Talk:Basic English/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Basic English. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Simple English and cultural imperialism

Perhaps the counter argument to this point, mentioned in the text, would be to develop "Simple (other languages)."

Might be an interesting challenge (g).

Basic vs. simple English

The link at the bottom of the article leads to Wikipedia in "simple" English (English without big words), not Basic English (an artificial language invented by Charles Kay Ogden). I deleted the link but I'm open to discussion on this. Dyfsunctional 03:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because they aren't the same exact thing doesn't mean the link shouldn't be there... After all, there is a "See also" section which is about related subjects. It makes sense to link to the Simple English Wikipedia because it's related to the subject of the article. It's likely that a person who's reading about a synthetically simplified version of the English language on the English Wikipedia will be interested in knowing there is another Wikipedia in simpler English (and they may not notice the "in other languages" area). Michael Sappir 10:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised to find no link to the Simple English Wikipedia, for the reasons stated above, so have attempted to reinstate this, albeit inelegantly. Please wikify it if you know how. BrainyBabe 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to show in this article what the difference between Basic English and Simple English (used in its Wiki). I don't understand. --Koryakov Yuri 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording

Basic English is a simplified English language

"is a simplified English language" (emphasis mine)--is this phrase correct English usage? --Dpr 05:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "a simplified English language" is awkward at best (besides which, I'm only aware of one English language!). I made some small edits to fix this, plus I added a Constructed language link. 161.11.130.249 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism and Rebuttal

The faux arguement in the second section is completely one-sided. It seems to be an attempt to discredit the criticism (whether deserved or not.) Could someone perhaps write a more balanced representation of the "controversy"? I can't, because I think Basic English is anglocentric crap. And I'm no expert anyway. Anonymous

the arguments need to be sourced so they can be sorted out. Bob A 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I went back through the history, (yes, I know, I need a life ;-)) and I found out who it was who originally wrote the disputed arguments. They made four contributions, all to this article, and all in april of 2005. Unless someone else is willing to defend them, I see no reason to keep them, especially if they are viewed as wrong.TrogdorPolitiks 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that a small amount information in the "Criticisms" section should be saved; for example, I found that the discussion about how "world" can be rendered in different ways served as a useful example of the language in action. Perhaps this example could be worked in after the clause "Ogden did not put words into Basic English that could be said with a few other words" in the first section, or perhaps someone more familiar with Basic English could create a section of examples. The rest of the "Criticisms" section is clearly not NPOV, and I don't think it provides any useful information. I think the section should be deleted, and the relevant information it contains (minimal though this may be) should be moved elsewhere in the article. --Babcockd 09:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also criticism/response is very poor style for an encyc. And it reads like a Q&A from an introduction to Basic English pamphlet. I say kill it and re-introduce when someone has some real criticism. Ashmoo 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently nobody did anything regarding the "Controversy" section, and it was so poorly written, so biased, and so undocumented that it seemed to me it could simply go away. I'm adding a few documented clarifications to the word list section: that should be enough to show the ignorance displayed by some of those "Criticisms".-- I'm not saying that Basic English is not open to objections; I'm simply removing something that looked more like rants. Lwyx (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples!

Someone who knows Basic English or has access to some texts needs to add several examples to this article, with English translations. I think the article is necessarily incomplete without them. Torgo 06:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just about the existing examples, the picture is labeled "FDR to Churchill", but the image is called "Churchill to FDR". Which is it???

Conjugate --> Decline

In Rule 7 that explains the grammar of Simple English, it states that the operators and pronouns "conjugate." Isn't a better word decline? I am not familar with Simple English, so I'm not going to make the change myself in case there is a specific reason why conjugate makes more sense. I mention this possible error because it appears to be in a fundamental section of the article.--El aprendelenguas 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Does basic English use the same spellings as British or American English?Cameron Nedland 12:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In theory, both spellings are deemed correct. Lwyx (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the spelling issue

Concerning the spelling: There seems to be uncertainty whether Ogden used British or American spelling in his original list. Some lists of the 850 words that can be found on the internet use American English [1] [2], others use British spelling [3] [4]. On the Simple Wikipedia, there was a dispute about this issue. The so-called "Basic English Institute" (www.basic-english.org) only uses American spelling. But this is not surprising, as the website is based in the US. Some people argue that "Basic English" is officially spelt in American English, but I doubted that, because after all, Ogden was from England...

So I did some research in a university library and consulted the original publications, in which Ogden introduced his list of words and his system of "Basic English". The three books are: Basic English (1930), The ABC of Basic English (1932) and The Basic Words (1932, a kind of dictionary with detailed definitions and examples), published by Paul Treber & Co., Ltd.

The answer to the question what kind of spelling is used: consistently British, in all three books. I also noticed that no 'variant spellings' are presented. (On www.basic-english.org, there are two variant spellings included in the word list: plough for plow and grey/gray.)

