Talk:American English/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling reform

Having personally lost a city wide spelling bee over plough/plow (my elementary school used an Australian grammar series, American grammar books having already gone to hell) I still hold a grudge against Noah Webster. And its not anecdotal. Is there a page yet for spelling reform? There are certainly lots of 'em. This entry is going to shift to more substantive issues (17th century English as the base for American dialects, etc.) when a dialectician gets ahold of it, but I'm not up to that. --MichaelTinkler

Consolidation

Someone please consolidate this with the English language/American English subpage entry.

Slovene and German loanwords

Interesting readings about borowings in the American English. One small question. As there are a lot of Slovenes in the States, did American English borrowed any words from Slovene language? I am missing any borrowings from German language, too. I know some by heart - but I know just they are from English language (flak, Einsatz, ...), because I had never learned American English in deep. -- XJamRastafire 18:58 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Never heard of Einsatz. That's supposedly and American English word? -- Zoe
Could we cut the width of this table, too? It runs over the left-hand margins. -- Zoe
I had an edit conflict. So here's my text: Sorry I meant Ansatz. This word is not in Wikipedia. See for an example at http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/VariationOfParameters.html. I am not good at German grammar at all. My native language has a lot of borrowings from it. For example s<caron>us derived from Schuß, meaning shot. -- XJamRastafire 19:15 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)
I don't know the word Ansatz, either. You sure it's an American English word? You don't mean ersatz, do you? -- Zoe
"Ansatz" is not in my general-purpose dictionaries, though it's entirely possible that it has some obscure mathematical usage. --Brion VIBBER
To Zoe (edit conflict+)
We slightly do not understand each other :-). I didn't wrote that Ansatz is an American English word. I just wrote that I saw it sometimes in English articles, specially at math pages (see the link above). And I just asked for another borrowings to the American English (e.g. German, and specially for Slovene). I know common English, let us say for a 70-80 %, but I must say that this culture is still so different than mine. So that is why it is quite a big curiosity for non-native-English reader to get such useful (why not usefull - these are those 20-30 % of ignorance) informations and vice versa for English reader from different cultures and languages. And the Wikipedia is a good place for this!!!! Any futher help is very much appreciated. Best regard.
To Brion
Yes, Americans would know better than anyone. I am looking here of course for those with no obscure usages. Check the above link, too for instance. And by heart I think I saw it on many places. -- XJamRastafire 15:59 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Here are some English Ansatz obscure usages from the Google:

  • and many more...

For my opinion - interesting, (but it can be wiped out eventually from here in some near future - it is here just for an information). We all learn every single day... Uph, I guess I'll have to write a Wikipedian article about the Ansatz, but first I have to clarify with a little help... -- XJamRastafire 16:18 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

In the article Problem solving Ansatz is simply translated to an approach. I would better tranlsate it as more general term an equation or a formula. But I have no slightest idea what it means in fact. -- XJamRastafire 16:27 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Japanese loanwords removed

From Japanese

kamikaze suicide attack. Japanese for Divine Wind
karate Japanese for the Unarmed Way
origami paper crafts
tycoon wealthy and powerful businessperson. Japanese for big monarch
tsunami tidal wave
sake a Japanese liqour

I've removed this table because this article is supposed to be about American English, whereas all of the above terms are used also in British English. --Zundark 09:28 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

kosher correct, proper, ("That's not kosher" is similar to "That's not cricket".)
patio an outdoor paved area of a house
incommunicado lack of communication
OK 'yes' or 'you are correct'. A word now used by many languages.
Its origin is not clear - for more information, read the "Ask Oxford" article at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/ok.
Likewise I dumped the above as being very common in the UK. I wondered about "fiesta" and "cookie" too, but I think they're not that common. Honestly who thought us Britons don't use "kosher" or "ok"?
The way OK was included was a little odd, I agree, but OK originated in the United States, and furthermore, its origin is well known and has been since approximately 1965. But I don't like working on articles with tables in them and usually avoid them, so it is up to someone else to fix this. (If I worked on the article, the tables would go.) The story on OK is, briefly, that there was a word game popular in the United States in the early 19th century of misspelling phrases and using only the initials -- not unlike the transformations of Cockney rhyming slang -- in which "O.K." stood for "oll korrect". This origin was obscured by the subsequent combination of the phrase with the nickname of Martin Van Buren in the campaign slogan "Old Kinderhook is O.K." and the proliferation of many, many a folk etymology in later years. The research by A. W. Read tracing the origin as stated here is accepted by both the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's III. OK is, perhaps, the best known of all Americanisms and certainly belongs in the article on American English as well as in an article of its own, which I have just half written. (Why the "Ask Oxford" article is less positive on this is a mystery since their own, more authoritative OED presents it, but "Ask Oxford" is a good source for all the folk etymologies.) Ortolan88
OK. There could perhaps be a table of words of US origin put in this article. Bagpuss
I have removed all of the words that were aparantly derived from Hindi. These words are commonly used in British English and not peculiar to American English. AreJay 05:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

loanwords comemntary

I think it should be noted that not all of the loanwords are common in all parts of the United States. In my section of the Midwest at least many of these borrowings, especially the Yiddish ones and Spanish ones not dealing with food, have not yet become standard vocabulary.

A couple of the loanwords currently listed are, in my opinion, placed under the wrong headings. "Gumbo" is ultimately of African origin, but it entered English via Louisiana French. The same goes for "bayou" -- it comes from Louisiana French, which took it from Choctaw. In short, if English gets a word from French, it should be irrelevant where the French got it from. After all, we're not listing "adobe" as an Arabic loanword. BrianSmithson 19:54 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Surely this page is incorrectly titled? The subject is clearly USA English, as opposed to Canadian English, Mexican English etc. markb

"American" in this context means "United States of America". This is nothing new and it's also the standard name (used both commonly, dictionaries, and so forth). Mexico has Spanish as its primary language and Canada has Canadian English. North American English is both Canadian and American. Daniel Quinlan 19:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removed the following as all are firmly established in British English

  • Gung ho,
  • Cookie (used in Brit English but more specific),
  • Praline,
  • Honcho (Head Honcho being used in Brit English)
  • Tycoon
  • Teepee
  • Fiesta (see comment on Siesta below)
  • Siesta (Brits have been going to Spain on holiday for decades and may have known this before)
  • Pronto

Dainamo

I think all of these may have been used in American English first---especially words taken from Spanish and Native American languages for obvious reasons. Britons havent had the exposure to Spanish that Americans have had for a substantially longer period of time. MikeMcG

Webster POV

This page seems a bit disparaging of Webster, perhaps written from the perspective of someone who doesn't like his spelling reforms. The article should be more neutral about Webster, perhaps mentioning that Webster did simplify the spelling of many words in American English and a good number of those reforms have stuck. Daniel Quinlan 19:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

American English an oxymoron?

