Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 December 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 2

The 5 languages closest to English

So we're in an episode of the twilight zone. The protagonist finds himself or herself with all the means of survival at their disposal; and a giant library with thousands of volumes of texts in one particular langauge. What would be the 5 languages (in order) that our uni-lingual protagonist would desire to quelch his or her thirst for knowledge in an expeditious manner? Sappysap 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question. The languages linguistically closest to English (in form, structure, and basic vocabulary, that is) are perhaps Dutch, German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. If you're saying your protagonist will have no books available in English and will need to teach himself one or more other languages so that he can use the giant library, then those I've found easiest are French, Italian, and Spanish, because so much of their vocabulary is close to words drawn from Latin or French used in English, and German and Dutch, because of the family resemblance to English. If you're asking which are the great non-English modern languages which would be most useful for an aspiring polymath to learn, then perhaps (off the top of my head) French, German, Russian, Spanish and Arabic? Xn4 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

West Frisian is pretty close. Corvus cornix_talk 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Few books are published in it! Xn4 02:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the language closest to English is Scots. Macnas 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Xn4, I don't quite understand your Borges-que question. There are in fact no languages so close to English that you can read them without having to learn them.--K.C. Tang 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well what about Scots then? Have a look at the Scots Wikipedia [1] - without meaning to offend, but it's just English written in a Scottish accent - perhaps with a few different words (but they can be understood in context). I've had no experiences with the Scots language yet I can still read it - whether I could write in Scots is a different matter, but I could probably learn it in a rather short amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Scots is very objective. Between different towns vocabulary and accent is so varied, so it's almost impossible to 'correctly' write it. --Bearbear 11:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a relation between the section title and the question posed below it. As to the latter, do you mean that all texts are written in the same particular language? If so, I'd say that it critically depends on the particular language the texts are written in. If that is the Klingon language, then the protagonist needs to know only that language to read them. Do you perhaps mean the following question: What are the five human languages such that a person who knows those (and only those) languages has the highest expected comprehension level with respect to a text written in a language randomly selected from all human languages, all with equal chance? If that is the question, I'd say that it really does not make much of a difference what the five languages are, since for any language the comprehension level with respect to almost any other randomly selected language is close to nil. But picking five Germanic languages is clearly suboptimal; you should pick five languages that have very low mutual comprehensibility, but belong to large language families (large in the sense of the number of members, not speakers).  --Lambiam 07:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

While West Germanic languages like Dutch, Frisian, and German are linguistically closest to English, the heavy influence of French and Latin since 1066 means that common English vocabulary is often closer to French or Spanish. Personally I find this a very difficult question to answer, as I studied French for 5 years from age 11 and can see the influence of both language families on English and other languages (there seems to be a fair bit of French influence in Dutch). From trying to read publications in North Germanic languages like Danish, Norwegian or Icelandic, I can safely say that an English-speaker won't make much sense of them without considerable study. -- Arwel (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget creole languages such as Tok Pisin, Krio and Jamaican Patois, which have varying status as languages. Historical languages, such as Middle English and Old English, might come into it as well. Steewi 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the authors of the book The Story of English, the closest related languagea to English are the Frisian languages. There is an accompanying PBS documentary series of the same name, hosted and narrated by Robert MacNeil, of The MacNeil/Lehrer Report fame. He also helped write the book. In the documentary, MacNeil says that there is a rhyming phrase that is pronounced completely the same in both English and Frisian: "Good butter and good cheese make good English and good Fries". The Frisians live along the northern coast of the Netherlands, pretty much the location from which many of the Anglo Saxons came to settle England in the 5th Century. Thus the connection... Saukkomies 21:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A few years back, when my Dutch was rather more elementary, I remember watching a film on TV. About half way through it occurred to me that as well as the German dialogue being subtitled, as usual, the Dutch dialogue was too. The subtitled Dutch was, of course, Frisian. I couldn't really tell the difference. Frisian orthography is rather offputting at first look and I'm not sure that in practice it's any easier for a beginner to understand spoken Frisian than Dutch. As for MacNeil's phrase, "Butter, bread, and green cheese..." seems more likely; that's the title of a "teach yourself Frisian" book which I have on my shelf. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most 'neutral' accent?

