Talk:English language/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Boston accent

I just changed the assertation that the Boston accent is a "formal American accent." That used to be true, but only for the upper-class accent, which is heard in a lot of old movies (I know some people who actually thought Kathryn Hepburn was British, even though she's from Connecticut.) However, that changed after WWII, and there's no real modern equivalent. The notion of "General American," however nonsensical, does exist, but it doesn't have the same prestige that the Received Pronunciation does. --Confiteordeo 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of the English Language

Lol who made this up? And is it at useful (for the article)? ~ UBeR 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a good one, isn't it? If there is to be an English flag, it should be white with black letters that say, "If you can read this, then you can speak English." Wahkeenah 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Never seen that one! Without evidence, I suspect a hoax. Snalwibma 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's descriptive; just look at knoppix.org. --Kjoonlee 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see penguins. What's your point? Wahkeenah 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, the small icon in the upper left. Fine. Now where did they get it from? Or did they invent it? It doesn't make much sense to use that flag. English comes from England. They should use the British flag. And I'm American, FYI. Wahkeenah 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Klaus Knopper wasn't the first person to think of it. Andre Wiethoff's EAC's download page uses a similar flag, and I'm pretty sure a similar image was in previous use somewhere else. --Kjoonlee 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's just one persons'/organisations' invention to represent the language. It has no official standing whatsoever and shouldn't be promoted by us. I am reminded of Dennis the constitutional peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who told King Arthur "I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!" -- Arwel (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the statement needs to be sourced with a discussion of the usage of the flag, not an example of its use. But it's not our place to say whether knoppix.org should be using the flag or not. —Angr 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, but it is our place to discuss whether wikipedia should be using it. Wahkeenah 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports on racism and murder. Wikipedia doesn't advocate these, and it doesn't advocate the flag. I don't see why you're so excited about this. --Kjoonlee 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some technical discrepancy in that merger of the two flags; I have had it replaced by a probably more correct version — for what it's worth. Apcbg 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see that your version is better. Your version lacks the diagonal red stripe in the upper right of the Union Jack, and it's a GIF, which is generally disfavored except for animations. —Angr 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely; if you merge the two flags correctly then the diagonal red stripe from the upper right of the Union Jack wouldn't show up. The diagonal red stripe in the upper right of the knoppix.org flag ends up below the diagonal line of the flag, while in the true Union Jack the diagonal red stripe ends up above it. You may be right about the GIF, but that would matter to choose between two otherwise identical images which these are not. Apcbg 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did this ersatz flag come from? What validity does it have? Maybe somebody made it up and posted it in wikipedia, and others are copying it? Wahkeenah 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What copying? The flag I posted is a minor variation of the knoppix.org one, correcting a discrepancy between its definition and the technical merger of the two flags. Whether that flag is 'valid' (whatever that might mean) or indeed whether it should appear in the article is something else which I do not comment. Apcbg 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
EAC is probably older than Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The EAC site is from before 2005-12-27, which was when Image:English language.svg was uploaded. --Kjoonlee 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The Knoppix site used that flag from October 2002. Image:English language.svg was uploaded in December 2005. --Kjoonlee 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:English language.png was uploaded in May 2005. --Kjoonlee 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So, you invented this flag, then? Or what? Wahkeenah 09:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[Reset indent] FACT: that flag is used here and there on websites to signal "English language". EVIDENCE for that fact: the knoppix site. In which case, let's just show it, comment that it's not official, and leave it at that. No need to get worked up about who thought of it first (or indeed about the niceties of whether a bit of a red diagonal does or does not show). Snalwibma 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, except for the niceties part; details do matter in flags, the visual impression is different. So thanks to Kjoonlee for making the correct svg version. Apcbg 11:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Since it's fake, it doesn't really matter about "niceties". Wahkeenah 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wahkeenah, please calm down and be civil. --Kjoonlee 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am calm. I just want to know why it matters what a fake flag looks like? I can't seem to get a straight answer on the subject. Now, how about if you be civil and tell us who invented that flag? Wahkeenah 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but you're not civil. I don't know who made it, and I don't want to do original research. (I might want to add some good sources on its origin if I had access to sources.) --Kjoonlee 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Judging from commons:Category:Hybrid flags, hybrid flags are not unheard of; it would be foolish to challenge their existence, although curiosity would be welcome. --Kjoonlee 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You're