Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
A fact from Official language appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendell guan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be invariably assumed, here and in many other language articles, that the word 'official' must mean 'something created by legislation'. Dictionaries do not confirm that to be true. This unchallenged misunderstanding of the meaning of the word has led to inconsistencies in articles. Should we take a step back and reconsider the wiki approach to official languages? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 05:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For further clarity try this: [2] (Cambridge}
and this: [3] (The Free Dictionay-Legal Dictionary section)
There are plenty of others like this. The point is that they all say that being 'official' relates to someone or something that is in a position of authority. To be in that position does not, in the vast majority of cases, require legislation. This seems to explain the inconsistencies, Nø, where some articles assume a language can only be official if it is written down as such in some sort of legal document, such as a constitution, while others say that does not matter, because if the language is used by someone or something in a position of authority, legislation or otherwise, then that is good enough. The consequences are significant and would seem to weaken the rigid separation of 'de jure' and 'de facto' official languages. The more important word is 'official', not 'de jure' or 'de facto'. It would seem then, that the meaning of 'official' does make a difference. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The lead begins "An official language, also called state language, is a language given a special legal status", which is clearly referring to de jure given the "special legal status" part. However this article then makes claims at Official language#United Kingdom that "The de facto official language of the United Kingdom is English". Surely this is nonsense? It's basically saying that English doesn't have de jure status as it's de facto, but if it's only de facto it obviously doesn't have special legal status and therefore it's not an official language. This contradiction is carried on at List of territorial entities where English is an official language#Sovereign states. I strongly suggest this definition is changed to resolve this problem. FDW777 ( talk) 12:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead highlights a variety of meanings of the term official language. The usual cause of contentious discussion is around de facto and de jure but another less obvious difference exists. A language that is official without restriction and a language that is official in defined situations are quite distinct from each other but they are often treated the same way. In Aotearoa for example it is common to defend the use of Maori in some areas of society because it is an official language of the country "so it therefore has every right to be used". In fact, it is official only in limited, defined situations unlike English which is unrestricted. (I will leave aside the de facto-de jure debate for now). However, in other countries a language might be designated as official without restriction. I think we should attempt to break down the different catagories of an official status further, so as to stop the usual result of languages being treated as equal based merely on their being "official". Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 01:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
'In spatial terms, indigenous (endoglossic) languages are mostly employed in the function of official (state) languages in Eurasia, while mainly non-indigenous (exoglossic) imperial (European) languages fulfill this function in most of the "Rest of the World" (that is, in Africa, the Americas, Australia and Oceania). Ethiopia, Somalia, South Africa, North African countries, Greenland, Tanzania, Samoa and Paraguay are among the exceptions to this tendency.'
The list of exceptions seems misleading, b/c even the cited source actually shows that in most of them, the imperial (European) languages are employed in the function of de facto (functionally) official (state) languages. The official status of the native language is largely symbolic. This is certainly true of South Africa and Greenland. In Tanzania, Paraguay and Samoa the native languages stand strong and are formally 'official', but it is still the colonial ones that truly function as official ones in public life. Even in Ethiopia, where Amharic long had Eurasia-style official status, English has recently been given de facto official status (although the country has never been a British colony), while the status of Amharic is being weakened and it is increasingly designated as equal to the languages of the other indigenous ethnicities. Similarly, in Somalia, Somali has lost its status of sole language of administration and education and English is the leading lingua franca. The only real exceptions would seem to be the North African countries with their use of Arabic. 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 22:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
A fact from Official language appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendell guan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be invariably assumed, here and in many other language articles, that the word 'official' must mean 'something created by legislation'. Dictionaries do not confirm that to be true. This unchallenged misunderstanding of the meaning of the word has led to inconsistencies in articles. Should we take a step back and reconsider the wiki approach to official languages? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 05:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For further clarity try this: [2] (Cambridge}
and this: [3] (The Free Dictionay-Legal Dictionary section)
There are plenty of others like this. The point is that they all say that being 'official' relates to someone or something that is in a position of authority. To be in that position does not, in the vast majority of cases, require legislation. This seems to explain the inconsistencies, Nø, where some articles assume a language can only be official if it is written down as such in some sort of legal document, such as a constitution, while others say that does not matter, because if the language is used by someone or something in a position of authority, legislation or otherwise, then that is good enough. The consequences are significant and would seem to weaken the rigid separation of 'de jure' and 'de facto' official languages. The more important word is 'official', not 'de jure' or 'de facto'. It would seem then, that the meaning of 'official' does make a difference. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The lead begins "An official language, also called state language, is a language given a special legal status", which is clearly referring to de jure given the "special legal status" part. However this article then makes claims at Official language#United Kingdom that "The de facto official language of the United Kingdom is English". Surely this is nonsense? It's basically saying that English doesn't have de jure status as it's de facto, but if it's only de facto it obviously doesn't have special legal status and therefore it's not an official language. This contradiction is carried on at List of territorial entities where English is an official language#Sovereign states. I strongly suggest this definition is changed to resolve this problem. FDW777 ( talk) 12:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead highlights a variety of meanings of the term official language. The usual cause of contentious discussion is around de facto and de jure but another less obvious difference exists. A language that is official without restriction and a language that is official in defined situations are quite distinct from each other but they are often treated the same way. In Aotearoa for example it is common to defend the use of Maori in some areas of society because it is an official language of the country "so it therefore has every right to be used". In fact, it is official only in limited, defined situations unlike English which is unrestricted. (I will leave aside the de facto-de jure debate for now). However, in other countries a language might be designated as official without restriction. I think we should attempt to break down the different catagories of an official status further, so as to stop the usual result of languages being treated as equal based merely on their being "official". Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 01:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
'In spatial terms, indigenous (endoglossic) languages are mostly employed in the function of official (state) languages in Eurasia, while mainly non-indigenous (exoglossic) imperial (European) languages fulfill this function in most of the "Rest of the World" (that is, in Africa, the Americas, Australia and Oceania). Ethiopia, Somalia, South Africa, North African countries, Greenland, Tanzania, Samoa and Paraguay are among the exceptions to this tendency.'
The list of exceptions seems misleading, b/c even the cited source actually shows that in most of them, the imperial (European) languages are employed in the function of de facto (functionally) official (state) languages. The official status of the native language is largely symbolic. This is certainly true of South Africa and Greenland. In Tanzania, Paraguay and Samoa the native languages stand strong and are formally 'official', but it is still the colonial ones that truly function as official ones in public life. Even in Ethiopia, where Amharic long had Eurasia-style official status, English has recently been given de facto official status (although the country has never been a British colony), while the status of Amharic is being weakened and it is increasingly designated as equal to the languages of the other indigenous ethnicities. Similarly, in Somalia, Somali has lost its status of sole language of administration and education and English is the leading lingua franca. The only real exceptions would seem to be the North African countries with their use of Arabic. 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 22:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)