Talk:British English

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (10 November 2001—24 April 2005): Talk from before the 1 June 2005 rewrite.

---

American Accent ??

Here is the magic question. What British accent most resembles General American accent? By General American accent it is meant the kind used by most newscasters in America. It is sometimes called "accentless" or "midwestern" because it is neither southern or extreme northern. I could not find the answer to this question. Someone told me that Geordie is the closest accent to general American...but I have my doubts. Others said Yorkshire, others said Cornwall. Can you help? Any ideas? Thanks.

Having lived in the North East for many years, I'd argue against it being closest to the 'Amercian' accent. The majority of Geordie slang and pronunciation stems from Scandinavian languages. Persoanlly I hear little similarity to 'American'.

Well, my grandmother is from Sheffield and parts of her speech are quite american, even after almost 50 years after leaving england, so id say around there would be a fairly close match. And no, i wouldnt consider US to be accentless. If anyone is it would be the poms around london, england had english before the other english speaking countries, or my personal opinion, that us aussies are accentless. Aussies can do english and american accents quite easily, but ive never heard an american or englishman do anything other than their own (We are not AUSSSSSIES), and dont bring up that goose english actor posing as an aussie that was on JAG (Name slips me, but he commited suicide shortly after he was busted as not acutally being an australian. He didnt even sound remotely australian, he sounded like a South African, so im not even sure anyone outside of aus can tell the difference. Squad'nLeedah 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ahpook 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say a southern Irish accent is the closest, which would make sense if you think about the scale of historical migration from there to the US. Mjobling

Just so you know, I feel pretty certain that in the U.S., the "neutral" or "accentless" accent would not be called "midwestern." Georgraphically, this "neutral" accent predominates everywhere from the Rocky Mountains west (excepting Hawaii), whereas the Midwest of the U.S. ends at the eastern margin of the Rocky Mountains. Generally speaking, the American midwest has what many people consider a fairly strong accent, and the phrase "midwestern accent" would definitely refer in America to this accent. Most people would probably call "accentless" American speech the "neutral accent"; they might also perhaps go with "California accent" (not to be confused with the surfer accent or Valley girl accent) or "western accent." Ventifact 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I'd agree that to my ear a 'neutral' American accent does sound quite like a soft Southern Irish accent as regards the 'rythym' and 'rise and fall' of the voice. With many Americans I can also often hear a trace of a mild 'West Country' accent (as spoken in an area inside, say Bristol, Gloucester, Swindon and Weymouth) in the use of some sounds (especially 'r'). Again, as Bristol was a major embarkation point for The New World, perhaps many emigrants were drawn from rural parts of the surrounding area, and it all got blended together. ChrisRed 10:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

back in the 80s there was a woman on the local news whose west country accent was so pronounced that she was often mistaken for an american. The news programme covered Cornwall, Devon and the west of Somerset and Dorset, but I don't remember exactly where she lived. Totnesmartin 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-British Characteristics of English in this Article

The entire second paragraph seems to describe the English language as a whole and has no specific relevance to British English (other than the fact that English was spoken in the British Isles before it was elsewhere). It seems to me the paragraph should be reduced to a statement that authorities in the UK, as in the rest of the Anglosphere, record usage rather than prescribe it; currently the article suggests that other English-speaking countries have equivalent bodies to the Académie française. All of the information about a lack of institutional governance on the language, its propensity toward borrowing, idiom, neologism, etc. apply to the language as a whole, not British English in particular, and so have no place in this article. The authoritative dictionaries of the UK are probably worth noting, but the context in which they are mentioned here needs to be mostly removed. If you disagree please let me know; I will wait a few days before altering the article. 216.186.102.42Ventifact I'll reproduce the paragraph in question here for convenience:

As with many other aspects of British culture, the English language as spoken in the United Kingdom and Ireland is governed by convention rather than formal code: there is no equivalent body to the Académie française, and the authoritative dictionaries (e.g. Oxford English Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Chambers Dictionary, Collins Dictionary) record usage rather than prescribe it. As a result there is significant variation in grammar, usage, spelling, and vocabulary within English as used in the UK, and lively, idiomatic uses of the language are commonplace. In addition, vocabulary and usage change with time; words are freely borrowed from other languages and other strains of English, and neologisms are frequent.

