Template talk:English dialects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I know

I know this isn't meant to be a complete list of dialects, but it seems to me African American Vernacular English should be on the list. I assume it's considered a type of "American English", which is already linked, but I think it's distinct enough and widely-spoken enough to warrant its own entry. I'll let someone more linguistically-inclined than me make any changes though. Tuf-Kat 04:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure whether AAVE (or maybe Hawaiian English for that matter) is a major dialect. After all, it is spoken by a minority in North America, and is generally American English. Pædia 07:49, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
Linguists agree that AAVE is a dialect of English. It's spoken by millions in the United States. How many people speak Manx English again? --Bfraga 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
However, AAVE != Ebonics. Ebonics is what AAVE is commonly called, but Ebonics refers more properly to the politics of AAVE in education and the classification of AAVE as a foreign language to secure funding for programs to teach Standard American English to AAVE speakers. I'm spelling out AAVE and removing Ebonics. Dave 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK ==>> British Isles

I'm changing UK to British Isles & including Irish English there. Jimp 6Nov05

[edit] Missing distinct English dialects

I am going to add these to the list of English Dialects

Not added but should be condsidered

Each one of these dialects are a distinct part of English and should be listed and acknowledged. I have left Cockney English here sicne I'm not sure if it can be considered a part of Estuary English or a seperate dialect. And I'm not sure if I should add the others or not. Thanks UKPhoenix79 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to what I've learned, Received Pronunciation is no dialect, merely a pronunciation of Standard English English, i.e. an accent. Since English English is already listed, I vote for removal of RP in the list of British dialects. NisseSthlm 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects

I found this and I though that it would be interusting UKPhoenix79 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.
Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

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! 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible

This needs to be collapsible like {{AusLang}}. On pages with more then one template this prevents them all from automatically collapsing (eg. Australian English) . +Hexagon1 (t) 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "British Isles"

I have twice removed this term from this box and will be doing so for a third time after posting this notice.

Ireland is not a "British Isle." It is an Irish Isle. The term "British" refers to "Britain," the larger island just east of Ireland. Just because the term "British Isles" is more concise than "The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man" does not make the term acceptable.

Perhaps I can explain why applying the term "British Isles" to Irealnd is so offensive. In past years, Asians were called "Orientals." Oriental means Eastern, and implies that Asian people are defined, not by their own culture, but by their relationship to Europe(ie. they are east of Europe.) The term is Euro-centric and entirely unacceptable. I could point out a litany of such terms to define a people that were once acceptable in polite society but are no longer. (African American wikipedians will instantly recognize the specific term that I am implying.)

Frederick Douglass told us that slaves and dogs are named by others, but that free men name themselves. The Irish, and Ireland, are not defined as a variation on Britain, or by their relationship to Britain.

Please stop reverting to "British Isles." It is offensive.