Why is "American English" supposed to be an oxymoron --- or at least more so than, say, Australian English, Latin American Spanish or Quebecois French? Perhaps a better word for American English would be majority English. After all, most English speakers worldwide speak and write a variety from North America. This comment strikes me as non-NPOV, and an attempt to portray some social-class-bound insular dialect as normative, an attitude which ever has been and remains a jaw-dropping pretension. -- IHCOYC 11:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most? Since when?
Population of the USA: around 280 millions. Canada adds 85% of 31 millions. Population of the UK is 58 millions, add 19 millions for Australia, 8m for New Zealand and maybe 4m for the native English speaking population of South Africa. No matter how you slice the pie, the center of gravity for the English language is in North America and not in any of the outlying islands. -- IHCOYC 13:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In India English is the language in which most university courses are taught. It is also the language used in most areas of administration, and they have many English language newspapers. Out of a total population of 1 billion potential speakers, some 40 million plus Indians speak British English there. The situation is similar in countries like Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria and Singapore etc. etc. When English is taught as a foreign language in Europe and elsewhere it is very often taught as British English through organizations like the British Council.

When I was in Sweden in the mid-1970s, the saying there was that people over 35 had learned British English in school, and that people under 30 learned American English. -- IHCOYC 15:10 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

IHCOYC is correct, at least regarding number of speakers. There are 341 million first language speakers of English, 210 million of those are in the United States (228 million in North America). There are 508 million including second language speakers, and 240 million of those are in the United States (260 million in North America). I'm not even accounting for some English usage being American rather than British (or another Commonwealth country) in origin outside of North America. It is also worrisome that some Wikipedia editors feel obliged to move pages and alter spelling on the basis that Commonwealth English is not only more correct, but is also more common than either American English or North American English. (My United States figures are actually a bit low since they date from 1984 and most of the other figures are from the late 1990s.) I believe the US probably has the most influence on the English language today, although only partially due to the influence of numbers. More of the influence is through movies, television, books, the internet, and other media. More immediately, I think Wikipedia would benefit from a clearer definition and analysis of the various types of English, including different orthographies. My figures are primarily from http://www.ethnologue.com/ Daniel Quinlan 08:21, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

The main thing that concerns me is when British English is taken as a familiar norm in descriptions of other languages. I've seen pronunciation guides that say to pronounce Goethe as "Gertie," for example. Reference to the variety of broad A and O sounds in British English are other frequent sources of confusion; most North Americans don't even hear the sounds as separate phonemes. Since the introduction of the IPA this sort of thing is seen less often, but there's still a lot of it in older reference books; and older reference books have a way of being perpetuated here.
Some writers on British English treat American English with profound condescension. This annoys especially when you realize that the prestige dialect of British English is strongly bound to social class --- you had to have gone to a handful of the "right" boarding schools to get it exactly right --- and a dialect spoken by a much smaller percentage of the population of the British Isles than Standard American is in North America. There's a passage in Fowler's The King's English that mocks American place names like Indianapolis and Memphis, as if Bognor Regis or Stow-on-the-Wold were superior in euphony or dignity. This tradition is not wholly dead among the prescriptive usage writers, and I think that some North Americans are still cowed by it. -- IHCOYC 13:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"Proper" British English is not simply the preserve of the public school elite - whilst it may be true that those from the public schools may be more likely to use RP in their everyday speech, most across the nation know how to use the correct form and do so for official documents etc., even if they revert to their local dialect for normal usage. Even though I was comprehensive-schooled (in Scotland nonetheless) I still know how to correctly use the English Language and so do those around me. This appears to be in contrast with the situation in the USA. 217.43.185.226 10:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh the superiority of everything American! Hah! Considering the linguistic inabilities of your president, the hilarity of watching winners of Oscars trying to construct sentences and the sheer inability of an astonishing number of American students to communicate in any even moderately articulate manner (which is why a number of European universities in the last five years have been forced to start summer courses for visiting American students with special 'basic english' grinds explaining such things as use of verbs, definite and indefinite articles, how to use the past tense!!!) America can hardly brag about its skill or knowledge of english. The lame excuse about comparing population numbers is a nonsense. American english (well at least the lliterate variety) is found on the American continent. The result of the world uses British english or a nativised version of British english, in which some aspects of American english may make an appearance. In no sense can American english claim the right to be the international brand of english and it is a particularly ludicrous form of arrogance to think it can, based on the fact that there are more people in America that in Britain, Ireland, Australia. But the worst form of 'so called' english has got to be MTV english, which consists of nothing more than a string of empty-headed, poorly constructed cliches with all the substance of a quarter pounder and fries. :-) FearÉIREANN 14:41, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of this discussion. Whoever added "oxymoron" to this article was obviously aiming tickle a few ribs with some humour. I am given to understand from the couple of business trips I've made to Sweden that they very sensibly take courses in Business English (which leans towards British English as much of Sweden's business is centred on the EU) and Technical English (which leans towards American English for spellings like 'program' and 'color' extensively used in software). Whatever the figures say (and I dispute the validity of your source Daniel which quotes only 11 million speakers of English in India from a 1960s survey) there's no denying that a significant number of people prefer to read and write in British English. It's just the same with American English of course; only the vast majority of British English speakers don't live in the state of technical bliss that is the USA. On Wikipedia we quite rightly have a policy at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Americo-centric_point_of_view decrying Americo-centrism in view of the fact that this is an international encyclopaedia. It's a shame that attempts to roll-back Americo-centrism as sometimes paranoiacally(sic) seen anti-Americanism by certain individuals. Let the status quo survive. Mintguy 15:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The two points I actually sought to make was that calling American English an "oxymoron" struck me as a violation of NPOV; and that assuming easy familiarity with the phonemic structure of British English is not a good idea in explaining the pronunciation of non-English words. I do admit to being somewhat ornery about the Brits presuming to judge "Americanisms," and the supposed pre-eminence and universality of the British boarding-school dialect. I went to grade school in Canada, and learned a subset of the British spellings myself. I'm not on a tear to remove them.
I cheerfully agree that Dubya is no Churchill. -- IHCOYC 19:05, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are a bit behind the times as regards english dialects. The days when Oxbridge english was viewed as the correct version have long long since gone. Right now, a BBC programme is on using scouse (a dialect I hate, BTW. It sounds to me like a cat chewing a wasp.) But BBC Four seems to require it. 'Proper english', ie, Oxbridge, has been out of fashion for decades, with Estuary English, Scouse etc far more popular. BTW 2 (sounds like a TV station that!:-) I came across a US student's history essay that has down in my university's history as one of the worst attempt at communication ever witnessed. (You'll enjoy this!) Writing about the Irish Easter Rising, an American woman (allegedly a history major, though I find it hard to believe!) wrote:

It is like the Irish don't like the english and their rules. So they like rebel in Easter. Patrik (sic) Pierce (sic) leads the rebells (sic) and they take a big post office in Oconnel (sic) street, and they gang up on the British. And they tell them like 'no queen here'. But the english don't like it and send in their soldiers from the first world war in France or somewhere to stop them. And the english like arrest Pierce and devillera (sic) and lock them in a big prisom (sic) but the Irish keep rebelling and rebelling and get their new republic with devillera as president and Michael Collin's (sic) becomes his right hand man. And then they fight a war of independents. And the Irish throws the english out and then have a civil war, where Collin's is killed at Bale na Bla (sic) and Northern Ireland joins england and the queen.

AAAAAGH! And that is only one paragraph. The strange thing was that the woman could not understand when she got a fail mark for the paper! She said she had never failed anything before in her life. The question on all our lips was, how could she have possibly passed a single exam in her life, let alone make it to college? But she was the worst. Nobody else has ever quite hit that level of awfulness, though every year some try and come close! :-) FearÉIREANN 20:03, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One doesn't want to belabor a point or anything, and perhaps this effusion should be passed over in silence; but would you mind explaining just what in the bloody Hell that has to do with the article that this page supposedly exists to improve? Dandrake 02:03, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I expexct she'll get a job as a Hollywood screenwriter. Andy G 20:29, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism (zeech! that page needs a real article) is a major feature of the culture of the USA. One of the many ways this trait manifests is in a certain impatience with usage norms. Reading is a solitary vice to most Americans, and it gives you no fresh air and exercise. There are indeed many US high schools who would look at that paper and see that the student had learned where the event took place, who the combatants were, and kept in mind enough proper nouns to make small talk about the Uprising. And that would in the minds of many teachers be enough. Spelling and grammar is another department.
Now if you want to hear ugly English, let me send you to Tennessee. The speech of that state, especially in the female mouth, sounds like a cat being tortured.
You haven't heard an Ozark dialect then. Then again there are both Western and Eastern accents within the Dialects. I'm always shocked by a lot of these studies on phonology and dialects within the US... When they get to MO, Southern Il, and Arkansas they don't tend to do enough studies, especially as the demographic centor of the US is in MO. I can't find the article, or perhaps it was this one, but there was one a few days ago which listed the differences in the Saint Louis Metro Area from Midwestern English. The blurb wasn't quite right but it was right in the fact that the Peoples inside Saint Louis City and in parts of the county talk different than lets say 30 miles away in Franklin and Jeffereson counties and that the dialect is unique to St. Louis. It was wrong becuase it grouped accents in the saint louis area which are actually in deep Franklin Counties and Jeff Counties. The accent in Tennessee is actually pleasent compared to that of your typical Ozarkian.
But most of this seems to be leaving behind the main business of embellishing the article on American English. -- IHCOYC 01:01, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Loan words from British English

I've removed the table of loan-words from English. American English is a form of English, so there can't be loan-words from itself. If it was meant to represent loan-words from British English, then that's wrong too; such words as draperies, rooster, skillet just don't exist in current British English. To say they come from an earlier from of British English is hardly an argument, since the great majority of American English does derive from an earlier form of British English!

What the table was listing was differences between American and British usage - not loan-words - so I've moved the relevant entries from that table to List_of_American_English_words_not_used_in_British_English. Spellbinder 14:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Phonics

The northern cities ... extending west through Cleveland, Ohio ... have undergone a shift ... where the vowels in the words stuck, stalk, stock, and stack have shifted from [ʌ], [ɔ], [ɑ], [æ] (SAMPA [V], [O], [A], [}]) to [ɔ], [ɑ], [a], [eæ] (SAMPA [O], [A], [a], [e}]).

Does this truly happen? I live in Cleveland, and I pronounce stuck, stalk, stock, and stack as /stVk/, /stOk/, /stAck/ and /st{k/, and as far as I know, everyone I know that lives here pronounces them the same. Gus 03:51, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

The northern cities shift is not universal in these areas and varies in the degree of the shift, but see [1] and [2]. Also, the fact that you live in Cleveland may color your impression of these vowels. They may well be more different from the IPA spec than you imagine. Nohat 06:53, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

American English#Loanwords not common in British English

I am confused why the definition of hacienda 'a type of ranch house' replaced 'principal house on a ranch'.
Dictionary.com/hacienda has:

  1. A large estate or plantation in Spanish-speaking countries.
  2. The house of the owner of such an estate.

Merriam-Webster Online has:

  1. : a large estate especially in a Spanish-speaking country : PLANTATION
  2. : the main dwelling of a hacienda

Are these American dictionaries incorrect? Pædia 15:17, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

I'm confused by this too. The first definition of 'hacienda' isn't distinct from 'estate' as used by Americans, so I figured not to include it. A house is a hacienda because of its function as the main house, not because of any sort of architectural features implied by 'a type of ranch house'. The dictionaries jibe with how I've heard and seen the word used. --Atemperman 22:59, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Cape

I wish to question the inclusion of cape with the meaning headland as being American English. Even if derived from a native american language, it seems to have entered both American and Brtish English quickly and equally. Witness: Cape Town, Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Province (all 17th-18th century, some possibly earlier). And 18th century English explorers named many capes in Australia and New Zealand - the majority of headlands in NZ being named cape. -- dramatic 00:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Loanwords, again

I have removed the following "Loanwords not common in British English", because they are common in British English:

  • Cape (this may be similar to an American Indian word, but is derived from Latin and pre-dates the discovery of the new world)
  • Toboggan
  • Squash
  • Barbecue
  • Hammock
  • Tycoon

PhilHibbs 16:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Words that have dropped out of common usage in British English?

