Talk:English language in England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English language in England article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 British English? 2 Selected Languages and Accents Map 3 Yorkshire 4 Broad A 5 Northern England and the Midlands 6 Bin in the West Midlands dialect 7 Some problems with this article 8 Soaps comment 9 Cure, sure, pure 10 "Considered offensive" 11 One English Language, different usages? 12 [ʌɪ] for the "eye" vowel 13 Stigma 14 Inaccurate map 15 Staffordshire 16 Stress 17 English English is as much a dialect as US-American English is 18 English English v British English 19 Manchester 19.1 November 2006, followup 20 North East England 21 Examples of people with accents 22 Point for consideration 23 Examples 24 Norfolk Accent 25 Ng-coalescence 26 Rename 27 Merge Proposal Sep 2007 28 Moved 29 mention of North-American English in the article 30 "English English" is a grotesque tautology 31 Requested move: English in England 32 Only two dialects in use? 33 The King's English 34 Just plain English

[edit] British English?

There are English English dialects in which the final "r" is pronounced. --Pauldanon 12:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this not included in British English? RickK 22:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Because British English is about all the varieties of English as written and spoken in Great Britain; this article is specifically about spoken accents in England (not Scotland or Wales). --Angr/_comhrá 14:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, the vast majority of articles point to British English. English English isn't even mentioned in the List of dialects of the English language list though British English is. Moreover, the assertion that "British English is about all the varieties of English as written and spoken in Great Britain" is questionable. I would be willing to bet that most people using the term "British English" are not thinking of Scottish English, Hiberno-English, or even Welsh English —Nefertum17 05:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's likely because "British English" doesn't refer to various flavors of "British Isles English". Rather, it is something more akin to "British Empire English"—the language spoken by British officials and businesspeople when working abroad, for example. The way the rest of the world got to understand "British English"—an outside-looking-in view. As such, it has a notable military and bureaucratese flavor as well. Remember, too, that worldwide television broadcasts are a very recent invention; that was the primary way in which the world got to identify a particular type of speaking and writing as "British English", by this usage. Gene Nygaard 08:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selected Languages and Accents Map

Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete...

I can think of at least seven accents in the "Southern Irish" area. This map is obviously created by an English person with no understanding of other accents in the isles. Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaeilge are mutually unintelligible. Northern Irish is spoken in the Republic of Ireland.

Estuary English pervades more of England than is shown.

"Scottish" is vague and has regional variants.

"Norfolk/Suffolk/Essex" is not correct. As Essex is split in two by accent and the East Anglian accent is spoken in Cambs, Herts, Beds and is no different from the accent spoken in Northants, Oxon, Worcs and so on.

The map is better off deleted, as it will only create confusion for people not from the UK and Ireland who know better than what this map tries to purport. --Jm butler 10:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly could be improved. I think it'd be a better idea to have separate maps, and let the users of regional pages go into the details. For the England one, I'd suggest a broad colour-coding (north vs south) treating southern England, outside greater London, as a basic southern rural accent with regional variants (West Country, East Anglia) noted. Estuary, as you say, has a huge spread, particularly westward to Slough and Swindon, as well as a general association with urban areas right across the south. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try to sketch something out. RayGirvan 17:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the most alarming thing about the map is that "Geordie" is pointing at Middlesbrough! That really does need altering very soon. The two do not sound alike at all. I think that some might resent the definitions of "Yorkshire" and "Lancashire", although I can see some point in it. It would be nice if it was a bit clearer. I think that area where Yorkshire and Lancashire are said to overlap is Wakefield and Barnsley, which are known for their distincive accent ["Kes"]. Speaking of "Kes", I put it down in the references a while back and it is now gone. Why? That is one of the most famous examples of dialect in culture.

It's still there on the Yorkshire dialect and accent page. Feel free to put it back here too.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

This map is pretty awful if you'll forgive me for saying so. As a Scotsman, I can tell the difference between more than seven Scottish accents/dialects (North East, North Eastern Lowlands, South Eastern Lowlands, Western Lowlands, Central Lowlands, Highlands, Caithness/Orkney/Shetland as well as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen all having distinct urban accents/dialects), obviously a non-Scotsman might not be able to define quite as many which i understand, but the map should at least hint at some kind of East/West or North/South divide across Scotland. Perhaps the "Glasgow" and "Edinburgh" is supposed to do this although I find this inadequate. I would suggest cutting Scotland, Wales and Ireland from this to provide a more detailed map.

I am from Lancashire, and can define many different accents from the area (Manc, the rhotic accents, Rochdale/Oldham/Bury, North Lanc). It will always be the case that dialects are recognizable to the trained ear from one small place to the next (eg counties, even towns). We have to presume that the articles are written for those not "in the know", so generalization is needed, otherwise we'd get in a big mess. Boothman 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment about the North/South split of accents is incorrect - it says the split goes from the Wash to Hereford, and that that reflects the division between Anglo-Saxon England and the Danelaw. The Danelaw split was the other way (a \ not a / ) as it ran from roughly Chester to London. 135.196.62.70 12:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire

As it's unreferenced I can't check the facts but there are two obvious errors:

"It should be noted that that the three ridings of Yorkshire cover a huge area; vowel sounds and usage are quite different in Hull, Headingley, and Halifax. Also, the divisions into West, South, North, East Yorkshire by the post office has little correlation with accent [e.g. York and Leeds sound more alike than York and Scarborough]."