I've wondered this for some time. French people seem to have difficulty in replicating another accent, i.e. you can tell they are French. However, Dutch people can sometimes be so good at English you can't tell they are foreign. More specifically, I find that some English accents are very hard to shake off. Is there any way to tell which is more 'neutral'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbear (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral in what way? Unless you're talking about English accents in languages other than English, there's no neutral way to speak English. Unless you count RP English. Or maybe you mean that some "foreign" accents are very hard to shake off when speaking English - in which case I'm not sure. Some people can use a different accent flawlessly (for example, Englishman Hugh Laurie who plays Dr House), which means it is probably never impossible to shake-off an accent no matter where you are from, though very very hard for most people. But even then, as there's no accentless version of English, you would still be speaking with an English language accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is hard for native French speakers attempting to realize English, is that the French langauge does not have word stress, but only prosody (stress at the level of phrases). Speakers of language with word stress, like Dutch, have no problem with this (and, moreover, the rules for stress and prosody in Dutch are rather similar to English). Italian speakers have problems with word-final consonants, since this is foreign to Italian phonology. In general, native speakers of language A attempting to speak a (to them) foreign language B, will naturally attempt to realize the sounds of B by relying on the repertoire they have from being speakers of A. Sounds of B that are foreign to A are hard to realize correctly, and will often be replaced by sounds from the native repertoire that are "close". Therefore, one should expect the best results when A is rich in sounds used in B.

Another factor is exposure. In France dubbing of English spoken films and TV series is much more common than in Holland, where subtitling is the rule. Also, it used to be the case (but this has dramatically improved) that French teachers of English spoke and taught their students with a heavy French accent.

All of this has nothing to do with a notion of neutrality.  --Lambiam 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actors reproducing English language dialects/accents from across the Atlantic (or Pacific)

Spun off from 203.208.109.169's comment one question above: As a non-native speaker who enjoys the various dialects/accents the English language has to offer, I have actually wondered about how Hugh Laurie, Anthony LaPaglia, or Marianne Jean-Baptiste's spoken American accents in television shows sound to American ears (my guess is "pretty good", but I lack the nativeness). Which British (or Australian etc) actors' American speech sounds authentic to Americans? Which American actors' British speech sounds authentic to British ears? (I'm also asking because even I am aware of counterexamples, and have occasionally noticed unintentionally silly sounding "American" in certain beloved BBC television series of the past.) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie is pretty good but he sounds like he is really trying to pronounce R's properly. The best one is Gary Oldman; I always assumed he was American and he was faking a British accent in Harry Potter. Adam Bishop 14:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard any of the three you asked about, but I've heard Peter Sellers doing an American accent in his skit "Balham: Gateway to the South", which is appalling. Emma Thompson in Primary Colors wasn't much better either. I was persuaded by Mel Gibson's phony American accent in Lethal Weapon though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Sellers' "Bal-ham" was intended as a spoof accent.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony LaPaglia does OK. I call his TV show "Without a Trace of an Accent". Sidekick Poppy Petal does OK, too. LaPaglia gets away with it by growling and mumbling everything. They both have a lot of trouble with words like "night", though, where they use a long "i" instead of the diphthong. Toni Collette fooled me in The Sixth Sense, the first movie I saw her in. I would have sworn she was born and raised in Philadelphia. --Milkbreath 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, some actors can't do accents well even if they're from their own country. Audrey Hepburn grew up partially in England, but her Cockney in the beginning of My Fair Lady was almost as bad as Dick Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins. And I've never heard a Yankee or Californian actor do a plausible-sounding Southern accent. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Renée Zellweger's accent in "Miss Potter" was excellent, as was Meryl Streep's in "The French Lieutenant's Woman". Sendhil Ramamurthy does a beautiful "educated Indian British" accent in Heroes. 62.30.217.57 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Zellweger's accent is OK, I agree, but she (along with Gwyneth Paltrow in Sliding Doors and Shakespeare in Love) sounds a little clipped: no American traces, but not quite a natural delivery either. Ben Affleck had me thinking he was British in Shakespeare in Love. Drew Barrymore didn't quite make it to the UK (a bit of overdoing it perhaps) in Ever After, but it was set in France... Drmaik 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The first movie I saw Bob Hoskins in was Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where he plays an American. At the time it never occurred to me that be was British. --Anon, 23:06 UTC, December 2.

