Talk:Anglicisation - Knowledge (XXG)

2274:'Ghent (Gent, or Gand)' should be changed to 'Ghent (Gent)'. Ghent is a Dutch-speaking city, known locally as 'Gent' (presumably the 'h' was inserted in English to prevent the name being pronounced like the abbreviation for 'gentleman'). 'Gand' is a French exonym, like 'Anvers' for Antwerp (Dutch 'Antwerpen') and 'Courtrai' for Kortrijk, and hence has no business here. Some surviving English exonyms for Dutch-speaking Belgian towns and cities are in fact copied from the French ones (such as 'Bruges' for Brugge and and 'Ypres' for Ieper), but 'Gand' isn't one of them. The fact that Dutch-speaking Belgians had to struggle for over a century to gain equal treatment for their language makes this a particularly unfortunate slip. 1305:. Who says so? If the word is directly translated from the native language into English then unless the grammar rules are the same as English the word will not be read that way. Besides it is not translation from one alphabet to another it is transliteration. Even if the word is from the Latin alphabet one needs to know for example that in German "W" is pronounced as a "V" if one is to have hope of "secur faithfulness to the original pronunciation" and unless one has learnt German this is unlikely to be true. -- 612:, and the Pope's ruling name for three. However it seems like this phenomena primarily occurs with individuals of historical prominence, not average persons, and not recently practiced (with the notable exception of the Pope). If someone can cite some stats or examples of widespread anglicisiation of personal names, I think this section should be rewritten. I guess its ultimately a judgement call, but I lean against the characterization of "heavy." -- 586:

the Immigration clerks. Immigration officials were available who spoke the native languages of the immigrants. This is not to say that name changes did not occur. They did. It happened in my extended family when a grade school teacher told an great uncle of mine that he was spelling his last name wrong. My paternal grandfather changed the family's name for unknown reasons; but to say that name changes occured by government officials is simply untrue.

215: 274: 21: 2037:

one-line initial text with which the article began. As for "-ze" being British as much as American, again I don't care much. The choice of "-ze" or "-se" is then just a separate styling question; and it seems that for most of its history, "-se" has predominated and the article has become stable with that ("romanisation", for example). Stability is a Good Thing; so is turning our attention to more pressing matters.

149: 455: 1692:

the historical Mandarin pronunciation, and the K is still pronounced in other Chinese languages. The spelling Tsingtao actually represents the same exact sound as Qingdao. They're just different romanizations. If Tsingtao is anglicized, then Qingdao is every bit as anglicized. The romanization that produces Tsingtao is simply older. Neither place belongs in the article. (

264: 139: 243: 112: 81: 360: 1921:

I'd lean towards not moving, because while I'd usually go with the first edit rule in ambiguous cases, the main purpose of that rule imo is just to avoid edit wars over location by hewing to precedent. But when an article's been at the same location for 8 years, and the only previous history was a one-sentence stub, just keeping it there feels more like the

2241:

follows: "(Benoît, pronounced , became /bɛnˈɔɪt/ or Benedict)" since "Benedict" can be seen as a translation into English of "Benoît". This does, however, not fit well with the statement that precedes the parenthesis as "Benedict" is not the same spelling as "Benoît". Maybe, the author of the cited line could clear up his or her meaning?

524:--- e.g. q, x. In any case, Francophones seem quite happy with Pékin. What may have happened is that English-speakers caught wind of the Pinyin spelling and thought that some sort of name-change *had* occurred and for that reason started using "Beijing" (of course missing out the tone diacritics when writing it). 2138:

German (Kriterium) retains the first grapheme, for largely domestic visual reasons, i.e. older printed German are as likely to use a 'c' as a 'k', e.g. the name of my adopted city Kassel, which used to be Cassel; the 5th grapheme is as in English; the ending is transposed from Greek to Latin, and the

2036:

and its auxiliaries, clarity, and accuracy. I have adjusted some details to that end. The article has a long history of using British English, and that surely carries weight. I would say it carries more weight than even the first non-stub editor's choice, and certainly more than the chancy usage of a

1857:

has two aspects: personally, I feel the don't-bother-changing-things is much less clear cut and helpful than the first-edit rule & that it doesn't obtain in the face of repeated restorations of the American spellings, arguing on the talk page, &c; but we can go ahead and establish a concensus

1666:

Since absolutely no response has come, I suppose that no-one opposes, but also that no-one wants to do the work. I'll try to add a little along the lines i proposed myself. Unhappily, this means that the text will be less well sourced than it could have been, if someone with English as first language

1488:

What's the 'British Encyclopedia'? Britannica.com is a commercial site owned by a company incorporated in the U.S.A. I don't think a 'descriptive' case can be made for preserving -isation, we'd have to have a head-count, and I fear the Englishized version would be more popular. It's not worth arguing

1201:

Would the pronunciation of words in an Anglicized way count as Anglicization? For example, many U.S. cities have names originating in other languages, whose pronunciations have been mangled (to use a POV term) to conform to English conventions. Some of the most infamous examples are French names in

1082:

Evice. Why bother to change any spelling if the spelling is an accepted English spelling, from whatever English variant. Personally I don't find your arguements compelling enough to warrant any sort of change. I tend to agree that an overseeing body for the English language would be a good idea, the

585:

Names were not changed by immigration officials in the United States. This is an urban myth that has been propagated for many many years. Immigration officials didn't write down names, but rather worked from manifests provided by the shipping companies. Any errors were made by the company, and not

2418:

I've been trying to add some of the history of anglicisation in the British Isles to the article. These processes - alongside the ongoing anglicisation of foreign cultures - are well-documented in literature. However, I've noticed this article seems to be dealing with two slightly different concepts

2376:

By the way, as an illustration of the uncertainty, the Oxford English Dictionary, to my surprise, as well as Webster’s Third New Unabridged Dictionary both use a “z” in the words anglicization and anglicize. I would also use the "z", but as the main article title has an "s", and such things are not

2162:

I'm not inclined to research this or post anything extensive, but the use of the term as an historical process leading in part to the breakdown of the differentiated American colonial societies between the south, the middle colonies and the northeastern coastal areas is a standard one that seems not

