Talk:English language/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Talk archives for English language (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 13 >>

Contents

Conflicting Statements

This is my first time editing a wikipedia discussion page, so I have no clue if I'm formatting it correctly. But I thought this should be brought to someone's attention. Under the English language section: "English is now the fourth (or possibly third depending on the source) most widely spoken native language worldwide" Under the Geographical distrobution section: "English is the third most widely spoken language in the world today." -- bret

Intonation

I added a section on intonation. I know it's a little vague, but there's more to come. Izehar 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I restored the section on intonation. Everything there comes from this website. If you think that it's not good enough, feel free to remove the section. Izehar 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I found 2 mistakes in your source: It says that the main characteristic of the nucleus is increased loudness. This is simply wrong. The prominence of the nucleus (some linguists deny the existence of a nucleus btw., eg. Autosegmental-metrical intonationalists like Pierrehumbert (Ohio)...) is achieved by pitch variation and NOT loudness.
Your contribution also implies that tone groups are deliminated by pauses caused by breathing which is not true. Check eg. Cruttenden 1997 p. 72 for the (non-)relationship between breathing and intonation groups.

Classification of English

English is considered a Germanic language by language classifiers. However, according to what I find natural to think, English is actually a hybrid of 2 families, Germanic and Romance (namely, Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.) English also somewhat more closely resembles the Romance languages in some ways; the native C as well as the hard and soft G. Any opinions on how English is classified?? Georgia guy 02:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Orthographical habits are irrelevant to the classification of a language, and the use of C in native words as well as hard & soft G are firmly in that category. (Well, actually, English *does* have a "hard and soft C", except that the soft C is spelt "ch", and it also has a "hard and soft G", except that the soft G is spelt "y"—but so does Frisian (which uses "ts" for its "soft C"), and the North Germanic languages (which consistently spell both the hard and soft sounds with "k" and "g"). This is just a common feature of many languages; the part of your mouth/throat your tongue touches when you say the K and (hard) G sounds becomes closer to the front of your mouth if they're near an I or E sound, so it certainly isn't part of a hybridisation.)
English does have a lot of borrwings from French, but grammatically and with most of its most basic words. it's firmly Germanic. That's what counts for the classification. There's no gradual change from Latin into modern English; you can't trace the evolution of words/sounds according to a reliable set of rules, because it depends thoroughly on *when* the borrowings were made, for instance (you can have guidelines, but they break down too easily). On the other hand, there's a very definite evolution from Old English to Modern English, even though you couldn't understand the Old form for all the words and grammatical structures they had we no longer use.
Lots of languages have more than half they're vocabulary borrowed from other languages (e.g. Persian from Arabic; Japanese from Chinese), but that's not enough to re-classify a language.
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Well said, Cassowary. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links section just went on a diet.

These were removed for one or more of the following reasons: extraneous, superfluous, silly, inappropriate, or misplaced (meaning they could easily be put elsewhere in the article, or in a related article). If anyone disagrees... well, put them back. Really, though, that section could stand to be pared down even more. Slainté, --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • La Mansion del Ingles Free site, aimed at Spanish speakers, and dedicated to the study of the English language. Courses, grammar and supplementary material.

West Germanic

I noticed that the Afrikaans article starts "Afrikaans is a West Germanic language" so I thought I would look at English. "English is a West Germanic language".

Why the obsession with "West Germanic"? Why not "Indo-European" or "Germanic"? What percentage of language would have to come from another source before it was not "West Germanic"? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, West Germanic is one of the main branches of Germanic. Because they are quite some differences between West, North and, now extinct , East Germanic it does matter if it is included or not. --Lucius1976 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Functions of intonation

In English, the functions of intonation are

  1. Emotional - intonation can be used to express the speakers attitude; e.g. sarcasm, delight, anger etc
  2. Grammatical - intonation can be used to identify grammatical structure in speech, performing a similar role to punctuation.
  3. Informational - intonation can be used to draw attention to what meaning is given and what is new in an utterance.
  4. Textual - intonation can be used to make larger units of meaning than sentences cohere and contrast.
  5. Psychological - intonation can be used to organise speech into units that are easier to memorise
  6. Indexical - intonation along with other prosodic features is an important aspect of personal or social identity.

