Talk:Lingua franca/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Swiss

Most Swiss are speaking german (60~70%) but the lingua franca is english? Are there any sources for that claim? I would think that people who are unable to speak german would have it hard, being unable to understand newspapers, radio and TV programs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.167.190 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Swiss and other EU nationals

List of countries by English-speaking population, according to this, there are ~61% of Swiss speaking English as a second language. Similar statistics hold for many other smaller EU nations. German, French, Spanish and Russian are less popular as a second language in the Europe.Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Having spent most of my life in Switzerland I can assert with confidence that English is not a lingua franca. It would probably make Swiss people's lives easier if there were a lingua franca, but instead most Swiss simply learn French, German and/or Italian and switch between the three as needed.

Actually I'm inclined to remove the reference to Switzerland altogether: if someone wants it back, they can supply proof that English IS a lingua franca in Switzerland. I mean genuine proof, as opposed to a link to a rather dubious Wikipedia page that specifically says that its figures should be used with caution. No offense meant.

And to answer unsigned's question, I grew up in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and have never needed to use German to understand newspapers, radio, TV programmes... or even to do anything. If you couldn't speak French, though, you would find it very hard! (Clearly this changes when you pass into the Swiss-German or Italian zone.)

Wordtothedude (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish and Serbian

The Turkic and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian languages should be listed as Lingua franca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.160.130 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Zulu?

The Zulu section is contradictory with the definition of Lingua franca in the opener. Zulu is only spoken by 24% of South Africans and in the section it clearly states that it is only the third most used language in a single country. This hardly seems to fit the definition of Lingua franca. Nefariousski (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue raised by IP

Can someone with more time/skill fix this? Whoever kept adding many of theese languages (Most likely the people from the countries they are spoken in) clearly didn't get it. A guy from country A is talking to a guy from country B using the language of a language C, that's what it is. A person from Brazil talking to a person from Portugal is clearly not it, same w/Spanish/Polish etc -- removed by Outback the koala. I'm just putting it here in case someone can address it.--Asdfg12345 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bengali, Tamil and Telugu - Erroneous entries

Bengali is primarily spoken by Bengalis. Tamil is primarily spoken by Tamils. Telugu is primarily spoken by Telugus. There are a large number of Bengalis, Tamils and Telugus in the Indian subcontinent and their diaspora are there in several parts of the world. Thus, they are some of the most spoken languages in the world. However, this does not necessarily make them linguas franca. More importantly, only a few non-native speakers speak these languages. So, I am removing them from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.211 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup--Removal of languages that don't meet the definition

I am about to go through the article and remove a number of languages that don't seem to meet the criteria for being a lingua franca laid out in the lead. I see that others on the talk page have commented about this previously. To anyone whose contribution I remove, or anyone who is a speaker of one of those languages, please know that I mean no disrespect. I will attempt to list here each of the changes I make with justifications. I will try to use a light hand, as I do not have significant knowledge of most of these languages, retaining where I have doubt; however, as others have pointed out, a language is a lingua franca only if it is spoken as a secondary/tertiary language regularly spoken between people who do not share a mother tongue. Furthermore, if anyone has documentation to establish that any of the languages I've removed do meet that definition, I certainly welcome the re-addition of those languages along with the inclusion of those sources. Later, I'm going to try to comb through references found the language pages of those languages being retained to properly cite this article per WP:V and WP:RS; it's possible that further pruning will be needed if we can't get reliable sources. 05:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've finished my first pass through. After doing that, it's clear more than ever to me that this article really needs reliable sources. Hopefully, many of them can be pulled from the corresponding Wikipedia pages. However, I'll wait a little bit and see how others take to my big changes (and because I'm all lingua-ed out). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removals

Twi: The entry claimed it was the main language of Ghana besides English. The Twi article itself calls Twi a dialect, not a language; it is listed as being spoken only in Ghana, and no mention is made of it serving as a lingua franca for people otherwise not sharing a language.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoruba: This one is a tricky issue, and has a lot to do with the political history of the area. My reading of the Yoruba language page is that it is used primarily as a native language of the Yoruba people. Historically, this appears to have been a single "unit," although I don't know that words like "country" or "nation" apply. After the borders of Africa were changed, it appears that the Yoruba people were split among a variety of countries. Thus, Yoruba is spoken across a variety of countries, but it is spoken as the native language of the people living there. This does not qualify it as a lingua franca, as it appears (again, based on my limited reading of the relevant Wikipedia pages) to be being spoken as a native tongue, not a secondary tongue between people with native tongues. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Igbo: This appears to be somewhat similar to Yoruba, in that it is the language of a single ethnic group, spoken primarily as a native language. Note, however, that this is also complicated, because the Igbo people were particularly badly hit during the devastating Atlantic slave trade, and thus their language was, in part spread to other places. As far as I can tell, though, the language is now spoken almost entirely within Nigeria. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bini language (which redirects to Edo language): This is almost certainly not a lingua franca. Spoken by about 1 million people in one state of Nigeria already means it doesn't really qualify. The removed line said that the language is now spoken in the U.S., Russia, etc., but that also doesn't make it a lingua franca. But people in the U.S. who speek Bini don't do so as a way to communicate (in a second language) with other speakers of a different language--they do so because it's their native language and their speaking to other immigrants. Practically any language has some speakers in the U.S. (or other countries). To be a lingua franca, it must meet the definition above. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tamil: Per the Tamil language page, appears to be primarily a first language--a large language, to be sure, but one used by native speakers, not specifically as a language for intercultural/linguistic communication. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opera paragraph in Italian: By the way we're using lingua franca in this article, you can't say "Italian is the lingua franca of opera." Yes, I've heard similar phrasings, but including it here confuses this already difficult article. Perhaps there's some way to save part of this, but it should be cut down to a sentence or less, with a citation (maybe something like "Italian is often called the lingua franca of opera, meaning it is the most common language used international for opera performances.+ref").Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Open Questions