getting close to understanding what I'm getting at... that this so-called English-language flag constitues "original research". Wahkeenah 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That the hybrid flag is widely used on websites to indicate their English-language version is simply an unescapable fact, though it's not as common as either the British or the American flag alone, or putting the two side by side. But I do agree that if the flag is going to be discussed in the article, the section discussing it is subject to the same rules about verifiability and no original research as everything else--we have to report on what published sources have said about the hybrid flag, not report our own analyses. —Angr 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But we haven't analysed anything, have we? WP:NOR explicitly allows the use of primary sources in some cases, and this applies to the hybrid flag, AFAICT. --Kjoonlee 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because you find a source doesn't make it legitimate or encyclopedic. And what about a Spanish-language flag? Are you showing the flag of Spain? Our western hemisphere readers might not like that very well. They went to war with Spain, just like we Americans went to war with the British, to get out from under that flag, as it were. Wahkeenah 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wha? It's unencyclopedic now? Since when was descriptivism unencyclopedic? And now you're getting off topic. --Kjoonlee 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hybrid flags are illegitimate: now that looks like OR to me. --Kjoonlee 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[Reset indent] That hybrid US/UK flag can be found also in: 1, 2, 3, 4; a finer version of the knoppix.org flag; a slightly different model, 5, 6, 7 Apcbg 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK we've somewhat discussed my first point with all this bickering. What's really important, however, is whether it's needed in this article. It is long enough, as it is. Does this flag help us any better understand anything? Does it contribute to the article? Is it, in any sense, correct? To answer to these questions is "No." Whether or not a handful of sites use this flag is wholly irrelevant. ~ UBeR 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got my vote. Wahkeenah 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You might say that it's not notable enough, in which I rest my case. However, it lets people understand that English is used by at least two famous countries, and that people sometimes don't want to label their sites as catering to just Americans/Britishmen. "Incorrect" is a prescriptivist POV and I object strongly to the flag's removal if it was done for these reasons. --Kjoonlee 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you use the flag of Spain to denote Spanish-speaking countries? Have you cleared that with the people in Latin America who fought wars with Spain to gain their independence? This language flag stuff is bogus. Wahkeenah 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that is relevant, and I think you're being most uncivil. WP:CIVIL. --Kjoonlee 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've asked you twice what flag is used for the Spanish language. You refuse to answer. It is you who is being uncivil. Wahkeenah 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Things like "bogus" or "so did you invent that" or "fake" are most uncivil. Not answering irrelevant questions is not uncivil. Reread WP:CIVIL, please. --Kjoonlee 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And you are missing at least one point, that UBeR is the one who first raised this issue, not me, an issue which you and others continue to refuse to address. It is also not your place unilaterally to decide what is relevant or not. Before you accuse others of being uncivil, look in the mirror. Wahkeenah 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
All the issues raised by UBeR have been addressed on the talk page, AFAICT. I see some logical fallacies (and factual errors) in your reasoning. --Kjoonlee 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell ya what, son... just answer me one question, and I'll leave ya alone: What flag are you using for the Spanish language? Wahkeenah 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me make an analogy. Double negatives are frowned upon in formal English, but they are normal in French. That they are frowned upon in English is no reason to rule out double negatives in French. How the Spanish flag is used is irrelevant to how the hybrid UK/US flag is used. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And don't call me son. I'm warning you. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with hybrid flags in general, and are trying to push your POV and censor their usage in Wikipedia, please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. --Kjoonlee 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Your own level of civility is now clear. Wahkeenah 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And having re-read the above, it is also clear that this flag is just someone's invention with no real-world standing at all. If you like that description better than "fake" or "bogus", so be it. As long as you don't try to foist it on an article, you're fine. Wahkeenah 04:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Significantly more than "a handful" of links were submitted here on the talk page. Maybe you don't live in the real world. --Kjoonlee 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The number of websites that might use this invention is, to coin a phrase, "irrelevant". Wahkeenah 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but it isn't unattested. That's a big difference. --Kjoonlee 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
To say that numbers are irrelevant would be an error. What if 99% of all websites started using it tomorrow? Would it still be irrelevant? --Kjoonlee 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be 100%, but I don't see any evidence that it has any "official" standing. Wahkeenah 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said it did.. :( --Kjoonlee 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Then you concede that it's bogus. Wahkeenah 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
No, unofficial != bogus. --Kjoonlee 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

