English or english?

[Obviousman]

I was pulled up on this earlier and it made me wonder: English or english?

If I talk about the people of England, they are English. A certain type of tea is English Breakfast.

If I am talking about the spoken language, I would normally not capitalise it - english.

Am I incorrect? I am beginning to think so.

What are people's thoughts?

[Peter B]

Yes, you capitalise it too. That's because it's a proper adjective - an adjective formed from a proper noun, which would itself normally be capitalised. So I'd say that regardless of the circumstances in which you use it, if the word is formed from a proper noun, it should be capitalised.

One case where I'd consider the possibility of doing otherwise is on the pool table, where side spin is (in the USA) called 'english'.

[smartcooky]

English (same as French, Swiss, American) should be capitalized any time it refers to something related to the named a country.

English tea
French toast
Swiss cheese
American hotdog

The only time I can think of that I can think of where the word "english" might not be capitalized is when you are referring to side-spin imparted on a snooker or pool cue ball.

[Glom]

Yes the language is a proper noun and so capitalised in english. I mean English.

Like you would say Sprechen Sie Englisch, except that's a bad example because every noun is capitalised in German.

[Obviousman]

Okay - I stand corrected.

You learn something new every day!

[Abaddon]

Okay - I stand corrected.

You learn something new every day!

Don't feel bad. I often fail to capitalise it as an adjective even though I know the rule. English is a most odd language.

[Obviousman]

Okay - I stand corrected.

You learn something new every day!

Don't feel bad. I often fail to capitalise it as an adjective even though I know the rule. English is a most odd language.

They say English is the hardest language for a non-English speaker to learn. It has so many times when rules apply except in that case, words which appear exactly the same but depend on context for meaning, etc.

[Abaddon]

Okay - I stand corrected.

You learn something new every day!

Don't feel bad. I often fail to capitalise it as an adjective even though I know the rule. English is a most odd language.

They say English is the hardest language for a non-English speaker to learn. It has so many times when rules apply except in that case, words which appear exactly the same but depend on context for meaning, etc.

My sister is a translator for a living. She tells me this is true and has done for many years. An example would be the English word "set". Such a simple word, but it has the most meanings of any word in the English language. When my sister told me that, my knee jerk was "No way", but start enumerating them. It becomes, very quickly, difficult to stop enumerating them.

[Peter B]

Okay - I stand corrected.

You learn something new every day!

Don't feel bad. I often fail to capitalise it as an adjective even though I know the rule. English is a most odd language.

They say English is the hardest language for a non-English speaker to learn. It has so many times when rules apply except in that case, words which appear exactly the same but depend on context for meaning, etc.

My sister is a translator for a living. She tells me this is true and has done for many years. An example would be the English word "set". Such a simple word, but it has the most meanings of any word in the English language. When my sister told me that, my knee jerk was "No way", but start enumerating them. It becomes, very quickly, difficult to stop enumerating them.

I understand, however, there are at least a couple of situations in which English is easier than other languages:

1. English doesn't have gender. So you don't have to remember whether some random noun is masculine, feminine or neuter (I remember being bemused when learning German that time is feminine but a girl is neuter).

2. English verbs have fewer cases than other languages. So the verb changes little depending on whether I do the action, or we do, or you do, or you (plural), or he/she/it, or they do.

Now obviously I've just shown up one weakness of English - the lack of a plural second person pronoun. But I suspect that one will emerge in a few decades.

And another subtle weakness is that we have to use "we" in two slightly different contexts which can lead to confusion: "we" as in "me and the person I'm speaking to" and "we" as in "me and one or more people other than the person I'm speaking to"...

You: What do you want to do today?

Me: Well, we could go to the beach, like we...er...John and I...did yesterday.

[Glom]

Yes, English is better than most. I was pleased that Dutch seems to have only one plural form. Chinese is the best though. It doesn't conjugate at all. 我说，你说，他说，我们说。Arabic and Hebrew have different forms for masculine and feminine but to be fair, Arabic doesn't vary so much with person.

We also don't conjugate as much for tenses. French has different forms of the verbs for imperfect, future, conditional. We just use auxiliaries. I was playing, I will play, I would play. Basically, play, plays, playing, played are the only forms of that verb that exist. This is against joue, joues, jouons, jouez, jouent, joué, jouais, jouait, jouions, jouiez, jouaient, jouerai, well you get the idea.

We also don't have accidence like German, with its cases. One 'the' 'a' 'this' 'not'. At least German isn't as bad as Latin where the noun itself changes and there needs to be declensions to organise the rules. And Latin has more cases. Latin has more of everything. It is its life goal to conjugate for every degree of freedom: person, number, tense, voice, mood. Mercifully it doesn't go the semitic route and add gender to that.

I'm not aware of a language that has a different version of we for the inclusive and the exclusive.

Yes, I was struck but the weirdness of das Madchen. Maybe it is so perverts don't get the wrong idea.

[Al Johnston]

Czech is apparently even more inflected than Latin.

English actually lost the second person plural in its transition to the modern form...

[smartcooky]

We also don't have accidence like German.

Yes, I was struck but the weirdness of das Madchen. Maybe it is so perverts don't get the wrong idea.

This reminds me of a sign that used to be attached to one of the test benches where I used to work (in the G4 Gyro Bay)

ACHTUNG!
Das machinen ist nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben
Ist ezy to brechen das springwerken mit spitzen sparken und poppen bangen 
All das dumbkopfs keeper das handen in der pocketen und watch alles der prettyblinkenlighten

[Obviousman]

I used to have that made up as a tag. I thought it was piss funny.

Now that you have posted it, I'm going to make up some more....

[Peter B]

...Latin where the noun itself changes and there needs to be declensions to organise the rules. And Latin has more cases. Latin has more of everything. It is its life goal to conjugate for every degree of freedom: person, number, tense, voice, mood. Mercifully it doesn't go the semitic route and add gender to that.

Somebody had to link to it:

(Life of Brian - Romans Go Home)

I'm not aware of a language that has a different version of we for the inclusive and the exclusive.

Apparently Tok Pisin in New Guinea distinguishes between the two. I think it was Bill Bryson in "Mother Tongue" who pointed out this deficiency. Or Jared Diamond in "The Third Chimpanzee".