Bengali: I'm not clear if Bengali qualifies, as my initial reading is that it is actually just a widely spoken native tongue, not a secondary tongue. But I've asked at Talk:Bengali language, and left the info in for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Telugu: Same as Bengali--I'm unsure, so I left it in, and asked for help on the Telugu talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian: Reading that page, I'm inclined to remove this. The target page says that International Organization of Standardization marks this as multiple languages, and implies that the native peoples of these (countries? areas? ethnic groups) are each adamant about the languages being distinct. On other hand, as the page points out, linguists recognize that the (daughter?) languages are often mutually intelligible. If these really are (politically or linguistically) distinct languages, it doesn't exactly seem accurate to call them a single lingua franca. However, given what I've seen behind the scenes with how difficult and painful issues even tangentially associated with that part of the world become on Wikipedia, I'm also hesitant to remove it. Anyone else have feelings on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer at Telugu language. I got two answers at Bengali language, which were contradictory. So, I'm going to remove both. I think that in order to add them, we need a reliable source stating that these are lingua franca (or stating facts that mean the same thing). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal--Separate historical lingua franca from current

While doing my edits, I realized that a number of the languages listed here are not currently lingua franca, but were historically. Specifically, that would be: Akkadian, Aramaic, Azeri, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Polish, Greek and Latin, and maybe Yiddish and German. My feeling is that it might help to have these languages all moved to a separate section, thus distinguishing those languages that are currently lingua franca, and those languages that were in the past but are no longer (either no longer spoken at all, like Akkadian, or no spoken but no longer lingua franca, like Polish). But I'd like input before I make that kind of big re-organization. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

definition

It seems to me that a national of official language used by immigrants to a country would not be considered a l.f., but our definition would allow it. I mean, is Finnish a lingua franca of Finland? Malagasy of Madagascar? Korean? Should we reword the lede or examples to exclude such cases? — kwami (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, in that I can see how that could be misinterpreted (as Finnish is definitely not a lingua franca of Finland). I don't have time at the moment, but I'll see if I can scrounge up a clearer definition somewhere in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the standard definition of LF a language that is used as a communication bridge between different ethnic/linguistic groups of people? Finnish wouldn't be a LF, as the speakers are all Finnish. Korean is not a LF, as all speakers are Korean (regardless of whether they are from ROK, DPRK, the US, or Central Asia). Mediterranean Lingua Franca is a LF because it was a communication bridge between Arab, Turk and European traders. English is a LF because there are a lot of places where it is used. Classical Chinese (as a written language) is a LF because it was a bridge between the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongols, Vietnamese, Ryukyuans, Manchus, Khitans, Tibetans, Zhuang, Tanguts... Vernacular Chinese (as a written language) is a LF as it bridges Cantonese speakers, Min speakers, Hakka speakers, Wuu speakers, Mandarin speakers, and ethnic minorities. Russian is a LF as it is an official language and a communication bridge between Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Kazakhs... for the same reason, Arabic and French are LFs. French is spoken by more than just Frenchmen, Arabic is spoken by more than just Arabs. Latin (as a written language) was once a scientific, philosophical and legal lingua franca, as back in antiquity, all scientific papers were written in Latin. That's why we still have terms such as jus sanguinis, ad hominem, status quo ante bellum, primum non nocere, terra nullius, fellatio, de facto, Medicinae Baccalaureus et Chirurgiae Baccalaureus, Posidonia oceanica... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Your definition is much closer to correct, as are the ideas that Korea, Finnish, etc. are not an LF. The problem isn't with that idea, it's that our definition is wrong in the lead. It currently says that a lingua franca is "a language systematically used to communicate between persons not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both persons' mother tongues." Techncially speaking, that could be read to mean that speakers of 2 different native languages (say, a native Korean and a native speaker of Telugu) who both migrate to a country where a 3rd language is spoken (say, Finland), and who use that 3rd language (Finnish) are using Finnish as a lingua franca. This is very definitely wrong, but I can see how someone who's coming here to learn about the concept for the first time would misunderstand. Thus, we need a new definition. I may have some textbooks at my house that will help point us to a more succinct and accurate definition, but I'm not sure. Maybe part of what needs to be emphasized is that in order to be a lingua franca the language must regularly be used across multiple cultural or national boundaries as a primary means for multiple groups to communicate. So, since Finnish is primarily spoken in Finland or by native Finnish speakers, it doesn't count. It would be ideal if we could get a definition which helps clarify whether or not some or all of the Indian languages (other than Hindi and English, which clearly do) qualify, but that may be asking a bit much. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm going to set up auto-archiving (using User:Miszabot) of this talk page, because hacing so many discussions that are several years old makes it difficult to find and concentrate on current discussions. For safety, I'm going to set the initial archiving restriction very high (60 days, where 30 is normal), but we can modify that up or down as needed. If anyone objects, please let me know and/or stop the archiving (if you're unfamiliar with the process, all you need to do is erase the template I add to the top of this page, and I can undo anything later). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bengali

