Talk:American English

Untitled

A user named Raytelford recently changed all references regarding British English to simply English. This seems to imply that American English is a separate language all together from what this user perceives to be "true" English. I restored the article with references to British English. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The terms being used to describe English are in fact wrong. English is a language that developed in and around the British Isles, and should always be known as English. Other countries have decided to adopt the English language and use it as its own. If however a county wants to change the name English to suit its self then it must be completely entitled to do so, such as “American English”. In American English words and meanings differ very much and many times cause much confusion. Regarding the description of original English being called “British English” there is no such language. To try and change the language called “English” to another name is wrong and no one has the right to do so. Today although most English and Americans do understand each other, it is a different language as others have changed certain words away from the original meanings. The difference between English and American English is today also confusing, as many other countries take up learning English as a second language. So it is only correct that the word “British” (in the case of British English) should be removed from this article. It should only say “English” thus referring to original English. --Raytelford (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's merely your opinion, and a quite badly infomed and incorrect one at that. At least you didn't make unilateral changes to the article like you did before. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Raytelford. There is no such thing as "British English". American English is a derivative of the English spoken in all other countries. America was a new nation comprised of immigrants from all over who are responsible for the speech differences. There are also some statistical errors... Americans do not comprise two thirds of the English speaking population. In fact it's about 55% but that of course depends on how you define your selection, for example not all Americans speak English and for a lot of Americans English is not their first language. If Americans are attempting to claim that their spelling is more correct, then please be reminded that they are only one of the countries in world where English is first language and its widely spoken everywhere else. For example in Turkey new web sites are more often than not published in English. Wallumbase (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"It should only say “English” thus referring to original English," Raytelford? If you've ever tried to read anything written in Old or Middle English, you'd know that what is spoken today in the UK is in no way "original" English. In fact, the case could be made that modern American English more closely resembles the English spoken in England a few centuries ago than modern British English does, with regard to certain vocabulary (as this article notes, fall (autumn), diaper, wrench, etc.), pronunciation (the rhotic R of most American dialects was widespread in England until relatively recently), and even grammar ("have" vs. "have got"). And American English is not "a derivative of the English spoken in all other countries." The US has always been a nation of immigrants, but the first few generations of immigrants, particularly those with the prestige to determine the course of the language as it would develop in North America, were predominately from England. Commonparlance (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

citation creep?

seriously, "English is considered the de facto, "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law", language of the United States because of its widespread use" requires a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AAVE mention on map

The map on the left near the top of the page mentions AAVE as being spoken by Black people. Should this be changed to African Americans? I not aware of any non African-American black people who speak it. --69.248.225.198 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Velar shift of t and d

American English pronounces education and opportunity with velar 'd' and 't' as opposed to palatized 'j' and 'ch' like the rest of the English speaking world. Should add this to phonology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.221.7 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean alveolar? I have never heard anyone say "egg-ucation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

pavement?

pavement is not American English. who ever put that it isn't common in Britain is clearly an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.148.141 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed. They got it wrong. I'm British and everyone I know says pavement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.9.232 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a different idiot, not the person who contributed the word "pavement". I have not had so much direct contact with the British, but this is a usage difference I have often noted in comparing American English with Hong Kong English. In America, the word may refer to any hard paved surface, but usually indicates a paved street for motor vehicles. In Hong Kong, I have seen the word applied only in reference to a sidewalk. The Hong Kong primary school books have all kinds of advice that would not play well in America. E.g., "We should always walk on the pavement." That one is a distant second to my favorite, "We can wash our hands in the public toilet." Geometricks (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To start name calling i.e. Idiot, lowers the standard of Wikipedia and is not necessary to make a point. However the word “Pavement” is used 99% of the time to describe a walkway at the side of the road in the UK. --Raytelford (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not actually accurate. 'Pavement' is used in both American English (AE) and British English (BE). The confusion probably arises because they mean different things. As noted: in BE, the 'pavement' is what in AE is called the 'sidewalk'. In AE, the 'pavement' is what in BE is called the 'road'. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Idiot? C'mon. Get yourself an eggucation. Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

/ɹɪzum/ ?