Headingley and Halifax are both in West Yorkshire, Hull is East Yorkshire. If places names begining with H are wanted I suggest Headingley is replaced by one in North or South Yorkshire.

The division into north/south/east/west is nothing to do with the post office! It's the Ridings and is now reflected by the organisation of local government. 81.187.43.179 06:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No. The ridings were completely different: the West Riding covered the whole of West and South Yorkshire, parts of what is now Lancashire, Harrogate, Ripon, Goole - about half of Yorkshire! The West/South/North/Humberside thing was for local government 1974-1996, but are now merely for the post office. The county councils for West and South Yorkshire were abolished in 1986. In 1996, Humberside was abolished and a few other reforms took place, which I think are a bit too boring to reproduce here. I'm not sure whether Middlesbrough now counts as Yorkshire again or not, seeing as Cleveland was also abolished.

I think that the H thing is a toy on the old toast "God save us from Hell, Hull and Halifax." I suggest Hemsworth to be added instead of Headingley, as a representative of the pits.

[edit] Broad A

What's the source for the claim that Brummie uses a broad A in cast etc.? In my experience it doesn't, at least in most of the words in question. --JHJ 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think the evidence is that it's variable; see the links at the foot of the Brummie page to English Accents and Dialects annotated samples. RayGirvan 03:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK. It seemed better to use the link to the Brummie page than to duplicate the information here.--JHJ 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern England and the Midlands

I think these sections could do with a check of sources (such as Wells's book, mentioned in the references) and much more use of IPA rather than respellings (which often don't work very well: what sounds does "Lestoh" actually indicate?). I've tried to improve a few sections, but I think it needs a lot more.--JHJ 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bin in the West Midlands dialect

By any chance is bin related to the German bin, which also means "am"? There wasn't a note as there is for ay, so I figured I'd mention this here. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ June 29, 2005 23:37 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems with this article

First of all, could someone find a better example of a Yorkshire accent than Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I mean they're comedy northerners. I would delete it by I can't think of any replacements off the top of my head, but there must be loads.

Agreed, I've deleted it.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Secondly, I don't thin "wigga" is actually a British term. I've never heard it used in a British context, only an American one.

I don't know about this. If no-one comes up with a source for its use in a British context in the next few days, then go ahead and delete that bit.--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Also, this article is well written but it seems a bit too academic to me;

random example "The diphthong /aɪ/ (as in price) realised as [ʌɪ] or [ɔɪ], sounding more like the diphthong in Received Pronunciation choice."

I'm not sure what your problem is here. You've got phonetic transcriptions for those who can read them and a comparison with a "reference" vowel for those who can't. Can you elaborate? --JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Or "In traditional West Country accents, the voiceless fricatives /s,f,θ,ʃ/ are often voiced to [z,v,ð,ʒ]".

Come again? If I wasn't British I wouldn't understand a word of this. What is a fricative? Can't this article be made a bit more intelligible to the average reader? JW 30 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I've expanded this a bit, and provided a link to a page which defines "fricative".--JHJ 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Just a thought but isn't Cockney Rhyming slang also refered to as English English? = JVG 14:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soaps comment

The soap "Emmerdale" is set in Yorkshire, yet almost all of the actors have Lancashire accents. "Coronation Street" is set in Lancashire, yet the actors mostly speak with Yorkshire accents.

Really? I watch Coronation Street and I am from Yorkshire living in Lancashire. I simply don't believe this. Can anyone give me a specific example? Can I find out who else wants this comment deleting?

-- OwlofDoom 09:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Both soaps use actors from either side of the divide. Whoever made the opening comment is obviously from darn sarf.

Unless there's a reasonably reliable source for it, I'd favour deleting it.--JHJ 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cure, sure, pure

Someone recently added the following: A long vowel sound is usually broken down into two separate vowels. This is most common in the words "cure", "pure" and "sure". Whilst younger Northerners may only use this for those three words, the older generations will perform this for almost any long vowel.

Now I think I know what this is referring to, a tendency to pronounce words with the RP diphthong /ʊə/ with a sequence [uːə] so that sure can sound like "shoo-er" (although the paragraph doesn't make this clear), but as it stands it needs serious improvement. What is meant by "almost any long vowel"? I don't believe that this happens to long vowels such as the one in start. Is there any source for the claim, particularly the suggestion of an age difference? I haven't deleted the paragraph yet, but I will if it doesn't get improved.--JHJ 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No improvement was forthcoming, so it's gone.--JHJ 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Considered offensive"

Another dubious addition: To many natives of England the term English English is considered offensive with its implication that the English speak a variant of their own language. In the absence of any source for this claim, I'm going to delete it.--JHJ 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people in England do find the phrase odd. Personally I think "England's English" or "English of England" is preferable. But they sound odd too! --MacRusgail 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find it offensive and I know other people do too. The official language is simply "English". The term is illogical (describing something with the same adjective twice is simply not done) and outside linguistic academia, I think you'd get a lot of blank stares if you started talking about "English English". This article needs to be quite clear in showing this term is only used by/for linguists as it is being referred to by people debating other topics. I've put it back in and made it slightly less assertive. Wiki-Ed 17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That you find it offensive isn't really evidence that this is a widespread view, and its appearance in the first paragraph detracts from the point of the article, which is to describe (and provide links to other articles describing) the varieties of the English language spoken in England. I agree that the term is a bit odd (though it is the natural parallel to American English, Scottish English, New Zealand English etc.) and isn't very widely used, but I don't see why anybody would take offence. If you don't like the term, then it might be a better idea to suggest a change in the name of this page.--JHJ 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In conversation, I've usually used the phrase Native English to avoid ambiguity.