To debate this issue further, visit Talk:British Isles Windyjarhead 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistakenly assuming that the term "British Isles" is somehow connected the UK, whereas it predates the UK by 2000 years at least. "British" originally referred to the Celtic inhabitants of the isles. The name Britain was applied to the island so named simply because it was the largest island in the British Isles. And nor is the term offensive to most Irish - it is used in a purely neutral, geographical sense by Irish government ministers and members of parliament, for example. TharkunColl 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You say "And nor is the term offensive to most Irish - it is used in a purely neutral, geographical sense by Irish government ministers and members of parliament, for example." I wonder, what do you base that statement on?
It is my experience that the term is officially used neither by the Irish government, nor by the British government.
By the way, if I were removing anti-Semitic language from articles, would I be "pushing a political agenda?" Windyjarhead 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I base that statement on the fact that they do indeed use it - Sile de Valera for example, the culture minister. You appear to have no grasp of the concept that British Isles has got nothing to do with the British state, and the term predates the latter by 2000 years. British meant Celtic. Whether or not the term is used by the two governments is irrelevant - it is part of the language. And I am perfectly capable, by the way, of reading your comments here - there is no need to repeat them on my talk page. TharkunColl 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, I take issue with your assertion that "You appear to have no grasp of the concept..." see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Policy clearly states that comments should be on the content, not the contributor.
Secondly, Sile de Valera is not the Head of the Irish State, nor does she have the authority to unilaterally set state policy. My point is that no laws, treaties or formal diplomatic statements that speak authoritatively refer to the "British Isles." See the Good Friday Agreement, signed by both governments, for the best example.
There are many offensive terms that are "part of the language." See nigger, kike, faggot etc. None of these is acceptable either.
And yes, "British Isles" has to do with the British State. The association between the two is immediate, especially for people who are not from these Islands. It is that association, no matter the etymology of the term, that is troublesome. The point is to reinforce the public notion that Ireland is seperate nation, a seperate culture, a seperate island and a seperate identity. Why could this be worrying? Windyjarhead 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The point of an encyclopedia is to educate people. If some mistakenly assume that the term British Isles is connected with the British state, then our job as editors to to explain that it isn't, and why. No one is denying that Ireland is a separate nation, as are England, Scotland, and Wales - the other three nations that inhabit the British Isles. And no one in their right mind is denying that Ireland is a separate island - there are thousands of islands in the British Isles, of which Ireland is by far the second largest. A separate culture and identity - yes, obviously, in the same way that England, Scotland, and Wales have separate cultures and identities. But all four nations have far more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. British Isles has a perfectly clear meaning and is only imbued with a political aspect by those, a tiny minority, who don't like it. The fact that de Valera, amongst others, have used it in public speeches proves that it is most definitely not equivalent to words like "nigger". TharkunColl 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(pasted from User:Windyjarheads talk page) I know the reasoning used by those who choose to find the term offensive but this reasoning is rooted in subjective political POV. British Isles is a politically and ethnically (unless you consider the ancient Britons/Welsh for whom they were nameD) neutral term which is far, far older than any of the political entities located within these isles. The fact that some people choose to find the term offensive has no bearing on its validity anymore than the fact that a sizable portion of the northern Irish population find being classed as British ( despite the fact that they are undeniably so ) offensive has any bearing on the reality. Ireland is,always has been and always will be an island of the British isles. This is not a political issue. siarach 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the term is so universally accepted, why was it necessary in 2001 for the British Lions to change their name to the British and Irish Lions?
Times have changed and so has the language. Hawai'i used to be called the Sandwich Islands. Sri Lanka used to be called Ceylon. Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia. The list goes on and on.
The fact remains, the term is divisive and unneccesary. Windyjarhead 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You will notice that the former name of the rugby team, British Lions, did not include the phrase British Isles, so this example is completely irrelevant. The adjective "British" (of the UK, etc.) should not be confused with other usages of the word, such as when it is found in the ancient collective noun "British Isles". It is very common in language for this to happen. You speak English, correct? Does that make you English? No one seems to have a problem with accepting that the term "English" has these two distinct meanings. Is a citizen of Brazil, or Mexico, an American? They come from the continents called America, so why don't we call them American? In other words, they live in a place called America, but are not American. It is just the way that language has evolved.
I agree that places do indeed change their names, but this has not happened with the term British Isles - a Google search will show you that it is considerably more than twice as popular as its next nearest rival, the geographically incorrect "Great Britain and Ireland". As an encyclopedia we need to reflect the truth as it, not how we would wish it to be. TharkunColl 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"British" always means the same thing. The collective noun "British Isles" describes "isles" that are "British." It really is that simple.
Actually, yes, Brazilians and Mexicans are Americans. They are Latin Americans. In Spanish, the primary language of the Americas (and before you ask, yes I know that Brazilians speak Portugese), people from the United States are called estadounidense or norteamericano. People from other parts of the Americas can be centroamericanos, sudamericanos et cetera. Oh, and no one confuses them with the Spaniards, by the way.
Google is the infallible source of names for countries now? Seriously? Windyjarhead 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, British has many meanings - and being British myself, I think I might be in a better position to know this. It existed as a word long before the UK was created. Why don't you complain that the UK stole it? That would make a lot more sense. British Isles is a translation of a Latin term, itself a translation of a Celtic term. There was a time, you know, that the English hated being called British, because it was too Celtic. But it was imposed on them by the Scottish Stuarts.
I know that those people are Latin Americans, but the term Latin American is distinct from American, not a subset of it. What words are used in Spanish are absolutely irrelevant to an English encyclopedia.
Google simply gives you an idea of frequency of usage. Are you disputing this? TharkunColl 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's twice now that you've decided that what I had to say was "irrelevant." You say the world view of the Irish government is irrelevant, the world view of Latin Americans is irrelevant, in fact, the only relevant world view is the British one - the one that says that Ireland is a British Isle. It is certainly easy to convince yourself that you're right when you can choose which facts to ignore.

Whether you're British or Canadian or Chinese or Martian is of no consequence to me. What you've cited is an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy - a logically invalid form of argument. Show me facts, not passports. Windyjarhead 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


We are a much more powerful and bigger nation than Ireland is. We own part of Ireland and that part is definatily British. I know that the Irish people in the South aren't happy with the word British, but in this part of the world, we rule. Johnox 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

" . . . in this part of the world, we rule." - Johnox

And British jingoism has made its first appearance of the conversation. Thank you for further proving my point. Windyjarhead 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

". . . but the term Latin American is distinct from American, not a subset of it" - TharkunColl

Take a look at es:América. Your assertion is unequivocally false.

