Talk:Globish (Nerrière)

Cleanup
The article appeared on Cleanup with this entry:
 * Globish - Grammar, NPOV. Notable?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Globish(全球語)" seems to be a neologism (contraction of global english) that is not widely used. The main two uses of it seem to be for:

1) a small subset of English with substantially modified spelling and pronounciation proposed in 1998 by Madhukar Gogate. See Conlang Profile 1.

2) a small subset of English with conventional spelling and pronounciation, apparently done as an aid for French-speaking people to learn basic English. Promoted in the 2004 book Parlez Globish (in French) by Jean-Paul Nerrière.  See Conlang Profile 2. -- R. S. Shaw 22:59, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)


 * Globish It seems that there are really many references to JP Nerrière website, which is at least superfluous. This could even suggest that there is an attempt to promote the usage of this word (which as far as I know -- and even in French-speaking countries -- is not widely used, if used at all). I'm refering in particular to the mention of the book "Parlez Globish!" which sounds more like an ad; considering, again, the already large number of links to Nerrière website. Camcom 2006 Jan 26, 7:07pm (UTC+1)
 * Of course there are attempts to promote usage of the word 'globish'. It's a buzzword, and more attractive than saying "subset of English" or similar.  Nerrière is selling books with the word.  I think some others find the buzzword appealing because it suppresses reference to a particular country (England), suggests global use, and probably "sounds cool".  It isn't in frequent use anywhere, as far as I can tell, but I'd guess it's used more in France because of the promotion there.  I think the word barely warrants a Wikipedia entry.  (The Gogate meaning of Globish is even more obscure.)  I think I probably put most or all of the Nerrière references into the article, but it wasn't because I was trying to promote him, his book, or the word globish.  (In fact I'd like 'globish' to disappear quickly and quietly, as most buzzwords should.)  I just put that stuff in because it seemed to best communicate the actual meaning and context of usage of 'globish' as far as I could determine.  -R. S. Shaw 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In Jan 2009 The BBC's "From Our Own Correspondent" radio show ran an item on Globish. But they also had a problem with definitions I think. Is Globish a) a naturally occurring form of the language which foreign speakers create spontaneously or b) a commercial product of the same name. I don't think the article at present really expresses this issue clearly.83.41.190.199 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely rewrote the article, with citations for each statement. I removed all promotional language (although most of the internet links are still there). I believe the content is now non-controversial. The remaining question is whether this is a distinct notable topic, or if it should be merged into another topic. Mrevan (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Global English
"Global English" is far more preferable than this awful portmanteau. --MacRusgail 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really : "Global English" is a construction of a particular English (I will say, it is a theory), while "Globish" is a defined application with a commercial promotion. And "the word Globish is awful" may be the resent of English speakers, but not the same for non-native English speakers. Gwalarn 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a non native English speaker, I learned English at a good level reading books and browsing the web, I can communicate easily with people from all around the world using different levels of complexity of the language, even Japanese that have the most terrible English I know, and as such i think Globish is a commercial idea, not necessary in an encyclopedia, at least not in this terms. Plus, the portmanteau is really terrible. 79.42.180.114 (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke
This page needs to be tagged for deletion. Globish is nothing more than someones idea of a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptopbomber (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 December 2006


 * Well whether you like the name "Globish" or not, it is somewhat well-established at this point. Mrevan (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Example problems
The example texts in (Standard?) English and Globish should be rewritten so they express the same ideas. Otherwise, the differences between the dialects are impossible to detect for people not familiar with them. -- Beland (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism/pointless
The Sample of Globish is plagiarized from globish.com. Also AFAICS there's no difference in complexity between the two samples (it's not advertised as a sample on globish.com).

Plus this article is not notable.

Without the list of 1500 words this article is totally pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.0.164 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Globish article is worth keeping
No deletion. While I agree that Globish sounds like a joke, it it isn't. Globish seems to be overtaking Esperanto as a "global trade and diplomatic language". I have heard Globish (or some variations) being spoken while I have never heard Esperanto spoken outside of a lecture or a television program on Esperanto.

A word list or dictionary of Globish word would be nice to include in the article. Some example of how Globish syntax differs from English would be nice. Even better, IMHO, would be to rewrite the entire article in Globish! 98.247.77.63 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Genuine question: how do you know you have "heard Globish"? What you have heard is English spoken by a non-native who hasn't properly learnt the grammar and phonology of English.  If you had taken a recording of what was said on these occasions and analysed it, I suspect you would have found that what you heard did not match the patterns outlined in the Globish books.


