|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International English article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Decentered English was copied or moved into International English with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Decentered English.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The Neutrality section is confusing.
- "International English reaches towards cultural neutrality. " — what does this mean, it reaches for. It tries to be culturally neutral? But, English is not sentient, how can it want any particular thing?
In the next paragraph we say:
- "According to this viewpoint, International English is a concept of English that minimizes.." — Acccording to what viewpoint? The reaching towards cultural diversity?
Next paragraphs sums up boring international english existing, it's fine.
Then we get to opposition.
- "The continued growth of the English language itself is seen by many as a kind of cultural imperialism, whether it is English in one form or English in two slightly different forms."
Ok, so who opposes?
- "Robert Phillipson argues against the possibility of such neutrality in his Linguistic Imperialism (1992)." — Which possibility of neutrality?
I am sorry I cannot really correct this article, as I don't know much about this topic, and my corrections would feels like assumptions, but without basis, so I could really be inventing some ideas. Noting the problem here hoping help will come! —fudoreaper (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this true?
I am having a small problem with this statement:
- English is thus more closely related to West Frisian than to any other modern language, although less than a quarter of the vocabulary of Modern English is shared with West Frisian or other West Germanic languages because of extensive borrowings from Norse, Norman, Latin, and other languages
Here's my problem: 1). Is English really more closely related to West Frisian than it is to North Frisian and Saterland Frisian? Perhaps this should read Frisian languages since English is equidistant to all of them, being they are all the descendants of Old Frisian
2). Is only a quarter of the vocabulary really shared between English and other West Germanic languages?? Frisian, Dutch, and German have all borrowed substantially from French, Latin, and Greek as well, not only English. This makes that percentage much higher (--we are similar on shared native vocabulary, as well as on borrowed vocabulary). I read somewhere that Modern German has a 60% lexical similarity to Modern English (where not only does hand = Hand, but also information = Information, repair = reparieren, etc), which is much higher than the lexical similarity between modern English and French (despite the huge inflow of borrowings from Old French). Leasnam (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This article still needs a lot more sources
I've been looking at sources related to international English while updating the article English language with some other editors earlier this year. That article now enjoys "good article" status. It looks like this related article could be improved a lot by use of more sources. Which of you have sources at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 17:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)