Accent

"British people say they speak English, they would never say that they speak British, and others speak English with accent." When we (British) say someone speaks with an accent, we are refering to pronunciation, not use of different words. We would just call this American English, or Canadian English.

Redirect

I disagree with this page just being a redirect to English English. This implies that Britain=England. If the term is controversial then lets explain it - is it a political, linguistic term or what? We can NPOV this - it's not atm. 81.187.43.179 07:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, so I have restarted the British English article—mostly as a disambiguation page, but also to try to explain why the term is found offensive by many. JeremyA 01:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It would be wrong to simply redirect, but with the article as is, there should be a clear link in the first paragraph (or as a disambiguation preamble) to the English English article which covers the same basic subject in much greater depth... Otherwise there is a risk that this article will just become full of lower quality repeat information. 69.140.65.251 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

English Singing

Why is it that when peoples of the British Isles seem to 'lose' their accent and get a more American sounding accent when they sing? Kaiser Matias 03:08 4 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree (as a Brit): it's annoying. I don't lose my accent when I sing, but that's because I sing quite frequently; don't listen or sing along to pop music (the chief of sinners in this regard); and pay careful attention to my singing when I sing. Obviously when singing, you get a bit of accent shift (I tend to go more RP for clarity reasons), but all the same I fail to understand why people insist on sounding like some generic American pop artist when they sing. It causeth me to grind my teeth. Wooster 09:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's probably down to their influences. If you learn that "that" is the way to sing that style of music then you mimic it, knowingly or not. violet/riga (t) 10:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone trying to argue such a point has obviously never been to a Welsh Rugby match and listened to the crowds sing "Bread of Heaven". Everyone sings songs in the accent the song is most often sung in. Jerusalem is sung in proper English not a US drawl everywhere. --BozMo 12:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's gross generalisation to say the people from the British Isles lose there accent when singing. Take the Sex Pistols, Blur, The Jam, Oasis, Coldplay and numerous other band that sing with an "Brtish accent". In the early days of rock n'roll in Britain some bands imitated the recordings of American rock n'roll and blues (like The Rolling Stones) which was a novel and exotic sound to those brought up on Skiffle or whatever. Some British singers will always ape the "exotic" American sound, but plenty don't. Jooler 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

People might be interested in checking out this reference:

Trudgill Peter. 1983. "Acts of Conflicting Identity. The Sociolingistics of British Pop-Song Pronunciation" in Peter Trudgill, On Dialect. Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. 141-160.

FrancisTyers 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This is terrible! I am very disappointed in all of you... I was looking for a guide on Britain's pronounciation/slang and all I got was arguments and extraneous capitalization. Really now, Wikipedia should be a more respectable medium than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.146.37 (talk • contribs) .

Pronounciation and slang vary widely throughout Britain, that is why this article was broken into articles such as English English, Scottish English, and Welsh English. See the 'See also' section to find what you are looking for. JeremyA (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite, the idea of there being such a thing as a "British" accent is silly as well as a little demeaning - what Americans probably mean is "RP accent", or "Posh" as northerners like myself would call it.