1691:

These two names are not anglicizations. The K in Peking is there because there actually was a K sound centuries ago. We write Beijing now because in Mandarin there was a phonological change where some K sounds were replaced with something a little like J (also a little like CH). Peking represents

1642:

I sought out this page in order to read about this phenomenom, but found only references to immigrants voluntarily changing their names. If this is described elsewhere, I think adding a link could be advantageous. If not, then perhaps this is the place to describe it - or should there be a split, as

2366:

I think the lengthy discussion about British vs. US spelling is a non-issue. Both options are possible in Knowledge (XXG) articles, although one should strive for consistency within one article. This is a desirable but hopeless goal, since nobody can expect all editors to be knowledgeable about all

2356:

Many thanks for your encouragement I have now made an attempt at focus and reorganization, as suggested in the two Wiki requests and on this talk page, but the sections I have blocked with a hidden comment need to be moved to some other appropriate Wiki article, as I do not feel free to delete them

2170:

The original article, as nearly as I can tell, is here: J. Murrin, “England and Colonial America,” Princeton Alumni Weekly Review, Vol. 75, 1974, pp. 42-42. There are several very inaccurate discussions of this phenomenon on the web, and it would seem that some inclusion of a section on it would be

2166:

Basically, "they had to become more English (or see each other by some more unifying identity, and it happened to be that of Englishness, hence the insistence on their rights as Englishmen (sic) which was among the rallying cries for representation in the British government) before they could unite

1920:

of this article, and I did so with BrEng spellings, despite myself being American and used to AmEng spellings. My feelings at the time were that the term could cover both the linguistic and cultural senses, so the BrEng spelling was more appropriate. My preference isn't particularly strong, though.

1603:

The article names a number of Italian cities as examples of anglicisation. I wonder if this is appropriate since most Italian place names came into English via French. The English exonyms thus follow largely French pattern. Names like Milan, Venice, Rome, Naple, Turin, Florence, are all examples

1344:

That's not true at all. "Anglicize" means simply to make more like English. It's true that a common use is to describe anglicization of individual words when importing them into English, but it's also common to describe anglicizing other languages or even entire cultures; one of the two canonical

2220:

Double-checking of grammar, run-on sentences, and punctuation. There are some easy-to-fix mistakes in the article which interrupt the flow of the sentence and distract from the main points, as in the opening statement ‘In terms of language, anglicisation is a policy of use of the English language,

2142:

If the term 'Anglicization' is to be used of this perfectly normal and universal phenomenon, then why not 'Francization', 'Italicization', and so on ? English is not the only language that does this, but since it has been (compelled to be) an extremely receptive language, with an extremely diverse

2422:

On one hand, there is the socio-cultural, economic and political anglicisation, such as what happened in Ireland, Wales and the Channel Islands as noted in the article. And there is the linguistic anglicisation, i.e. translating names into English, anglicising loan words and the anglicisation of

2215:

Subsections (1) and (2) could be improved through expansion. These contain very plain statements, which don’t help much as a starter point (which is usually why people come to Knowledge (XXG) articles). For example, it is stated under the ‘Social anglicisation’ heading that this was an important

2210:

The lead section could be expanded a little more – giving a definition one could find in a dictionary is not very helpful as an introduction to the article. Perhaps a couple main background points about the history or etymology of the word, as well as how it is used currently would be much more

2190:

The use of italics is all over the place in this article: sometimes the Anglicised names are italicised, sometimes the native names, sometimes both and sometimes neither. One solution would be always to italicise the native name; another would be always to italicise the older name. I favour the

1772:

Why is this article only concerned with the Anglicisation of particular words? Isn't Anglicisation also a form of cultural transformation (even imperialism) whereby British customs and culture are exported and/or accepted? Should this article not be extended to cover that form of Anglicisation?

555:

overcompensates for this in the mistaken belief that the name being used in English was imposed by English speakers and is some sort of injustice. Locals tried to get Piedmontese included as an official olympic language, but were unsucessful. Well, I guess someone has to finish what Mussolini

2240:

Also, there is grammatical flaw in the clause "or pronunciations were changed to fit the spelling (Benoît, pronounced , became /bɛnˈɔɪt/) Benedict". The word "Benedict" could be removed completely; then everything would be fine. Alternatively, the content of the parenthesis could be changed as

1670:

E.g., I do not have access to any history scool book in English; I suppose that there could be some discussion or mentioning of the various name forms there. I also do not know if there is a change as to using the angicised or the native forms; nor if there is any geographical variation (e.g.,

1174:

It is very common to say things like "'Pavement' is the Anglicised version of 'Sidewalk'", where the word anglicised specifically refers to the form used in England, rather than the form used in English. This article should definitely at least mention that usage, though I'm not quite sure that

995:

article). I'm just trying to say that Anglicization/Anglicisation isn't something limited to the UK, even if the language was invented there. As for having a governing body, English really could use one. As for the name of this article, I give up. And no, I don't hate British spellings/words,

621:

I see "German names have also been anglicised (from Licht to Light) ...". Should say "such as from Licht to Light", because there are other names that were anglicized from German. "Obergfell" presumably became "Oberkfell" (there is a baseball player with that surname) and also could become

2322:

This discussion is very informative, and I will attempt to edit this article to incorporate some of the above considerations and examples. This will however, inevitably involve deletions and reorganization and take time, so I hope you will wait a couple of days before evaluating my attempt.