I'm a native speaker of American English, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone pronounce "resume" with the final "e" silent, as indicated in the "dropping of /j/" portion of the Phonology section. Unless some very substantial citations to the contrary can be produced, I think this should be changed.

67.252.132.138 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)RH, 9-30-10

The pronunciation indicated in the article (re-ZOOM) is that of the verb "to resume" – you seem to be thinking of the noun "resumé" (sometimes spelled without the accent) as in "job application/curriculum vitae", which is RE-zoo-may and does indeed not have a silent e. Maybe someone could make this a bit clearer in the article? 217.226.20.93 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's actually "résumé", with two diacritics. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Different from and plural after collective nouns

I have removed the reference to 'different from', as it was incorrect in suggesting that this is not used in British English. It is in fact the standard form there. I have also weakened the reference to 'the team are...', etc., as this usage is not universal in British English. (In fact the singular is used when the group is seen as one unit, e.g. 'The government is unpopular', but plural when seen as a group of individuals, e.g. 'The government are discussing a reform'). APW (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is a difference between UK and US uses, in regards to "the team are...", since as an American I would consider "the government" to be one unit no matter what the context (although of course in a sentence like "the government is discussing a reform," it's understood that the government is comprised of individuals). Interestingly, without even thinking about it, we shift from the singular to the plural at times, for example: "Nirvana IS my favorite band. They ARE one of the best bands of the '90s" (we wouldn't say "It IS one of the best bands of the '90s").Commonparlance (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

numerous European languages

The introduction of the article has a paragraph with the sentence

"The first wave of English-speaking settlers arrived in North America in the 17th century. During [the 17th century], there were also speakers of numerous Native American languages, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Finnish, Russian (in Alaska), and numerous African languages (mostly from the western coast of Africa)."

I'm trying to concoct a justification wherein this enumeration of languages isn't horribly Eurocentric. I mean, if we picked out just Spanish, French, Dutch, and German for special mention, I could agree that those languages have special roles in the linguistic developments of at least some regions of North America. But we went out of our way to exhaustively list all the European languages spoken in North America in the 17th century, no matter how small the immigrant community nor how little its impact on North American linguistic history. I mean Finnish? Russian? Scots? How are those more noteworthy or relevant than, say, Wolof? Or Navajo?

Obviously we can't list every language spoken in North America in the 17th century. They probably number in the thousands. So what's our plan? List every single European language, no matter how minor, and not a single Native American or African language?

I propose the sentence be changed to one of these alternatives:

"there were also speakers of numerous Native American languages, numerous European languages, and numerous western African languages, among other."

or else

"there were also speakers of numerous Native American languages, including Navajo, Algonquian, Cherokee, Nahuatl, Sioux; numerous European languages, including Spanish, French, Dutch, and German; and numerous western African languages, including Wolof, Mandinka, and Yoruba."

I am open to alternative proposals for determining criteria for listing other languages. But I would ask that these criteria be applied equally to non-European languages.

Alternatively, we could lose the paragraph altogether. I'm not sure how much value it adds to the article.

-lethe ^{talk +} 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Finnish?????

The sentence is overblown and not really linked to anything that precedes it. I propose:

"The first wave of English-speaking settlers arrived in North America in the 17th century. American English has since been influenced by the languages of the Native American population, the languages of European and non-European colonists, immigrants and neighbors, and the languages of slaves from West Africa."

What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dominus. Thank you for replying. I very much like your proposed change. Only I'm a little nervous about asserting that American English was influenced by all these languages, without supporting that assertion in the text of the article. Though of course it is obvious to me that AE does carry influence from many languages of North America, Europe, and Africa. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it supported by the section "Creation of an American lexicon"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Maybe I should finish reading the whole article before I start claiming that something isn't supported by the article text, huh? So yeah, you're right, it's there (though sadly no discussion of african influences). I support replacing the text with your proposed version. -lethe ^{talk +} 23:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. And I'll see if I can add anything about African contribution. Surprised it's not there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexism/sexist language

The topic has not been covered. --Phleer, Yeoman Editor (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would American English be considered sexist and that cant be an opinion if you want it added sources are needed.Pug6666 (talk) 19:07, 21 April

Gotten

The article claims that:

Gotten (past participle of get) is often considered to be an Americanism, although there are some areas of Britain, such as Lancashire and North-eastern England, that still continue to use it.