- Astatine 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't change it - it would appear to be what linguists call English spoken in England (presumably for want of a better term). However, lay people would not comprehend it and if you were to explain I suspect it would be considered nonsense. I am not about to commission a Mori poll to ascertain whether or not this is true - I'd rather put my money into sending linguists on history courses - but I think I can safely assume that I am not in a minority of one. Unfortunately without sources it just makes me look like I am putting forward some kind of English nationalist POV... :(

Personally I think the first paragraph of an article should be an introduction to the topic, and where you are using a bit of potentially contentious terminology it as well to put a disclaimer in explaining how/where/when the term is used. In this case it would prevent casual readers from mistakenly thinking this is some kind of new mainstream name for -English- where it is in fact a niche academic term. Wiki-Ed 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this article epitomizes the huge US bias in the English Wikipeida. Why should such a nonsense phrase as 'English English' be used to describe the English language as spoken by The English? Why should the language I was taught by my English parents in my English home and later in English lessons in my English school have to be have such a ridiculous title? Where are the articles on Irish Irish, French French, German German etc? Markb 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with MarkB, this does once again show up the huge Americentric nature of Wikipedia. Boothman 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm American, so my opinion will probably strike some people as biased . . . but I don't see that there's any America-centrism at work here. There are so many varieties of English, spoken in so many places on the globe, that it is sometimes useful to specify that you're talking about English as spoken in England, as opposed to the way it's spoken in New Zealand, or South Africa, or Canada, or Australia, or India, or even the United States.

Nobody talks about "Irish Irish" because there never was an Irish Empire, and consequently the Irish language has not been spread throughout the world as English was. But I have encountered the term "French French", used to indicate French as it is spoken in France, and not the way it's spoken in Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Haiti, and other places. There probably are similar terms for German (which has sizable native-speaker communities in Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein) and for Spanish (the native language of far more people outside of Spain than in it). The same goes for Portuguese; it's sometimes necessary to distinguish between the Brazilian variety of the language and the one spoken in Portugal. You can expect to see similar terminology applied to the language of any country that had a colonial empire in recent centuries.

One could certainly argue that "English as spoken in England" should be the default meaning of "English language". I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But in some contexts, it's ambiguous to just say "English" and assume that your audience knows what you mean. To be more specific, you'll be forced to "English English" or something like it. No disrespect for England or its people is intended when Americans use this sort of terminology; we're just trying to be clear about what we mean.

But I've wandered too far from the original topic of discussion, which was the following statement: To many natives of England the term English English is considered offensive with its implication that the English speak a variant of their own language. If many natives of England really do feel that way, then it's perfectly valid to document that feeling in an article titled "English English". So the real question is: how widespread is this sentiment? Can anyone provide a non-anecdotal source? Pat Berry 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Impossible, since English English only exists on internet sites such as this and a few obscure linguistic papers. Nobody in England will have heard of English English, and when encountering the term would probably say, "What's that!?" I'm sure if you were to conduct a poll in England with the question "What do you think of English English?", 90% of the people would wonder what the hell it was and the rest would consider it a useless and confusing phrase. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Thus begging the question, how can any native Englanders be offended by something they've never heard of? Apparently only a scant 10% would even be able to pick up on the meaning. By the way, I hope that everyone here is aware that 58% of all statistics are made up on the spot... 138.69.160.1 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One English Language, different usages?

Strange. In general no-one in England says "English English" or "British English" as a rule, just "English". As a child, rightly or wrongly, I learnt that there is one language called "English" in the native tongue but many different "usages". Thus there is American usage, Australian usage, Irish usage, but only one language: "English". At least, this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defined it! "British English" and its derivatives are regarded as an Americanism. Now, native English speakers tend to adopt Americanisms when speaking to people who are familiar with this usage, simply because doing so is expedient as native English speakers are generally familiar with most American, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, South African, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian usages through the media of tv, film, music, the internet, direct contact or through relatives in these countries. Thus you will hear English natives use the term "British English" or "American English" for this reason, or simply because they do not know better and that, in fact, this is simply American usage of English to describe the usage spoken in Britain.

"British English" used by non-English nationals can be construed as slightly offensive by some English people depending on their mood and inclination perhaps because it comes across as something of a slight, since it implies "loss of ownership" of their own tongue, something that native speakers from England might find somewhat preposterous because by definition it is the language of the English nation. I think a lot of English feel the English language "belongs" to them. It's ours! Not in an over-the-top "Rah! Rah! England!" way, but in a reserved matter-of-fact way. If you know what I mean? Insofar as, anything else is absurd. In pub talk I have often heard people comment along the lines of: "No one says 'French French or Spanish Spanish in English because that is ridiculous, almost equally so is 'British English' or 'English English' though 'we know what you mean!'". This is probably because the phrase "English English" sounds tautological and is probably a genuine pleonasm, especially in the context of discussing different English usages. Nonetheless, "we know what you mean" but it sounds contrived, gramatically odd in fact.