I found the above on page 249 - "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language" by David Crystal, published by Cambridge University Press 1995. Would it be a copyright infringement if it were used (I changed it a little, in order to differentiate from the book)? I am still trying to find the balance between Wikipedia:Verifiability and citing sources and copyright infrnigments. Izehar 15:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I also propose that the section English language#Intonation be moved to English phonology. This article is too long anyway, and that section is too much detail for a general page. Izehar 15:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Official languages of New Mexico. Not?

This article states that Spanish as well as English are "official languages" of New Mexico. There has been ongoing discussion at Talk:New_Mexico#Official_language about this. Though that article still lists English and Spanish as official languages its infobox, that's not how I see the preponderance of the evidence piling up on the talk page:

  • Spanish is protected by the state constitution. However, that is the limit of the language. The constitution protects the status of the Spanish language in the state and prohibits discrimination on that basis. Nowhere, however, is Spanish cited as an "official language" --ABQCat 05:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the myth that New Mexico has two official languages started from the fact that when New Mexico became a state, Spanish was given protection for a period of time (since expired). I can find no evidence that any language is either official or "protected" in New Mexico at present. — 70.176.142.8 21:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Jack Quinn
  • The Reference Department has checked the state statutes and confirmed with the Supreme Court Law Library that New Mexico does not have an official language. ... Reference Desk/bjm refer@state.nm.us — Thanks to the refdesk. WikiDon 17:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That last bit sounds rather authoritative. Doubtless a bilingual state in many practical aspects, it may not be "officially" so. May depend on how you define "official". -- Kbh3rd 15:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Would English also be considered an official language of NATO? Ryan Salisbury 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

US or UK first?

English is a West Germanic language that is spoken in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, and many other countries.