I am certain that is wrong. I don't know about North-eastern England, but I was born, educated and have worked, lived and travelled in Lancashire for almost 50 years without seeing or hearing "gotten" used by any of its residents - including a wide variety of dialect speakers and writers.

I was born just outside of Manchester and have heard both gotten and putten before. It's not something I'd expect to hear from someone talking in a formal context... or dare I say it, "educated".

--72.225.225.28 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

82.69.29.198 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"He has gotten used to his environment" would be correct in Australia. Wallumbase (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I live in Manchester too. I have relatives just up the road in Westhoughton Lancashire. They don't exactly say "gotten" but they do say "gitten" or "getten" which is pretty near. The accent is very un-American of course. (Is un-American a word? If not, apologies.) Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

'soccer' is alive in Britain

The article claims 'The term "soccer," the term normally used for association football in the United States, originated in Britain, but died out there.'

No, 'soccer' is still current in Britain; for instance if both rugby and association football are played at a school, they may be distinguished as 'rugby' (or 'rugger') and 'soccer' respectively. In Britain 'football' means soccer unless the context implies otherwise (in the minutes of a Rugby Union committee meeting, say); so normally it's not necessary to use 'soccer'. In the US, 'football' means grid-iron, so 'soccer' has to be used.

Since

• a Google search for 'soccer site:.uk' shows examples of current usage, and
• the statement is itself not supported by a citation, and
• the main article Comparison of American and British English contains a more accurate discussion of 'soccer', and additionally
• the statement is irrelevant to the paragraph that it ends,

the statement should be removed.

87.112.7.27 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he's mistaking BrE for Australian English. Peter238 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

American Variety, American Accent or American Dialect?

Is American English merely a variety of English, an accent, or a dialect? Is the syntax, pronunciation, gammar and vocabulary of American English significantly different enough to warrent the term 'dialect'? In comparison, I point to the dialects of other language groups, such as the dialects German (Upper Bavarian, Saxon, Low German Platt, etc.), Italian (Venetian, Sicilian, Calabrese, etc.). The syntax, vocabulary and grammar differences within these dialects are quite high and often so complex that mutual intelligibility can be either difficult or impossible, whereas the minor differences between spoken or written American- and British English are rather small, and are more a matter of accent than dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkaempfer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say American English is a dialect of English, while Upper Bavarian, Saxon, Low German Platt, Venetian, Sicilian, Calabrese, etc., are separate languages, not dialects of German and Italian. Angr (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Saxon is not a language, but a variety of Middle German. I speak Saxon (the version spoken between Leipzig/Altenburg), and it is a version of Middle German. When Saxony was an independent duchy, its version of German - the version spoken in Dresden - held a specific status in the court and government of Saxony. Once Saxony was incorporated into the German Empire, Saxon was reduced to the status of regional dialect. Standard High German became the official German across the empire and Saxony.

I would agree that Low German Platt is a language family with its own dialects. Upper Bavarian is a member of the High German language family, and is a dialect within that family. [Special:Contributions/Markkaempfer|contribs]])

Language or dialect?

Surely American English is a dialect of English, not a separate language. Therefore rather than saying "American English is a language used mostly in the United States", shouldn't the introduction say "American English is the dialect of English spoken by the majority of English speakers in the United States".203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the edit that changed the article to say American English is a language. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dialects and languages usually have profound differences, such as syntax, grammar, etc. There is never one dialect within a language family that is 'correct'. Rather, a particular dialect - often the version spoken near the capital city - becomes the standard dialect of a language group, and thus becomes a 'language', while all the other versions of that language are called 'dialects. Therefore, the difference between dialect and language is often a matter of politics, and there isn't really any criteria to determine when you have a dialect or language. For example, is Limburgs a dialect of Dutch? If Limburg gained independence from Holland with a government in support of the local vernacular, would you then have a language or a dialect? It would probably be called a language because it would have the support of a national government.