Bengali is a language which is obviously used as a Lingua Franca, particularly by the indigenous tribal people both in India and Bangladesh. In West Bengal the non-Bengalis do speak Bengali to communicate among themselves when their mother tongue is unknown to each other. In Tripura although Kokborok has an official recognition many tribal people use Bengali for conversation. So this can be kept as a Lingua Franca. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then that's fine, I'm willing to give the section the benefit of the doubt. As with the rest of the article, this information should be sourced, so if you know of a reliable source that can support this claim, please do add it to the article. Thanks for the explanation!Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You may click on this link
Ah, unfortunately, that doesn't help us here, as that doesn't qualify as a reliable source.Qwyrxian (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Then please read the first paragraph of the article Languages of Bangladesh. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That is also not a reliable source. Again, I'm saying that I accept your claim in good faith, and that it can stay in the article, particularly because most of the rest of the page isn't sourced. At some point in the future, though, this whole page is going to need reliable, secondary sources to document that these qualify as lingua franca.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't clear from the section, which I just deleted.

Wouldn't nearly every scheduled language of India count as a l.f. by that standard? (Not saying it's a bad standard, just wondering why Bengali should be singled out.)

Go ahead and restore the section if it's made clear why we'd count B as a l.f. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... what? Every _scheduled_ language is a lingua franca? You mean official language? No, Hindi/Urdu is definitely one, but Nepali, Oriya, Marathi and Assamese are not. Hindi would be used instead of the first three, but in Assam, Bengali would be the lingua franca by default. Greater Bengal is a pretty large region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.218.56 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, does anyone have a reliable source stating that it is or is not a lingua franca? My guess is it would come in the form of some sort of linguistics text/journal that discusses the language clearly. Obviously we won't get anywhere just debating our personal experiences. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Trubetzkoy

Until there is an academic work which presents criticism of Nikolai Trubetzkoy's linguistic research, the information from Chingizkhan's Heritage will stay in the article. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Added another source in the article, quoted in Hovannisian. Again, discuss before playing with the article please, otherwise will be reported. Parishan (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Trubetskoy is a well-known racist, as it has already been stated on the talk page. Anyone who compares Armenians to parasites is not fit to be a reliable source - no matter how you cut it.
On Peter Cowe: he speaks about Sayat Nova, who flourished in Eastern Caucasus, but he doesn't state that Azerbaijani was spoken as a lingua franca in Turkish/Ottoman Armenia. You're distorting what he wrote.
Sardur (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We are assessing Trubetzkoy as a linguist, not as a person. I do not see a direct link between his research on Azeri and his attitude towards Armenians. The source pre-dates Armenian-Azeri antagonism, so there is no chance for him to have been interesting in "promoting" Azeri "at the expense" of Armenian. He could have easily said it was Turkish or Georgian that served as a lingua franca in the given region. Trubetzkoy's expertise and influence on modern linguistics can scarcely be overestimated, and any linguist will tell you that. Only another neutral critical work of equal significance can be used to dismiss Trubetzkoy as a reliable source. As for Cowe, he uses the term 'Eastern Anatolia', and personally I have nothing against changing the wording Turkish Armenia to Eastern Anatolia. Parishan (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see above Fedayee has already assessed it and you Parishan have offered no reply to him. Trubetskoy in his text talk about the present (when he wrote it), and during that time there was no Turkish Armenia left proper, as the Armenian population there in that year was close to zero. When we use Turkish Armenia we refer to prior World War I, when there was a considerable Armenian population in those Vileyets. Trubetzkoy used an outdated word for a region the Russian were laying claims on. Just throwing the word Armenians and Azeri, both subjects which had republics within the Soviet Union was in the interest of Soviet scholars. When using the term Turkish Armenia, you're refering to the Ottoman period, while that's not what Trubetzkoy is talking about. I suggest that section be changed with Turkish or Turkic, as Fedayee has done, he provided sources claiming Turkish. Ionidasz (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. And on Cowe: he clearly refers to "Caucasia". Sardur (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ionidasz, with or without Armenians, the region still retains its name. And like I said, I have no problem changing Turkish Armenia to Eastern Anatolia. Parishan (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sardur, he also mentions Eastern Anatolia. It is all in the quote. Parishan (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You must be kidding us all. Eastern Anatolia language is Turkish..., that's what about all sources are saying. Discussion, what discussion, Fedayee had pretty much nailed it. Ionidasz (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No, he did not. Most earlier sources use 'Turkish' as an umbrella term for Azeri and Turkish (Anatolian) spoken in the region, just like in Imperial Russia 'Tatar' used to be an umbrella term for many Turkic languages. There are sources, as well as a quote from Iranica and a map to which I posted a link above that clarify what kind of 'Turkish' was spoken there, that being Azeri. As for your urge to edit-war on articles just to prove a point and leave your own POV version hanging, I will deal with it later. Parishan (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no urge, stop intimidating me. Anatolian Turkish is Turkish, there are several different regional dialects in Anatolia and some are similar to the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan, but this does not make them Azeri. Your way of defining a language is very vague. Ionidasz (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Timbuktu