if (unofficial == bogus), then Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company would have been doing business under a bogus name. That company only changed to 3M in 2002. --Kjoonlee 05:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So the concept of a Spanish flag has no relevance to the concept of an English flag, yet the name used by a manufacturing company somehow has relevance? Wahkeenah 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
More bickering and no progress. You've addressed one of the three issues I raised. Sure it may not be a NPOV to remove it because I see it as "incorrect"; likewise I believe it would not fall under NPOV because you see it as "correct." "It lets people understand that English is used by at least two famous countries . . ." What kind of nonsense is that? I think it's quite clear, and I think the article clearly points that out without the usage of this illogical flag. (P.S. The United States' official language is not English.) It still stands, however, this article is long enough as it is. It still stands that this flag does little to contribute. It still stands this flag does little to help better understand anything. ~ UBeR
True, but bickering is better than a revert war. That's the purpose of the talk page. I have seen many cases where the arguing got much more uncivil than this one is claimed to be, and the parties eventually reached agreement through vigorous debate. In any case, the flag is currently gone from the article, which is fine. You make a good point that English is not (yet) the official language of the USA, which in fact has no official state language, it's simply English by custom. If English is the official state language of the UK, then the British Flag should be shown to represent English, if anything is to be shown. Wikipedia has its own standard for language designation, usually a 2-letter code (in this case "en") which seems sufficient. There is room for compromise on this, though. In a trivia section, it could be pointed out that this flag (as well as the standard USA and British) are sometimes used icons to click on, in lieu of a menu, for websites that have multiple translations of text selectable. Wahkeenah 08:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So the concept of a Spanish flag has no relevance to the concept of an English flag, yet the name used by a manufacturing company somehow has relevance?
That is correct. You can't prescribe language use or thought just because some other groups do things a different way. However, flaws in logic or hasty generalizations need only one example to be proven as broken. --Kjoonlee 13:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view the diagonal hybrid is extraordinarily ugly. A hybrid Image:Flag-for-English.png made out of the flags of the USA and England would be less offensive. I have, in the contexts described, sometimes seen the Image:Flag_of_England.svg used by itself to undicate available language-choice. -- Evertype·✆ 11:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the latter is that there aren't necessarily very many who would know the flag of England itself. The Union Jack is recognizable most everywhere. Wahkeenah 13:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Millions of people recognize the flag of England. Those who don't might learn something. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the most obvious use of these little flags (both real and fake) is for "which language do you want" icons on web pages. The average such user is less likely to be confused by the British flag than by the English flag. This is especially important if the website owner is trying to sell something. In that case, the last thing you want to do is to tell the reader to get "eddycated". Since American English is so different from English English (according to one user on this page, at least) it would be better to have a separate U.S. flag. Which could point to the same text, don'cha know. :) Wahkeenah 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ugly" is a bit subjective, and we shouldn't use new creations (novelties) at Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 13:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I said "in my view", did I not? And many Wikipedia articles make use of "novelties" created by Wikipedians. But I didn't recommend that we use the flag. I just drew it and think it is better than the diagonal hybrid. -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must have missed it. I just wanted to remind people about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Kjoonlee 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent] So what's this all about? It is a fact that a hybrid UK/USA flag is sometimes used to represent "English language", just as a French flag is used to represent "French language", a Spanish one to represent "Spanish language" etc. No need to discuss whether it's pretty, or whether a cross of St George would be better - what matters is what is actually used, and in surfing around the net I see plenty of evidence for (a) a Union flag and (b) the diagonal-hybrid UK/USA flag; I see no evidence - though maybe someone would care to correct me - for the cross of St George or a version of St George's cross with part of the stars and stripes in the corner. The only remaining question is, Does inserting the flag add anything useful to the article? I am neutral on that - I quite liked it, but I'm not going to fight very strenuously for its restoration - but I certainly see no point in most of the above discussion! Snalwibma 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that was indeed the point - whether it serves any purpose in this particular article. That question seems to have been answered in the negative. Wahkeenah 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian English