Why is the UK first? I would argue that the US has more people and is more significant on the world scene. -Grick(talk to me!) 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! As it stands: it makes sense to list the UK first since English originated from there (hence England); this implies a historical importance beyond mere numbers. The US has more people speaking it, hence its mention after the UK. The first five countries listed are the five 'core' members of the Anglosphere; thus, one can also argue that major countries should only be listed alphabetically (which isn't preferential). Perhaps the sentence needs to be massaged slightly? This shouldn't be a big deal, though. Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony 06:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Alphabetical listing seems to be the best and most fair solution. The articles about Spanish lists the countries where it is spoken alphabetically. In most language entries the countries are listed by population with the country where the language originated first because that is usually as is the case with French or Russian the country with the most native speakers. English like Spanish is one of the few (if not the only two) exceptions to this rule. Right now the countries in this entry are listed according to native speaker populations except with the United Kingdom first, which does not seem very neutral in my opinion. The status of the UK as the origin of English is already discussed in the article, so I don't see why its historic importance should be decisive for listing the countries. There is also a section of the article on the geographical distribution of the language; another reason why the current non-neutral listing is unneccesary. Listing alphabetically seems like a good solution. In the case of Spanish, Spain is listed after Mexico and Argentica for instance. I went ahead and listed the countries by alphabet which should stop any disputes on the placing of the UK or USA. --Nikostar 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Belatedly, this makes sense to me ... there are many ways to skin a cat. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree rather a lot with a plain alphabetical ordering. I have edited this in to an historical ordering which makes sense. "Alphabetic neutrality" is just too weird. Evertype 15:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
As above (and as well according to others), I've reverted this recent change and restored the neutral alpha listing: the "historical" ordering was too weird, with a heck of a lot of unnecessary/odd "to"s. Moreover, the order (subjective, methinks) didn't add any value and may actually lead one to believe that English spread worldwide in the order indicated, which is rather incorrect. E Pluribus Anthony 15:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
"According to others"? I see no such consensus. I see that you looked at an article about Spanish and decided that alphabetic neutrality made sense. I do not think it makes sense. English has a special relation to Britain and Ireland in the first instance, to the English-speaking countries Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in the second, and countries like India, Pakistan, and the rest of the world are definitely NOT appropriately intermingled with the rest of those. Sri Lanka, for heaven's sake, is Sinhala- and Tamil-speaking. Listing it between Ireland and the United Kingdom is, well, not very smart in my opinion. I am minded to revert to the historical/cultural reality of the use of English, and if you don't like all the "to"s you can edit the text. But alphabetical from Australia to the US with Pakistan in the middle? That's just absurd. Evertype 23:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree but there is nothing absurd about alphabetical listing Evertype. In fact it seems to be the fairest and most logical solutions for any disputes about the placing of the USA and UK and it is undoubtedly the most neutral way to list countries. It works well enough for the article on Spanish and like I said in my first post here the geographic distribution of English as well as information on the historical origin of the language (in England) are both mentioned in the body of the article so there is no overwhelming reason why the countries should listed according to "historical importance" as somebody called it. The old listing method was a totally subjective banged-together combination with the UK first, the US second, and and the former white dominions of the Britsh Empire listed by population and other countries (regardless of native speaker population) preceding. It was totally subjective and led to the argument about whether the US, with by far the largest number of native speakers, or the UK, where the language originated, should come first. Alphatising the list is simply the most neutral and non-offensive way to list the countries. Anybody worried that this method does not reflect the importance/native speaker population of certain countries or the history of the language should remember that we are talking about a few short lists - the main body of the article provides in-depth information about where the language originated and where it is most widely spoken. Please kind that in mind before criticizing this method. --Nikostar 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with N: an alphabetical listing is neutral and not at all absurd; listing the countries "historically" as was done is not only absurd (IMO) but "weird" and incorrect. The article elaborates about the historical and general importance of American English, et al. And while I actually didn't take a glance at the Spanish article before asserting this herein, conversely, I see NO consensus supporting your edits, E. Simply: we needn't have to edit out superfluous language or notions that unnecessarily complicate this issue. E Pluribus Anthony 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The alphabetical listing is simply silly and the "neutrality" adds nothing to the article. The origin of English in Britain, and its early export to Ireland, is historically important. The spread of English in diaspora to become on the one hand the primary language of the US and Canada, of Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa is also important, and the third type of country listed is, in my view, misleading with regard to the status of English. There are a great many countries in which English may be used officially -- many more than are in this brief list. I maintain my view, that listing Ireland and Pakistan together in this short list is an error and detracts from the usefulness of the article. Why are Zimbabwe and Liberia not listed? Or any of the monoglot English-speaking countries in the Caribbean? Nikostar, in particular, my listing was not "totally subjective" or "banged together" even though a previous one may have been. My listing was based on historical and cultural reality, which are of interest in an article of this sort. Evertype 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