Other Wikipedia articles give no indication that Hausa is even remotely associated with Timbuktu or Mali in general, except maybe as a specialized trade language in the entire region of West Africa. That's very far from lingua franca status, but note that there's no direct evidence indicating even this much.

Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.218.56 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

East Asia

Hinting at any other western language other than english as a lingua franca in Korea, China and Japan is ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGARBAGEmanCAN (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation very definitely needed!

The article currently has "French [...] is spoken by approximately 29% of the population of the Netherlands, 20% of Italy, 23% of United Kingdom, 24% of Portugal, and 24% of Romania."

I'd love to know the source for those figures. I suspect (being charitable) that it's a misinterpretation of the phrase is spoken by. Certainly the implication that 23% of the UK population speak French with any degree of competence is laughable. I'd credit "23% of the UK population have studied some French at school", but I'm sure that far fewer remember much if any of it, let alone are able to speak it. --Kay Dekker (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the info as it's far too specific to survive uncited. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To italicise or not?

The article currently dithers between "lingua franca" and "lingua franca", not even being consistent within individual sections. It looks sloppy.

One way or the other, we should be consistent. My preference would be to lose the italics - it's now a naturalised English term - but I'm happy to hear arguments pro and con. --Kay Dekker (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish as lingua franca in Latin America

I don't think that Spanish is lingua franca in Latin America as described in the article, since it is vernacular. You don't learn Spanish to be able to talk to other countries or communities, Spanish is your own first language. Only for amerindian communities Spanish could qualify as lingua franca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.247.55.75 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Spanish is a Lingua Franca now. It says that it used to be (in the colonial/post-colonial period), and it also says that it may serve as a Lingua Franca now outside of South America, because of it's use in international trade. Can you point to where in the text you think it says it's a lingua franca in South America now? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Spanish is used as lingua franca throughout the former Spanish Colonial Empire, except territory in present day U.S., but particularly in Mexico, Central America and South America." MarkinBoston (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot the "is". I switched it to "was" and added another clarification, that it used to be a lingua franca, but now isn't. I'm tempted to remove the last sentence in that section about how commonly Spanish is used across the world, as I'm not sure if it belongs here

Telugu "second most spoken" language in India

Regarding the recent edit by an IP that asserts that Telugu "is the second most spoken language in India, after Hindi, and it is closely followed by Tamil". This has been reverted for being unsourced, and rightly so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, however. The previous, sourced, sentence that claims that Telugu "is the third most widely spoken language in India, behind Hindi and Bengali" is based on Indian census data. If you look closely, though, it only lists people who returned those languages as their mother tongue. As we are talking about a lingua franca here, we also need to know how many people speak Telugu as a second language. With L2 speakers added in to these figures, it might well be that the IP's statement is correct. I'll have a little look for sources, but if anyone else knows a good one please post it here. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 04:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Split of article

I just wanted to say that I think the split of the article was a great idea. Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! This has been coming for a long time, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 00:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect caption for image of letter to Japan from Kublai Kahn

The letter cannot possibly be to the "King of Japan", there has never been such a person. Either the letter is to the Shogun, which is what this page says: File:LetterFromKhubilaiToJapan1266.jpg - or it is to the Emperor of Japan, which is what the link in the caption text suggests. I would assume it is actually to the Shogun, since he had the actual political power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The Mongols did not know that. Neither did the Chinese, up to probably the 17th Century. The Emperor of Japan was always referred to as the "King of Japan" in Chinese texts (initially 倭國之王, later 日本之王); and as for the Mongols, the person that you'd generally write to when dealing with a country would be their ruler; most likely the letter would have ended up in the hands of the Shogun and not the Emperor, since it was the Shogun that held real political power, but again, no one in China or Mongolia would have known any better.
If you read the text in the image, it is addressed to 日本國王 - "The King of Japan"; no Chinese Dynasty recognised the 天皇 status of the Japanese Emperor prior to the Meiji Period, as all countries were considered inferior before the 皇帝 Chinese Emperor (note that in the letter, Kublai Khan refers to himself as 大蒙古皇帝 - "Emperor of Great Mongolia"). That is also why no Korean, Siamese, Burmese, Luzonan or Vietnamese king ever declared themselves as 皇帝 son of heaven; declaring Emperor was a nine familial exterminations offense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Plural of lingua franca

I see an IP has changed "lingua francas" to "linguas franca". This is just to note that there has already been some talk about this at List of lingua francas, so anyone wanting to change this should probably read that first. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The outcome of said discussion does not change the grammar of any language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.195.243 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course not, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do have an effect on how we name articles. You're welcome to chip in at the discussion, and if you convince me I'll even move the page for you. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My edits

1. I have cut the tags indicating (I think unfairly) that the article, in its current form, is unusually lacking in references. Doesn't mean referencing could be improved, of course, but...