However, the differences between American English and British English are so minor, that you would have a difficult time arguing that American English is a dialect. There are hardly any differences in syntax or grammar between the two. The minor spelling differences and the very limited differences in vocabulary are often found within many other world languages without those languages being called dialects. So why do that with American English and British English?? The biggest difference between American English and British English, or Brooklyn English and Chicago English, is a matter of pronunciation and accent. I would not call 'accents' and different 'pronunciation styles' dialects.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems that the recently-created American Accent has a very similar scope to this article. Its content is a mix of redundant statements and incorrect statements, so I'm pretty sure a merge would involve very little content movement. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I support the merger suggestion. At a glance, American Accent seems problematic. It terms of content, it overlaps English language (word order, for example, does not vary among major dialect areas), North American English regional phonology‎, North American English, Canadian English, and American English. That last seems a reasonable target for redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Alternately, I have no objection to redirecting the name to North American English regional phonology‎ or American English, as suggested by Angr and others below, especially if there is no new, verifiable content to merge. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I Oppose. Hello, thank you for your proposal for merging the article American Accent with American English. American Accent is a part of American English but it is a totally different thing. As we all know that it is the way of talking and pronouncing, I think a different Article is necessary as a result of letting people know more elaborately about American Accent. So that people can talk and speak more fluently using American English. Because of the fact that people of other countries, who are not Native Speaker of American English try to follow American English in their day to day life for its simplicity. And American Accent is essential for the purpose of speaking and communicating with others. It is easier for the people to directly search for American Accent and have more knowledge about the Accent part only. More information will be added into this Article with the passage of time and if there is any mistake, then it will be edited. After your merging proposal was made, I have talked with few specialists of American Accent and they have also agreed that a different article is quite helpful and they have agreed to provide information and correction for making the article more appropriate and accurate. The rest is up to you. I hope you are understanding the point of view. You can help me in correcting things if you think are inappropriate in the Article. Will look forward to working together. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourov0000 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Accent and language are two entirely different things.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't merge exactly, since that implies retaining content. There's no content in American Accent worth keeping. Although there are many references given, none of them seem to be reliable sources, just blogs and newspaper articles, nothing written by linguists. So I would delete the article's content and then redirect the lemma to American English or North American regional phonology. Angr (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which would be better, at first, but then noticed that American accent (lowercase) redirected here until yesterday. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Angr's suggestion to redirect to North American English regional phonology is an excellent one. I was bold and made the edit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If we look at what links to American accent, it looks like people tend to be referring to what's covered at this article, not that one. Am I wrong? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. Those articles are clearly referring to the spoken dialect (Noo Yawk) and not the written word, of which this article describes both.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can get behind your change. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Sourov0000 undid little green rosetta's edit redirecting the name. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

little green rosetta made the edit without any prior talking. He just made it without even noticing. The proposal was to add it to American English. — Sourov0000 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not let the discussion depend on what the live version is. Sourov, it seems that you oppose merging American Accent anywhere, but your arguments so far don't speak for a separate article from either American English or North American regional phonology. Even if you can find content for American Accent, it seems to me that having a third article is a form of content forkery that spreads the knowledge too thinly. That helps nobody. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I also vote for Angr's idea. garik (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Wouldn't meging the two make the end result a little too long to comfortably navigate? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like there's a clear consensus here to redirect American Accent to North American English regional phonology – six (including me) in favour, one (the article's creator) against. I see that Sourov0000 has already stood in the way of one attempt to act on this consensus, but I'll have another stab at it; hopefully this time he'll be more willing to engage in discussion. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Article Name Change

I believe the article should be renamed "Modern American" rather than "American English" ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.9.150 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 11:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

they are not talking about america, this is about me naming our language in september, 2009 -- facebook added as a language alternative way after i typed it in -- "believe it or not" -- and yes my dad visited mr. ripley several times -- he would row a boat across an inlet in new york, many decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.195.85 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation Map

I think this pronunciation map/graphic may need attention. First, I agree with the comments on the Washington, DC area on the talk page.

