In today's world, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics has become a topic of increasing interest to a wide range of people. With its many facets and its impact on various areas of life, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics has captured the attention of many individuals, from experts in the field to those just beginning to explore its implications. Whether Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics refers to a person, a topic, a date or any other element, its relevance in modern society is undeniable. In this article, we will explore in depth the various dimensions of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics, analyzing its importance, its challenges and its possible implications for the future.
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should add the voiceless diacritics underneath/above the lenes, as in ⟨b̥ d̥ ɡ̊⟩ for transcriptions involving Swiss and Austrian Standard German? Even though the word- and morpheme-final orthographic ⟨b d g⟩ aren't fortified, they aren't voiced either and the bare symbols ⟨b d ɡ⟩ might be more confusing than ⟨p t k⟩ (used previously, in alignment with pronunciation dictionaries) by the official IPA standards, not less. doesn't feature a voiced-voiceless-voiced sequence in the middle, nor is the final sound voiced.
There's also a question of - are they in any way relevant in the southern standards? Any important allophonies we should transcribe? Then, what about ? Does that exist? And should we then switch to transcribing the voiced labiodental with ⟨ʋ⟩ as far as the southern varieties are concerned? Sol505000 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC) |
An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:
That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process. There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO , but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options. Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?
Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language Extending the RFC's time to cook up more responses by adding an extra timestamp. Tarlby 05:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Should Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, be referred to as "Modern Standard Urdu" in the same ways as Hindi, the official language of India, is referred to as: "Modern Standard Hindi?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC) |
On the Americans article, I removed religion from the InfoBox, arguing that it oversimplifies it, especially terms like Majority, Minority and Traditionally oversimplify stuff. It was reverted. I am asking fellow editors, what should the article have?
|