2. I have come down firmly on the side of lingua francas, the natural plural usage in English rather than the abomination linguas franca which had been adopted (inconsistently) by someone at some stage in the past. We are probably stuck with a few constructions like this - but the coining of new ones needs to be strenuously resisted - on the whole it is a clumsy and quite unnecessary affectation.

3. I have made a few other changes connected with clarity etc.

---Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I think that the tags are a remnant of when the list of lingua francas used to be a part of this article, and they were mostly meant for the sections which have been moved. As for lingua francas, it's pretty hard to argue against all those dictionaries and Britannica. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You are free to *prefer* a particular pluralization. Since "lingua francas" is accepted and common, I won't bother with escalating my own preference. I will, however, suggest that characterizing "linguas franca" as an abomination is a bit much, as it is at least as correct as the anglicization you prefer. "The pedantic English plural would be linguas franca, as lingua (“language”) is the head noun" --Wiktionary Cratylus3 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

C the lingua franca of programming?

Should it be mentioned that C is a kind of lingua franca in the computing world? http://www.cprogramming.com/whyc.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CollegeAdvice.html Fedjmike (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NOT here - perhaps in the "C" article - but even then we would probably phrase it very differently. A "computer programming language" is not actually a "language" at all in this sense of course. Do computer programmers use programming languages to communicate with each other? Do computers use high level languages like "C" to communicate with either their programmers, or each other? Overall, the "kind of" bit is just a bit over the top, isn't it? Still, an amusing thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that they do. Very often, libraries have their interface written in C as it is so common and most other languages have facilities to communicate with C programs for this reason. Even APIs like LLVM, which is written in C++, have an extra interface in C so that it can act as a bridge between C++ and virtually any language you might wish to use LLVM in. And of course, programmers /do/ speak to each other using programming languages. Often it is far easier to express an idea in a pseudocode or actual implementation than do it in English. C, as a ubiquitous and relatively barebones language, is often chosen for this purpose. Fedjmike (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice for this article