I'm very pleased that this page has been redone, there was clearly a lot of dissatisfaction with it. It seems that in general the issue of the way English is treated on Wikipedia is still not entirely satisfactory to many British people. Neither redirections from "Aubergine" to "Eggplant" nor "Rappalling" to Abseiling seem satisfactory; one wonders whether some more equanimious solutions might be proposed, such as: machine translation, and multiple headwords. I'm currently trying to help expand the American and British English differences sections, which I wonder might be better off presented in a different way, for a variety of reasons discussed on that page. Promsan

English English

the argument about the ellipsis of "accent" sounds ad-hoc and homegrown. The question isn't whether the English say that they speak "English". The question is whether the term "English English" is in actual use: the question is, does "English English" have any sort of academic credentials? In either case, we should merge the articles, it won't do to have two articles about the exact same topic. dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno but I reckon it be better if we talk about the difrent dalect languages of england aswel such as scouse Black Country geordie theres dialects in england that are regarded so broad that they becaume whole new languages. I speak black country .

                                                                                    paul

Proper usage in wikipedia.

Curious, I haven't found a definitive answer regarding whether or not Wikipedia is English (American) or English (British). Sure, wiki was founded in the US but it resides on the .org infrastructure... which could be anything. Things ranging from "color" vs 'colour" to "trousers" vs "pants", since there is no universal spelling, wording, whatever, I don't know if it is ok to RV someones British spelling or word..... what to do?... Binarypower 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spelling. I'd say that the mixture of spellings etc. in Wikipedia is a good thing. It's an added educational bonus (seeing the variety, and realising that the different versions are equally "correct"), and it reflects the nature and origin of the project. No straitjacket, please - but do respect the spelling conventions of each article, and keep it in the version of English in which it started. Consistency within an article is desirable, consistency across the whole encyclopaedia is not. Snalwibma 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." Thats one reference from the Wikipedia:Spelling policy that I use as a discriminator when I am trying to decide between which dialect to use consistently through an article. The other one is to "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." Ansell 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

English is English, American is wrong, plain and simple. 130.246.132.26 13:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Im an Australian. I speak english. Colour is spelt with a U, HERBS has the H pronounced, in VEHICLES its SILENT. You cant bastardise a language to suit your own ends and then claim it as a world standard. Please, keep to proper english. Squad'nLeedah 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary

I have reverted the edit by Vedek Dukat which added a reference to Webster's Dictionary into the sentence about "authoritative dictionaries". This is an article on British English: Webster's Dictionary is American and is not authorative on British usage. This is borne out by the section about Webster in the American English article, which indicates that Webster's contribution was to show the differences between the two dialects. TrevorD 11:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in reading the full sentence I see what you mean. I apologize - I'd not read the beginning bit and was referring to the fact that Webster wanted to standardize things, but read in context (and fully awake) it sounds very out of place. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TrevorD 10:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

British lexicographers

88.106.159.73, you've deleted the suggestion that linguists and lexicographers use the term "British English" with the comment: "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.". This leaves unanswered the questions:

• What terms do British lexicographers use to distinguish between "British English" and "American English"?
• What about non-British & non-American lexicographers? Do they use "British English"?

TrevorD 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment. [1] [2] [3] and I could go on and on. If I, a linguist, were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in New England, North, South, Midland, and Western U.S., the title would be Dialects of American English. If I were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in Northern England, Southern England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, what do you think the title of such a book would be? I'd say, The Dialects of Standard English? The Dialects of English?. 88.106.159.73, the only POV thing here is your patent insularity. --JackLumber 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack - I was supporting you - agreeing with you! Someone else changed the article and commented "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.". I questioned it! I wanted to put it back, but asked for another viewpoint first! -- TrevorD 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3 times did this user revert it. Cheers (!) for your support. JackLumber 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