Secondly, I can't figure out why most of the speakers live in the ocean. I feel like this map needs work, but I'm not an expert in this or maps. --JC1008 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Update

I have update the page to include the history of the American Language Taoism74 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)taoism74Taoism74 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced history removed, please don't do that again, thanks.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

artikle two hard to grok rite now

I assert this article is overly technical, and is written for linguists in academia, when in fact there are plenty of everyday adults (not to mention some poor fourth-grader trying to do their homework) that find the current article unbelievably stuffy and jargon-filled.[1]

There is *already* a separate Phonology of English article, which covers *all* the morphology and phonology stuff in excruciating detail. I prefer that article, for my own use-case, but why is all that stuff duplicated here, in this article? The MOST important thing, the very first subsection, in phonology? What about calling the first section "general similarities among dialects" and calling the section section "regional differences". There can also be a section which gives historical context, and modern linguistic contrasts (uk vs us / us vs india / etc) as well as modern demographic contrasts (number of speakers of this flavor of english compared to number of speaker of the main flavor of chinese and french and spanish and so on).

Anything that is overly technical, should be summarized in layman's terms here, then moved to the phonology/morphology/etc articles designed for specialists in those fields. We can *link* to the tech stuff, but *this* article should be aimed squarely at a general readership. Right now it is too dern high-falutin'!  :-)    Which is ha-ha, only serious. Criticisms welcome, if I don't respond promptly please ping my talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The most important event ever for the English language ... trouble finding it in this article

I came here looking for solid details, refs, for the choice of English as the language, and/or related debates—even though English was in the early days not an official language in those days. Any tips on where it might be covered in en.WP? Tony (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no choice and English is still not an official language. English is generally used in the US today because it was generally used in the US in the past because most of the settlers were English speaking. The "official language of the United States was almost German" story is a complete fabrication. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation: English is the official language of the United States in every way except on paper.

It's not technically the proper term for it in any respect, but in colloquial use, it's fair enough. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that while the US has no official language, some states of the USA have English as either the official language, or one of the official languages. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

---

American English → English in the United States – "American English" only means U.S. English in specific contexts, e.g. when writing in the United States. More generally, it means North American English (e.g. in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language). Per WP:WORLDWIDE, we should move this article to a less US-centric title. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] for starters. And most of the English speaking world uses American to mean U.S. Calidum T|C 18:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Those examples are all from the US! Of course they use the narrow definition. That's precisely my point: We are displaying a regional bias. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "regional" bias - all of the native English-speaking world, and most non-native English speakers outside of Latin America, use "America" to mean the US. Only the Latin American usage is regional, and and is the minority usage in English. It's the majority use in Spanish, but article titles on English WP are based on English-language usage. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither the BBC nor The Guardian is from America. Both are British publications. Calidum T|C 02:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and standard English usage of American in all major varieties of English. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Peter238 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, well stated rationale by Calidum above.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME – "American", in common English, only ever refers to America, that is, the United States of America. RGloucester — ☎ 05:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as all above. American English is widely understood to mean the English language in the United States. Zarcadia (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as everyone else UASR (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This is bizarre. I object to the scope of this term here as being biased toward the US, and used predominantly in the US, and Calidum counters by citing multiple examples from US publications. (The BBC articles are from their US edition.) Based on that, Calidum's citations strengthen my case, that this is a largely US conception of "American English". It's easy enough to find counter-examples: [7] (Norquist notes that the narrow definition is more common, but then, there are more native English speakers in the US than in any other country, so that just reflects the current bias), [8] ("learn American English" with a Canadian flag), [9] ("Oh Canada" in "American English"), etc.