Marianne Jean-Baptiste's accent is excellent, because she doesn't even try to do a neutral American accent, but instead does what I would call "New York African-American", which is different from "New York white" or "general American African-American". Sophia Myles on Moonlight is excellent, too. I didn't even know she was British. Corvus cornix_talk 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that while Anthony LaPaglia's American accent is apparently quite good, his "English" accent in Frasier is atrocious. Although his character is supposed to be from Manchester, for some reason he's doing the kind of Hollywood Cockney accent that makes Dick Van Dyke sound like Ray Winstone. Malcolm Starkey 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I loved Audrey Hepburn and I love My Fair Lady, but her Cockney was admittedly pretty bad. Actually, she had trouble with some aspects of English even when she wasn't trying to fake an accent (possibly due to her Belgian upbringing). She often pronounced initial "t" as "d", which reminded me of Natalie Wood trying too hard to do a Hispanic accent in West Side Story, where she always called her boyfriend Tony (played by Richard Beymer) "Dony". Meryl Streep is usually very good with accents, but her Aussie accent in A Cry in the Dark was simply crap. I'd have to have a longer think, but I can't readily bring to mind any non-Aussie actor who's successfully mastered the typical Australian accent. -- JackofOz 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett has pulled off some impressive accents over the years (English as Queen Elizabeth, Elvish as Galadriel, American...). In an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Doomed?), American James Marsters as Spike does a fake American accent to cover his fake (and not completely authentic sounding) London accent. Lucky thing is, as a vampire he can claim his accent has been muddled over the years. Steewi 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I was impressed by Christopher Lambert's completely baffling accent in Highlander - very appropriate for a much-travelled immortal. Algebraist 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, he was a French Scotsman, what do you expect? And how about Sean Connery in the same movie, as an Ancient Egyptian Spaniard with a Scots accent? :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, for the interesting input! (And please add more.) In response to Milkbreath's funny variation of Without a Trace, I didn't even know Poppy Montgomery was Australian, yet a third non-American in that series. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tangential, but Eva Green's English accent in Casino Royale is perfect (I've never heard a French actor with a completely convincing cut-glass English accent before). Jean Reno manages an Elvis accent in Godzilla, too! Neil ☎ 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