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. sticksnstones 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)
      • Yes, that's what I was getting to and surely if a person understands that "zed" and "zee" are same stuff then he has a broader vocabulary. And to add to that, i think one of other issue is the heavy accent of Indians. That surely has got influence from their monther tongues. They may say things perfect in grammar but we may not understand because our ears are not trained for that accent. sticknstones 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You're talking accents more than actual differences in the language. Northern and Southern Americans sometimes have trouble understanding each other, for that reason. Wahkeenah 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I am talking about each of those factors. In indian english, user would never say "I know nothing about it"; he will more like rephrase it like "I don't know anything about it". In american english "I am good" vs "I am fine" are equivalent but it is not same in Indian english. An Indian will always reply as "I am fine" when asked how is he doing. What i am trying to imply is any langauge evolves differently in different countries and is bound to have differences. sticknstones 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Those minor differences are not as significant as the trouble understanding accents. "I'm good" is, of course, incorrect usage, but that's another story. Wahkeenah 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Totally, accent is probably the biggest issue. sticknstones 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
            • For that matter, try talking to a Scot after he's downed a lot of Scotch. Wahkeenah 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Funny. There is another interesting trend in India, most of the younger generation urban Indians don't use hindi alphabets to write Hindi. Probably because they do not need to write anything in hindi, english is accepted everywhere in urban India. Many of them even cannot write hindi alphabets completely without making mistakes. Even when they write emails etc in Hindi they use english script. This phenomenon may be seen in some other countries too but there it is on a very vast scale. sticknstones 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gone?

  • Hey, can somebody tell me why this article no longer exists, nor has a history page? Help! --Kevin 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Apparently, an administrator is removing a revision from the page history, which has to be done when someone posts personal information or violates copyright – Gurch 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Word version of article?

I'd like to start work on a spoken word version of this article--I think that it's extremely important and useful to have a spoken English representation of this article as a reference to and to complement the printed version. However, I'm not sure how I would go about reading the section marked "Phonology", since it's several tables and sections of notes which use special characters to represent the vocal creation of the sounds (please excuse my lack of use of proper terminology, I'm a linguistic neophyte). If anyone has any suggestions as to how I should tackle this section, please let me know and I'll get to work on this page. Thanks, Rahzel 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Canada

I think someone should edit the article on the English Language to reflect that although English is the official language of Canada, that the official language of the Canadian Province of Quebec is French, and that in the Canadian Province of New Brunswick, English and French are Jointly the Official Languages.

If we did that, we'd have to list the official status or otherwise of English in each U.S. state as well, and that's just too much information for this "general overview" kind of article. It should be mentioned at Languages of Canada (if it isn't already). —Angr 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 300 million?

I think this number is a gross underestimation. I believe that more than 300 million people speak english as a first language... A new article may be required —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.85.99 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I would like to know where the numbers are from... It does say 'citation needed' there.

er, the article says "Over 300 million people speak English as their first language". the source from the economist [1] says 380 million, and the ask oxford source [2] says 'over 300 million'. i went with the lower number out of a sense of caution, but added cite to the economist article at the end of the paragraph. i don't see why this would necessitate a new article? frymaster 08:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the, a, and an just aren't enough for a language with over 300 million speakers. —Angr 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
i nominate the new article should be 'that thar' frymaster 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States alone has a population alone over 300 million as of October 2006. The native speakers of English should well be over 400 million.

first, we would need a source for 'over 400 million'. i would not countenance replacing sourced data with stuff that just 'sounded about right'. secondly, i think it's unwise to assume that all residents of the united states speak english as their 'first language'. there are a lot of spanish speakers out there, not to mention other large immigrant communities where english is definitely a second language. -- frymaster
The 2000 U.S. Census reports 215,423,555 people aged 5 and over who speak English at home. —Angr 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gothic interwiki link

I hope that by converting the Gothic letters in the got: interwiki link to HTML entities, corrections like these:

  1. 29 August 2006
  2. 6 September 2006
  3. 15 October 2006
  4. 1 November 2006
  5. 22 December 2006
  6. 5 January 2007

will no longer be necessary. Please no one change them back to characters, and please revert back to the entities if someone (or a bot) does change them back. Thanks! —Angr 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

It seems like some users aggressively want to put English high up in the ranking. I'm the first to admit that counting the number of speakers of any language is often hard, a fact that makes any ranking of languages dubious. The sources used in this article to back up the claims that English is the most spoken language is, to say the least, not satisfactory. Simply stating that "English language is the most widely spoken language in the world. It is used as either a primary or secondary language in many countries" is not that convincing. The world's most widely spoken language as a native language is Mandarine. English, Spanish and Hindi are all quite close. Ethnologue, often used in references within the field of socio-linguistics, ranks English behind both Spanish and Hindi, making English the fourth language when counting native speakers. The ranking given here should reflect that number, unless some very good sources can be put forward to contradict it. (I may point out to those that don't know that you'll need very good sources to overrule Ethnologue. It's not perfect, far from it, but still the most widely used reference in topics such as this. In my opinion, the whole discussion of ranking languages as second language is a bit silly, since it's even harder. How well should a person speak English to be counted as an English speaker? Is it enough to know a few phrases or should he/she speak it fluently?And what about those who speak three languages or more, should they be counted as speakers of each and every language they speak. If it is hard but still possible to count native speakers, counting second language speakers is impossible. JdeJ 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by hard-banned user removed.
I agree that the censuses used by Ethnologue are a bit old, but how old are the sources used in the World Book. I'm not talking about the World Book itself, no matter how often it is updated, I'm talking about the sources it uses. My guess is that they are even older, since they have not recorded that Spanish has grown bigger than English. But as I said, that's my guess and it doesn't really matter. Neither can you calculate like you did. There are millions of French speakers in Canada, and even more millions of Spanish speakers in the United States. Not to mention all the millions who are native speakers of other languages both in the US, Canada and Latin America. This is an encyclopedia and the task should be to have as accurate articles as possible. Regardless of which sources I like or you like, Ethnologue is widely used within academia when discussing the number of people speaking different languages. The World Book is not. Having read well over a hundred academic papers on this matter, I know that to be the case. As long as it is deemed to be the most reliable source by academics writing articles on these topics, I will continue to trust it.JdeJ 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by hard-banned user removed.

We can't use that. WP:NOR. --Kjoonlee 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments by hard-banned user removed.
It's hard to tell if you're joking or not. You're taking statistics on populations and try to prove something completely different, that is indeed original research. I'm sure the figures you have quoted are correct for the population, but they say nothing about language. Counting every person in the UK as a native speaker of English is just one example of how far off it is. Faced with the choice of using a source that is frequently quoted by academics or your home-made analysis based on population statistics, I will go for the respected source.JdeJ 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments by hard-banned user removed.
It's entirely possible that there are 380-400 million native English speakers. You continue to blur the distinction between populations in different countries and speakers of different languages. And with due respect to our common sense, both your and mine, there are bigger experts on this. According to Ethnologue, Spanish has more native speakers. That echoes what I've seen in a number of articles and publications during the last five years.JdeJ 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on a range for ranking? 3-4 with a note on varying estimates sounds reasonable; it most certainly is in the top 100... --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this looks like a glitch. Is there a way to affix the dubious tag without cancelling the data in the ranking (which appears to be the cause of the "Not top 100" output)? --04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"3-4 with a note on varying estimates sounds reasonable" Sounds good to me. I guess it all depends on if one counts Hindi and Urdu as separate languages or not.JdeJ 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This page shows that the number of English speakers as the mother tongue is about 354 million. This means that English will be the 3rd place next to Chinese and Hindi. Also, the total number of English speakers is 1.3 billion to 1.8 billion. This means that it is going to be 1st or 2nd place.--219.125.6.244 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The prospect of an edit war, going back and forth over 3rd or 4th, 1st or 2nd, with someone whose IP address changes daily (create an account already, eh?), PARTICULARLY over something as inconsequential as this, is wearisome in the extreme. So I'm simply not going to participate. But here are my two cents for the discussion here:

Chinese is not one language, it's a group of closely related languages analogous to the Romance languages in Europe. So the only statement that makes any sense is that there are over one billion native speakers of "some form of a Chinese language". I draw your attention to this statement from Standard Mandarin#Role of standard Mandarin:

  • In December 2004, the first survey of language use in the People's Republic of China revealed that only 53% of its population, about 700 million people, could communicate in Standard Mandarin. (China Daily) A survey whose results were released in September 2006 gave the same result. (South China Morning Post)

This tells me that nowhere near a billion people share the same language/dialect as native speakers.