Interestingly English spoken as a second language is usually the most difficult "usage" for native English speakers to comprehend because of pronunciation, intonation, inflection, and mixed registers and use of native language grammar. However,once a decent fluency is acheived, foreign accents sound positively exotic and are very pleasant on the ear! IMHO, anyone who take the time and effort to learn a foreign language (and way of thinking, openess to new cultures, views and history) deserves a pat on the back. No doubt my attempts to speak other languages is just as tricky for native speakers to understand despite my best attempts to get it right. So I sympathise totally with all sencond/third language speakers of English! I suppose this is so for all native speakers listening to second or third language speakers :-)

Spelling-wise, I learnt the major reason for different American spelling of the same words was due to the publication of the American Heritage Dictionary which introduced simplified spelling based on pronunciation to help improve literacy in post Civil War America. Fair enough. It does cause gip in spelling tests when the teacher goes off on one about American spellings though! Good for a laugh, innit?!

At the end of the day, we English shouldn't take ourselves so seriously or be too sensitive about the use of the term "English English", there is no harm meant, after all.

Just some observations as an English person. Hope this is helpful!

P.S.: I've added the same comments to the British English discussion.

P.P.S. When I lived in Germany I did hear Germans say "Oestereichish" for "Austrian usage" (listen to ORF or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_German) and "Schweizer Deutsch" for Swiss German...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_German). Northern Germans would often comment to me that they found this ussage particularly tricky to understand.., and would take the mickey of the dialect! Note, we would never normally or comfortably say "German German" in English, simply "German" although we might stress what we mean by saying German as spoken in Germany!

DomUK 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [ʌɪ] for the "eye" vowel

According to this article, [ʌɪ] is not in Received Pronunciation, but is used in some accents. Does anybody know why the OED (or at least the Concise OED), which uses RP pronunciations, transliterates /aɪ/ as /ʌɪ/? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. There's an article by J.C. Wells online, which mentions the new OED transcription, at http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-english-uni.htm, and he is particularly critical of this choice. I got the symbol [ʌɪ] for East Anglian and rural southern accents from the Collect Britain website, and if I say what I think is [ʌɪ] to myself it seems to be like something out of one of those accents, not RP. (Maybe someone should check and see which symbols are used for those accents in Wells's book, but certainly they have a distinctive realisation of that vowel which should be mentioned on this page.) However, as it's used by a major dictionary, /ʌɪ/ for the price vowel is mentioned on the Received Pronunciation page, and arguably should be mentioned on the IPA for English page.--JHJ 10:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just see boxes for all the IPA symbols... can you people find some better way of representing them we all can see? --MacRusgail 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See International Phonetic Alphabet#Note: This page uses special characters for help on how to see them.--JHJ 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stigma

I think that the article should mention more about the stigma attached to certain regional accents, and attempts to destroy them through the educational system, as well as the effects of migration and television... --MacRusgail 13:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to this page, and to Scottish English:

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

• Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
• Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
• Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
• Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
• Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have only just noticed: English English is not even shown on the map! Surely by far the most important and powerful language variant in the entire British Isles has been left out!--Mais oui! 10:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The first problem is that "English English" is used with various meanings, and it is one of the most recent additions to the Wikipedia articles on varieties of English, only created 11 months ago.

The second problem you've already pointed out above; this map breaks it down more finely than that, no matter how you define English English.

The third problem is that Trudgill's meaning of "English English" is a neologism; it didn't even exist when this map was made (before Trudgill's birth). It isn't necessarily the generally accepted, and certainly not uniformly accepted, today, either. Gene Nygaard 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This map was not made before Trudgill's birth. The background map of the British Isles is old enough to be in the public domain, but the lines and labeling of dialects was done by Ricjl for Wikipedia. He's already modified it once in response to other users' comments (see [1] for the older version), and if he was asked politely maybe he'd update it again to reflect Mais oui!'s concerns. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can the spelling of 'Brummy' on the map be standardised with 'Brummie' as used throughout the rest af the article.

[edit] Staffordshire

Recently added: In Staffordshire, vowels can vary unexpectedly to the outsider, for example "linen" can be pronounced "len-een" and "biscuit" can be rendered as "bess-keet". Can we have a source for this, please? --JHJ 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Staffs article now rewritten. The short i can sound rather like an RP short e in North Staffs and North Shrops, as in milk-melk etc. References: Elmes, S (2005) Talking for Britain: a Journey Through the Nation's Dialects (Chapter 5) - Penguin Books; and British Library dialect audio collection, various Staffs and Shrops speakers - Chris J. 86.137.4.232 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the sources - I see the short I transcribed as [e] in some of the pages describing the Stoke recordings in the British Library collection.--JHJ 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress

Would it be appropriate for someone to add a bit about English English stress in words, like the difference between nouns and verbs ('pro,duce v ,pro'duce etc)

82.41.202.33 17:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English English is as much a dialect as US-American English is

The beginning of this article and American English (which should be called US-American English in a less provincial and US-centric way) should be similar:

"US-American English (AmE) is the dialect of the English language used mostly in the United States of America." --Espoo 11:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Brit, I assure you that calling it 'American English' is the norm, in the same way that 'America' means the US. No offence intended to the Bolivians, Canadians etc, but that's just the way it is. Earthlyreason (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English English v British English