1708:

Yep. They're different (English-based) romanizations, as opposed to the Cyrillic & made-up system eventually employed in Hanyu Pinyin. Hence, Anglicized. (You're on firmer ground arguing that Tsingtao is actually based on a German transcription system, as it

1039:, and that's that more dialects accept it. Just because most English dialects have more speakers that use -ise over -ize doesn't mean that the -ize variants can't be accepted. Similarily, I'm pretty sure that more Americans, including myself, use 1525:

words in the Oxford English Dictionary favour spellings with a 'z' and with a lower-case letter 'a' at the beginning, for these words: anglicize, anglicized, anglicizer, anglicizing, anglicization. The OED entry for anglicize begins as follows:

1302:

With languages that use non-Latin alphabets, such as the Arabic, Cyrillic, and Greek alphabets, a direct transliteration is typically used, in order to secure faithfulness to the original pronunciation rather than conformance to the norms of

1537:. Both agree on the lower case beginning, while the Cambridge dictionary asserts that 's' is favoured over 'z' in the UK. Therefore, the two British dictionaries take slightly different approaches to the question of 's' or 'z'. The American 689:

It doesn't make much sense, because Americans speak English, not American. This article is mainly about changing non-English words to English or English-like ones, and it happens both in England and America. This is clearly different from

1161:

Outside of the United Kingdom, I think it's much more commonly used in a linguistic sense. If there is something interesting to say about the other sense though, feel free to add a section or split this article. I don't know much about

515:

language in Roman letters than dictating what appears on maps intended for non-Chinese speakers --- as evident from the fact that the pronunciation of some letters in Hanyu Pinyin bears no relation to their pronunciation in

2386:

On the capitalization of these words: the OED does not go into capitalization; Webster’s says “often capitalized”. I personally would opt for the proposal mentioned above to use the lower case for the reason mentioned

2090:): "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary" and "When ... discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in 459: 1960:

a very good point; the irony is fun, particularly given that the American spelling is roughly twice as common on the net and there's nothing late-British about the practice that actually warrants a BrEng spelling.

807:, then why change it? As long as it's made clear that alternative spellings exist, and as long as people are re-directed here when they use the alternative for a search, then why the grief? Your demands smack of 419: 1175:

there's anything "interesting" to say about it; rather, the article is currently misleading by claiming that anglicisation usually refers to the English language. The word Anglo-American is related, of course.

595:

It is also a bit of an overstatement to say "personal names have been heavily anglicised." The examples given of Johann/John, Piotr/Peter, Giorgos/George, and Yeshua/Joshua have been anglicised. These are all

1900:

although most of those editors were arguing about 'correctness' or personal preference. In any case, the page's use is contentious and not 'established' (one of the most recent edits involved "Englishing" it).

2216:

process for the UK, however this is a pretty dry statement as it doesn’t explain anything further. Giving expanded explanations as well as examples would facilitate understanding of these points being made.

1492:- see in particular the clause 'Retaining the existing variety'. If this page was started in UK English (my skin is crawling, so ingrained is my POV), then the current spelling is the one that must stay. 622:"Oberfield". In the Knowledge (XXG) talk page for "Moore", I have asked about "Mohr" being anglicized (scenario of illiterate person who had to give name to, say, a census taker or recorder of deeds). 510:

spelling of these characters happens to be Běijīng. While the PRC government may be promoting Hanyu Pinyin as its preferred Romanization scheme, this seems to be more about consistently representing the

1650:

Of course, "translating" proper names seems to have been more common formerly in many other languages, as well. Is there an article about this in greater generality, then I think we could link to this.

381:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

2442:

Alternatively, socio-cultural & institututional anglicisation could be covered in the main article, with a separate article for linguistic anglicisation called "Anglicisation (linguistics)"

1296:). There are lots of generalisations that have been added which are clearly a POV. Often this is to do with degree of the type covered by some/many/most which allows for lots of non-NPOV. Eg 1323:" There are two primary types of Anglicisation in language: Anglicising non-English words for use in English, and Anglicising non-English languages through the introduction of English words. 1364:

There was a hopeless inconsistency about the use of capital letters. Knowledge (XXG) prefers lower case in general, especially when dictionaries allow a choice so I moved it that way.--

1939:

For what it's worth, the page hasn't been here for eight years. It's been repeatedly Americanized, moved around, and simply restored. The first edit rule is a good bright line rule for

791:

as American (I mean -isation just comes off the pen/keybourd more naturally to a Brit, I'm sure the converse is true for an American, one doesn't even think about it). About not using

2476: 2135:

English (criterion) changes the first grapheme but is faithful to the phonology, while the 5th grapheme can be expressed only phonologically; the Greek plural ending is retained;

2143:

superstructure on the West Germanic substrate, it seems hardly surprising that foreign words in English will sometimes appear in a guise other than that of the source language.

2002:

pointed to above is itself contradictory: the title is spelt with an 's', whilst the text itself (one sentence of dictionary definition) is spelt with e 'z'. In any event, as

2094:

is considered the default." The usage in this article, which is in accord with the first non-stub version, is consistent and established, so there's no reason to change it.

338: 1943:; the "don't-bother-restoring" one just begs for the kind of slow attrition you see on this page, where editors go one way or another and then subsequently claim hegemony. 1465: 894:

spelling, whatever the OED may or may not say. I'm absolutely sure the OED gives definitive spellings for other words that you would heatedly dispute yourself!!!!! What

559:

Still-Anglicized place names are certainly not all Western European, and includes some where the name might be expected to be the subject of political contention (e.g.

413: 2496: 1489:

about, is it? If people want an article on Anglicization, they can just create a redirect page. Knowledge (XXG) has a policy regarding national variations in English:

880:

as American (I mean -isation just comes off the pen/keyboard more naturally to a Brit, I'm sure the converse is true for an American, one doesn't even think about it

2511: 328: 882:. I don't dispute your practical knowledge of being American, so why should you dispute my practical knowledge of being British? I merely point out that as a Brit 205: 2225:

Lastly, there are a number of ‘citation needed’ footnotes which should be fixed, so that this article is credible to people as a legitimate source for the topic.

1850:

be in American English. It is somewhat cute that a page about (linguistic) Anglicization has been itself (culturally) Anglicized, but not enough to avoid fixing.

1623:

There are many names of historical persons which commonly appear in "English translation" in English texts. This is regularly the case for older foreign royalty (

604:

translation/transliteration of Hebrew names. It is possible to find analogs of these names in other Middle Eastern languages as well. There's examples of this,

1411:

ation. This articles page needs to be corrected to address the matter. Even the British encyclopedia says ize is correct. Check all dictionaries for your self.