We agree to disagree. Why don't you just exapnd on this notion (as you suggest) in the history or geographic sections of the article, where this would be more appropriate? Feel free to solicit more support for your edits upfront, until then ... E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree an alphabetical listing is uninformative in the opening paragraph and the language infobox. (In the "Geographic distribution" section, on the other hand, alphabetical lists of all countries where English is a primary or official language does make sense.) I'd say, in the opening paragraph and the infobox, put the U.K. first, because that's where English spread to the rest of the world from. After that, list the (subjectively defined) "most important" English-speaking countries in order of population of English speakers, and then stick an "and others" at the end. These lists will then look something like "United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and others". (I'm not sure about the ordering between Canada and Australia or between New Zealand and Ireland, but you get the idea.) That seems to me to be a nice, intuitive ordering of the countries most people will expect to be listed. --Angr (t·c) 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. The "historical" ordering in the intro was equally uninformative and misleading, and why should a list ordered by chronology or population – "subjectively defined" – take precedence over an alphabetical one that is not? (You will see, A., that I initially supported (weakly) an order similar to the one you suggest.) And is this, or should this be, a precedent for other languages? Without significantly reorganising the intro/articles, I dissent.
I think there's room for everything. Why not just order countries appropriate to the context: in chronological order (summarising the spread of English worldwide) in the history section where it makes sense to, et al., in descending order when listing countries by population, and alpha everywhere else and where it's intuitive (e.g., lists)? In any event, I think we're overcomplicating this and losing sight of what an introduction should be: informative yet summative. E Pluribus Anthony 21:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You ask "why should a list ordered by chronology or population – 'subjectively defined' – take precedence over an alphabetical one that is not?" The answer is, that a listed ordered by chronology or population is ordered by something informative, whereas an alphabetical list is basically randomized. The order of the alphabet is completely arbitrary; it would make as much sense to list the countries in order of their annual average rainfall. And all I was suggesting be subjectively defined is what counts as the "most important English-speaking countries", not the ordering of the list. I agree an introduction should be informative (which an alphabetical listing isn't) and summary (which is why only the "big six" should be listed in the intro). --Angr (t·c) 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. We're not talking about countries' annual rainfall in the introduction: we're summarising in one sentence where the English language is spoken ... not how it spread nor how many people speak it. These countries can be ordered any arbitrary way – subjective or otherwise. Simple solution: eliminate any ambiguity and favouritism upfront by listing them alphabetically: wikilinks are more than informative.
I think to do otherwise introduces unnecessary or erroneous assumptions. For example, what are the most important countries and by what measure: population, media penetration, online instances? The five?seven core countries of the Anglosphere? How about South Africa? Etc. Too many assumptions that I won't belabour. Perhaps the entire intro/article needs restructuring. In the interim: if a visitor or editor believes it prudent to order or elaborate on any number of these notions and to sufficiently inform a visitor, they should do so first in the appropriate sections and within context. E Pluribus Anthony 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on. The randomized order you propose suggests that Ireland and Pakistan are equivalent in their use of English, and that simply isn't true. This does not "inform a visitor" of anything sensible. I will revert this article to a non-random presentation over the next day or two. Evertype 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, come on: alphabetical is not random, it's neutral. Your examples, E., demonstrate why they might be subjective: note that English is official in both Pakistan and Ireland (where other languages have prevailed) but its official status (despite its obvious influence) is not legislated in the UK or US. The cat can be skinned any number of ways.
I'm not saying the intro can't be improved or pruned or ordered any which way (e.g., including only countries/territories with dialects where substantial numbers speak them (as listed) or the five/seven core countries of the Anglosphere with qualifiers) ... but not with the erroneous historical connotation of your prior edit. I am not alone in proposing an alpha order and, as a consensus for neither exists, you have not compelled otherwise. Let's try to enhance the article as suggested instead of insinuating an arbitrary order for countries upfront. Do as you must, but unless compelled otherwise, any bad edits that are neither informative nor sensible will be corrected (as before) and invite others to do the same. E Pluribus Anthony 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the alphabetical listing is way too weird. You start reading the article and see that it is the language spoken in Canada, India, and Pakistan, before the United Kingdom? I would think English should be defined is the language of the English people. That it is spoken in other countries (as a native language or otherwise) comes later, and that, I feel, can be in any order. Alternatively, the introduction can be very general, like the ones in Spanish language, French language, or German language - Cribananda 05:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree (see my prior comments at the beginning of this section, and also afterwards), but I think much of this debate was linked to an order based on an arguably erroneous historical listing/spread. I think alpha works but I'd also support a def that is more general (q.v. a dictionary), indicates the UK ((England) first then alpha, or all alpha, and not based on number of speakers/population (such an order appear should appear in the infobox already and appropriately, methinks). E Pluribus Anthony
The point I'm trying to make is that the article obviously looks like a result of disagreement (made to sound politically correct) rather than encyclopaedic. When I want to learn about the English language, saying that it is a language spoken in <an alphabetical list of countries where English is spoken> is hardly helpful. It is very difficult to stop that list with any number of countries. I'm sure there are people in almost every country in the world that *can* speak English, and it is not possible to include all of them. India, Pakistan, and the like have very few native speakers. The list should be reduced to UK, the commonwealth, and former British colonies. And just for the record, I am an Indian living in the US :-) Cribananda 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree. Be bold and edit and we'll see if it's agreeable: IMO, cite a source for validity like a dictionary. I'm really neither here nor there regarding this, but maintain that some prior versions/edits and rationale are questionable. E Pluribus Anthony 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed it to the best I can think of. If somebody can do better, that would be great. Cribananda 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! I tweaked it slightly, nixing one of the (to me) redundant sentences regarding colonialism. E Pluribus Anthony 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That does sound much better, thanks!! Cribananda 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a pleasure doing business with you! (FYI: I'm writing this to you from north of the border, and have a pedigree too contorted to explain briefly.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 :) Must be very late indeed in Toronto. I'd better head to sleep - from not just south, but also way west. Cheers! Cribananda 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Folk language