British English is clearly a written language with minor local vocabulary differences (though less so than between different levels of education) and a wide variety of regional and local spoken accents. English English is the same written language, but just a subset of of the accents. But is there any evidence that it is a useful subset? I think not. --09:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed - as various contributors have pointed out, there is no such thing as 'English English' in general usage or among those with a specific interest in the language. An arbitrary boundary has been drawn between the collected various dialects and styles of English as spoken and written in England and those of Scotland or Wales that is impossible to justify compared with the differences among the individual dialects and styles throughout the British Isles. (I am an editor, working in British and American English.) This whole item should be subsumed into the 'British English' article. Earthlyreason (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you are replying to a message from 1 year 8 months ago, and a lot has happened since then including a discussion and vote about merging this which the decision was made not to merge. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: this discussion took place when this article was called 'English English' Earthlyreason (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester

I believe there is a strong case for adding Manchester as a seperate accent from Lancashire (compare, for example, the speech of Liam Gallagher with that of Peter Kay). Though Mancunian derives from Lancashire speech, it differs in many key ways, including:

• -er endings, spoken as [ə] in Lancashire become [ɒ] in Mancunian
• -ey endings, spoken as [ɪ] in Lancashire become [ɛ] in Mancunian
• -tle endings are often spoken [kʊl]
• ar elements spoken as [aː]
• r spoken with mild alveolar trill in many instances
• th spoken as [v]
• Sporadic restoration of [t] instead of glottal stop
• fair and fur are not homophones; ['fɛə] and ['fʊɹ] respectively
• [s] for s, not [z]

I can offer no citations other than living in the crossover area of these two accents for my entire life --Adzz 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I too would propose this. It's especially noticable in words like Manchester which can sound like Manchestoh [man.tʃɛs.tɒ], whereas in Lancashire it would be pronounced as [man.tʃɛs.tə] or sometimes [man.tʃ ̩s.tə]. Just out of interest, where abouts in Greater Manchester are you from Adzz? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/. 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

To my non-native ear I find Manchester and dare I say it Liverpool, quite similar (and Stoke!), but all quite distinct to the rest of Lancashire. I agree that the there should be articles seperate to Lancashire. Bevo74 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support distinguishing them if and only if suitable references for the differences described can be found. We shouldn't add descriptions based on our own impressions of how the accents sound. (By the way, Boothman, the first vowel in Manchester is surely [a], not [æ], in both the accents you're talking about.)--JHJ 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a bit ropey on the old IPA, JHJ. I find the IPA chart page confusing. I've changed it now.
For references, a few examples can be found here, although these tend to be recorded from the older generation of people, who sound more like the Lancashire accent of today. I also noted from these recordings that Manc speech tends to have a nasal quality which is not found in the rest of Lancashire. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] November 2006, followup

It seems this has not been acted upon, but I agree with the proposals and think there are sufficient grounds with which to seperate Manchester from Lanacastrian (though keep mentions of the inextricable links). I'd be inclined to note that the accent doesn't just vapourise once addresses change outside of the city of Manchester. Places in Oldham and Rochdale also have Mancunian accents (albeit watered down) - Certainly as an Oldhamer, I'm often assumed to be Mancunian rather than Lancastrian because of my accent.

However, anecdotes aside, I maintain that this proposal should be acted upon swiftly. Jhamez84 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North East England

I've added the section on Geordie/Mackem/Pitmatic dialects back after some smoggy (Teesider) with an axe to grind removed them. If they don't like Smoggyland not being featured, why they don't just add an explanation of the Tees accent rather than remove Newcastle and Sunderland I don't know. He/she has been removing Newcastle/Tyne stuff away from other articles (cities of England, rivers). Sad really. Anyway, there may be some spelling mistakes in the section. My fingers are buggord and I can't time well - or even type. If there are, my apologies, I think U'll come back and checkl it when my fingers have well again. User:hedpeguyuk:hedpeguyuk 9:55 29 June 2006, (UTC)

[edit] Examples of people with accents

Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete... it needs to be made clear to readers that the limited scope of these lists is perhaps only to allow the reader to identify accents through hearing people they might be familiar with. As it is it seems to suggest that regional accents in public figures are somehow unusual (rather than, of course, the norm - only a small minority of British people speak RP or some other form of "neutral" English, if there is such a thing).

I would hasard that there is no such thing as "neutral" English. What would define its neutrality? Djcartwright 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous. --SandyDancer 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point for consideration

I've added some comments above about the Mancunian accent needing some work (in the article!), and hope this can be acted upon.

However, a few points I'd like to raise is that this article doesn't acknowledge that their are potential pitfalls and gradiants to accents. E.g. does a Rochdale accent only relate to the town proper, or the wider Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale; is it Mancunian or Lancastrian?; does this town's ethnic minority population legitimately form part of/influence the local accent?

The Lancashire section does not comply with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) in that it states Oldham and Rochdale are part of Lancashire - they are infact part of Greater Manchester - does this have a bearing upon the modern day accent?

