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your best option is to not play its game, i.e. to not respond in any way, shape or form. Then, if it starts mucking with the article itself, you can go to an admin and get it banned. Wahkeenah 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "it" must be the appropriate way of speaking to other people? We obviously must agree to disagree. TharkunColl, that's final. I really don't care for your insular and myopic, fringe fantasy in the white room. Rhode Islander 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, England has been invaded and conquered numerous times Romans, Anglo-saxons, Vikings, Normans. All have left their own measure of influence and helped to shape the country as it is today, but trust me when I say this, English culture is quite unique apart from those. It's impossible to quantify in any respect anyway. How exactly do you measure Germanic-ness or Romance-ness or Celtic-ness? Pointless debate in my opinion. (08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

-

RHode islander:

As a french I'm sorry to seem rude towards you but I found your claims totally ridiculous. With all the neighbours that France have it is quite clear that England is the most distant we have, at least with germany we have similar views about economics and politics.

Hearing that England would be mediterranean seems really laughable !!

That English, in total have a lot of words of latin origins (that most people don't even know) doesn't help that 80% of the vocabulary used in an average english text is germanic, and that almost all core vocabulary and linguistic structures are germanic. To me, as a french person, English language, people and culture seems like Dutch and German (which have also Greco-latin words in their vocabularies). From a french point of view Enlgish is very alien. We are linguistically and culturally very close to Italians and Spanish peoples, politically and economically very close to Germany, but with England we are very far in all points of view; I'm sorry If I hurt your "french-wannabeeness".
 * I think that user has gone away, so this is probably all moot. However, you're hinting at part of the reason the English and the French have had their little spats over the centuries... which continues today, though not nearly as murderously, mostly satirically (we hope). For example, did you ever see the Monty Python skit about "The Man with a Tape Recorder up His Nose"? Wahkeenah 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. It was merely on vacation. >:( Wahkeenah 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The real point of it is
England and the English are not so different in their "ethnogenetic" composition (Greco-Roman, Celto-Germanic and even Phoenician) and histories from the French, having been intertwined by more than geographical proximity. I'm afraid that calling the English character as Dutch or German is ignorance of the common people, who are not descended from or related to the House of Orange-Nassau or the House of Hanover--or even the Saxon House of Windsor, for that matter. Dear French person, please try to see beyond the present state of affairs, to the days in which I am right and political correctness of a Protestant England was not. You and I probably share Norman, Capetian and Plantagenet, as well as Levantine and Byzantine ancestors together, which would probably be harder to find in the Netherlands and especially Germany. I'm appalled at the sad state of education, which relies on nationalist stereotypes of a circumstantial nature. Rhode Islander 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * English cuisine, for example, rivals French cuisine at every turn. Where I live, there are endless English restaurants. Burger King, for one. Wahkeenah 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think these quips of yours are funny. Rhode Islander 09:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't. You're French. The French have no sense of humor. The British do. There's a major difference right there. >:) OK, I'm out of here. Wahkeenah 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. He's English. So please keep your racist statements to yourself.  Anyway although he may have a point (or not), there is no room for original research in wikipedia. 193.132.242.1 11:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)