 * It is natural human behaviour to see differences and similarities relatively - we tend to bundle things that are different from us together on a superficial similarity. (EG: to someone not familiar with dogs, it is hard to tell two dogs of the same breed apart at first glance. The difference in fur patterning combined with facial features, dimensions etc is often more than the difference between two humans, yet most people can tell two humans apart with ease.)  This is one of the most insidious things about Globish as a brand: it does not need to be the same as the English spoken globally to be identified with it, it only has to be sufficiently different from native English to get lumped in with it.  If I was a noteworthy individual, that'd be in the criticism section already.


 * But then again, the article should stay, if only so that we can expand the criticism section and warn people off this flawed product.
 * Prof Wrong (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the genuine question (so to speak); I'd be genuinely interested to know how this subjective impression was formed. That said, we should keep in mind that notability doesn't turn (directly) on success nor flaws, and warning people off is not a legitimate purpose of the criticism section.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. However, the only academic opinion of Globish that I have seen is supportive of the principle, but critical of the execution.  I'll continue to add criticisms without reinterpreting the originator's point and I'm pretty sure that it'll keep me from falling foul of NPoV.
 * Prof Wrong (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nerriere ("vice president of international marketing at IBM") knows how to sell his product. Anyway, a language created 6 years ago, with no speakers for that i know... i mean, how many say "the room where i cook" instead of kitchen? after read the book, some people think they know globish, but if they would try to speak it, they would use english words. Others use this word as "english spoken by non-natives". I wonder if we are helping Nerriere to sell other books... if we cite only magazines that intervisted him, we will find only positive news. At least, we should make clear what n-globish is not. And it is not just the english spoken by businessmen as actually the first paragraph sais (and ambiguolsy Nerriere sais). Businessmen know words as kitchen, and know that "cry out" doesn't mean "be outside and cry" as would be in n-globish. --Iosko2 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Well, we're not only citing magazines that interviewed him -- the criticism is the longest section in the article.

The question is: should this be a language article, or a company article about Globish Solutions Inc. Prof Wrong (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Something missing
I hope that never such languages from some nations (economical-cultural powers) will be spoken in the world destroying the other languages, as for native american by european languages (english, spanish, portuguese)... my was just an example of criticism, I mean, in this article the wide criticism on this topic misses (see the end of the esperanto article). For example, something can be taken from here. Also, don't forget that the inventer of globish has still a trademark, and keeps rights, so wikipedia doesn't have to sell the privates' products. It's a source of gain that is not good for only a language, made as a business. In those days i'll find some criticism to equilibrate the article. Don't worry, i am not so bad as you can think, just there is no equilibrium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.169.98 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism: lack of evidence
The article was recently edited from this
 * 'Nerriere's claim that Globish is a natural language is not supported by any published research.'

to this:
 * 'Nerriere's claim that Globish is a natural language is neither supported nor refuted by any published research.'

While the latter statement is technically correct, it is misleading.

Nerrière's claim is that Globish is a language that he has observed being spoken, and that the Globish that he presents in his books is therefore a natural language that is spoken by non-native speakers of English. The description of a natural language has to start from a statistically verifiable corpus study. It is Nerrière's responsibility to provide evidence for his natural language - there is no symmetrical need for disproof until he presents his argument. (You wouldn't allow a drug company to release a drug without giving proof it's safe and declare that they would sell it until somebody else put the time and money into proving it wasn't safe.) First burden of proof lies with the originator.

The lack of refutation is not of equal weight as the lack of support. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lafcadiol added the following as a counter to the criticism:


 * However, numerous Internet users -- as in the following cited example -- profess to use Globish there for their "natural" discourse. Although no one has yet attempted to count all of these Internet references, that number could currently be in the thousands.

I have several problems with this edit:
 * First, we've got conjecture and what's bordering on OR and/or synthesis.
 * Secondly, the website cited (not a sound citation source) use uses the term Globish, but doesn't make any reference to Nerrière. This WP article is clearly about Globish as defined by Nerrière. (Of course, this is problematic in that the name and concept of Globish are not unique to Nerrière's work, but the article as it stands is clear in stating that it refers to Nerrière's Globish.) We have no proof that the author of the website has ever even read any of Nerrière's books, or even any indication of his native language -- we can't even see whether Nerrière's books are available in his language.
 * Thirdly, there are many errors in the language on that site which are equally wrong in English and Globish.
 * Finally, and more than a little pedantically, the word "mecha" doesn't appear in the Globish dictionary.