You can't compare apples and oranges. So either compare "Chinese" with the Romance or Germanic languages or compare Beijinghua or Cantonese with English. And use reputable, published sources to do so.

Frankly, a lot of this smells of POV & OR, IMO. --RJCraig 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Imperfect Tense?

In studying Spanish in high school, I was always intrigued by what is known as the Imperfect Tense which I had a hard time understanding but which makes sense. It seems that we have nothing of the sort under the formal rules of correct speech in English which insist upon always maintaining consistency in time between subject and predicate. Yet isn't that a little hidebound and stilted? Isn't the reality sometimes sought to be communicated not that simple and an "imperfect" construction thus more linguistically sophisticated and effective where the statement or act was in the past but has an aspect that continues into the present and future. Thus "He discovered atoms were the building blocks of matter" v. "He discovered atoms are the building blocks of matter" etc. Tom Cod 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked Imperfect tense? It states
In English, the imperfect tense is manifested in the verb phrases:
  • I was eating.
  • I used to eat.
In Romance languages, the imperfect is generally a past tense. Its uses include representing:
  • An action that was happening, used to happen, or happened regularly in the past and on going
  • People, things, or conditions of the past
  • A physical or mental state or condition in progress in the past. Often used with verbs of being, emotion, capability, or conscience. The following verbs are often used in the imperfect in several Romance languages:
  • A time in the past
  • A situation that was in progress in the past when another isolated and important event occurred
Your "the statement or act was in the past but has an aspect that continues into the present and future" sounds more like the present perfect. Compare:
  • His wife (once) had an affair. (over and done with)
  • His wife was having an affair (a few year ago). (same)
  • His wife has been having an affair. (she's still carrying on)
--RJCraig 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

enu as language code?

Adobe is using enu as the language code for its English software (e.g. here ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/7x/7.0.9/)? ISO 639-3 does not contain enu. So what kind of code is it? TIA,--Hhielscher 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Maybe it means "American English", with eng being British English? (As in English-United States vs. English-Great Britain.) —Angr 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nor I, but according to this site [3] it simply stands for "English USA", as you had guessed. What he means by "language code" is anyone's guess. Wahkeenah 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First Language & Second Language

I have a doubt about about demarkation between first language and second language. I grew up in a family where mostly Hindi rather than English was spoken at home though my parents always used english at work. My medium of instruction from pre-school till research was english. I use english at work, with friends and a mixture of english-hindi with wife, siblings. The language I am more comfortable for entertainment (TV, music, movie, newspaper etc) is english though I ocassionaly watch stuff in Hindi too. I was never required to write anything in my life other than in english to the extent that i have almost forgotten hindi alphabets. Hindi was just taught as a second language at school. I live in a state that has a different local language than hindi and I can communicate very effectively in that too when required. Now people like me (in india numbers will go in millions) would be classifed as second language speakers of english or first. genemede 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

2005 Sudan Constitution

This constitution appears to make English an official language in Sudan?

Language

8 (1) All indigenous languages of the Sudan are national languages and shall be respected, developed and promoted.

(2) Arabic is a widely spoken national language in the Sudan.

(3) Arabic, as a major language at the national level and English shall be the official working languages of the national government and the languages of instruction for higher education.

(4) In addition to Arabic and English, the legislature of any sub-national level of government may adopt any other national language as an additional official working language at its level.

(5) There shall be no discrimination against the use of either

Arabic or English at any level of government or stage of education.

This ia available at http://www.sudan-parliament.org/en/details.php?rsnType=1&id=33

Nickhk 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_language_Archive_7_97ec.html"