British Isles vs. UK vs. Britain

It seems like more care should be taken to differentiate different Englishes in the British Isles. For ex., do the Irish think of themselves as British? Hard to imagine that most of them would. I don't know enough about this topic to make the changes myself; just wanted to note the issue. Hyperborean 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk:British Isles archive! The answer is that many folk from Northern Ireland think of themselves as Irish and British, while even more from the other country in Ireland (which apparently prefers to call itself Ireland) are vehemently opposed to being called British or being thought of as in the British Isles. In Wikipedia minorities don't get outvoted on what they call themselves. ...dave souza, talk 08:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! An old fight indeed! As long as the (Republican) Irish refer to their English as British English -- which would seem odd to me -- there's no problem. But if those in that part of the British Isles do not refer to their English as British English, then the intro paragraph should probably be rewritten. (Having a nationality from a different region, I don't dare make any changes myself.) Hyperborean 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There really is no need for Northern Ireland to be spelt out in the intro like that. There is being PC and then there is making the article look ridiculous. People in Northern Ireland understand that Ireland includes them for the sake of describing the geography of the language, the same way as people in the Republic understand that they speak a derivation of British English, where British refers to the Isles. I am changing it back to simply Ireland, (which links to the island) as this should not be a politically loaded article

I would have thought from the full title "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it would be obvious that Britain is england, scotland and wales; and so Northern Ireland is part of UK, but not GB; and Republic of Ireland (Eire; the rest of Ireland) is a different country alltogether and neither British, not in the UK. Does Ireland (the island, not jsut Eire)count as a British Isle? Does northern Ireland? Again from the name U.K. of G.B. & N.I. I would have thought neither of them could possibly count as british isles like mainland britain, isle of man, isle of white etc.--82.23.149.135 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who think that "American English" is dominant

Atlant: Your revert reintroduced the POV view about Americans. I removed the sentence, as a peace-making gesture. What people think about American English is not, in fact, relevant in that paragraph, and probably not in the article as a whole. (For the record, there is plenty of evidence that many non-Americans think American English is dominant, and plenty of evidence that many non-Americans think some other form is dominant. That issue can go in a different article.) Hyperborean 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that because of the vastness of the commonwealth, more people speak and write in the world British English than American English, but because hollywood movies are so widespread, people assume American English is dominant; but I can't remember my source, it was probably TV (QI or something), so I wouldn't write it in an article. --KX36 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all part of someone's opinion. Because I am English and live in England, I wouldn't even dream of speaking American English as my primary accent. In my opinion, none of the accents are dominant, as American English originated from British English, as did all kinds of other english. Mil Falcon 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think one of these articles on American English or the differences between AmE and BrE or something says that when the puritans left for america, they were speaking (and writing, for whom could write) in AmE, as was everyone else in britain at the time and that BrE has evolved since then while AmE has remained as it was 300 years ago. This is probably oversimplified, but I think the point it's trying to make is that the 2 versions of English are homologous (from a common ancestor) rather than AmE is an alteration on BrE or vice versa. It's similar to a common inaccuracy in Evolution theory to say things like "man evolved from monkeys" when really the theory only states that they came from a common ancestor which was neither human or monkey. (It's also common to state this THEORY as fact). --KX36 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether its dominant or not, its inherantly wrong owing to the fact that the language didnt come from there. I support americans changing the english language just as much as i support australians doing it. Not at all. (Ever heard an ocker aussie? They are an embarrasment and im damn glad i have the background i have.....) Squad'nLeedah 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Map

The map on this page is misleading see Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.

Misleading? I can't even read it! Totnesmartin 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the map still misleading - i.e., do the above comments apply to the map in the article now or to some earlier version? For example, the map implies to me that people in the far south-west of England speak Cornish, but in fact almost nobody does. Probably more people in Cornwall speak French or Hindi than Cornish. If people agree it's misleading, then it should be removed. Comments please. --A bit iffy 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory?

"Although British English is often used to denote the English spelling and lexicon used outside the US, this usage is not completely accurate, as almost all British spelling rules and the vast majority of British vocabulary are actually shared among the whole English-speaking world outside the US (except Canada as far as lexicon is concerned)"

Is it just me, or is this contradictory? It seems to be saying:

Although British English is used to describe English outside the US, this is not accurate, since most English outside the US is British English.