At present the article seems to assume that Accents have specific ethno-administrative bounds defined in science, whereas it is quite the contrary. Jhamez84 00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The modern-day accent of Rochdale (the accent is much the same throughout the whole borough) is more akin to the Mancunian accent of a few years ago, but slightly less nasal. Same goes for Bury, Oldham, Ashton, etc. And contrary to popular belief, Oldham and Rochdale are located in Lancashire, because Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county used for fire services and police forces, and not actually a real place. And about the ethnic minority influence; possibly it may have some effect on the general accent of a town, but seen as the size of ethic minority in the area as a whole is pretty standard, it would be hard to tell. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

With respect, on Wikipedia, due to consesus and interestingly, law, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) state that we use the modern county systems as these are the primary geographic reference frame. Thus Oldham and Rochdale, do not form Lancashire but Greater Manchester. That aside, I think we need much more sourcing for this article as it is largely based upon anecdotal evidence. And I think my previous comments raise important issues as to why. Jhamez84 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't matter really whether Oldham and Rochdale are in Lancs or Greater Manchester, the accents are Oldhamer and Rochdalian respectively. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

The phrase "Lancashire accent" usually includes Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, etc., although usually excludes Liverpool. Bit strange! The problem with using modern counties is that would we then have to divide Yorkshire into four sections? That would be havoc, considering that accents in Yorkshire do not conform to those divisions very well.

Also, to Boothman, I think that Rochdale has a lot more similarities with West Yorkshire than those other towns that you mention do. However, Jhames84 raises a good point about what exactly is a "Rochdale accent". Epa101 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And my point really applies to other accents which are defined by town-names, not just to Rochdale. At what point does a Scouse accent become Lancastrian? And the Same for Mancunian to Lancastrian? Are these one and the same? What are the academic writings and understandings on this?... at present, this is unclear in the article.

However, to help, there is a map above on this talk page. Whilst it is a little inaccurate, if something simillar could be produced for the main article page, then I think this would be a major help in taking this article forwards. Jhamez84 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know quite where to put this, but this section seems closest. What I want to put forward is an item on The King's English: I have a recollection of reading (all my books are packed so I can't say what author or title), in a history published, I'd say around the middle of the 20th century, that King Edward III, who was known as The Law-Giver, was bothered by the fact that there was a large variety of dialects around his realm. So he decreed a standard, the King's English, as the only language to be used in his law courts. Sorry I can't be more specific, but surely this ought to be cited if research shows it to be correct.Edetic (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Is it possible to put some more word examples in the "South-East Midlands"? mrhappyhour 04/12/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

A year and a half later, I have done. I scanned down The Linguistic Atlas of England. This area is definitely the closest to R.P. though. There are just a few differences. Epa101 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Accent

I've noticed that the East Anglian Dialects are mentioned in both the midlands and southern section. I'm going to create a new section for these as the Norfolk dialect is completly different to Southern, West country and midlands accents and dialects. Thanks —WitanOfNorfolk Witanofnorfolk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ng-coalescence

I removed this text from the first section: "*Use of "inge" instead of ing meaning words like England are pronouced EnGERland". This is not a characteristic of EngEng as a whole, but of certain parts of the North. It is also described in a non-scientific and potentially misleading way: rhotic speakers such as myself would interpret 'EnGERland' as [INg@`ln=d], rather than [INg@ln=d] as was probably intended. Makerowner 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is generally a Midland thing. It can be heard as far north as Manchester, but no further north. Epa101 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

(Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English English. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Probably a neologism- merge to British English or rename to English language in England. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to English dialects of English and link from the relevant section of British English. While the article does provide reliable sources for the use of the term, the article is about dialects, not the language itself. JulesH 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - seems like more than a neologism, or if anything a very, very well researched something. It makes some sense as British English might be called English English in Britain (much like how football is football, not soccer in the United States.) Guroadrunner 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Football is football in England as well. 58.164.28.146 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant Football is NFL, not soccer. Guroadrunner 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In Britain, the term 'English English' is not used to mean anything.

• Speedy close (quickly, before someone starts making horrible Little Caesars jokes). I don't see anyone (including the nominator) calling for deletion here, and the article is reasonable well-sourced. Continue this discussion at Talk:English English or WP:RM if necessary. cab 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well referenced. Englishrose 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you cite reputable academic sources that talk about "English English"? If you can't and it turns out that it is a neologism it should definitely be renamed or merged. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • OK I now see the article claims that the phrase has been used in academic circles since the publication of Language in the British Isles in 1984 but I actually can't see any citation for that. However I still think the term is confusing and the alternative term "English in England" would seem more precise. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep + maybe rename. I'm a linguist and I've never hears of such an umbrella term for English dialects. I'm certainly not up do date in English dialectology research, but "English English" sounds like a neologism to me. Experts such as Daniel Jones, David Crystal or Steven Pinker have never used it AFAIK. I'd like to see a reliable source indicating such usage. Anyway, the article itself is excellent. --Targeman 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to English language in England. The notability of the topic is in doubt, but the term appears to be insufficiently established, and it's also downright confusing. Mowsbury 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to [[English language in England (or other title) and speedy keep per "cab" above. There's no need to delete this article. It's well-developed with ample discussion and references. Shalom ^Hello 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename correctlyTaprobanus 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep There is no need whatsoever for this article to even be propsed for deletetion, as it is a perfectly valid article, with valid sources, and discusses in depth the various regional dialects. Re-naming it might be a option, but just to propose this article for deletion which is what the proposal is for no matter what is said above by the nominator - no. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per JulesH or perhaps Mowsbury; adjust text accordingly. Title conforms to "X English", like dialects Scottish English, Welsh English, Manx English, American English etc., but I agree the current title sounds silly, and is unsourced as a scholarly term. — mholland (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to something (perhaps English language in England as nominated). The subject is noteworthy and many reliable sources exist for it, the title is unfortunate. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, just because it has a bad name does not make the topic a neologism. I slightly prefer English dialects of England but English language in England is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Do Not Rename. The term English English is currently preferred by most linguists, notably Peter Trudgill (see e.g. his book International English, where the term English English is used all the time.) ISBN 0-340-80834-9, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber

And I suggest that this article be nominated for deletion instead---completely unsourced; the term is never used by linguists (since it makes little sense), it just gets about 300 independent Google hits---it fails WP:N anyway. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or rename I've never heard of 'English English' but I can see how it might be a generic term for all regional dialects in England. Perhaps rename to English dialects. The article looks pretty good to me, no reason to delete. --Malcolmxl5 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh, I see we have an redirect named English dialects]. --Malcolmxl5 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"English dialects" means "dialects of the English language" (not only England, but also Scotland, North America, Australia, etc.) "English English" is the term currently used by Trudgill and other linguists; see Trudgill and Hannah, International English, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done some research. It would seem that English English is not a neologism after all, Trudgill introduced the term in a book of his way back in 1984. The problem is, Trudgill seems to crop up almost every time the term is mentioned. So I still have my doubts about the widespread use of this term by scientists other than Trudgill. I myself have studied under a renowned linguist and I've worked as a teacher and translator but every time I've heard "English English", it was delivered with air quotes. Conclusion: I wouldn't insist on renaming the article that much now. But if the name stays, we'd need plenty of redirect options because most people are unaware of this term.--Targeman 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What little ceasar speaks? ~ Infrangible 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - but - this appears to overlap with the articles referenced by List of dialects of the English language. It will be a major undertaking to reconcile these parallel streams of documentation. Acroterion _(talk) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Even the nominator suggests merging this rather than deleting it, so if not keep-keep, then merge merge. ~ Mandsford Mandsford 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - not a deletion request. 70.55.88.166 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Listen. Since it's pretty clear that we ain't got *nothing* to delete, I suggest that this nomination be closed and the discussion moved to Talk:English English, where it actually belongs. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hear, hear!--Targeman 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal Sep 2007

As a merge tag has been added and there's no discussion, should the tag be removed? Personally merging just Eng.Eng into Br.Eng, but not the other neighbouring versions of English makes as much as sense as merging England into Britain. Bevo74 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I saw little point on commenting simply because the proposal is clearly missing the point about the huge differences between the two articles, and the need for there to be different articles as they are on totally different topics. The two articles should not be merged at all, and as you say there has been no discussion until now s surely the tags can be removed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

English English is an awful title though. Jooler 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The title though is one thing, which has been discussed before, but that is for another debate. This proposal though is not in my opinion relevant as the two articles are about different things. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for cites to back up the claim that the term English English was the most widely used term. As no citations have been provided to that effect (cites from the person who originated the term don't count) I will move the article to English language in England in the next couple of days. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not ask for sources on this talk page. The above discussion was moved here from your declined attempt at deleting thir article, and it was on there that you asked for sources, not here, so it is hardly surprising that no-one has responded to you. You have now tried to get the article deleted which was declined, and in addition you are now moving the article despite the result of your re-naming/deletion proposal being to keep it as it is. Regardless of the title not being the best, there was no consensus for the move. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The title and lack of citations backing up the claim that this was the most widely used term was discussed on the afd discussion which was been posted on this talkpage sometime ago. I posted a cite request on the main page asking for citations that this was the most widely used term months ago. As clearly noone could be bothered to or could not find a citation it was totally appropriate to move the page to a more descriptive term. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Something everyone seems to have overlooked is that "English English" is the name given in dialogue to Cockney Rhyming Slang in the film Austin Powers in Goldmember. I have a suspicion that that may be what the term is better known for amongst the public at large but can't say for sure, especially as Google brings up so many hits which just happen to have the same word next to eact other. ("e.g. South African English. English is...") Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I've moved the article back to the term which is most widely used in the linguistic literature, and the only one I've heard of. Please don't move it again without making a move request. - Francis Tyers · 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the OED (SECOND EDITION 1989):

c. English English, English as spoken in England as differentiated from that spoken, e.g., in the United States of America.

1804 M. WILMOT Let. 30 May in Londonderry & Hyde Russ. Jrnls. (1934) I. 102 If the other side is not English English, it is just the sort of language that might make one blush for what it is. 1943 Spectator 5 Feb. 120/1 Of the two hundred million people speaking English nearly seven-tenths live in the United States, and another tenth in the British Dominions are as much influenced by American as by English English. 1958 Listener 18 Dec. 1050/1 To get round the difficulty of putting Lorca across full-bloodedly, producers have had recourse to Irish, Cockney, and West Country speech... Lorca's plays suffer in English English because we do not like to grasp his nettles. 1961 H. R. F. KEATING Rush on Ultimate i. 13 ‘I never know what's Austalian and what's English... Can you call it the gen over here?’.. ‘From what I gather from the boys it's a bit dated now, but it's English English all right.’ 1966 S. HARVESTER Treacherous Road i. 9 Most educated Egyptians spoke English English.

