Talk:English in the Commonwealth of Nations
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
by no means is CanE included in AmE; many will argue that CanE is halfway between BrE and AmE; and that's not even the reason why there's no "Commonwealth" dialect
Would you expound, JackLumber?
My understanding is that whether by direct lineage or by comparing modern attributes, Canadian English is a variety of American English and not of British English (while English spoken in the remainder of the Commonwealth represents varieties of the latter). Even much of the “British” spelling and vocabulary of Canadian English date back to North America before Loyalists fled the thirteen colonies.
Do linguists consider Canadian and American English (“U.S. English?”) to be two branches of “North American English?” Even if that is so, although there is English in the Commonwealth, there isn't a single or collective variety of English representative of the Commonwealth. It should be made clear that this is a geographic survey article, and may examine some commonalities of English throughout Commonwealth countries, but that “Commonwealth English” isn't a recognized branch of the language. —Michael Z. 2008-10-14 01:25 z
There are very few differences in English between countries of the Commonwealth. It is not true to say that they have "developed their own native varieties of the language". There are not different "varieties" of English. These are not even dialects, as properly defined. There are regional and national differences, but these are only slight. Much less pronounced than the differences between counties of England in previous centuries. The only national variation that could be considered a different dialect is Indian English. That has some obsolete and unique words and bizarre sentence forms that are peculiar to India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This article should not even exist. The term commonwealth English is meaningless as the differences between them are too huge (eg Indian, British, Malaysian, Canadian, and Australian English are all as different as English varieties get). As an example, Canadian English resembles American English much more than it does British English, as does Australian English resemble New Zealand English far more than it does British English. As such grouping "commonwealth English" on one hand and "US english" on the other is totally meaningless as the varieties are, in the cases of Canada and Australia, as distinct from UK English as US English is, and in the cases of Indian or Singaporean or Malay English considerably more different again. It is misleading not to mention pointless to have this sort of an article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This is such a funny POV Americo-centric article!
This article should be deleted - unless someone who, 1) knows about linguistics, or 2) can reference this complete Americo-centric rubbish, and can write something of worth. It's a nonsense to try to gloss over "English as she is spoke" by referring to "native speakers" and other such rot. "Small communities of native English speakers can be found in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia; the dialects spoken are similar to South African English". - I nearly fell off my chair! Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I notice that in some articles (for instance biscuit) there is a reference to Commonwealth English. Shouldn't this be Standard English? There is no such thing as Commonwealth English, as English in India - for instance - is now very far from standard?220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)