As for COMMONNAME, by this argument we should always use the US spelling or term for an article title, when it differs from the British, because more US Americans using it makes it more common. But as a world encyclopedia, we are supposed to take a more universal perspective. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. WP:ENGVAR trumps WP:COMMONNAME but this is not an engvar issue. People from the UK, Australia and rest of the English-speaking world use the phrase American English to describe the English language in the U.S. Zarcadia (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. COMMONNAME applies to titles, and by extension primary usage in an article. We do give alternate names such as "U.S. English" to provide a worldwide view, and I even had to readd it when it was removed a few days ago. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Faulty analysis. I must have covered this ten dozen times in various RMs and other discussions. COMMONNAME applies to what the common name is (e.g. a tire/tyre, vs. a "rubber wheel cover"), not how it is styled. UK vs. US spellings are a matter of style, as defined on Wikipedia, and determined by WP:ENGVAR in particular. Note that WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines defer to MOS on style matters. And there is no ENGVAR conflict here; American (US) things are called "American" in British and other varieties of English, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify whose analysis you are calling faulty? It appears to be mine, but I don't want to assume it is and respond when you meant something else. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME. I'm faintly sympathetic to the argument, but WP:BIAS-hunting can easily wander into WP:GREATWRONGS territory. US English really is called American English in the preponderance of sources. That this coincidentally aligns with an inherent bias, in that most material written about AmEng is written in AmEng, and comes from an American publisher is irrelevant. There are a very large number of articles that should be moved, if "what's most accurate or proper" could trump COMMONNAME, but so it goes. Note that we already have a North American English article. All that's needed is a disambiguating hatnote. You're free to refer to American English as US English if you prefer (or, to turn the logic on its head, call it U.S. English, using an punctuational Americanism the rest of the world ignores, and that WP should ignore much more often, especially in all articles not written in AmEng, for starters). Anyway, the proposed name isn't grammatically accurate. "English in the United States" is English spoken by anyone who happens to be in the US. We actually could write an article about that, e.g. on the demographics of speakers of British, Barbadian, etc., English in the US. American English is the English of the United States.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not associate with the label "person of the United States", even though I technically am. Furthermore, Canadian English is sometimes grouped under American English by those who are not very knowledgeable about English dialects. Tharthan (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"two-thirds of the world's native speakers of English"

There are around 400 million native speakers of English and only (according to this article) 225 million native speakers in the US. Rob984 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

/æ/-tensing before /r/ ?

The /æ/-tensing table is pretty good, but I think there's something that's not completely accurate.

There is really no tense-lax opposition before /r/, because North American dialects typically do not allow /æ/ to be followed by /r/ in the first place. In accents with the marry-merry-mary merger, the /æ/ in the historical sequence /æ.r/ is not tensed, but rather the sequence as a whole is replaced by /er/ (which is probably best regarded as a single phoneme), so that marry /mæ.ri/ becomes /mer.i/ (same as Mary).

The table in its current form may suggest that e.g. in the Northern Cities accents the stressed vowels of marry and harrowing sound the way they sound due to the wholesale tensing and raising of /æ/, which would be incorrect, since /æ/-tensing and the phonetic value of /æ/ before /r/ are unrelated no matter the accent.

Accents that have not undergone the Mery-marry-merry merger do allow /æ/ to be followed by /r/, in which case /æ/ retains its default value [æ]. Stick Daze (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stick Daze: Alright. AJD and I have concluded that prerhotic vowels do function as a separate super–class per se. However, I think you may be slightly confused. For one, the "ar" in Mary is typically pronounced closer to [eər] than [er]. (Vowel-breaking of prerhotic front vowels is common. Examples include [iər] in deer, and [aɪər] in fire.)

Also, you seem to have an old idea that I have had for years, that /æ/ is allowed to come before /r/. Therefore, I can assume that you, like me, at least have the Mary–marry merger. However, it is probably safest not to make that assumption. For one, the merger is relatively young. But more importantly, as the two were initially distinct, it is safer to say that, while /æ/ is permitted before /r/, most dialects shift /ær/ to /eər/. Although I thought differently at first, I think I now can see where you're coming from.LakeKayak (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The actual phonetic values of the r-colored vowels and diphthongs are a matter of some debate. Personally, the transcriptions I prefer use the rhotacized schwa <ɚ> ([eɚ] for SQUARE, [iɚ] for NEAR and so on), as I believe that the articulations of the schwa and the following r are simultaneous rather than sequential. However, such transcriptions are not entirely satisfactory when a rhotacized schwa is followed by a vowel. Compare prayer and prairie, leer and leery, were and worry. The [ɚ] seems to function as a semivowel, not unlike the second elements of the PRICE, MOUTH, and FACE diphthongs (compare buy and buyer, play and playing, and so on) and is probably better transcribed as [r]. Still, this kind of [r] is not quite the same as an /r/ preceding a stressed vowel; for instance, the first r in rare is different from both the second r in rare and the second r in rarity. I have the impression that this issue is often overlooked, although it's discussed at length in Kenyon's American Pronunciation: A Textbook of Phonetics for Students of English--a dated source, but a captivating read nevertheless. Also, the jury is still out on the actual phonetic values of the first elements of SQUARE and NEAR. For speakers merging marry-merry-Mary and mirror-nearer, they are probably somewhere between [e] and [ɛ], and [i] and [ɪ], respectively, although closer to the higher sound in both cases. (But those diphthongs sound decidedly more open in the speech of older people.) It's a can of worms, but one that is worth opening in my opinion. Stick Daze (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stick Daze: It has been about three months. And after thinking about this for some time, I think that I myself may pronounce marry–Mary, merry, and mirror–nearer with pure vowels after all. I do agree that the first "r" in "rare" is different from the second "r" even though the two are allophonic. As for what the difference is, the initial "r" is typically rounded, potentially realized as [ɹʷ].LakeKayak (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American English. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140923055916/http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/ to http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content at this diff

