The nl:Engels knows many more translations for the word "English". You can copy all these translations across as they use messages in stead of text. Most of the messages have the correct content. :) Thanks Timwi, 20:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don’t think so. Someone interested in "the English" would look up English. —Stephen 11:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but we have to indicate somehow that a determiner, either "the" or a demonstrative adjective (if I'm not mistaken), is required. Putting "the" in parenthesis in the definition doesn't cut it for me. It's not obvious to me that that means anything at all. Davilla 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Davilla, it was me that changed it. The problem is that (as the second example shows), it doesn't always take the definite article. In fact even the first example sounds a little awkward to me, I would probably be more likely to say The Scottish and English have a history of.... But at any rate I think to separate it with a different heading makes it look like a separate word. I've added a usage-note-style thing on the def line, how does that work for you? Widsith 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- First of all the nouns being all together is great. I didn't like the style of your usage note and rather than revert  I've modified the entry as I would otherwise have it, but I promise to stop playing with the format now. And what about the multiple depths? Is there no better solution? Davilla 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I just made this edit, but now I have second thoughts. I think that "What's the English for..." uses grammatical ellipsis of "term", "phrase" or "expression", i.e. that it's short for "What's the English term for...". However, I notice that our own entry for ellipsis as of yet lacks the grammatical sense of the term (which I'll add in a minute) and "English" shows "the English-language term or expression for something" as a subsense of "with reference to the language", implying that there is no ellipsis in such phrases.
Hey, where is this pronounced "in-glish" (with an /ɪ/)? Everywhere I've heard it pronounced - including the audio files on this very page - it's been pronounced "een-glish" (with an /i/). And yet two of the pronounciation representations given here only have the "in-glish" pronounciation! What's up with that? 188.8.131.52 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please look more carefully; both pronunciations are given. --EncycloPetey 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that- what I want to know is where the /ɪ/ pronounciation is ever used. 184.108.40.206 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Why is there a photo of P G Wodehouse under the Wiktionary for English? I enjoy his writing, but he is hardly a major figure in English literature, and there is a cloud over his behavior in WWII. Chaucer and Shakespeare are too predictable, but Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, or even Rudyard Kipling would be better choices.
- I wouldn't have a photo at English at all. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed the picture. --Per utramque cavernam 08:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The sense “ability to employ the English language…”
The English entry for this word has the following definition:
3. Ability to employ the English language correctly or idiomatically. My coworkers have pretty good English for non-native speakers.
Should we really have this definition? I don’t really feel this is a separate sense, but rather a use of the sense “the English language”. There is an idiom to have [LANGUAGE], but this can be any language, and the idiom isn’t specific to the word English. Rather, “to have the ability to speak and/or understand (a language)” should be listed among the senses of have. – Krun (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)