This article really needs a WP:Edit notice. There are many frequent incorrect, though good faith, edits that attempt to Latinise the plural of "lingua franca", despite that it is not a Latin word. The edit notice should clearly inform and/or remind potential editors this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, but a dead-end. Although the term is not classical Latin, it is quite defensibly treated as New Latin, because even though it came from Italian (as verified by the etymologies given in Merriam-Webster Collegiate and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), the feminine singular word lingua is homographic across Latin and Italian, so the term has just as often been taken by English speakers to be New Latin as it has been taken to be Italian—which is why both Merriam-Webster Collegiate and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language show linguae francae as an accepted alternate plural form in English. Meanwhile, they don't show the Italian plural form, lingue franche, as being an accepted alternate plural form in English, although if life were fair, it probably would be accepted. — ¾-10 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Update: (1) I do certainly agree with you, though, that it is not a good idea to go through the article and change all the instances of -as to -ae, as some editor recently did (and was reverted on). (2) I see that User:Soundofmusicals said in an edit summary that the -ae plural form is an "ignorant barbarism". While it may not be a preferred form, the fact that AHD enters it as a variant shows that it is also not an "ignorant barbarism". The English language is filled with usages that arose out of phenomena such as false etymology, but they are nevertheless long since prevalent and accepted English usages. To try to retroactively purge them from the language would be a hypercorrective, quixotic quest. — ¾-10 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
linguas franca would also be a legitimate English form, patterned on sergeants major and various Norman phrases. —Tamfang (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be legitimate (attorney general → attorneys general being the analogy that pops into my head), but it is also true that this option is not entered in major dictionaries (unlike the others discussed above). Which doesn't mean it can't be used—just that it traditionally hasn't been so far. So I would not try to use it in this Wikipedia article, because it would be assailed as neologistic. By the way, in my opinion this article could include a section about etymology and plural forms, mentioning all of these things that some readers are going to ask about anyway. — ¾-10 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It is so an "ignorant barbarism" - as you tacitly confess anyway. It is Italian, not Latin, and there is absolutely no sound reason whatever for giving it an Latin plural (although we just might justify an Italian one). The fact that the ignorant have been known to confuse Latin and Italian is a thumping great "non-reason", surely. Citing dictionaries is fraught in a context like this. Dictionaries (especially popular ones) are primarilly concerned with recording the language as it is actually used, rather than the "correct" spelling - and will in fact quite often record "wrong" spellings that are "often" found(!!) They also have a perfectly good reason (which we do not) for including several alternative spellings - after all, words are what they are about, whereas we are more concerned with the ideas the words stand for. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we are effectively constrained to limit ourselves to the most "correct" form of a word or phrase, unless popular usage has totally overwhelmed it (NOT the case here, mercifully). "Linguas franca" is simply wrong, on similar grounds - we only put the plural on "inverted" noun-adjective combinations where the construction is based on French usage (even this is rather silly, since genuine French usage would pluralise the adjective as well). Even here, Fowler and many other authorities decry it except in certain fossilised remnants we probably can't get rid of at this stage. In case I be put down as a pedant here - pedantry is rather the coining of the weired and wonderful - there is (or ought to be) another word altogether for defending the simple and natural. The "natural" English formation is "lingua francas" - which happens also to be correct. Adding alternative forms may work well for a dictionary entry - but adds nothing to an encyclopedia article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
7.5: thank you for playing (adding a colon to my comment), but I was replying to your first paragraph, not your second. —Tamfang (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
By all means remove any indent you think makes the thread harder to follow. Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals, there's a spectrum of language epistemology from linguistic prescription to linguistic description and blends in between. Your mention of what's "natural" and "correct", as well as your conception of how dictionaries approach the two, show that you're firmly a prescriptivist. Not going to try to convert you to linguistic science, but your idea that encyclopedias are inherently supposed to be prescriptionist in contrast to dictionaries being [lamentably] descriptivist is a false dichotomy. Good writing and copyediting are always a balance of the two, in either of those reference works or in many other spheres. And that's a driving spirit behind the AHD editorial mindset. As for encyclopedic coverage of topics like etymology, orthography, and language epistemology itself, Wikipedia should state the facts on all of what's under the sun. For example, in this particular case, it should state that "the Latinized plural form linguae francae was born of false etymology, although it is nevertheless widespread in English and thus entered in major dictionaries. It is best avoided by the careful writer, as prescriptivists decry its false etymological roots." — ¾-10 03:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I certainly don't consider there to be anything "lamentable" about dictionaries being descriptionist (or at last more descriptionist than encyclopedias). That's what they're there for. My point is that encyclopedias should use language consistently, and (typos excepted) "correctly". By "natural" I simply mean following the normal rules of the language rather than manufacturing exceptions to them that have no etymological basis. I tend to actually be in favour of changes that move in the direction of simplifying the written language, or at least making it more consistent. What I don't like are innovations that are based in ignorance (especially that species of ignorance that comes from a tiny grain of very superficial and poorly digested "knowledge") and that introduce unnecessary, and frankly silly, complications to something that's already quite hard for foreigners, and even native speakers, to get right. "Lingua francas" is (so far as I know) still everyone's FIRST choice, even if some dictionaries recognise other alternatives, or at least note that they are sometimes used. In a dictionary, or an encyclopedia article on (say) the subject of pendantry and false etymology we might like to go into this sort of thing a bit. No need whatever to even mention it in passing here - where we are not taking about how to spell something - but about what it is. Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about "Lingua francas" being everyone's first choice; this kind of pluralisation of just the second word sounds really strange to my ear, particularly because English pluralises nouns but not adjectives, whereas this expression pluralises the adjective but not the noun. Wouldn't "Linguas francas" or "Linguas franca" sound better? --200.179.59.4 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you (or anyone) actually write (much less SAY) "linguas francas"? With all due respect - there is very simply no way known that that is English. But is "franca" even an adjective here? In this context "lingua franca" is an English noun phrase, made up of two words that remain obdurately foreign on their own. We have perfectly good English words for both of the parts ("language" and "French" (or perhaps "Frankish")). Put them together and they say something different. No wonder at all then that it is "lingua francas" that "sounds right" to anyone with an ear for English. if BOTH sound just a little strange, it is that this is a noun (or noun phrase) that is in the ordinary course of events almost never pluralised (except perhaps in an article like this) - you just don't get to talk about more than one lingua franca in the same breathe that often. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there was some discussion about this at Talk:List of lingua francas#Changing title to "List of linguas francas". If dictionaries contain a plural form, it is usually both lingua francas and linguae francae,[1][2][3] and some only list lingua francas.[4] That, plus WP:USEENGLISH, seems good enough evidence for us to stick with lingua francas, in my opinion. To me, consulting dictionaries seems to be a far more practical way of settling this than arguing over the finer points of linguistics. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Lingua franca" is in origin neither Latin (it appears in Latin, but meaning "language of the Franks") nor Italian but (Mediterranean) Lingua Franca, which had no formal singular/plural distinction in nouns. In Lingua Franca, at least, the plural of lingua franca was lingua franca. RandomCritic (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Why English needs to have Latin, Italian, "French", even Lingua Franca plurals imposed on it in place of (or in addition to) the already rather confusing "native" English ones (viz. childeren, sheep) frankly beats me. Sorry. :) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourced vs. true

I have deleted the following well-sourced claim from the article:

The term lingua franca is first recorded in English in 1678. (Reference) Lingua franca is discussed in these etymology dictionaries: Ernest Weekley Etymology Dictionary (1921), Eric Partridge Etymology Dictionary (1966), Douglas Harper Etymology Dictionary (2001)