Is the point that it's rather odd to call in British English if it's not really specific to Britain? Then this should be much more explicit. garik 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is the English of Australia, or India etc really commonly referred to as British? This seems a bit dubious to me. I've removed it anyway - if anyone has rather more confidence in (or evidence for) the claim, and a way of making it less ambiguous, please reinstate it. garik 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to other dialects

I think the links to Australia, New Zealand, etc. should point to the pages for the respective versions of English (Australian English, New Zealand English) rather than to the pages for the countries. This is also true for the article on Standard English. Opinions? Jpg 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

William Caxton

Where it says in the article that london english and the the english of the east midlands rose to be the form used for officail purposes, i do not feel this is a strong enough reason to ignore how william caxton, printing in the 15th century, standerdised english into a london/kentish form, as that is what he spoke, and what he considerd to be the best. Also, since french was the official language of the court for over 300 years after 1066, and many documents were written in latin, you cannot say the 9th centruy usage would have such a big impact on the language. if you consider how different chaucers language is to ours, this language, two centuries before the french invasion, would be very very, different language to ours. Where as to me, the article implies that the anglo-saxon language of the 9th century would be rather similar to modern english, where with much less latin influence i do not think this would be the case

This is ridiculous

British English? By definition all English is British. English is the language of Great Britain. Surely the only seperate article should be on the degenerative and primitive forms spoken elsewhere, such as the United States and other rebel colonies.

How rude. Can the language as spoken in the British Isles be called 'standard'? I hail from darkest Lancashire, and now live in the South of England. Many people down here wish I came with subtitles :-) ChrisRed 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the rudest things I have ever heard. English has changed significantly in many areas, and saying that the language belongs exclusively to Great Britain couldn't be any more wrong. British English isn't any more or less correct than any other form of it. I don't understand how American English could be called primitive either, as it has had the same amount of time to develop as British English.

Calling the United States a "rebel colony" also seems unnecessarily hostile. Voretus the Benevolent 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the concept of 'British English' is nonsense. The whole of the UK and Irish Republic could easily fit inside a circle less than 1000 miles in diameter, and yet I could take you to places within that circle where the local accent deviates far more from so-called 'standard' English than any accent that you will find outside the circle. An American accent is just that...an accent. As 'English central', the British can tell which part of the 'Anglosphere' somebody comes from within a few seconds, be it Australia, South Africa, or North America (USA and Canadian accents overlap too much for most of us to tell the difference). I have never come across a (caucasian) American who I cannot understand perfectly. But; I could take an American to places in - say - Glasgow, Tyneside or Devonshire where I guarantee that he will not understand one single word of what is spoken, and will need me to 'translate' it from English to English. The main differences that the British notice is with occasional mangled words (especially the American habit of switching ...-ity and ...-ness endings), odd pronunciations (i.e. 'Nucular' for 'Nuclear') and different spellings (i.e. "Really?" in America is spelt "No shit!") ChrisRed 08:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of pronunciation, regional differences are common, and acceptable, as are words more commonly spoken in certain areas - eg. "wee" from scotland. Spelling however is either right or wrong, and in this case American is wrong. The only real differences in British/American spelling is the American simplification of words because their small brains cannot cope with the difference between written and spoken English. Anyway has no-one thought to look "English" = language from "England" not "United States of America. 130.246.132.26 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your reasoning in regards to spelling being either right or wrong? Most people would disagree with you.

Many people look at "English" as the language from "England", as it indeed is. That doesn't mean it must stay in England. It has changed in certain areas of the world (the United States), but not enough to justify calling it a different language.

I don't understand your logic in calling pronunciation differences acceptable while calling spelling differences unacceptable.

It has not been shown in any way that people from the United States have smaller brains than English people. I'm wondering where you got that supposition from. Cheers. Voretus the Benevolent 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Benevolent...Do Not Feed The Troll ChrisRed 19:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, go on, let's! It was a good one. --JamesTheNumberless 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "British English" include English spoken in Ireland?