I know there are a lot of phrases that the English think of as "Americanisms", that are in fact phrases that have merely fallen out of use over here, but were maintained in the US. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I think this would be a worthwhile addition to this page. I certainly came here hoping to find some. PhilHibbs 16:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The two most conspicuous ones I can think of are fall, the season; and gotten as a past participle for get. Do they speak of bluffs or creeks in the UK? Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bluffs yes, creeks not so often. If I saw a sentence with creek in it I would think it about 75% likely to be of US origin. I would't say that it has gone entirely out of use. PhilHibbs 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed claim

I took out this content:

A key area where American English has grown (on both sides of the Atlantic), is in the world of business and commerce, where use of the rhetorical euphemism is common. One example would be the phrase "are you comfortable with that". This phrase will typically be used by a business manager introducing a change which may, or may not, be welcome. A negative answer is neither expected nor, indeed, invited. However, the question is, at least on the face of it, conciliatory.
However, it was the British composers Gilbert and Sullivan who felt it necessary to point out that their ideal officer in HMS Pinafore "almost always said 'If you please.'".

because there didn't seem to be any evidence and it seems like an awfully vague assertion. Also, it only really applies to the "corporate-ese" variety of American English. It just seemed out of place here. If anyone could show a reasonable justification for why it should be put back, I'd be glad to entertain it. Nohat 06:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IPA vs SAMPA

Can we (meaning "I") get rid of the SAMPA annotations? The beginning of the article has a box telling the reader that IPA is going to be used, and links to an article providing assistance if eir browser is having trouble with it. IPA is really the only standard we need for phonetic notation — it appears in every dictionary I've seen, it's all we use in the linguistics community, and it's very well-defined. The SAMPA annotations are cumbersome, not as well-understood or commonly used, and pointless in the dawning age of Unicode. The doubling of pronunciations in IPA and SAMPA makes for very unattractive clutter in my opinion. Maybe there's something I'm overlooking here, but I really don't think we need SAMPA in this article (or in many others). Comments? Jeeves 05:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scope of American English

It needs to be made clear whether American English is being used to refer to US, North American or true American English. If the article is only supposed to refer to US English, it also needs to mention the existence of other English dialects in America like Canadian, Carribean, &c English with links to their articles. Or else, there needs to be a seperate article, English of the Americas, prominently linked to from here (or this needs moving to US English to make room for such an article here).

-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 07:58, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

I agree. "U.S. English" is unambiguous, and is obviously what this article is about. "American English" can mean a few different things in a universal context, as could "North American English". —Michael Z. 21:52, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The article is fine where it is, I believe. "US English" could also refer to the movement to promote "English only" in the United States. You should take a poll and garner consensus before making such a move as this. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
The objection to the use of the adjective "American" to describe things of the United States of America is well-understood and widely recognized. However, it also has to be recognized that this is an objection to the common use -- it is not a misunderstanding of what the common use is, or an ambiguity that confuses people.
People who wish that the word were not used this way are not confused by its use. They object to it, much as many Trotskyists object to the use of the term "socialism" to describe the economics of the Stalinist Soviet Union. This objection and the reasons for it should be recognized, described, and respected.
However, we also have to write Wikipedia articles in some language or another. And so we need to distinguish between ambiguous usages that confuse people, which should be avoided where possible and clarified where not; and common usages to which some people object. The latter we simply cannot avoid entirely, without turning Wikipedia into a hodgepodge of periphrasis. Wikipedia has to be written in common language, so that people can understand it ... despite the fact that for many common expressions there are people who are offended by them.
"American English" is an unambiguous name for the subject matter. US English is the name of a rather controversial political advocacy group for the exclusion of other languages from American public life. The top Google hit for the expression "US English", by the way, is that group: http://www.us-english.org/ That might make "US English" a rather more ambiguous expression, oddly enough -- Wikipedia should have an article about the group, and what should that article be called? --FOo 04:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the current title. "American" is commonly understood to indicate the United States. Maurreen 04:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't pedantically expound on what I'm objecting to. It comes off as rude, especially when you're wrong.
"American English" is obviously not unambiguous, as you'd see if you'd read this talk page. Some people writing here are assuming the article covers Canadian English, which it doesn't. A good example of "ambiguous usages that confuse people." Why do you think there's a disambiguation page at America and a whole disambiguation article at American?
I've never heard of the "U.S. English" advocacy group, and no Wikipedian has found it significant enough to write about. This can be handled using the standard disambiguation methods. The organization can be at U.S. English (organization), and the language at U.S. English, or if you really think someone will confuse one with the other, at U.S. English language.
—Michael Z. 22:44, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
To a linguist, "American English" means only English as spoken in the United States, unambiguously and precisely. English spoken in North America is "North American English". English spoken in both North and South America (which isn't really a meaningful grouping from a linguistic perspective) is "Pan-American English" or "English as spoken in the Americas". There is nothing ambiguous about "American English". The fact that some people may be confused by that doesn't make it ambiguous, it just means they're not familiar with how the terminology is used. That's why it says in the first sentence that American English means English spoken in the United States—to clarify for those people who might be confused. The proposed alternative, "U.S. English" has the disadvantage of not being the normal term used by experts in the field in addition to being the name of a controversial organization. The ambiguity cased by the name "American English", which only affects those people who think that American primarily refers to the continents, is much less significant than the ambiguity caused by "U.S. English". On balance, "American English" should be preferred. Nohat 00:57, 8 Dec 2004 (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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

Merge proposal

I was asked to close this discussion as a neutral editor. It appears to me that there is rough consensus to merge this to North American English regional phonology, with redirect. As always, the details of the merge are content decisions that are subject to further consensus and refinement, but I implore all involved to be tolerant and accepting of other's edits. Gigs (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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 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.

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.[3]

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)

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)

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)

/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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:20, 2 June 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)

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)
  • 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: [9] (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), [10] ("learn American English" with a Canadian flag), [11] ("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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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.

'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)

"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)

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:

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 IITalk 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)

/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)

Inland North

Discussion closed - Zero077, Dudejets89 and Bulbbulb29054 are one user abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay.

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.