Why delete such a statement, with so many very excellent sources backing it up? Because of my own private, POV, originally-researched judgment that well-sourced statements ought not to be included in Wikipedia if they happen not to be true -- at least without some comment on the fact that they aren't true. In fact, the word "lingua franca" is attested in English at least as early as 1632, as shown here: "he came up to him, as soon as the Consul had gone in, and, in Lingua Franca, or Bastard Spanish, said..." (J. Morgan, A Compleat History of the Present Seat of War in Africa, London, 1632). However, I can't say I've found a secondary citation for this source in any modern reference work. The question then arises: are Wikipedia editors allowed to present facts which, though demonstrably true in themselves, are contradicted by "sources"? RandomCritic (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you!! - Which may seem strange given my own record on similar questions. I honestly think we would be better off, rather than simply deleting 1st rate sources like this - to qualify the statement on the lines "first use of the term in English is often stated to be 1678 (references) although an apparent earlier use of the term is 1632 (add the original Morgan work if we can't find a third party reference to it). In fact I very nearly did this myself - better you do it as you have the details for your modern edition of Morgan (assuming you have one?) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

N.b., of the "sources," Weekley gives no date, Harper writes "1670s," and Partridge is inaccessible.RandomCritic (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Having now consulted another edition of Partridge, I see that he does not provide any date either. I have no idea where the "1678" comes from, but obviously we can't say "often stated to be 1678" when it's not even stated once. As for "apparent earlier use," this sort of weasel-wording irks me. It's not an "apparent earlier use," it is an earlier use in English, without qualification. I'll try to come up with an appropriate wording that will allow the sources to be retained for the information that they actually provide.RandomCritic (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Plurals? Not even an issue here, so why make it one?

There is very simply no need to impose "Latin", French or Italian plurals on English words. See the "talk" page at list of lingua francas. This is especially true in this article, where there is not even any need to mention ANY plural, even the correct English one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Common language

A "common language" is simply a language people happen to have in common. This language may or may not be a lingua franca. Another way of putting this may be that lingua francas are often used as common languages between individuals, families and nations. But any language at all (including many that are NOT lingua francas) may be used as a common language, provided two individuals happen to share a working knowledge of it. If (say) two Africans from different tribes communicate in French, which is of course a widespead lingua franca in parts of West Africa, they are using that lingua franca as a common language. If (on the other hand) an Australian and a Japanese person both happen to have learned French in High school, and find it is their best common language (at least better than the Australian's Japanese or the Japanese person's English) then you couldn't call that using French as a lingua franca - it is a coincidental common language rather than a systematic one (especially if both persons' French is very bad). The above is just to clarify a well-meant ("good-faith") edit I have just reverted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while all Lingua francas may be common languages - by no means all common languages are lingua francas. ALL languages, whether lingua francas or not, are common languages, at least every now and then. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am no expert of the subject. Can you please provide an example of a widely used Common Language that IS NOT a Lingua Franca, now or in the past ? Perhaps we need to augment the text later on and narrow it down as "a widely accepted common language is a lingua franca".

ANoDyNoS (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that "widely used" bit. Reread the current text, which I already changed, and which I think makes it clearer. (May well have another go at this when I've thought about it for a bit.) By no means all communication using a common language involves a lingua franca. "Official" French, to take a very good example, is a vernacular language in many parts of France - and a lingua franca in other parts of France (and other parts of the world, for instance parts of West Africa and South-East Asia) where French is not the local vernacular at all. But it is also used casually between people who simply happen not to have another common language (see the example in my first post). If we were to count this kind of use then ALL languages are lingua francas (at least now and then) - which makes the term pointless. The term "common language" describes a situation rather than a specifc language - someone once said that the "English and the Americans are divided by a common language". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Another example - in Papua New Guinea there are hundreds of vernacular languages, and three "official" lingua francas (all of them very widely used as common languages) - Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu, and (PNG) English. But quite often individuals will actually communicate using a vernacular that for some reason (other than place of birth) they happen to have in common. This kind of use of a vernacular may be how a lingua franca might arise - but it does not in itself give the language in question the status of a lingua franca. I knew a French missionary priest in PNG who communicated with a PNG colleague in Latin, French, and English as the mood seemed to take them (obviously, both men spoke all three languages fluently). They could also, incidentally - communicate well in Mekeo (the PNG priest's own native language) - and both spoke reasonable Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu (!), although they used these languages (on a regular basis) to their parishioners rather than each other. Looking at a situation like this, we obviously need (in the context of an encyclopedia, at least) to NOT confuse "common language", and "lingua franca". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive amounts of content removed from article

A huge amount of content was removed from the article circa July 2010 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lingua_franca&oldid=374455539). Although some of it was inaccurate, there is a lot of useful information there -- just needs some sources. Perhaps it could be reconsidered for inclusion, maybe rewritten to better match the title and scope of the topic. Also the section "General sense" on this talk page looks like it could be integrated into the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a separate article listing all the lingua francas. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

LWC?