American vs British

Since the majority of children raised in English-speaking countries don't learn Latin or Greek or all the other roots of English words claimed to make up the superiority of the British form of words, are American forms of these words not simpler and more intuitive in terms of the relationship between pronunciation and spelling? --Seans Potato Business 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate by providing some examples of what you mean? Thanks. —Nricardo 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please also specify who it is that claims that Latin and other roots make up the superiority of the British form of words? If the British form of words is superior, it is simply because the British are superior, full stop. That does not depend on the roots of the words. (Did I smell soap?)  --Lambiam 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Willis? --Seans Potato Business 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the questioner is referring to the forms termed 'latin-derived' such as the -our ending to words such as colour and 'greek-derived' such as words ending in -ogue such as analogue. A brief list of which is at American and British English spelling differences. 86.21.74.40 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And assuming good faith, perhaps SPB meant to say "majority" not "superiority". -- JackofOz 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean haematology versus hematology, color verus colour et al.. I've heard it claimed that the British forms of words, staying closer to their ancestral forms, roots or whatever you want to call them, are in such a way better. I propose that the ease of learning and use by the majority is more important than working out where words came from. Although I referred to British forms as superior, I was arguing in the opposite direction. I am British but don't think that this is the case. I think language should be designed for ease of learning and use. My question asks which form is most intuitive for children. Are the roots of a word useful to anyone but linguists (who will always know the hematology > haematology > haem anyway? --Seans Potato Business 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really relevant to your question, but you should be aware that it is the -or ending that is close to Latin. The u is a French influence. And speaking as a Brit I cannot recall hearing the claim that our spelling is superior because it is more historical. Speaking for myself, I find American spellings ugly (I make no claim that this due to anything other than early education) and am not convinced that there is a significant difference in ease of learning and use, though it would be interesting to see a proper study of this kind of thing. btw, it's hæmatology, not haematology :) Algebraist 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Having glanced through the article linked above, I see that there are several other instances where the American spelling is the older form: ax, curb, skeptic, tire, vise for example. Algebraist 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do prefer the oe and ae in, for example, oestrogen and haematoma and they tell me to pronounce them as ee-strogen and h-ee-matoma. Whether this pronounciation is different in America with it's spelling as estrogen and hematoma I don't know. 86.21.74.40 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the US it's pronounced eh-strogen. Seeing "oestrogen" I'd feel unsure how to pronounce it, but would probably hazard something like "oh-estrogen" or "wes-trogen". Just a data point (oh and I checked the OED, which agreed -- its a Brit. / US difference). Pfly 06:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best argument for why English English is the more "superior" is because England is where English is from. You've got English as it is spoken in England and English as it is spoken in the US - obviously the English as it is spoken in England is the original. I do not see why anyone other than the US (and maybe Canada) should use US English, just like you wouldn't expect someone from Singapore to speak Jamaican English. I think it is unfortunate that America is so influential that it affects the way the rest of the world speaks English, especially as the rest of the English-speaking world is much more uniform. Without US English there wouldn't be much difference between writing English from country to country (only the way it is spoken). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying "English as it is spoken in England is the original" is frankly extremely ignorant. English has changed a lot in England over the years since English English and American English diverged, and in many ways American English is more conservative than English English. In other ways, English English is more conservative, because American English has also changed. They've both diverged from their original ancestor, and neither can claim to be historically more accurate than the other. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, just as there no single American English, there is no single English English. The people from Lancashire, Kent, London, Somerset and Liverpool all sound very different, and presumably each group uses certain words that the others don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I'm not saying that English English is original in a sense that's it's the same as English spoken before America was discovered before English settlement. But I'm saying English came from England, just like French comes from France and German comes from Germany. I'm saying that plain English, in its strictest sense, should be considered to be the English as it is spoken in England. I'm not quite sure about French, but if I was asked to say where the original form of French comes from, I would say France, not some other country. And the same for every other language. Russian comes from Russia, Italian comes from Italy, Greek comes from Greece - so how can English come from America? It only makes sense to say that English comes from English. I'm not denying that American English is an acceptable variant for use in the US, but I do not think that a form of English which is an "off shoot" from English English should be considered as being regular English. Just because the United States is a superpower and exports it culture to other countries, doesn't mean that their way of speaking English can be considered more correct than English English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One way of looking at this is to compare it to what happens in popular music. First you have the Blues. Then after a while there evolves from out of the Blues several other music genres: Jazz, Rockabilly, and Rythm-and-Blues. After a while Rockabilly and Rythm-and-Blues merge and then diverge again to become Rock-and-Roll and Country-and-Western. It may be difficult for some people today to believe that there was a time when Country-and-Western and Rock-and-Roll were the same thing, but such was the case (think of Elvis nd Buddy Holly). Now, today there still are some people playing the Blues - but they are by far not as numerous as the other genres that spun from it. Jazz, too, is not as popular as it used to be. Of the two most popular genres, Rock-and-Roll is the largest, with County-and-Western coming in second place.

So, which of these genres is "superior" to the others? Of course there are those who would say that one or the other is the "best" form of music, but this would only be their personal taste. Such is the case with English English and American English (or Aussie or Kiwi or Jamaican or Indian or South African or any of the other genres of English). There is no "superior" form of English, any more than there is a "superior" genre of music. Of all the languages on the planet, English (with the possible exception of Latin, which is a dead language) has perhaps been the most successful at adapting itself to fit whatever new environment it finds itself. This is its strength, not its weakness. So to belittle those forms of English that have successfully adapted themselves to their new environments, claiming that there is only one proper or superior form, is being blind to the very reason that English is such a poweful language. Instead of attempting to promote one form of English as better, let's celebrate instead the amazing variety that English has evolved into. It's great to be able to speak this language, regardless of whatever form or variety one takes on.