Perhaps this has been discussed a million times before, but is everyone happy that so-called "British English" includes the variety of English spoken in the island of Ireland, as the article says it does? This surprised me, and Googling around I find plenty of instances of people who seem to think that "Irish English", or "Hiberno-English", or whatever you want to call it, is not a part of British English. (However, I'm unclear where that leaves English as spoken in Northern Ireland.) Please note: I am not trying to start a political debate about what things should be called. All I am questioning is whether the article's definition of "British English" corresponds to generally accepted usage. If there is no generally accepted definition - and some use "British English" to include "Irish English" and others don't - then the article should reflect this. Matt 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

This seems to crop up a lot nowadays. I suppose that if you stretch a point to its limit you can have 'Irish English' in the same way as you can have 'Yorkshire English', 'London English', 'Stanley Unwin English' and 'Officer Crabtree English'...

That isn't really what I meant. The examples you give are, I would say, very obviously part of "British English". On the other hand it's nowhere near so obvious (to me anyway) whether "Irish English" is part of "British English". Matt 12:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

...Opinions vary, and (especially in places like Northern Ireland) the word 'English' itself arouses different feelings in different people, with some people seeking (for political reasons) to emotionally distance themselves from 'England the country' rather the language. I know it's very unlikely, but the problem could maybe be solved by calling the language something else. Perhaps this would even be more accurate, as the modern language is of course something of a 'soup' made up from bits of other people's languages. The soup just happened to be put together in England. If the Romans / Saxons / Normans / Vikings etc. had turned left instead of right it would simply have happened somewhere else, and the British would be speaking a language called 'Aquitainian' or something. ChrisRed 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what you are getting at. I think it is still a matter of opinion where the boundary lies between a strong dialect and a separate language. All I know is that when I have heard Irish people speak, they do so in a nice accent - not a separate language. I can usually understand them perfectly. (For the record I speak fairly standard working-class English with a Lancashire/Manchester dialect). If you give anybody from the British Isles a piece of paper with English text on it, everybody will understand it, but will read it out aloud in his own accent. Compare this with the so-called 'Scots Language', where people have transcribed 'Burns-Speak' phonetically and tried to call it a separate language, as though there is still anybody alive in Scotland who finds it easier to read 'Scots' than normal English :-).ChrisRed 08:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very well, but none of it actually addresses the point I raised. Namely, in its generally accepted meaning, does the term "British English" include the variety of English spoken in the island of Ireland? Matt 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

I think the answer is, in a way, very simple. In an absolute sense, and in comparison with what is used in Britain, no, the English of Ireland is different. It is Hiberno-English. Or, rather, a batch of varieties of English which between them make up what we can for convenience call Hiberno-English or Irish English - just as "British English" is made up of a whole collection of different ways of writing and saying things (which are not all even mutually intelligible, at least not so easily!). But in comparison with American English we speak and write something much more like British English in Ireland, and I think that - in particular when it comes to the written standard of English - yes, Irish English = British English. But it's not a matter of hard-and-fast rules and boundaries, but of context. In the sense used in the series of Wikipedia articles on BrEng and AmEng, the main contrast is between Am and Br, and in that context IrEng belongs more on the BrEng side. Maybe not so simple, after all! There might be a case for a version of English called British-and-Irish English, or European English, or "the kind of English we speak on this side of the Atlantic" - but, please, not as the basis for a Wikipedia article! Snalwibma 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So for the next question, is Ulster Scots language British English? :) In ye olde days of OS 9 my computer tactfully referred to the non US variety as International English, but now it seems to have Irish, Canadian, Australian etc.....dave souza, talk 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me.....