Almost all Latin Americans would disagree with your statement. In fact look here and here [1]. Windyjarhead 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are using a foreign language as an example (Spanish) - how is this relevant? As for my "appeal to authority", it was in response to your simple assertion that British only has one meaning - an assertion supported by no evidence whatsoever. I can prove right here that the term British is used in more than one way: it is (1) used to mean "of the UK", and (2) it forms part of the phrase British Isles, which is a geographical term with no political meaning.
Incidentally, to use the term "British Isle" as you have done more than once is incorrect, because the term British Isles is a collective noun. To call Ireland a "British Isle" is therefore wrong, and is quite obviously open to misinterpretation.
And if I were you I'd ignore the troll above. I'm not at all sure that he's not actually working for the other side... TharkunColl 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with some is that they are apologists for the word British. The word British is synonymous with the rise of Britain as a power from Elizabeth and the sinking of the Armada to the building of the great British Empire, thus spreading civilization throughout the world. Don't apologize, be proud. Johnox 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One can be proud of one's national achievements without distorting history. The term British orginally referred to the Celtic inhabitants of the islands, as opposed to the English. Just look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle if you don't believe me. The word was appropriated by the English state around AD 1600. TharkunColl 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The word British didn't exist until about 1600. It's a distinct word, the difference between chalk and cheese. The word British applies to the Great British Empire, and also to the isles off Europe. It was her majesty Elizabeth I who put the British into Britain. You are embarrassing the way you are turning over backwards to appease political correctness. Enough!! Johnox 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to ignore the troll.

As for your assertion that Latin American perspectives are irrelevant, simply because they are rendered in a language other than English, I cannot agree. (See Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.) But our debate is not about what "America" refers to, it is about what "British Isles" refers to. So, despite my desire to push the "America" issue further, I'll leave it for another debate.

I think that we have both shown ourselves to be of reasonable intelligence and education, yet we disagree. Such is the nature of human discourse. It has become clear that neither of us will convince the other.

Of course, be advised that this is not a "dead issue" and that I (and others) will continue to debate the use of this term. If the Irish are anything, we are persistent.

This will be my last entry in this debate. (Well, for the time being, anyways.) Good luck and happy Christmas. Oh, and by the way, I'm changing the box one more time for good measure.) Windyjarhead 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Ive just noticed the change from "British Isles" to "Europe" - a fine solution to the problem debated above imo. siarach 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llanito removal

I think this warrants a bit of discussion. Certainly llanito is a pidgin/creole but it may very qualify as an English dialect, the differences in linguistics are ambiguous enough to allow for some leeway. Windyjarhead 08:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed simply because in the Llanito article is also listed under pseudo-dialect of English, which I think is more appropriate. Not sure up to what point you could speak of pidgin instead mere code-switching, spiced up with some local words. As you said, the whole subject is quite ambiguous and open to interpretations. Feel free to restore it if you think so. Regards, Asteriontalk 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

In response to complaints about edit warring, which the history page justifies, I have fully protected this page for two weeks. Use this time to get to consensus, please. Should you come to consensus before that, you may contact me or use the {{editprotected}} template to request an update to the page. I am fully aware that at least half of you are going to be convinced (!!) that I have protected "the wrong version". OK. I protected the version that was here when I got here, and no administrator is likely to revert to a previous version before protecting (and thus compromising their neutrality on the issue) for anything less than blatant vandalism, which I'm sure we all agree is not happening here.

Good luck working towards compromise. - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's my stance in a nutshell:

  • The group of dialects of the English language whose label we are discussing are all European dialects.
  • Most are British, others are Irish, one is Manx.
  • Ireland is not in the United Kingdom.
  • The Isle of Man (along with the other Crown Dependencies) is not in the United Kingdom.
  • The description "The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Crown Dependencies" is verbose and awkward. Similar arrangments are equally verbose.
  • The heading "British Isles" is politically charged and generally unacceptable amongst the Irish. (See British Isles naming dispute.)
  • The simple heading "Europe" is accurate, concise and perfectly acceptable.
  • The "Europe" heading simplifies matters if the box were to be expanded to include other Eurpean English dialects such as Llanito. Windyjarhead 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convert to Navbox from Navbox generic, as Navbox generic was deprecated

{{editprotected}} The {{Navbox generic}} form was deprecated, so I would like this page converted to the {{Navbox}} form. Simply delete the word "generic" in the first line, and also delete the "|style = text-align:left", as this is the default behavior in Navbox. Thanks, --CapitalR 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mancunian

Mancunian seems to have been added to the box recently. I think that this is very inappropriate when there is not actually an article for Mancunian. I shall remove it from the box for now. Lancashire can go in its place.

If an article is ever done, we might think about it going on, but I do not think that Mancunian should be called a "dialect". What is usually meant by the term is a trendy Liam Gallagher way of talking. That is not a "dialect" in the sense of a grammar and vocabulary that has long-term historical roots. Also, modern Mancunian is not very "broad"; a speaker of Standard English would not have any difficulty understanding it whilst they would do with an actual dialect from, say, further north in Lancashire or over into Yorkshire. There are one or two features of speech particular to Manchester, but that could be said of most towns in Britain. I would therefore vote against Mancunian being on the list. Lancashire is a much better article to have on there. Epa101 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Llanito

The article on Llanito states that it is a creole based on Andalusian Spanish. As such, does it really belong in this template on English dialects? Theelf29 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)