Folk language is very hard to get rid of. How common is folk language?? To clarify what I mean, I mean something that is the way it is for historical reasons and doesn't reflect the present view. How common is folk language in English?? Georgia guy 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yod coalescence an Aussie thing?

The Basic sound-letter correspondence has this to say.

IPA Alphabetic representation Dialect-specific
tʃ ch, tch occasionally tu future, culture; t (+ u, ue, eu) tune, Tuesday, Teutonic (Australian English)
dʒ j, g (+ e, i, y), dg (+ e, i, consonant) badge, judg(e)ment d (+ u, ue, ew) dune, due, dew (Australian English)

Is it really only in Australian English that tune, Tuesday, Teutonic, dune, due, dew are pronounced with postalveolar affricates? I thought that this would common in most forms of Commonwealth English. Jimp 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I pronounce them that way in my variety of British English. I am by no means a speaker of RP, but I think I speak for the majority of my countrymen in saying that they talk this way too. Matthew 12:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Genitive case

User Cassowary claims that English has no genitive case. How would he classify the 's in expressions like "a person's right". −Woodstone 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The same way he would classify the ’s in "the girl next door's cat", "the window he broke's frame" or "the guy whose foot I stepped on's toe". Case markings attach only to nouns (and pronouns): If it was a genitive case, you'd have things like *"the window's he broke frame" or *"the guy's toe whose foot I stepped on" or something, which are both ungrammatical; and the door would own the cat. It's a clitic... —Felix the Cassowary 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In those examples the " 's" attaches to a nominal phrase and as such is an extension of the genitive formation of nouns. −Woodstone 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
English does have a genitive case. "The king's horse" is no different from German "des Königs Pferd" or Danish "kongens hest". Evertype 15:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Felix is right, English doesn't have a genitive case; at least, English nouns aren't inflected for genitive case. The possessive clitic ’s is etymologically derived from a genitive ending, but it isn't one anymore. Synchronically, the king's horse is structurally more like nonstandard German dem König sein Pferd or like Afrikaans die koning sy perd than it is like des Königs Pferd. Felix's examples above show this: you can't say *des Kerl, auf dessen Fuß ich getreten bin, -s Zehe in German. A genitive case ending would have to be attached to the noun in the genitive; that's the nature of inflectional morphology. A possessive clitic like ’s or non-standard German sein, can attach to a whole noun phrase. (I'm pretty sure dem Kerl, dem ich auf den Fuß getreten bin, seine Zehe is possible in the relevant dialects of German, though die Zehe von dem Kerl, dem ich auf den Fuß getreten bin is more idiomatic.) --Angr (t·c) 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Anomalous distribution of the genitive over complex syntactic structures is a very different thing from an ordinary genitive. Des Bischofs Pferd and the bishop's horse are equivalent in just the same way as Richards Pferd and Richard's horse are. The South African example you give is an example of where the genitive has been lost. But we in English do not (standardly) say the bishop his horse any more than we say Richard his horse. English has NOT lost its genitive. Evertype 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No, we don't, because the possessive clitic in English isn't his, it's ’s. But it is a clitic, not a case ending. --Angr (t·c) 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether English 'has' a genitive case or not depends on the linguistic analysis. One phenomenon can be analyzed in many different ways, and a technical term like 'genitive case" can mean different things in different theories. It is true that postulating an English genitive complicates the analysis of phrases like "the King of France's dog" by requiring a theory of "anomalous distribution of the genitive over complex syntactic structures", but perhaps this is motivated by some principle that is basic to a particular grammatical theory, or by a simplification to the analysis in some other area (though I can't think of any off the top of my head).