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:? Zero077 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Dudejets89 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
We'll need a broader consensus for this one.LakeKayak (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zero077: I have contacted BilCat. Now, we will just to have to wait for his response.LakeKayak (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but I don't really see the issue. What's stated in that text is just as long as the others. Zero077 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. There seems to be just as much text/info under Inland as any of the others. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zero077: The real issue is that the section seems to gather miscellaneous information about the dialect without much of a point. In simple terms, the section is not concise.LakeKayak (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zero077: In order to convince me otherwise about the tag, you will need support from someone who has not joined with the last month. I was just involved in a similar debate a month ago with other users who join within the previous month. In the end, the debate turned out to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you can only get support from brand new users, I may have to assume the same here. This seems to be a case of the flip side "just like it".LakeKayak (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There were two others that agreed that the tag wasn't needed. If anyone wants to add to it later, they can. It's not set in stone. Zero077 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, neutral editor here. I was asked to help find a consensus by Zero077. Is there any reason to keep that tag in place, given that the Inland North section seems to be about as long as every other subsection? To my eye, it seems like the bigger problem there is that there's no references for any of it, and that can be sorted with citation needed tags for now. A Traintalk
@A Train:I added two new citation about the Northern City Vowel Shift and that it's from the great lakes area. Zero077 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, so can we get this resolved on this page? I'd really appreicate it if we could. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@A Train: I feel that part of the problem is that the section is not concise. It gathers miscellaneous information about Inland North. I originally thought that the consensus was that the {{expand section}} was misleading since my issue was not about the length of the section. However, I feel that as the tag {{Template:Incomplete}} has a reason parameter, I would be able to state my real issue in the tag.LakeKayak (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zero077, A Train, and Bulbbulb29054: How I originally saw it the section needed to be reorganized regardless of how. But reading the content carefully word by word, I think I can reorganize it myself and remove the tag.LakeKayak (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.LakeKayak (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zero077: Are you against taking this issue to WP:DNR?LakeKayak (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2017 (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.

The United States English?

Where even does this come from? I've never heard it before until I read this article. It sounds incredibly unnatural for me and doesn't feel like standard English. And I'm a native speaker of English! 8.40.151.110 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying the term is unnatural or the dialect is unnatural? I can understand your confusion more if it's the former than the latter.LakeKayak (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The "The" was added by an a now-blocked disruptive IP user a couple of weeks ago. I reverted one of his diffs, but missed that one. Thanks for catching that. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it seems I misunderstood. Thank you, BilCat.LakeKayak (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Father-bother merger

@Wolfdog: I have a question on some content which, according to the page history, that you have added a little while ago. (See [this link.) As I have limited access to the source, can you please verify that one of the sources says the father-bother distinction is potentially maintained in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many Southern dialects? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Below, eleven major American English accents are defined by their particular combinations of certain characteristics section

Discussion closed - Dudejets89 and Bulbbulb29054 are one user abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay.

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.

I'm for removing this section. This place does list the different accents of the US, but it isn't a comparison page. This is more in line with North American Regional Phonology. Dudejets89 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dudejets89: There have been overlap with the two pages for years. I cannot see your argument that this is not a comparison page. If American English were being compared to different dialects, the argument would hold. However, the best way to analyze a dialect as a whole is to analyze the different sub-dialects (per se) that it composes.LakeKayak (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. North American Regional Phonology should have this comparison stuff. Obviously some pages are going to overlap, but the comparison stuff needs to be kept to a minimum. Some of these pages are becoming very samey with this type of related stuff. And it needs to stop. Not for going through and cutting 'every' comparison on this page, but this page has gone overboard with it. So I'm for cutting that part or moving it. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I will not tolerate another argument like this. Bulbbulb29054, if you feel it "needs to stop", you will have to say per what Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, as you are not an administrator, it may be perceived as bossy or being a jerk.LakeKayak (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm giving my viewpoint on the matter. Noones editing anything yet. However, calling me bossy or being a jerk was out of line on your part. Comparison pages do exist. And North American Regional phonology compares the various regions via categories. Just my take. Sorry for deleting your previous text. That was accidental. That doesn't give you the right to delete mine either, however.Bulbbulb29054 (talk)
Simply put, it was easier to revert than retype. Also, you may have misunderstood me. I said "it may be perceived as bossy or being a jerk". It was only meant to be a warning that you should watch what you say carefully. As we are discussion through posts rather than speech, I can't tell what you meant by your tone, and a sentence can easily be taken the wrong way.
If you were an administrator, I could recognize you to have the authority to make an executive ruling that "Some of these pages are becoming very samey with this type of related stuff. And it needs to stop"; or that "this page has gone overboard with [comparisons]".LakeKayak (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not and admin. Just giving my feedback on this subject. I'm not going to make any edits in regards to this or overriding anything. I think that section belongs on North American Regional Phonology. If any others disagree with this, feel free to disagree with me. That's what the talk discussions are for. I figure like the previous talk, it'll be 10+ days of back and forth discussion before anythings decided. Or like we did before, we could get and actual admins input on this. ABulbbulb29054 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, he acted the same way with the post @Zero077: started earlier. Any other time I've asked for these type of things over wikiepdia I was 'never' confronted the way LakeKayak does here. Most others were very helpful on discussion in regards to article pages. I usually always use talk pages before making any sort of edits on wikipedia that are big edits. Most of them not enacted because I couldn't get many to side with my argument. Dudejets89 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dudejets89 and Bulbbulb29054: If you two feel that the section should be removed, you will need to consult Wolfdog who instated the information.LakeKayak (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

He's welcome to partake, but just because he wrote it doesn't give him final say. Not liking your confrontational attitude towards others on here, Lake. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, all. (Ignoring the emotional arguments) I'd like to state simply that I'm confused by what we're proposing to delete. Is it the majority of the "Varieties" section? Is it just that chart of eleven dialects? I would be on board for a reduction but not a wholsesale deletion of that different dialect sections that myself and others, of course, have worked hard on and is at least largely if not completely relevant to the topic. Or are we talking simply about removing the chart? Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (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.

Mobile version of the article problematic

There is a problem in the mobile version of this article where the other sections are hidden after hiding the "Varieties" section (Only the "Varieties" section appear. The "See also", "References", and "External Links" are all hidden under the Varieties section, though they are considered sections, per the existing wiki code). I tried to fix those, but, the "Varieties" section still appear as the only section in the article when on mobile. Is this a bug on the mobile version, or a problem with the wiki coding, that the other main sections have become subsections of the "Varieties" section? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope it's fixed now. Nardog (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

General American section

Discussion closed - MrBadger42 and Zero077 are one user abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay.

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.