I've seen two brand new editors try to remove this content from the article. The source seems solid and applicable to the article so i'm starting this discussion to attempt to gain consensus or understanding as to why this should be removed? -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal of this material. It's well written and sourced, and it makes sense to include the information. Meters (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007, Meters - Pretty sure this guy is trolling ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That's what I thought too but I wasn't sure, I've been wrong before! -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but it never hurts to AGF. He's on his final warning, so at this point he can respond (but I don't see any justification for this removal making sense), leave it alone, or be blocked. Meters (talk)

Thanks Meters. I was mostly confused by why two brand new accounts were trying to remove well sourced content - it seemed very strange to me. Hopefully this is the end of the problems, I will keep an eye on the article as well though. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. You both did the right thing by assuming good faith and trying to draw a discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There have been four new editors removing content here since 2 August, three of which all removed the same passage, two of which were on the same IP address. Those two have been blocked, but I've requested semi-protection in case of block evasion via other accounts. One small measure that might have improved this slightly would have been to provide that user with a link to this discussion, to further encourage them to comment here, but given that they stated they weren't interested in coming to the table, I don't know how much good it would have done. Ibadibam (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Two of those editors were socks of the same user. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have another sock. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

From-rum merger?

Can someone clarify on this? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"From-rum merger" is not a real term, and definitely not a merger, but it seems to be someone trying to point out that function words such as of and from have /ʌ/ in American English (whereas in British English they have /ɒ/). This is true, as far as I know, but I'm not sure that whole entry isn't OR. AJD (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, either.LakeKayak (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Inland North

I don't agree with the removal of the content on this section only because the edit was not explained thoroughly. If the information were unsourced, then the tag {{citation needed}} should have used rather than it being flat out removed. Does anybody else have an opinion on the issue?LakeKayak (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not go into the brief details of the dialect than a sort of history of it that it used to be some standard 60+ years ago? I'll agree that this detail belongs on the main inland north page (which is where it is stated.) I don't see my changes as changing much. Most of this page is just a brief description of each regional dialect. The main pages for each are the ones that go into that type of detail. Zero077 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zero077: Well, first, I am open to the section "describing the details of the dialect history", but I don't know enough about the Inland North to make the claim myself. But also, on either this page or North American regional phonology, I believe it is also mentioned that Philadelphia has steered away from its initial Midland pattern. The former content of this page did not say Inland North was a standard 60+ years ago. It said that Northern American English was used as the foundation for General American when it was being developed 60+ years ago, but the Inland North has steered away from this pattern.LakeKayak (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with zero on this one. I think details like that belong on the main pages of these dialects. This page in it's entire history has been largely a brief overview of said regional dialects. Dudejets89 (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I still want to hear a response from Zero077 before we take any action in regards to my second comment. Otherwise, we don't really have a discussion.LakeKayak (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, this seems to be similar to an issue I had on the page Cot–caught merger. @Zero077: It seems that you may have been justified in your move. And the content removed was original research. But as a warning, I don't think how you did it was the best way, and it could easily be misinterpreted. As only as advice for next time you're in that situation, first add a tag, potentially {{citation needed}}, {{verification needed}}, or {{dubious}}; and wait a month or two. If nobody has provided a citation since, you may then remove the information.LakeKayak (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to add "needs more content" as many of the others are the same length. Your opinion @Dudejets89: ?