In any case, the Wikipedia Way is not to decide substantive differences by discussion, but by reference to the literature. If you look hard enough, you can probably find theories of English grammar which do and which don't use the category "genitive" for nouns, maybe even mainstream ones (whatever they would be). --Macrakis 08:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Closest relative?

I am curious about the odd reference to Scots as the closest relative to English. Surely the miss-named American English or any of the other modern versions can claim a closer relationship? I intend to correct this paragraph shortly. Markb 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

American English isn't a relative of English, it's one of several dialects of English. Scots is generally considered a separate language, not a dialect of English. --Angr (t·c) 11:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Geographic distribution

I've altered this to make it clear that versions of English are spoken by a large number of people. As Canadian English, Australian English etc. are listed in Wikipedia as different varieties of English, it would be wrong to state that only one version is spoken by all these people.Markb 10:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraphs of the Geographic distribution section refer to the English language considered as a whole, not to the individual dialects separately. --Angr (t·c) 11:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

History section

I have moved the full text of the History section to serve as an introduction to the main article, History of the English language. That done I summerised the section. Although my main motivation here was to give the main article an intro I think that similar things should probably be done to other sections the because article is rather long. Jimp 11:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

comments

"However, recent ongoing studies seem to indicate that in deep antiquity, English and Tamil, a classical language of India may have shared common ancestory. Likewise Tamil is also linked to the ancient Australian languages. Please see tamil.bloki.com More research is required to illustrate how the variantions in the subsequent developments of these languages took place."

What is this????? These facts are highly questionable and should be removed.... It's like the languages of Africa being related to Chinese.... There is no correlation between the Dravidan languages and English... English is a 2nd generation Germanic language and a part of the Indo-European family. However the Hindi languages are part of the Indo-European family since they descended from Sanskrit. I read the website and I think those facts leave a lot to be desired. No linguists I know have EVER confirmed ANY link between English and Tamil. I removed that comment - Unless I FIND anything in ANY book to confirm this - this is plain garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rggca61 (talk • contribs) .

Absolutely with you - the first time that I am hearing about Tamil and English having common ancestry. AFAIK, some 10-20 words from Tamil have entered English language, which is natural, given the British Rule of India. --Gurubrahma 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's just been trying to vandalise the article. Don't think he/she is trying to make a point... - Cribananda 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you went to the website and read it carefully - you would find it even more ridiculous. The author stated that Tamil words morphed into English... As far as I am concerned there were no English people or Germanic people in India in the Bronze age and they certainly did not have any influence in the Culture of India until colonization. I think this author would be laughed out of any major university that teaches English. He failed to take into account Old or Middle English or even the relationship with the entire Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family. He went straight to comparing the Dravidian language with Modern English words which is the wrong route to take for anyone doing comparative linguistics. His argument is very very weak.

Philippines

The Philippines should be shaded on the map. -- Jonny 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article, "In many other countries, where English is not a major first language, it is an official language; these countries include Cameroon, Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Ghana, Gambia, India, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe."

I don't think it should be included. English may be official but it's not used in a regular fashion such as conversation like England, US, Canada, etc. The usage there is probably the same as in countries such as Samoa, Singapore - where some maybe speakers are bilingual. However because of the influence from the American Colonial period - a pidgin Tagalog exists... "Taglish.-" but it isn't english; it's still Tagalog with a heavy dose of English loan words. The syntax, word order and everything else remains steadfastly Filipino.

English Official Language of Canada

Currently, the article makes a difference between countries where English is the sole de jure official language, and such where it is one among several official languages. Shouldn't Canada be listed in the latter category? Blur4760 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)