On 20/09/05, Jack & Naree jack.macdaddy@gmail.com wrote:
Neither have I; however when you create the largest free global on-line encyclopaedia and include a single language called English, wherein most of the articles are written in an orthography described by the OED as American-English, then it hardly needs verbalising.
Current Wikipedia policy does not stipulate, encourage, or condone a situation where the majority of content is in "American-English". It is actually aimed at having a roughly even split, but there's probably a slight majority simply because there are that many more people - and, specifically, Internet users - in the US than in the UK. If this bias is more significant than I am imagining, it is by accident, not design, and has nothing to do with the "right to be considered standard".
I have also heard, from you, the equally bogus claim that what you call "English English", but might more commonly be called "UK", "Commonwealth", "Queen's", or "BBC" English has the right to be considered the standard form.
I actually initially wrote "English (as in the country) English (as in the language)" but didn't pedantically repeat that over and over again (to avoid RSI).
I understood you perfectly well; it's just not a commonly used label for the variety of English you're discussing, partly because it is ugly repeating the word, and partly because it doesn't map that strongly to the geopolitical area known as England.
As for this bit, I think I and others have already refuted
denied, bitched, put their fingers in their ears yes; but "refuted" implies it was academically proved.
I wrote a long message, explaining my reasoning for there believing there is no "standard" form of English. I didn't want to repeat all that, so I merely pointed out that I had already done so. I used "refuted" only to mean "already answered".
what's UK English?
The variety of English spoken in the UK. As valid a label, I would think, as "English English", since neither area is that great a match for where the variety is spoken. You'll notice I also use "US English", because Canadians and South Americans occasionally object to "American English" [the words "USian" and "UKian" have entered Wikipedia jargon for exactly this reason]; I didn't pick you up on it, though, because I knew what you meant.
So, yes, it's simply wrong to present US English as "the standard form"; but it's just as wrong to present any other dialect, including your precious "Queen's English
I don't call it the queens english; I call it English, the language of England.
That's entirely up to you; it's still the same thing.
- the countries should be called Blibbland and the United States of Bargia,
because Blibbish is autochthonous to Blibbland, it was born there, and exported with the expansion of the Blibbish Empire.
No. This is exactly the faulty logic I was trying to exclude. "English" and "England" come from what I think was the Latin name for a particular tribe of Scandinavian invaders, the "Angles" - one of a number of tribes we commonly refer to as the "Anglo-Saxons". The language they spoke - an early form of English - came with them across the sea, and was planted in Britain by bloody conquest. [The previous inhabitants, whom they rudely called "welas" - "foreigners" - spoke a completely different language, one of whose descendants is still known as "welsh"]
Languages aren't "born" anywhere; there is no point where they begin. So, while "English" developed a lot after being imported from Scandinavia, it had already developed a lot in getting there. Its speakers had, long ago, crossed the Urals, from the central steppes where - if my memory serves me right - it is conjectured that all Indo-European languages were, in fact born. That is, the one language of which everything from Portugese to Punjabi is an "offshoot", whose "standard" is now lost to history. It evolved into versions like Celtic, Romance, and Germanic, and then further into different versions of each of those; if English was "born" in England, it was a pretty long labour!
The same goes for the other major shifts in English, such as the influence of the Normans - who, confusingly, were originally "Norse men", also from Scandinavia, but who had taken up a Romance language instead of a Germanic one.
The point about "Blibbish" being from "Fooland" is that you should not attach too much meaning to names - they are often rather misleading.
Meanwhile, back in Blibbland, Blibbish continued to be spoken by the Blibbish people continuing to evolve in parallel
So you agree, then, that English/Blibbish continued to evolve even in the area where it had already been for a few hundred years (since those pesky Angles brought it there). In what sense, then, is this a "continuation" but the other an "offshoot"? Why not just call them both "offshoots"? After all, they're all offshoots of Proto-Indo-European, really...
Explain to the Blibbish people why they should suddenly change the name of their language, and accept Bargian orthography and Bargianisms, now that Bargia is bigger than Blibbland?
When have I suggested that the name of a language be changed? When have I argued that, because one country is bigger than another, its language should be given priority?
I've argued that both should be accepted, for sure - in the interest of productivity and peaceful relations, I would hope that the Blibb/Foolanders and Bargians could accept that since their languages are largely the same, they could not make a big deal about mixing them. I've also argued that they should accept even more minor versions of the language - though you seem opposed to this.
I've also argued that the Blibblanders should not claim "ownership" of Blibbish just because their name shares a root with that of the language - because language would still exist without any labels, and because the idea of "owning" it is completely irrelevant. The important point is how best to use that language, whatever its name(s).