One more thing to consider: the form of English that is historically the most accurate actually may be found in some of the more remote valleys of the Appalachian Mountains in the US. Linguists have for some time noted that some of the hillbillies living in those isolated areas speak a form of English that is very close to what was spoken in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. So to say that the form of English spoken in England is the most correct is ignoring the fact that it, too, has changed. What is silly in my opinion is to go to a Renaissance Fair in the US where people try to pretend to speak in an old-fashioned "English" accent, but basically take on a modern-day Cockney East London accent that never existed prior to the 1800s! If they really wanted to speak old fashioned English, they'd be closer to the mark if they spoke like a Hillbilly from Kentucky! --Saukkomies 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Using this way of looking at it, you could say that PIE has been much more successful; English and Latin are just slices of the big PIE. Of course, in the process of "adapting itself" to fit new environments, that language split into several languages that went their own ways and become mutually unintelligible (: almost like English dialects in England today :), but the same would be the natural fate of the several local varieties of English, if it were not for today's intant global communication.  --Lambiam 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it! A discussion about the Proto-Indo-European language! I'm in heaven! I do see your point, Lambian, however I would suggest that my comparison of the various form of modern English to the genres that emerged out of the Blues is still apropos. To bring PIE into the comparison, one would have to broaden the comparison from just the Blues and its related genres to encompass all forms of Western Music, including Classical, Baroque, Renaissance, etc... Perhaps even it would be necessary to include the Classical Indian Ragas and the non-Mixolydian Modes! It is true that English is just one of the many divergent languages that can trace their roots back to PIE, but I think the comparison model of it to the Blues still stands on solid ground. Saukkomies 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This question (or its implications) open up a big wound in my psyche. On the one hand I love the richness of history and geography that is preserved in the quirks and oddities of the English language, but on the other hand I have a strong feeling that it is precisely those quirks and oddities, especially of spelling, which make it difficult for some children to learn to read and write it. If it were some arcane artform, then I would defend its inaccessibility to my last breath, but as it is a means of communication which ought to be open to every child who uses the language, then I fear that it should be simplified, made phonetic (fonetic?) and tidied up generally. And that means something better than American spelling, which is still crazy . (How is neighbor any more phonetic than neighbour?) SaundersW 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some kids are illiterate because the language is not phonetic? David D. (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2007

(UTC)

American and British English are equally valid forms of the language; neither is "superior" to the other. While it is true that the modern form of the English language mostly emerged in England, I don't see why that is a reason to prefer the forms now spoken in England, which, as others have pointed out, are no closer and perhaps further from the original than the American varieties. Obviously, British spelling and either Received Pronunciation or Estuary English are more or less standard in England today, whereas American spelling and General American are more or less standard in the United States today. For non-native speakers of English, which variety they learn should depend on where they plan to use the language. If they plan to use it mainly in England, continental Europe, or Africa, probably the British variety is more helpful. If they plan to use English in the United States or Canada or to communicate with English speakers anywhere in Latin America or East Asia (except maybe Hong Kong), then American English is more helpful. These days, India is a tossup. If they mainly want to use English in Jamaica, then why not learn Jamaican English? I think that it is a pragmatic question, and although I am far from nationalistic, I frankly resent the possessive attitude of some English folk toward our common language. Marco polo 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