Wondering if there's a reason why the term "language of wider communication" (LWC) is not included among alternative terms in the lead paragraph. This is not to advocate it as a term, but it is used (and the term on WP redirects to this article). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics actually has an article entitled "Lingua Franca and Language of Wider Communication."--A12n (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lingua franca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

List of examples

Stretching our definitions a little, most languages are in fact "lingua francas" at certain times and in certain places. On the other hand, this is not really what this article is about. Stretching the list of lingua francas to include "marginal" or "occasional" ones is (in this context) unhelpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In spite of the many examples given above, and its use in many countries in Europe, you've decided that German is not a lingua franca in your eyes. WP, for example, says that German is "the most widely natively spoken language in the European Union. German also is the third most taught foreign language in both the US and the EU, the second most commonly used scientific language, the third largest contributor to research and development as well as the third most used language on websites." German is a major industrial language. Can you explain your position that German is not a lingua franca for our benefit? Santamoly (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
German is indeed a very important language - among other things it is the language of great poets and philosophers (I nearly appended a list of them here but it would make this post MUCH too long) - and indeed it is also all of the things you mention (some of them in spades). But the article is very specifically about being a lingua franca, which in itself has absolutely nothing to do with "being widely spoken as a native language" or "being widely taught as a second language", and really not a lot to do with being used on websites or used for industrial and scientific research (although we are sneaking a bit closer to the mark with the last two). ANY language can be a lingua franca in one sense - if (let's say) a Japanese person and a French person happen to have German as their "best common language" and speak or write to each other in German then they are using German as a lingua franca for the moment. But really this is relatively uncommon and in itself doesn't make German a lingua franca in the sense we mean in this article. Another point is that Wikipedia is full of these little "mini-lists" - they are not meant to be 100% comprehensive - if they were there'd be no room for anything else in the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the English section as the modern lingua franca?

Why was this deleted? Twobells (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref 4 is biased and wrong

First of all, it's not a news report. It express the author's own opinion, which could be (and in this instance really is) biased. However the opinion expressed in the article is copied into this Wikipedia page. Secondly, most advantages of English, as mentioned by the author of that article, are shared by Mandarin Chinese too, with the sole exception of the "normal you" and "respected you", the latter of which is only used in very formal occasions in Chinese. So the article cannot really prove that Mandarin Chinese cannot truly be a lingua franca. Besides, Chinese does not differentiate between "a" and "an" which is an advantage compared to English :) Jack980517 (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing Ref 4 as well as the phrase that refers to it. Jack980517 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The above boils down to "I don't like this reference because I disagree", which is a very poor reason for removing a reference! So my immediate impulse was to simply revert. But having a look at the article concerned, it reads like a piece of second-rate popular journalism and is for a number of reasons reasons NOT very "encyclopedic". It most certainly doesn't qualify as an RS! Among other reasons because it uses "lingua franca" in a much more restricted sense than the subject of this article. This is no place for partisan argument, especially of the kind fueled by ignorance and stupidity (on both sides!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

French has NEVER been the sole official language in the European Community.

I was appalled when I read the following statements in the 'Lingua franca' article:

"For many years, until the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, French was the sole official language of the European Economic Community". ... ... "A landmark recognition of the dominance of English came in 1995 when, on the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, English joined French as one of the official languages of the European Union".

This is totally unfundamented and simply ridiculous. The official languages of each individual country are (and have always been) official in the EU as well. This includes, of course, spanish, german, dutch, english, maltese... you name it. The only exception are those languages that are only 'partially' official, so to speak. An example: galician, basque and catalan are official in their corresponding regions in Spain, but not in all the country, and therefore not in the EU. I think that frysk is official in Friesland, but not in all the Netherlands, and therefore not in the EU, and so on.

All documents must be translated to each and every language, period. However, not all languages can be used while official matters are being discussed in real time. But english, german AND french have always been used as 'working languages', ever since what we now know as the EU was first founded in the fifties.

Please correct those silly and unfundamented remarks.

In any case this remark bears no relation whatsoever to this article - at least in any recent version - is this what the "tagger" meant? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

French vs. English

For centuries - if one were to learn a "modern" European language that would enable one to "get by" in Europe it would have been French. At least a fair smattering of French was a part of a normal educated person's equipment. The Duke of Wellington and Blücher greeted each other in (rather poor) French after the Battle of Waterloo. Almost a century later, during WWI, when the German fighter ace Richthofen communicated with a British pilot he had shot down he expected them to be able to speak in French - and was a bit nonplussed when the Englishman's French was too limited to allow this. French was, as recorded in the article, the official language of international diplomacy as well as the most usual casual lingua franca between two educated Europeans who didn't have one of their own national languages in common.

It is now English. When to date the change is a little dicey - as it happened fairly gradually. In an encyclopedia we need to state the indisputable fact sometimes, even if it a little vague. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Linguistics

Experiment Arjunkmohan (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Experiment"? In the absence of any justification for this rather bizarre idea it is very hard to take seriously. If the proposer or another cannot produce a rationale then this needs to be speedily removed, IMHO. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I done this tagging for experiment. -Arjunkmohan (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

needs more work

English is a lingua franca of professionals a lot of East Asian countries eg Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand.

Dutch is a Lingua Franca in Italy. (since what do you call Frankish Language in Italy ? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.77.240 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples

Short "example" lists are common in many Wikipedia articles - just so long as they do not become subject to "indefinite addition" they can be useful - but attempts to render them "comprehensive", or to add one's own favourite and "unjustly omitted" example to the list quickly render them so unwieldy as to become pretty useless. There is a whole article attempting a comprehensive list of lingua francas - all we need here is a short list - not necessarily listing the most important, but giving examples from several widely differing cultures. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lingua franca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lingua_franca/Archive_2&oldid=1136363124"