Right, its bloody annoying when I look at pages regarding British things (such as Bands/teams) and the first line is always "Def Leppard is an English Rock band.." Now, this is totally wrong, in Britain it would be "Def Leppard are an English rock band" I'm aware Americans say things like "Bon Jovi is a great band" whereas here it would be "Bon Jovi are a great band".. it just really gripes me to see things like "Arsenal is a great team!" etc, British media etc always would say "Arsenal are.."

Whats the official "term" for these differences? Is it British Pluralisms? Seems to me an article about a British band/team should use the British examples! "Def Leppard is..." just sounds so wrong to a native English speaker! TheMongoose 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Def Leppard is an English rock band, because there is only one band. The band is English but its members are English. Bon Jovi is a great band, but Def Leppard and Bon Jovi are two great bands, because they are two bands. Cliff Richard is from England (well...India, actually) but the Proclaimers are from Scotland. Quite what we do when we are down to our last Bee-Gee I don't know. See...clear as mud :-) ChrisRed 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, ChrisRed, up to a point. [I am interested to know, though - are you using BrEng or AmEng?] To expand/clarify (I hope!) what you say - I think it would be fair to comment that in AmEng it's more fixed - use the singular verb with a band, team, etc, regardless of the form of the name - but in BrEng it's more a matter of using whichever form sounds best. The Beatles are ... Led Zeppelin is ... But (sticking my neck out) "Def Leppard are ..." is certainly OK in BrEng, especially if the sentence is somehow drawing attention to the separateness of the different members of the band, treating it/them as a collection of people rather than as a single unit. And many people would use "are" anyway, and they are NOT WRONG to do so! Whether that means that all articles on British bands and teams should have their is'es changed to are's is another question, however. Now - is it "The Who is ..." or "The Who are ..."? Snalwibma 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just having a bit of fun. Fowler says that it's OK to use both for collectives, and I hate pedantry anyway. "The Who are..." and "Led Zeppelin are..." sounds fine. I'd just count the legs, and if there are more than two then it's 'are' (except with Rolf Harris). I know; it's just shocking what us Brits do to the American language. ChrisRed 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know! Imagine not knowing the difference between "that" and "which"... Tut tut etc. Snalwibma 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: This is discussed at English collective nouns.

Atlant 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One English Language and 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 English English discussion.

23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)DomUK

First Paragraph

"Though the term is considered standard by some, some find it inappropriate as logically Scottish English is included in British English, implying the existence of English as spoken in England as a category, but "English English" is cumbersome, and suggests that English refers to the language as spoken in England."

I can't understand for the life of me what this is supposed to mean. Of course Scottish English and English English are both sub-categories of British English... It's implied! (read the respective articles) 128.232.240.178 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

British English?

British English IS English and therefore doesn't need to be labelled "British English. It is just English. It may be called ENGLISH. I thank you. (82.40.177.159 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

This article is about the variety of English as spoken in the British Isles, as opposed to the varieties of English spoken elsewhere in the world. Of course English is a single language; this article is mainly about forms and dialects. Voretus 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The writer suggests there is only one English spoken in England. I'll have to go up the apples and pears and think that one over. Wahkeenah 12:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone says above "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." Well since, as can be clearly seen from this page, people from the UK do not use the term "British English", I propose this article be renamed English (British) or English (UK). What Americans and others need to understand is that Wikipedia is totally US-biased, everything ends up being writeen from a US POV. "British" can be offensive to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, that's something that people from the country that popularized political correctness ought to be able to understand.

Americans don't use "American English" either. The title is correct though. It's the variety of English spoken in America. I don't see how that is biased towards the U.S. at all. I don't see how this being called "British English" could be offensive; the article details the forms of English spoken in the British Isles. Voretus 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just looking around for it is more likely to find it under "British English" than to think of typing "English (UK)". But it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as this one and all the other variations have links from the main "English" page. Wahkeenah 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

British English my backside just because you yanks decided to adapt our language beens that now we don't speak English??? I SPEAK ENGLISH NOT BRITISH ENGLISH 82.36.177.31