David, to be perfectly honest, yes. There are countries whose languages are far more complicated but phonetic who achieve higher literacy rates (eg Finland, Croatia) and I have helped children trying to learn to read who find it very hard to "get" the idea of reading because words in English are simply not written as they are spoken. SaundersW 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatia has a lower literacy rate than either the US or the UK. And I'd want to see far better evidence than this for this claim: surely social/educational factors are much more important in determining literacy that innate difficulty of the language. Literacy in Japanese requires knowledge of thousands of Kanji, which aren't phonetic at all, but Japan has as high a literacy rate as any English-speaking country. Algebraist 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Have you seen how the countries define literacy? For the UK it is "age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling", which is not a measure of reading or writing at all. I did think Croatia was higher than that, and you will allow me Finland. Japanese literacy is a different matter, since nobody is trying to get Japanese students to "spell out" Kanji: it's much closer to recognising and reading mathematical symbols. SaundersW 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a special international English should be designed to make it phoenetic and easier to learn - there should be rules and if possible, no exceptions. One thing I liked about learning Dutch (which I'm still doing) is that the language tends to conform to rules in terms of pronunciation, making it a lot easier. A special council should be set up to hold meetings, discuss things and make decisions etc. I don't know how that would work exactly, but I think it's a good idea and suggest that SaundersW sets about getting the ball rolling. It wouldn't have to be implemented quickly but could span many decades. A few governments or just their education departments would probably need to be in on it. :) --Seans Potato Business 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a new idea at all (See George Bernard Shaw and the Initial Teaching Alphabet) and I suspect there is far too much invested now in English as she is writ. It is simply a deep gut feeling based on experience, never statistically tested. Is there an emoticon for a shrug? SaundersW 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Our List of common emoticons gives the rather complex ¯\(°_0)/¯ for shrug, in which the level of elaboration is not quite commensurate with the (feigned?) indifference. And there is the graphic for indifferent.  --Lambiam 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They did design a special international English; it's called Esperanto. Seriously, there's lots of regularized Englishs out there, with Basic English being the most well-known. And Basic English and friends all fail for the same reason; people want to learn English, not a "special" (i.e. ghettoized) "international English". Even a lot of Esperantists believe that the reason to learn Esperanto is not because every one is going to learn it, it's because those that have learned it have done interesting things with it (see Raumism). A special English just defines you as a second-class hanger-on to the global English community, which no one really wants to be. The less difference between the simplified English and real English, all the more reason to actually learn the real thing.--Prosfilaes 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto doesn't appear to be English at all. I checked the article and it isn't based on English. --Seans Potato Business 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will give you a squashed kitten, and return to my box under the stairs. >^@,@^< SaundersW 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For those interested: English has reached an unprecedented tipping point -- there are more people speaking and using it as their second language than as their mother tongue. Long ago Britain ceased to be the main engine of change to the English language, ceding that role to the United States by sheer numbers (of course the UK remains a significant player in shaping the language, but no longer the predominant one); now that honour/honor has shifted from native speakers to those who have learned, rather than acquired, English (see second language acquisition). There are indeed various conflicting sorts of international English and World English -- one is what linguist David Crystal, author of inter alia the Cambridge University Press Encyclopedia of the English Language, calls "World Standard Spoken English". Braj Kachru has divided the world into concentric circles of English: the inner circle (essentially the Anglosphere), the outer circle (e.g. the Commonwealth), and the expanding circle (e.g. China, Russia). When Jamaican kids settle in the US, Canada, or Britain, they often need some assistance to adapt their language to the requirements of their new academic setting; this is sometimes referred to as "English as a second dialect". This falls within the broad field of English language teaching and learning, an article rich with explanations of the jargon and acronyms (ESL, ESD, ELT, ESOL, EFL etc). BrainyBabe (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the original question, I don't tend to find the American spellings any more intuitive in relating spelling to pronunciation, as they do not appear to reflect my pronunciation. For example, phonetically spelling colour for me would yield cuhluh; color is no closer to my pronunciation. Metre I pronounce meetuh; meter I pronounce the same. Neither is closer to my pronunciation, but using different forms in different uses allows me to tell some words apart in text. Travelling I would spell travuhling. Luckily the double l indicates the shortening of the e, so this spelling is pretty phonetic following the rules of English spelling; traveling suggests a long e to me, but I can learn it as a non-phonetic word. So American spellings are not necessarily more intuitive, and any standardised written English is going to be non-phonetic is places for a large group of people, given the variations in accents. English actually does pretty well once you learn the rules. I wish I could find the link to the site where someone taught a bot to read English with very few flaws, and listed the rules they used. Skittle (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the double letter l in "travelling" may suggest a stressed or unreduced short vowel sound, as in "repelling". AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)