For the words in the 850-word-list, where two variants exist, Ogden uses the following:

BEHAVIOUR
COLOUR
HARBOUR
HUMOUR
PLOUGH
GREY
ORGANIZATION

Note that organization is used, not "organisation" (the more common variant in British English nowadays). Ogden does not list any variant spellings. As far as the "international words" are concerned: He provides a preliminary list, the spelling is consistently British (e.g. encyclopaedia, theatre). He says the list should be expanded with time. In "The ABC of Basic English", there is a very nice chart with all the 850 words, grouped into categories. A very exact HTML representation of this chart can be found at [5].

Organisation could be spelt witha z in British English, sicne it depends on the root of the word which is more correct. Sir Ernest Gowers, in his work The complete Plain Words explaines this more fully, but unfortunately I do not have a copy to hand to provide the details of his argument. Basically, the use of S in all cases is considered by him to be a reaction against the use of Z in cases where it is innapropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

So why does the "Basic English Institute" use American spelling and doesn't even mention that the original list as created by Ogden uses British spelling? Probably because the institute is US-based and focuses on a US readership. But they should (IMHO) mention that their "spelling standard" deviates from Ogden's original list...

There is also another publication "Basic English: international second language", published in New York for the American market (to promote Basic English there). It was published more than thirty years later (in 1968) than Ogden's "Basic English" trilogy. I've had a look at it as well, and in a footnote, the editor says that in this book the spellings were changed to the American form. The editor also mentions that Ogden like the idea of spelling reform. However, at the beginning of the book, there is the same chart as in the original "The ABC of Basic English" with British spellings. Dumbledore 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"operator" and "become" nonsense

Combined words can be formed from two operators (for example "become")

Please correct this nonsense example with a correct one and one that explains what "operator" is supposed to mean here. The prefix "be-" (like in bespatter) has nothing to do with the verb "be"! And while you're at it, you might want to do the same at simple:Basic_English --Espoo 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein's "Gulf"

The language used in Heinlein's science fiction story "Gulf" is very much like John Quejada's Ithkuil (q.v.). It is in no way like Basic English.

stevo

I concur "Speedtalk" in "Gulf" is in no way like Basic English. He references Basic in several stories set in space, used by non-first language speakers. Also note that Ithkuil postdates "Gulf" by three decades, and the website credits the story as an influence. 209.43.10.224 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Mike Williamson

I've updated the sentence on Gulf so that it portrays Speedtalk as a language based on Basic English, rather than as a form of Basic English. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic Naming

I see that "Franklin Roosevelt" joined Churchill in supporting BE; whereas "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" was a "critic" of the idea, and even made a little joke about it. Yet more evidence of the need for simplified personal names, to reduce ambiguity!205.212.73.217 08:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

X

What is "The letter [X] is not included as it is thought to be the most difficult letter to pronounce." supposed to mean? A number of the 850 words include an x, such as box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.13.170 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the first comment I've written and I'm no expert, but the "X" statement is clearly wrong. There are 13 words that have the letter x. This should probably be removed. 130.15.208.116 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole "rules of grammar" section seems strange and unreferenced. It doesn't fit with the writings by Ogden linked at the bottom of the article. Can someone explain it? — maestrosync ^talk — 10:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through the edit history and it doesn't fill me with confidence. It's just been edited and copyedited by random people, with rules being removed and added without any kind of verifiability. It seems like original research that shouldn't be in the article at all. — maestrosync ^talk — 10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed good faith origin of acronym - unreferenced

Have removed the following from the article:

Basic stands for British American Scientific Industrial Commercial, and describes the origin and Ogden's intent or vision for the language.

It is a) syntactically incorrect, and b) I doubt it is in keeping with Ogden's "intent and vision" of an international English, i.e. not limited to the UK-US axis. If it can be reliably referenced, please put it back. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular Reference, Rules Section

The entire section "Rules" is simply a (possibly old) copy of the section "Rules of word use" in Simple English Wikipedia (see this reference). I don't believe we can use citations from one WP in another WP. (See here.) This circular reference is particularly bad since SEWP depends on enWP for most of its citations. Does anyone know where these rules came from originally? Since they are not cited in SEWP, both sections may have to be removed due to NOR considerations.

I have tacked on the first phrase ("SEWP says that...") to the Rules section in the article. Maybe this will induce someone to do the research to find out where this information came from. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Solved. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Example?

I think the article would be much more interesting and useful if there were a paragraph in the opening section written in Basic English. I don't feel qualified to add one, but if someone who is familiar with the language could add a paragraph I'd certainly be grateful. Michael Geary (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, surely this would not be needed, seeing as people who read en.wikipedia are competent in English and thus would not be at all benifited by it. Also, seeing as Basic English is a style, not a language. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 20:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be profitable. Whether wikipedia readers are proficient enough in English is quite irrelevant. The topic is Basic English and a comparison with (Common) English. In order for an example to be enlighting, Basic English and Common English should be compared in one well chosen example. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)