The popularity of the concept of Globish may be noteworthy, but it does not belong in the criticism section, and it does not support the value of Nerrière's books. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Globish as concept vs Globish as Nerrière's IP
This article is suffering slightly due to an ambiguity in the name.

The opening paragraph starts with the following:
 * Globish is a subset of the English language formalized by Jean-Paul Nerriere.[1] It uses a subset of standard English grammar, and a list of 1500 English words. According to Nerriere it is "not a language" in and of itself,[2] but rather it is the common ground that non-native English speakers adopt in the context of international business.

This suggests very heavily that the article specifically relates to Nerrière's books on the subject.

However, as the article itself states, it was not Nerrière who first coined the term. (Although what Gogate's means by Globish is very different from what Nerrière means -- Gogate's Globish was mainly about spelling reform .)

The idea of Globish can be looked upon as two things:


 * The concept of a natural, emergent, simplified variant of English as used by non-natives.


 * A set of rules laid out in a book by Nerrière.

The first is something very few people would disagree with, but the article as it stands only really addresses the second, and as such the criticism is directed at Nerrière's work. However, there's some understandable confusion between the two concepts, and editor Lafcadiol has attempted a couple of times to counter criticism against Globish (Nerrière's book) with support for the concept of a simplified English as lingua franca.

Certainly this confusion extends to professional journalism too -- I have seen journalists talking about how "Globish" matches their experience when they are simply talking about encountering non-native English, and clearly haven't made any active comparison to Nerrière's published rules or vocabulary list.

Is there any way we can separate the general concept and the specific codification in Nerrière's book? I'm a bit wary of OR.

I could quote [|this article from the UK newspaper The Independent], for example, which identifies Globish as "a kind of pidgin English", and contrast that with the statement by Nerrière that "correct English is correct Globish", but that sounds dangerously close to synthesis... Prof Wrong (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Use of the word Globish section" -- here or in Globish?
I've just added the section "Use of the word Globish" and it now occurs to me that this might be better off in Globish.

It appears to me that there is now enough evidence of genericity (predating either Gogate or Nerrière) to justify a Globish article focusing on the term as a generic term for a non-native, lingua franca dialect of English.

This would leave this article dealing exclusively with the published output of Nerrière and reactions to it. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a disambiguation would be better; else, since the first to use the term was Gogate, he has more right to be the target of the redirect starting from "globish", term he invented, as it seems. And most of the time, the word globish is used not referring to nerriere or gogate, but just to say "bad english, english spoken by non native", so the disambiguation could explain this semantic problem, and the user sould choose what s/he needs. --Iosko2 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted the above message before I found the reference to Globish in the Christian Science Monitor (cited in the article Among the new words published in the journal American Speech. That citation predates either Gogate or Nerrière, which I think proves the case for an independent Globish article that links individually to specific Gogate and Nerrière sites.  We might even have to include a fourth page for disambiguation.
 * Prof Wrong (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right, many meanings => many pages. We can start by reloading the disambiguation page, and creating the general page. --Iosko2 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If material is going to be moved from that section to another article, see Splitting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

About NPOV
I hope i am wrong, but i have the impression that somvody is using this page giving more importance to golbish-nerriere pros and trying to hide or give less importance to the cons. In doing this, even forum have been used as source, and also articles that don't refer to globish-nerriere, but use the word globish just to address the not-good english. Since wp is not a place where to make propaganda for globish, even a fan of nerriere should unsderstand that NPOV is very important here. --Iosko2 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say this is the case -- I believe the user in question is more interested in the concept of Globish than in Nerrière's books. I feel there is adequate grounds for a general article on Globish, as I state above.
 * Prof Wrong (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Globish ? Which 1500 words ?
The word list indicated in the link to a Japanese site, differs from the list of defined words in the indicated Globish word book. The Globish Text Scanner accepts even some 500 extra words... http://www.globish.com/?page=globish_scanner but not all the words from that Japanese/French link of "1500mots". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.151.187 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Globish (Nerriere). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421225335/http://www.jpn-globish.com/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=171 to http://www.jpn-globish.com/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=171

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Move to "Globish"
I have moved the "Globish (Gogate)" to "Globish (language)", because Madhukar Gogate's Globish is a language and Jean-Paul Nerrière's Globish is a subset of the English vocabulary. Also, the Globish is mostly known as a subset of the English vocabulary. So I want to move this to "Globish".

—Your's sincerely, Soumya-8974 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)