2491: 527:

Sometimes a place name appears anglicized, but is not. In some cases, the form being used in English is an older name that has now been changed. For example,

1166:

as it applies to making things more English in a cultural sense, beyond the simple definition that I already included in the first paragraph of the article. --

304: 942:

anything goes in English, there is no such thing as correct English. Or if you like, there's no such thing as a regional variant, or perhaps all non standard

671:

To quote "Anglicisation is a process of making something English". We spell things -isation in England, American's would spell it -ization. Hence, Americani

2486: 195: 1151:, only to find that this article is all about language. I think that this article is unbalanced and doesn't reflect the true meaning or usage of the word.-- 713:

I think it's better, like I said - it's talking about British English not American English and therefore the British English would be the correct spelling.

224: 122: 843:

has been in use in English since the 16th century; although it is most widely used in American English, it is not an Americanism. The alternative spelling

494:

Loss of Anglicized names due to "national pride" or official pressure: Not sure Bombay/Mumbai and Peking/Beijing are good examples of this. "Bombay" to "

980:

And of course us Aussies use -ise as well, so that's two Englishes to one. I suspect our mates across Tasman are -ise-a-holics as well, that's 3-1! --

2501: 471: 171: 2506: 300: 287: 248: 2132:

All languages domesticate words that they take up from elsewhere and do various things with them. Take, for example, the Greek word 'kritêrion':

378: 1748:

Right, 'American' is but a slightly altered form of English. We more usually anglicise words from non-English languages, e.g., the Welsh name

2481: 2293:

The article is unlike other cultural assimilation articles, lacking a coherent description and example(s) of what consitutes Anglicization.--

1092:

Nothing really to add to the argument here. Just saying as a person lived in Hong Kong and Canada equally for half his life, I still prefer

1182: 162: 117: 2275: 1733: 1139:? I'm not sure this is true, and is it not somewhat POV? I mean does it not depend on who's doing the discussing? I recently linked my 2431:

An overarching Anglicisation article which defines the term, distinguishes the forms of Anglicisation and then links to two articles:

2172: 2099: 1442: 629: 898:

mean by a regional variant is that, what is a variant is dependent on what region a person lives in at any given time. Take the term

876:

Whatever the OED may or may not say I, as a true Brit (being of both English and Welsh extraction), would always consider the use of

787:

Whatever the OED may or may not say I, as a true Brit (being of both English and Welsh extraction), would always consider the use of

2450: 832: 374: 498:" was a real name change: the two names are etymologically differerent, although they do look like they could be related. As for 1083:

problem really is that it would have to be an international body, and we would end up with all variants being accepted anyway.

694:, adoption of American culture. Anyway, I'm not enthusiastic on Americanizing the spelling, and it's okay if majority prefer 92: 2257: 1279: 458:

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available

2449:

forms the basis for the linguistic anglicisation article, with the lists of anglicised names in that article transferred to

1024: 434: 2095: 1528:

anglicize, v. Forms: 17- anglicise, 17- anglicize, 18- anglocise (rare), 18- anglocize (rare). Also with capital initial.

401: 2121:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1805:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

738: 62: 2032:

It really doesn't matter much. I am more interested in stylistic coherence, conformity with Wikipedian style as given

1070: 1015: 860: 370: 58: 2458: 1842:– Since it involves a move as well as a fairly major replace text operation, I'll note this here. Per WP:ENGVAR and 552: 1726:

If you change American spelling to British spelling, is that anglicising? Given that the former was English too.

1256:

I wanted to get some opinions about whether this counts as Anglicization, before adding anything to the article.

1306: 1237: 2401: 2328: 1782: 1278:

I could be wrong but the US pronuciation of Moscow as /Mɶsgau/ stems from the German name for Moscow "Moscau"?

946:

words are regional variants. Both definitions work for me. Chill out. If the meaning is generally accepted and

395: 2435:

Socio-cultural anglicisation - which covers social, cultural and institutional adoption of English/Britishness

1186: 292: 98: 2279: 1737: 1530: 1446: 2245: 1729: 1178: 625: 2454: 2446: 2196: 2176: 1071: 1066: 1061: 1016: 1011: 1006: 861: 856: 851: 768: 751: 726: 633: 597: 391: 745:

to use regional variants for topic titles, but to use forms used in all dialects. This is the reason the

724:

Nobody here has ever heard of OED English? The -ize spellings are acceptable for British English, too. --

66: 2343: 2021: 1497: 1224: 613: 463: 170:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1345:

quotes the OED has under its 'anglicize' entry refers to the British 'anglicization of India'. Compare

2158:

Historic process of Angliciz/sation of colonial America as discussed by Murrin in the 1970s is omitted

2303: 1962: 1902: 1859: 1710: 1257: 1215: 1001: 951: 808: 665: 609: 441: 80: 2397: 2324: 2249: 2226: 1121: 591: 427: 2423:

foreign languages. I therefore propose that we review and change the structure of these articles.

2087: 2083: 2059: 2055: 2011: 2007: 1854: 1815: 950:

is redirected to here, with the proviso that other spellings exist, then why the grief? I suspect

2253: 2230: 2144: 1930: 1823: 1752:

is sometimes anglicised as 'David'. (Americans might prefer to spell it 'anglicized' !!) Cheers,

1676: 1656: 1584: 1477: 1206: 479: 154: 1693: 587: 2192: 2070: 1778: 1435: 1430: 997: 803:, but should be at the discretion of the founder of the article. If the article is started as 718: 684: 605: 1293: 2339: 2148: 2016: 1757: 1493: 1468:. But in any case, Knowledge (XXG) usually spells descriptively, and on a descriptive basis 954:. I've been to your user page and have the impression that you consider anything other than 935: 868:

Eh? Did you not read what I wrote? Are you bound only to repeat yourself? I can also repeat

517: 512: 20: 2033: 407: 2296: 1983: 1697: 1609: 1461: 1420: 1380: 1335: 1267: 1246: 1065: 1010: 965: 855: 691: 571: 273: 29: 2112: 1987: 1796: 1415: 766:...Plus the article isn't talking about just British English, but rather all dialects. -- 2332: 1562: 1117: 988: 521: 296: 295:

interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to

279: 1546: 1542: 214: 2470: 2003: 1926: 1833: 1819: 1672: 1652: 1580: 1579:

In accordance with the above and with MOS I have decapped within the article text. --

1473: 1397: 1386: 1350: 1331: 1167: 1028: 992: 475: 366: 1557:, the headwords are defined in the dictionary with a lower case default spelling. -- 2066: 1774: 1644: 1327: 943: 714: 680: 579: 1378:

seems to be used lowercase more than others. Compare (all capitalized) the terms

1190: 1155: 1137:

anglicisation is most commonly discussed in the more abstract context of language

570:, where the government insists that the name not be translated from the original 2438:

Linguistic anglicisation - which covers the alteration of terms into Englishness

2006:

correctly states, he is the "first significant contributor" to the article. Per

1753: 1407:

The spelling of the word is incorrect- Anglicisation is properly spelled Anglici

1392: 1152: 1101: 1084: 981: 973: 822: 601: 567: 544: 454: 167: 1631:), and often holds for well-known classical persons with Latin or Greek names ( 1027:

that I'm trying to spread cultural imperialism? Also, I would prefer a move to

148: 1605: 1060: 1005: 939: 870: 850: 767: 750: 725: 299:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by

269: 144: 1538: 922:

and the state actually controls the language, (i.e. decides what is standard

902:

for example. You may consider it a British or Australian regional variant of

1558: 1365: 1346: 1079: 560: 57:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 359: 746: 589: 575: 532: 1460:

is more common, outside the relatively limited number of people who use

1298:

often even with diacritical marks that do not normally exist in English

1056: 991:

article) and American spellings on America-centered pages (such as the

927: 923: 919: 887: 2462: 2405: 2347: 2312: 2283: 2261: 2234: 2200: 2180: 2152: 2103: 2074: 2046: 2024: 1990: 1967: 1934: 1907: 1864: 1827: 1761: 1741: 1715: 1701: 1680: 1660: 1613: 1588: 1566: 1501: 1481: 1450: 1400: 1368: 1353: 1338: 1330:'; the use of English words in non-English cultures is more a form of 1309: 1282: 1260: 1125: 1104: 1087: 825: 637: 616: 483: 263: 242: 138: 111: 2396:

Over to you all now to continue the cleanup, as inspired to do so. --

1426:

1913 Dictionary with both spellings. Only the correct one is listed.

1052: 931: 891: 548: 507: 502:, there's nothing "official" about Peking becoming Beijing. The only 495: 2367:

the orthographic and punctuation conventions of the “other English”.

2014:, the 's' form spelling (ie non-Oxford) should therefore prevail. -- 1490: 1144: 987:

I'm fine with British spellings on UK-centered pages (such as the

540: 536: 528: 499: 1051:

is still acceptable. Plus, I actually kind of like the move from

2017: 1036: 1032: 1982:

a move. "Anglicization" isn't only an American spelling, it's

960: 354: 74: 15: 2221:

such as was one of the causes contributing to the Boer War.’

213: 1436:

http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/search/_words.word,Anglicization

1431:

http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/search/_words.word,Anglicisation

799:? Be that as it may, I do not see either usage as wrong 2414:

Proposal: A new structure for articles re. Anglicisation

1795:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

914:. Everything is relative. I might add that there is no 2377:

in our power to change, I guess we should leave it "s".

2171:

in order to clean those confusions up, if nothing else.

2063: 1999: 1917: 1843: 1838: 1421:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglicisation

1292:

This article is a ramble it needs to cite its sources (

2357:

but do not know myself where they should optimally go.

1858:

if everyone else here disagrees with me on that. =) —

1767: 1416:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-24948/Anglicization

566:

Better examples of official de-Anglicization might be

426: 2111:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1326:

The latter does not follow a standard definition of '

449:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

2206:

A couple points that could help improve this article

1916:

Interesting case here. Fwiw, it appears I wrote the

1374:

I think these terms are usually capitalized, though

166:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1870:

Fwiw, from the discussions above, the vote would be

1549:(both with lower case 'a'). The latter entry says, 440: 1096:and most other fine British spellings. I do spell 1059:since it's closer to the original Turkish word. -- 2477:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use British English 600:, and have analogs in all European languages via 2167:enough to become American," as I understand it. 836:seems to imply that it isn't a regional variant: 2338:Excellent, may things fall into place for you. 2139:plural is then Germanicized into 'Kriterien'. 874:if you like (but I think this'll be my last), 506:name for China's capital is 北京, and the Hanyu 1472:is the common spelling in British English. -- 8: 2062:. The first non-stub version of the article 1456:That's true, but in modern British English, 1274:Moscow -- mosCOW --12:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1531:The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it 795:, who's to say that your spelling is not a 749:article is not at airplane or aeroplane. -- 313:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Writing systems 906:. Whereas a Brit or Aussie would consider 237: 106: 33:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 1768:'Anglicisation' covers more than language 1722:Is anglicise the opposite of americanise? 1149:one of the most anglicised parts of Wales 656:? I think Knowledge (XXG) has many more 472:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 1202:the Midwest and Spanish names in Texas: 847:is used particularly in British English. 2497:Applied Linguistics Task Force articles 1604:of straight borrowing of Francisation. 470:Above undated message substituted from 285:This article falls within the scope of 239: 180:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics 108: 78: 2512:Low-importance Writing system articles 1535:anglicize: verb (UK usually anglicise) 926:or not, I believe the same is true in 839:Either spelling may be used. The form 811:and personal opinion (even POV) to me. 547:language, but now officially known as 1100:for those wheelie things, however. -- 737:Oh, and I forgot to mention that the 648:Isn't it good to rename this article 65:, this should not be changed without 7: 2492:C-Class applied linguistics articles 1810:The result of the move request was: 1619:Anglicised historical personal names 1551:chiefly British variant of anglicize 968:, or why else all the references to 316:Template:WikiProject Writing systems 160:This article is within the scope of 2487:Low-importance Linguistics articles 520:or indeed most languages using the 97:It is of interest to the following 2163:to have any representation here. 1818:and the non-stub point below. -- 14: 2451:English translated personal names 1231:before being "corrected" back to 996:especially since I feel that the 833:Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2502:WikiProject Linguistics articles 2445:I also propose that the article 2065:was written in British English. 1671:between U.K, US, or Australia). 453: 358: 272: 262: 241: 183:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 147: 137: 110: 79: 19: 2507:C-Class Writing system articles 333:This article has been rated as 200:This article has been rated as 2317: 2235:06:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1360:anglicisation or Anglicisation 225:Applied Linguistics Task Force 1: 2463:18:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 1661:16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 1643:with the various articles on 1451:07:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1339:00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 1143:here, because I mention that 1088:05:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 1031:for the same reason I prefer 638:17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 222:This article is supported by 174:and see a list of open tasks. 2482:C-Class Linguistics articles 2181:23:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC) 1783:22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 1354:21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 1116:What about anglification? -- 1105:06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 551:in Italian. In some cases, 484:14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) 2128:ethnicization/domestication 2092:the first non-stub revision 1702:10:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1614:04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 1589:16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 1521:. The five entries for the 1191:22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 1000:article would be better at 934:), the same is not true of 617:05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 553:link English-language media 371:Anglicisation (linguistics) 288:WikiProject Writing systems 2528: 2427:My proposal is as follows: 2419:which use the same title. 1762:13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1742:16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1553:. While both entries say, 1539:Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1519:Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1261:15:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1135:Why are we accepting that 1126:12:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 1020:17:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) 865:18:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC) 339:project's importance scale 206:project's importance scale 2262:06:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 2153:15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 1681:16:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 1567:09:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 1511:Oxford English Dictionary 1502:01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1401:23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1321:Anglicisation in language 1310:12:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1283:11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 1280:An Muimhneach Machnamhach 1238:San Jacinto County, Texas 1170:23:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC) 1075:July 2, 2005 02:01 (UTC) 1004:, but that's just me. -- 332: 257: 221: 199: 132: 105: 2313:01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2284:10:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC) 2201:10:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC) 2118:Please do not modify it. 1828:12:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC) 1802:Please do not modify it. 1555:Usage: often capitalized 1482:20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 1156:05:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 1130: 984:18:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) 976:20:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 826:05:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 772:21:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC) 755:15:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC) 730:15:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC) 717:12:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 683:09:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 668:09:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 582:-- 2005-07-29 17:45 UCT 303:and/or leave a query at 2406:12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 2348:09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2333:08:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2104:08:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC) 2075:09:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 2047:04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 2025:04:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 1991:18:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 1968:04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC) 1935:17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 1908:16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 1865:16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 1716:16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 1687:Not Peking and Tsingtao 1464:. It's discussed a bit 1369:00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 319:Writing system articles 305:the project’s talk page 163:WikiProject Linguistics 2447:Anglicisation of names 2191:former; any thoughts? 