Considering that it's very debated if there is actually a such thing as General American by many various linguist, as shown on the Gen Am wiki page in the introduction, I think we should just list the known regional accents. Let's keep most of the General American talk on it's own wikipedia page. I'm ok with some mentions as shown in the introduction part of the page. MrBadger42 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Zero077 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zero077: Unless you say why and contribute the discussion, it doesn't much matter that you agree. Wolfdog (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I have a problem with "very debated" and "many various linguists" in your post. Name those linguists, because General American doesn't seem to agree with you. The only thing that is often debated is what precisely GA is, not whether it exists at all (only some, if not a minority of scholars deny its existence). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: There is no consensus to remove that table. Furthermore, to say that GA is not a variety of American English is not true. Prove your assertions with reputable sources. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is. Even on the Main GA page is states by various sources "The precise definition and usefulness of "General American" continues to be debated,[8][9][10] and the scholars who use it today admittedly do so as a convenient basis for comparison rather than for exactness" And here is a great source here: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-there-a-place-in-america-where-people-speak-without-accents Dennis Preston, a dialectologist and sociolinguist at Oklahoma State University, goes even further. “General American doesn’t exist,” Preston says, “He was demoted to private or sergeant a long, long time ago.” “Some irresponsible speech pathologists actually engage in this, for money,” Preston said (practically yelled). “Us linguists, of course, hold them in nothing but contempt.” So yes, there are various others that don't think a GA accent exist. Even on Labov's US Dialect map, there is no map of a GA accent. It doesn't exist. There is no exact GA speech. So why is it being listed on the American English page? And Zero007 above, agreed with me. MrBadger42 (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I'm pinging other editors for more input: @Nardog, Wolfdog, and Erutuon:. Just know that what you're doing is edit warring and your latest edit summary is rather strange. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
How so? I gave my source. Look at popular newscasters like Jim Leurer. He has a southern accent. He grew up in Texas. You can absolutely here it in his speech. Peter Jennings was another newscaster that was on for decades. He's well known for having traces of canadianism in his accent, such as the way he said "aboot." This is discussed here: http://archive.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/08/08/peter_jennings_67_abc_anchor_1123488618/ "Born in Toronto, he retained more than a trace of a Canadian accent (he pronounced "about" aboot). Jennings acquired dual US and Canadian citizenship in 2003." I don't know of any regional american dialect that says "aboot." It's most certainly wouldn't fit into some "General american" category. Neither would Jim Lehrer Texas accent. The fact of the matter is, there is no General American accent. It should not be stated as a regional dialect on the American English page. if people want to have their fun with it on the GA page, and try to hammer in some exact GA asccent, then have fun with it. But many lingust, such as Preston, think it's a false statement. MrBadger42 (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I'll reply to both of your messages:
Even on the Main GA page is states by various sources "The precise definition and usefulness of "General American" continues to be debated, and the scholars who use it today admittedly do so as a convenient basis for comparison rather than for exactness" Yes, and it also says "is an umbrella variety of American English—a continuum of accents—commonly attributed to a majority of Americans and popularly perceived, among Americans, as lacking any distinctly regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics. Due to General American accents being widespread throughout the United States, they are sometimes, though controversially, classified as Standard American English."
The great source you cite is not that great. When a linguist says things like "Us linguists, of course, hold them in nothing but contempt." you just know that you can't take them very seriously, especially when he's trying to speak for all linguists (which is blatant dishonesty). It's just an opinion of one scholar (unless I missed something in that article). I misread the sentence. Sorry.
there are various others that don't think a GA accent exist. Name them. One scholar is not 'various others'.
Even on Labov's US Dialect map, there is no map of a GA accent. I assume that you're talking about Atlas of North American English? General American says that By the 2000s, American sociolinguist William Labov concluded that, if anything could be regarded as "General American," it would essentially be a convergence of those pronunciation features shared by Western American English, Midland American English, and Standard Canadian English. The source that was used is page 146 of the Atlas.
And Zero007 above, agreed with me. Yes, he just wrote "I agree", nothing more.
Look at popular newscasters like Jim Leurer. He has a southern accent. He grew up in Texas. You can absolutely here it in his speech. Please stay on topic. The fact that accents other than General American (however we define it) are more welcome in the media than before (and they are) is a different subject that we shouldn't discuss here. If you want, make another thread for it.
Peter Jennings was another newscaster that was on for decades. He's well known for having traces of canadianism in his accent, such as the way he said "aboot." This is discussed here: http://archive.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/08/08/peter_jennings_67_abc_anchor_1123488618/ "Born in Toronto, he retained more than a trace of a Canadian accent (he pronounced "about" aboot). Jennings acquired dual US and Canadian citizenship in 2003." I don't know of any regional american dialect that says "aboot." Aboot is not a Canadian pronunciation, it's a Geordie/Scots one. Canadians say [əˈbɐʊt ~ əˈbəʊt ~ əˈbʌʊt ~ əˈboʊt], but not [əˈbut]. The very fact that you and the source perpetuate this myth makes that source considerably less reliable. Plus, I wouldn't use any MSM source for a linguistic article. They're known to say half-truths and make stuff up as far as this area is concerned.
It's most certainly wouldn't fit into some "General american" category. If what is called Standard Canadian English is considered to fall under General American (see the lead of General American), raised /aʊ/ is absolutely within the GA range of acceptable pronunciations.
But many lingust, such as Preston, think it's a false statement. You didn't prove that there are 'many linguists' that share the opinion of Preston, which itself is questionable. Read WP:BURDEN. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"General American" meets every criterion of WP:GNG: it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it certainly is well-known and widely discussed. Moreover, it's helpful as a baseline or reference point (and comparative linguists like John C. Wells seem to think so). General American is the real set of accents that most Americans perceive of as sounding unmarked. Just because it's based on perception doesn't mean there aren't very definite sounds that are GenAm or not. A majority of Americans say bird as [bəɹd] and also do not bat an eye at the sound of [bəɹd]. Therefore, the phoneme /ɜːr/ in that word is typically [əɹ] in both production and perception throughout the U.S., and so is certainly a GenAm sound. Wolfdog (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It it widely discussed, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it's usage. Dennis Preston states “Us linguists, of course, hold them in nothing but contempt." I already stated that ont he GA page in the introduction that it's usage is debated. There is no exact General American. Many have stated this. it is not a regional american English, and thus does no belong on this page. Am I against it having it's own wikipedia page? No, as there are alot of theories on it. Labov doesn't list it on any of his maps. Where is General American on his american regional dialect? http://www.atlas.mouton-content.com/secure/generalmodules/anae/unit0031/genunstart.html I don't see it on his map. You can't erase what numerous people have stated because you like that it fits your narrative better. That article above, preston points out numerous broadcasters that show certain american regionalism, that wouldn't be a "General American" sound. I gave two broadcasters that were around for decades that show regionalism. There is no general american umbrella, thus, it does not meet the regional criteria to fit on the american english page. MrBadger42 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: There is no general american umbrella - General American disagrees. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And many many question it's existence. This matters. MrBadger42 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: Until you name those 'many', I'm afraid it doesn't. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Preston states “Us linguists, of course, hold them in nothing but contempt." he also states: “Some irresponsible speech pathologists actually engage in this, for money" This seems more than just one or two. And he states that many say this to con people. And Preston is very famous for this work. He should not be shoved off. And since I have to repeat myself, the introduction of the GA page shows sources that debates it's existence. Show me on labov's maps of american english where a general american accent exist? MrBadger42 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: Read the message above. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