I think over 200 years is a fairly reasonable pedigree for a term. - Francis Tyers · 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that a lot of people (including myself) have never heard the term 'English English' actually used. Those arguing in favour are citing a few academics, who may be pushing a definition that suits them, and who certainly don't overrule general usage. The use of the term 'British English' is common and entirely sufficient for the concept we are dealing with. Earthlyreason (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mention of North-American English in the article

This article says / originally said "Parts of the Eastern United States where the upper classes historically looked to England for standards of speech have non-rhotic pronunciation, most notably Eastern New England and New York City." This is patently false. As the famous studies of Labov (1969) showed, lower class dialects in New York City were much more non-rhotic than higher class ones. This holds true today. The reason there are non-rhotic dialects in North America is due to original British settlement patterns on the coast in the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g. Yorkshire and Anglia settlers in Massachussetts, Westcountry settlers in the Virginia tidewater, etc.). It has nothing to do with more recent trends. A police officer in the Bronx or Brooklyn with Italian, Irish and Russian Jewish heritage does not have a non-rhotic accent because he is trying to immitate a professor from Oxford. True, there are a few dialects ('Bhramin' for one) in and around Boston that partially maintained (especially in the first half of the 20th century) non-rhotic speech based on "more prestigious" notions of British English. However, overall, the non-rhotic nature of many dialects in North America has nothing to do with "looking to England." Besides, this article is about the English spoken in England (English English) not about those spoken in North America. Stereotypes and assumptions about American English held by the general British population do not belong in any article on dialectal variations in the English language spoken around the world. 71.217.168.137 (talk)Molecules and Morphemes —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "English English" is a grotesque tautology

Since the term "English" refers to the people and language of England, to say "English English" is ridiculous and repugnant. All other qualifiers, such as Welsh English, Australian English, etc. are necessary insofar as those dialects differ from the language spoken in England, and regional varieties, such as West Country English, London English, are also perfectly fine and useful. But "English English" is completely unacceptable. TharkunColl (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree agree, this page should be moved to Anglo English. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just as bad, since "Anglo" just means "English". TharkunColl (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What other name could we use? Or does this article deserve to be 'deleted'? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. How about something like English in England? At least that doesn't imply that "English English" is a proper name or anything. TharkunColl (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

'English in England' or 'England English', either will do. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be mindful of what third party sources call it. If they use English English, for better or worse, we should adopt the same, WP:OR-and-all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a daft title. How about English accents and dialects ? I know it's longer but it would get around any 'well that's what they call it on the internet' problems, as there'll be loads of sources about the accents and/or dialects. I doubt any academics in high standing would call it 'English English' simply because such a duplication is a poor use of English. Also, that the English is English, is sort of implied. The same as you don't usually have to say 'Paris (France)'. Merkinsmum 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: English in England

[edit] Only two dialects in use?

http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2003/10/6/528171.html I found this 2003 article, where a member of the Lancashire Dialect Society says that "experts" have concluded that the only two dialects left in everyday use are Yorkshire and North Cumbria. Does anyone else know of this expert evidence? I would be interested to know of it. I would have thought that County Durham would be still classed as in use. Epa101 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The King's English

I don't know quite where to put this, but this section seems closest. What I want to put forward is an item on The King's English: I have a recollection of reading (all my books are packed so I can't say what author or title), in a history published, I'd say around the middle of the 20th century, that King Edward III, who was known as The Law-Giver, was bothered by the fact that there was a large variety of dialects around his realm. So he decreed a standard, the King's English, as the only language to be used in his law courts.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but surely this ought to be cited if research shows it to be correct.Edetic (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (Moved and placed under its own Heading: Edetic (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

I think that might be better off in the Received Pronunciation article. This article is more for how English is currently spoken in England whilst that is more of a historical item. I should think that Edward III's way of speaking did not survive into the 20th century, before which R.P. was not really established. Epa101 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, this is true but it is now irrelevent to spoken English. It was very important for how words were spelt; prior to this, people would spell words in a variety of ways. Edward III wanted to avoid ambiguities in the law, so he introduced this standard but it was not static. If you look back to the 18th century, you can find sommer instead of summer, shew instead of show, etc. It has all changed beyond recognition since Edward III. Epa101 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just plain English

Would somebody like to note that people in England never use any of the absurd terms such as 'English English' or 'Anglo English' but simple refer to their language as 'English'? It seems ludicrous not to mention so...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Canadians also refer to their language simply as "English", so how do you propose to distinguish between the two varieties? Joeldl (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This will be an issue for any language whose speakers call it the same thing regardless of region. French speakers in both France and Québec call their own language français. Spanish is a little more complicated, as both español (referring to Spain) and castellano (referring to Castile) are used internationally for the name of the language. In Spain itself, castellano is common because it's not the only native language spoken in Spain. And for any international language such as this, as soon as the scope of terminology becomes international (as with Wikipedia), you can no longer use region-specific terms (such as "English" referring to the English language of England) in a maximum capacity for readers from all countries. Besides, to other parts of the English-speaking world, some dialects and accents of English in England are so thick as to sound like different languages anyway, and may strike a listener's ears as "not English" (at least as they understand English), as paradoxical as that might seem. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)