2010:and more specifically 1918:first non-stub version 910:a regional variant of 578:becoming Kolkata. --- 218: 87:This article is rated 1541:has entries for both 1315:removed the following 1300:and others like this 1225:Bourbonnais, Illinois 1023:By the way, isn't it 217: 91:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1788:WP:ENGVAR & move 1515:Cambridge Dictionary 1307:Philip Baird Shearer 1216:Marseilles, Illinois 1131:Why only 'language'? 1002:association football 952:cultural imperialism 809:cultural imperialism 610:Christopher Columbus 574:(Côte d'Ivoire), or 373:. The former page's 186:Linguistics articles 63:relevant style guide 59:varieties of English 1266:I would so say so. 886:does not come as a 675:is correct, Anglici 462:. Peer reviewers: 379:provide attribution 123:Applied Linguistics 61:. According to the 2318:I'll give it a try 1599:Italian to English 1207:Vincennes, Indiana 1025:assuming bad faith 460:on the course page 219: 155:Linguistics portal 93:content assessment 2310: 2265: 2248:comment added by 2044: 2023: 1956:The non-stub bit 1844:this initial edit 1732:comment added by 1181:comment added by 998:football (soccer) 793:regional variants 628:comment added by 602:Hellenistic Greek 385: 384: 353: 352: 349: 348: 345: 344: 236: 235: 232: 231: 73: 72: 2519: 2311: 2308: 2301: 2295: 2264: 2242: 2120: 2045: 2042: 2019: 2015: 1965: 1905: 1862: 1841: 1804: 1744: 1713: 1193: 1073: 1068: 1063: 1018: 1013: 1008: 956:americanisations 916:standard English 863: 858: 853: 797:regional variant 770: 753: 728: 640: 543:in the original 513:Mandarin Chinese 486: 464:Paige.Reimer.155 457: 445: 444: 430: 362: 355: 321: 320: 317: 314: 311: 301:the project page 282: 277: 276: 266: 259: 258: 253: 245: 238: 188: 187: 184: 181: 178: 157: 152: 151: 141: 134: 133: 128: 125: 114: 107: 90: 84: 83: 75: 26:This article is 23: 16: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2467: 2466: 2416: 2320: 2304: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2272: 2243: 2208: 2188: 2160: 2130: 2125: 2116: 2041: 2038: 1984:Oxford Spelling 1963: 1903: 1873:TAKASUGI Shinji 1860: 1837: 1800: 1790: 1770: 1727: 1724: 1711: 1689: 1621: 1601: 1462:Oxford spelling 1381:Americanization 1362: 1317: 1290: 1247:Amarillo, Texas 1242:san juh-SIN-toh 1199: 1176: 1133: 1072:/kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 1017:/kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 966:beyond the pale 862:/kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 739:Manual of Style 692:Americanization 679:is incorrect. 666:TAKASUGI Shinji 646: 644:Americanization 623: 606:Peter the Great 492: 469: 451: 387: 318: 315: 312: 310:Writing systems 309: 308: 297:writing systems 278: 271: 251: 249:Writing systems 185: 182: 179: 176: 175: 153: 146: 126: 120: 88: 67:broad consensus 30:British English 12: 11: 5: 2525: 2523: 2515: 2514: 2509: 2504: 2499: 2494: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2469: 2468: 2455:Jèrriais janne 2440: 2439: 2436: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2398:Remotelysensed 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2351: 2350: 2325:Remotelysensed 2319: 2316: 2290: 2287: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2222: 2217: 2212: 2207: 2204: 2187: 2184: 2159: 2156: 2129: 2126: 2124: 2123: 2113:requested move 2107: 2106: 2077: 2049: 2039: 2027: 1993: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1911: 1910: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1831: 1808: 1807: 1797:requested move 1791: 1789: 1786: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1668: 1620: 1617: 1600: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1505: 1504: 1485: 1484: 1439: 1438: 1433: 1424: 1423: 1418: 1406: 1404: 1403: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1316: 1313: 1289: 1286: 1276: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1254: 1253: 1251:am-uh-RILL-loh 1244: 1235: 1222: 1213: 1198: 1197:Pronunciation? 1195: 1183:88.110.192.219 1172: 1171: 1132: 1129: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 989:United Kingdom 985: 837: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 759: 758: 757: 756: 732: 731: 645: 642: 598:biblical names 522:Latin alphabet 491: 488: 450: 447: 383: 382: 377:now serves to 365:Material from 363: 351: 350: 347: 346: 343: 342: 335:Low-importance 331: 325: 324: 322: 284: 283: 280:Writing portal 267: 255: 254: 252:Low‑importance 246: 234: 233: 230: 229: 220: 210: 209: 202:Low-importance 198: 192: 191: 189: 172:the discussion 159: 158: 142: 130: 129: 127:Low‑importance 115: 103: 102: 96: 85: 71: 70: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2524: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2505: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2472: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2443: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2413: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2315: 2314: 2309: 2307: 2302: 2300: 2288: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276:31.15.247.228 2269: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2205: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2185: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2164: 2157: 2155: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2127: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2050: 2048: 2035: 2031: 2028: 2026: 2022: 2020: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004:User:Delirium 2001: 1997: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1969: 1966: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1942: 1941:stare decisis 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923:stare decisis 1919: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1906: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1856: 1851: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1839:Anglicization 1835: 1834:Anglicisation 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1792: 1787: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734:81.134.95.147 1731: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1648: 1646: 1640: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1618: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1598: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470:Anglicisation 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1437: 1434: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1410: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387:Hellenization 