William Labov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHjHeNHF5A&feature=youtu.be&t=40s "There is no such thing as General American" MrBadger42 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
My point still stands. General American isn't any regional dialect of the United States like New York, Southern, Western and Inland North is. It's not and "umbrella" of sounds. It has no basis of being on this page. This belongs on the General American wiki page, not here. I'm not debating that GA shouldn't have it own wikiepdia page. Labov doesn't list it on ANY of his maps. So there you have it, two very famous lingust (And Preston stating that that many other lingust he knows disagree with the term) that disagree that it's a regional american english. It should not be listed on this page. Maybe hotlinked or some mentions here and there, but it's NOT a regional american accent. MrBadger42 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: That interview with Labov doesn't disagree with what he wrote in the Atlas - see above.
It's not and "umbrella" of sounds. You haven't proven that. Again, see the post above.
It has no basis of being on this page. You haven't proven that.
Preston stating that that many other lingust he knows disagree with the term That's irrelevant as he didn't name them.
I'm still waiting for your reply to my lengthy message above. I've kinda had enough of writing the same stuff you can read in that post. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Two sources that say GA doesn't exist. Two of the most well know at that. This, along with what's said in the introduction of the GA page, shows that many question the existence of a General American accent. All were doing now is playing "well my source is better than yours." You bring up Peter, but don't say anything of Jim lehers southern accent. Dan Rather has it as well. Two "broadcasters" that were on TV for decades. If there is a so called broadcast standard, then why do these guys sound like their from texas, which is where both of them grew up? I thought southern american english wasn't part of the GA club? MrBadger42 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: You are consciously refusing to reply to the entirety of my post. Until you do that, I'm done with you. I'm reverting your change, nothing you said so far is convincing enough. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I did. It's not and umbrella because Jim and Dan Sound like their from Texas. here's a source that even says Jim has a southern accent: https://books.google.com/books?id=8-YDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT84&lpg=PT84&dq=jim+lehrer+southern+accent&source=bl&ots=AywWfS9x3v&sig=UmQcmsG_YGBOH4IA5V_VnaKX1vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidz7mF_uDVAhWJyoMKHQPHA1gQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=jim%20lehrer%20southern%20accent&f=false and here's one for Dan Rather: https://books.google.com/books?id=tK_qCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=dan+rather+southern+accent&source=bl&ots=yOp0IkxFuf&sig=PwgaTITcmK1oktb69O2IxoJTQ6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi98L_K_uDVAhUB0IMKHeeVCa0Q6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=dan%20rather%20southern%20accent&f=false I gave these two example specfically because they were in broadcast for over 30 years. Texas isn't any sort of general american standard. It has no basis on this page because it doesn't exist, and I gave you two people that said they didn't exist. Both Lingust. As for him not naming them? Who cares? Can you prove that he is lying? Prove to me that he is lying then, as he is a well known person in the field. Don't revert my edit until we discuss as to why it should stay. I waited 18 days and only got three replies before reverting. I'm reverting it back until we discuss with others as to why it should stay. MrBadger42 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not. My reply was added in this diff.
As for him not naming them? Who cares? Can you prove that he is lying? Prove to me that he is lying then, as he is a well known person in the field. The WP:BURDEN to do so is not on me, it's on you to find a better source in which he names such linguists. Please learn the rules of WP. I didn't say that he was lying or not lying, I'm saying that he didn't name the linguists which is different.
I waited 18 days and only got three replies before reverting. Two, not three replies. One was positive and one was negative. There was both no consensus and no reason to revert.
Fair enough, let's hear from others first, but know that you're one step away from being reported for edit warring and dishonesty. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I'm ready for and admin to come in. I gave my sources which you asked for. I gave you links. And you continue to charge me with things. William Labov states in that video that there is no such thing as GA. Dennis preston says tehre is no such thing as GA. I notice your form Poland, so you don't know how respected both of these guys are in their field in the United States, so you charge me with things. I think we need and admin in here now to help watch this thread.MrBadger42 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I will not repeat myself any longer, unlike you. You're consciously ignoring what I write.
I notice your form Poland, so you don't know how respected both of these guys are in their field in the United States, so you charge me with things. And you misspell every third word even though you're from the US. How is that relevant? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I havn't read all those pages of wikipedia rules you listed. I havn't edited a tenth of what you had, so I havn't viewed all of those. Many of those are so long and would take a while to read. Even if I've been here for a couple years I doubt I'd have all the rules wrapped around my head. So sorry if I'm slow on certain things. MrBadger42 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I actually had a partially bad idea of what the rules on editing others' comments are, so I also apologize. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem :) I was in special education for 7 years. So I have some communication disorders. MrBadger42 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@MrBadger42: I don't quite understand your argument. You repeatedly frame it as: General American should not be presented as a "regional dialect". But no one is claiming that or presenting it that way. No one is saying GenAm is regional. We're simply using a general, typical, average American accent as a point of basic reference -- no matter what you want to call it. For example, [ə] is indisputably a completely typical American pronunciation of the first vowel in about: a pronunciation heard regardless of where you are in the U.S. The same thing with [äɪ] for the vowel in mind.
Your Atlas Obscura article talks about how General American is more a matter of perception that strict patterns. In fact, the article claims, "All accents are semi-consistent groups of sounds" (my italics). I think we all agree with both statements. That doesn't mean there is no General American "umbrella" or "spectrum". What Labov is saying in that YouTube clip is there is no one single regional accent that could be identified as General American. That's his point, and probably the point of other linguists, who so often encounter laypersons who mistakenly believe GenAm is a regional dialect that is uniform and singular. We're not claiming that. All we're doing is giving some average or typical sounds of American English: what for decades has been called "General American" (again, for convenience, not for exactness).
As a side note, Jim Lehrer does not even have what Labov considers the defining feature of the Southern accent: PRICE glide deletion. However, he certainly has other Southern accent traces. The sources also raise the question about prominent people in the media trying to "lose" their accents. We intelligent people of course realize that everyone has an accent, so you can't actually "lose" one, unless you simultaneous "gain" another. (They don't just refuse to pronounce certain vowels, for instance; they pronounce them differently than before.) Therefore, without meaning to, these sources raise the question: What accent do Lehrer, Colbert, and others gain or strive for when they "lose" their original accents? I think the answer is obvious: an accent fitting more closely along a General American spectrum. Instead of saying mind with a Southern [aː], for example, Lehrer pronounces it with the more average-American [äɪ]. See our point now? Wolfdog (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2017 (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.