1383: 1382: 1377: 1376:Anglicisation 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1332:acculturation 1329: 1324: 1322: 1314: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1223: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1196: 1194: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1169: 1165: 1164:anglicisation 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1074: 1069: 1064: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029:anglicization 1026: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1014: 1009: 1003: 999: 994: 993:United States 990: 986: 983: 979: 978: 977: 975: 971: 970:encyclopaedia 967: 964: 962: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 884:anglicization 881: 877: 873: 872: 866: 864: 859: 854: 848: 846: 842: 835: 834: 828: 827: 824: 810: 806: 805:Anglicisation 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 771: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 754: 748: 744: 740: 736: 735: 734: 733: 729: 723: 722: 721: 720: 716: 711: 709: 707: 701: 699: 693: 687: 686: 682: 678: 674: 669: 667: 663: 660:entries than 659: 655: 653: 643: 641: 639: 635: 631: 627: 619: 618: 615: 614:70.106.209.48 611: 607: 603: 599: 593: 592: 590: 588: 583: 581: 577: 573: 569: 564: 562: 557: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 525: 523: 519: 514: 509: 505: 501: 497: 489: 487: 485: 481: 477: 473: 467: 465: 461: 456: 448: 446: 443: 439: 436: 433: 429: 425: 421: 418: 415: 412: 409: 406: 403: 400: 397: 393: 390: 389:Find sources: 380: 376: 372: 369:was split to 368: 367:Anglicisation 364: 361: 357: 356: 340: 336: 330: 327: 326: 323: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 289: 281: 275: 270: 268: 265: 261: 260: 256: 250: 247: 244: 240: 227: 226: 216: 212: 211: 207: 203: 197: 194: 193: 190: 173: 169: 165: 164: 156: 150: 145: 143: 140: 136: 135: 131: 124: 119: 116: 113: 109: 104: 100: 94: 86: 82: 77: 76: 68: 64: 60: 56: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 31: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2444: 2441: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2321: 2305: 2298: 2292: 2273: 2244:— Preceding 2224: 2219: 2214: 2209: 2193:Dave.Dunford 2189: 2173:108.20.74.63 2169: 2165: 2161: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2117: 2110: 2091: 2079: 2051: 2029: 2000:initial edit 1995: 1979: 1957: 1940: 1925:solution. -- 1922: 1882:SeanCollins 1879:70.126.135.8 1852: 1847: 1832: 1811: 1809: 1801: 1794: 1771: 1749: 1728:— Preceding 1725: 1690: 1649: 1645:Latinisation 1641: 1636: 1635:rather than 1632: 1628: 1627:rather than 1624: 1622: 1602: 1554: 1550: 1534: 1533:as follows: 1527: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1469: 1457: 1443:70.126.135.8 1440: 1425: 1408: 1405: 1391: 1385: 1379: 1375: 1363: 1325: 1320: 1318: 1301: 1297: 1291: 1288:unreferenced 1277: 1255: 1250: 1241: 1233:burr-buh-NAY 1232: 1228: 1227:-- formerly 1219: 1210: 1200: 1173: 1163: 1148: 1140: 1136: 1134: 1115: 1097: 1093: 1078:Have a look 1048: 1044: 1040: 969: 958: 955: 947: 918:. I live in 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 883: 879: 875: 869: 867: 844: 840: 838: 831: 829: 820: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 742: 712: 705: 703: 697: 695: 688: 676: 672: 670: 661: 657: 651: 649: 647: 630:128.63.16.20 624:— Preceding 620: 594: 584: 565: 558: 526: 503: 493: 490:Proper Names 468: 452: 437: 431: 423: 416: 410: 404: 398: 388: 386: 334: 286: 223: 201: 161: 99:WikiProjects 54: 50: 46: 42: 38: 34: 27: 2340:groupuscule 2306:(Talk) |д=) 2018:Ohconfucius 1846:, the page 1637:Aristoteles 1494:SeanCollins 1393:Arabization 1229:burr-BO-nus 1177:—Preceding 664:entries. - 568:Ivory Coast 545:Piedmontese 539:, is named 414:free images 293:WikiProject 177:Linguistics 168:linguistics 118:Linguistics 28:written in 2471:Categories 2299:Sıgehelmus 1964:LlywelynII 1904:LlywelynII 1861:LlywelynII 1712:LlywelynII 1336:IstvanWolf 1268:An Siarach 1258:Onyourside 948:anglicized 940:ipso facto 871:ad nauseum 2289:Confusing 2088:WP:RETAIN 2084:WP:ENGVAR 2060:WP:RETAIN 2056:WP:ENGVAR 2012:WP:RETAIN 2008:WP:ENGVAR 1855:WP:RETAIN 1816:WP:RETAIN 1812:not moved 1667:wrote it. 1633:Aristotle 1629:Friedrich 1581:candyworm 1547:anglicise 1543:anglicize 1523:anglicize 1396:, etc. -- 1347:Hellenize 1328:Anglicize 1220:mar-SALES 1211:vin-SENNZ 1141:user page 1118:Oddeivind 1047:, though 944:parochial 561:Jerusalem 556:started. 39:travelled 2258:contribs 2250:TheseusX 2246:unsigned 2227:Dianamen 2211:helpful. 1988:~Asarlaí 1927:Delirium 1897:Delirium 1876:--/ɛvɪs/ 1820:JHunterJ 1730:unsigned 1673:JoergenB 1653:JoergenB 1625:frederic 1474:Delirium 1398:Delirium 1351:Delirium 1179:unsigned 1168:Delirium 878:-ization 789:-ization 747:aircraft 662:-isation 658:-ization 626:unsigned 576:Calcutta 535:area of 533:Piedmont 504:official 476:PrimeBOT 51:artefact 2186:Italics 2067:Jenks24 2030:Oppose. 1980:support 1885:Selphie 1775:Pipin81 1709:was.)— 1303:English 1294:WP:CITE 1094:isation 1057:yoghurt 936:English 928:Germany 924:Finnish 920:Finland 888:natural 741:states 715:Selphie 704:Anglici 696:Anglici 681:Selphie 650:Anglici 531:in the 518:English 420:WP refs 408:scholar 375:history 337:on the 204:on the 89:C-class 55:analyse 47:defence 2387:there. 2145:Pamour 2080:Oppose 2052:Oppose 2043:oetica 2034:WP:MOS 1996:Oppose 1986:also. 1894:Kvasir 1848:should 1754:Bjenks 1750:Dafydd 1517:, and 1102:Kvasir 1067:/tɑːk/ 1062:/ɛvɪs/ 1053:yogurt 1012:/tɑːk/ 1007:/ɛvɪs/ 932:German 892:normal 857:/tɑːk/ 852:/ɛvɪs/ 801:per se 769:/ɛvɪs/ 752:/ɛvɪs/ 727:/ɛvɪs/ 719:*talk* 685:*talk* 677:zation 673:zation 572:French 549:Torino 508:Pinyin 496:Mumbai 392:Google 95:scale. 43:centre 35:colour 2270:Ghent 1694:Ejoty 1559:O'Dea 1145:Gwent 1098:tires 1043:over 1035:over 912:bloke 900:bloke 708:ation 700:ation 654:ation 541:Turin 537:Italy 529:Turin 500:China 435:JSTOR 396:books 2459:talk 2402:talk 2344:talk 2329:talk 2280:talk 2254:talk 2231:talk 2197:talk 2177:talk 2149:talk 2100:talk 2082:per 2071:talk 2058:and 2054:per 1998:The 1931:talk 1891:Paul 1888:Alun 1824:talk 1814:per 1779:talk 1758:talk 1738:talk 1698:talk 1677:talk 1657:talk 1610:talk 1585:talk 1563:talk 1545:and 1498:talk 1478:talk 1466:here 1458:-ise 1447:talk 1366:SE16 1349:. -- 1334:. - 1187:talk 1153:Alun 1122:talk 1085:Alun 1080:here 1049:grey 1045:grey 1041:gray 1037:gray 1033:grey 982:Paul 974:Alun 930:and 845:-ise 841:-ize 830:The 823:Alun 634:talk 580:Alex 480:talk 428:FENS 402:news 291:, a 2115:. 2096:SSR 1639:). 1249:-- 1240:-- 1218:-- 1209:-- 1147:is 1055:to 972:?-- 961:sic 908:guy 904:guy 890:or 743:not 702:to 474:by 442:TWL 329:Low 196:Low 2473:: 2461:) 2453:. 2404:) 2346:) 2331:) 2323:-- 2282:) 2260:) 2256:• 2233:) 2199:) 2179:) 2151:) 2102:) 2073:) 1978:I 1961:— 1958:is 1933:) 1901:— 1836:→ 1826:) 1799:. 1781:) 1760:) 1740:) 1704:) 1700:) 1679:) 1659:) 1647:? 1612:) 1587:) 1565:) 1513:, 1500:) 1480:) 1449:) 1441:-- 1390:, 1384:, 1189:) 1124:) 938:, 849:-- 821:-- 710:. 636:) 608:, 563:) 482:) 466:. 422:) 121:: 53:, 49:, 45:, 41:, 37:, 2457:( 2400:( 2342:( 2327:( 2278:( 2252:( 2229:( 2195:( 2175:( 2147:( 2098:( 2086:( 2069:( 2040:N 1929:( 1853:( 1822:( 1777:( 1756:( 1736:( 1696:( 1675:( 1655:( 1608:( 1606:o 1583:( 1561:( 1496:( 1476:( 1445:( 1409:z 1319:" 1185:( 1120:( 963:) 959:( 896:I 706:z 698:s 652:z 632:( 478:( 438:· 432:· 424:· 417:· 411:· 405:· 399:· 394:( 341:. 307:. 228:. 208:. 101:: 69:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index