Western New England

A user just added a new subsection "Western New England" under the section "Varieties". Obviously, like any area of the country, Western New England has (several) varieties of English, but the features aren't really remarkable enough for this overview, so I just merged it and Eastern New England into a new subsection named "New England". The originating editor didn't like my compromise approach and reverted. What are people's thoughts? Does Western New England really merit its own separate subsection on this page? Wolfdog (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wofldog. I added a source to the content I added, which is what I should of done before. ANAE list WNE under a different umbrella than ENE. So yes, I think it should be separated. Blastprocessor (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Blastprocessor. I appreciate your good-faith intentions, but my understanding is this Varieties section lists a few of the most salient varieties only, otherwise the list could go on forever (every metropolitan area could theoretically have its own variety listed). The Labov source that you added breaks varieties down in many ways (including defining Providence, Baltimore, and St. Louis varieties, for example), and yet no one is pushing to have a separate Providence or Baltimore variety listed here in this quick outline. We could also create a Southwest category based on the research in Labov's 300-page book. But this isn't justified by the scope here either. If anything, Western New England should fall under a simple "New England" category or be deleted. Can you name any ways that Western New England is unique enough to fit this broad list? R-fulness is rampant throughout the U.S. and the vowel shift that defines another area is sporadic at best in WNE. Wolfdog (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. ANAE does state in the source that WNE is defined by a moderate advanced form of the shift, so I don't see why we shouldn't include that. Although moderate, I wouldn't consider the shift a salient feature. Blastprocessor (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Blastprocessor: Again then, why don't we just merge your information into a single New England subsection? Wolfdog (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Wolfdog: ANAE separates them. I don't see why they can't be separated on this page. It makes no sense to merge them since they are categorized as separate in ANAE. I'll give an different example. New York has different dialects. New York City English falls under a separate category than that of Rochester, New York. Blastprocessor (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Blastprocessor: I'm not sure how long we can keep talking in circles.
  • My original argument is that Western New England is unremarkable and so doesn't earn a place in this broad list of varieties.
  • Then you argue that the ANAE discusses it.
  • Next I say that, yes, the ANAE talks about all kinds of "separate" varieties we aren't adding to the list, because it's a broad or general list with only the most remarkable varieties.
  • Then you argue that the ANAE discusses it.
  • I then say why don't we compromise and just put it under New England (the more I think about it, though, "Inland North" might be a more appropriate category).
  • Then you argue that the ANAE discusses it.
This is frustrating. I'm tempted to return to my original arguments again, but I'd also like to end this cycle of getting nowhere. I feel like I'm not being heard. Here's my last try: The ANAE is a gigantic nationwide study that also considers these as separate varieties: Boston, Providence, St. Louis Corridor, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Charleston, Southeast, New Orleans, Atlanta, Savannah, and potentially countless others. But no one wants all these to be separately listed here on a page whose scope is too broad for such details. Furthermore, you can't argue that Western New England is remarkable beyond details anyway. There's a "moderate" (in fact, "sporadic") form of a vowel shift in some speakers and there's rhoticity, which is also a steady feature of the South, the Midland, the Inland North and North Central, the West, and General American: i.e., the vast majority of American English speakers. The bottom line is you don't present convincing arguments. Wolfdog (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Blastprocessor: If I get no reply, I'll merge Western New England into the Inland North and North Central section in the next few days. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 1 December 2017 (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. Whoever wrote that couldnt be further from the truth. In british english we always say pavement americans say sidewalk. Citation-born and lived all my life in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2018 (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)

What about King James 21st Century?

Does it use American English with Archaic English? 124.106.141.70 (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

no it doesnt it uses 16th century british english. America was not even a country when it was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing down the "Varieties" sections

I had an idea to collapse the Eastern New England, New York City, South, North, Midland, West sections all down into one "Regional varieties" section. There's not a lot to say about some of these, particularly the North, Midland, and West (especially not for lay readers to really get -- I can keep the links to each dialect's own page of course), and there seems to currently be a decent amount of fluff. Are there any objections to this that I'm missing? Wolfdog (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

With no response in more than a week, I'll go ahead a be bold. Come talk here for any follow-up.Wolfdog (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Named for & named after

It's usually said that in American English, if a person, place or thing has been named in honour of another human being, they have been named for that person; and in British English, named after.

Although, in fact, the two usages were originally distinct: if a person or thing takes its name in imitation of another person or thing, it is so named subsequently and in homage thereto (named after).

But if a child is christened with the name of an elder relative, especially if that relative is now deceased, the child has been named for that relative (as a memorial to them). Nuttyskin (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? How does this relate to improving the article? - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m American, and I have heard the phrase, “I was named after my grandfather,” far more often than the alternative. In fact, I don’t recall ever hearing the phrase, “I was named for my grandfather.” I usually hear “named for” in sentences like, “He was named in his yearbook for being ‘Most Likely to Succeed.’” WikiWinters (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Native name

"There is no "native language", as the article is written in American English already; also, WP:HYPOCORISM also applies here"

All American sources, including school curriculums call this "English" when not comparing to other English dialects, not American English. The `nativename=English` designation is correct. Erkin Alp Güney 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary still applies, and you have not addressed either point. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of non-English languages in courts

@Wolfdog: Greetings! Regarding this revert, I'm looking for clarity on the claim that "some divisions" use languages other than English in courts. Does "some" mean in fact only Puerto Rico? Or does this apply to all the jurisdictions mentioned in note "a" that have a second official language? Do all federal courts use English exclusively? I don't see anywhere in the body of the article that talks about the language used in courts. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Beland: Thanks for the fuller explanation. I honestly have no idea. However, is it really appropriate to add all these details to the lead section? Perhaps we can just reword the sentence in a way that allows us to be clearer but also avoid raising these types of more in-depth questions. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Wolfdog: I agree; details belong in the body. After poking around some more, I found a lot of detail is actually already in Languages of the United States#Official languages. That seems to be a better article for this content, since that article is about usage of various languages (including English) in the U.S., but this article is about the dialect, which is used in the U.S. but also by media and expatriates in other countries. So, I merged details there and left behind links here. -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_English/Archive_1&oldid=1199282788"