Talk:Talk

Origin
Started this based on discussion at. See also Talk:Phrasebook International; I took some text from that article. (WT-en) Pashley 21:20, 22 December 2009 (EST)


 * See also Talk:List_of_phrasebooks --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:46, 3 February 2011 (EST)

The version used seems to be Phrasebook International of 02:38, 26 October 2009. --LPfi (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Image for Travel topic:World languages
I made an image, knowingly http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_world_languages.png Perhaps this image could be made for a new travel topic:World languages; intented to explain the world languages best learnt for global travel. 87.64.58.218 06:11, 13 December 2009 (EST)

We do have an article like that somewhere, but concerning the map, I think there are some errors. If "light yellow" (English as a second language) is the color used in South Korea and Japan, I would call that misleading... Shouldn't all of Quebec be green (French)? More of central Asia knows Russian, Kenyans and Tanzanians speak English as a second language, The "light black" is actually dark green, are you sure that Mandarin is known by all of Southeast Asia?, etc. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)


 * Quite a nice idea but some problems with the implementation. In addition to the errors pointed out by ChubbyWimbus above:
 * Malaysia and Singapore do not speak Indonesian. Malaysia should be English as 2nd language. Singapore could arguably be primary English speaking.
 * Africa has a number of issues.
 * What does the light grey denote?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)


 * really on the en wikivoyage, the propensity to speak English is the most useful fact to an English speaking traveller, i would have thought.   Holland, Scandinavia, etc - before going to learn another language which is a second language to the country anyway..  --(WT-en) inas 00:45, 15 December 2009 (EST)


 * The light grey presumably denotes nations where none of the colored languages are spoken. To add another issue, Icelandic is spoken in Iceland. If this map were used, I think it could only possibly be used for the Phrasebook International (which is currently nominated for deletion). Otherwise, the languages spoken in each country are covered in country articles along with whether or not English will be understood. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:53, 15 December 2009 (EST)


 * The basic idea is good, but the topic is complicated.


 * In Canada, French is the primary language for all of Quebec, much of Northern Ontario and parts of other provinces, but English is widely spoken in those areas as well. There's huge variation, though; in some areas (e.g. parts of Montreal), you're fine with just English, but in others (e.g. Northern Quebec) you're helpless without French.


 * Mandarin is useful almost anywhere in China, since it has been the lingua franca for centuries and the only language used in education, government and national media for 50-odd years. However, for Hong Kong & Macau, Cantonese is more important. Mandarin is also an official language in Singapore, but other Chinese dialects are more widely used.


 * In many places, language use has political overtones. Speaking Mandarin in Tibet or English in Quebec may irritate some people.


 * For travellers, the most important languages are what Phrasebook International calls regional languages. Quoting that "Learn some of a regional language. Russian for Central Asia, Arabic for the Middle East and North Africa, French for some parts of Africa, Spanish for Latin America. This may be easier than trying to learn the local languages and is more widely useful." I'd like to see a map that emphasizes those. (WT-en) Pashley 20:20, 15 December 2009 (EST)


 * This map looks like an attempt to do that, though. It just has a lot of errors. I mean, aside from the languages listed, there are not so many other "linguistic spheres". Some, like Korean or Japanese, could be listed, but they have no sphere of influence. You could make a case for Swahili, but English is understood by most people that speak it. I'm on the fence about the usefulness of any such map, although I would be surprised if the phrasebook international got very many hits anyway. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:39, 15 December 2009 (EST)



Here's an attempt to create something more useful for our purposes. I initially tried to have English on the map too, but deciding which countries to include was just impossible&mdash;I think a separate color coded map showing the percentage of people per country that you'll be able to reasonably communicate with in English would be much more useful. This one just looks at the top 7 (I think) languages in order of relevance for travelers, and shows for which countries the language should be useful. The most obvious weakness is that this map cannot show tiny countries.

Having a Talk article devoted to language and travel might be interesting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:15, 16 December 2009 (EST)


 * Awesome map, but English surely is missing, at least for Canada, United States, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. German is tricky, but I think it at least should be listed for Germany, Austria and most of Switzerland. English will get you further in the Netherlands (though German is partially understood), and I'm not sure if either German, Russian or English should be the best language for East-Central Europe. Southeast and East Asia is complicated as well: I don't think English fits here, even though it's probably the best language for the area. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)


 * Yes, this map is much better. Is Persian worth adding? Farsi is the main language of Iran, Dari one of two in Afghanistan and they are mostly mutually intelligible. Tajik and I think some other Central Asian languages are related.


 * I think English would need its own map, broken up into a scale: UK/US/etc. where it is the primary language, areas like Quebec/India/Singapore/etc. where it is an official language & widely spoken but not the main daily language, places like Amsterdam and where you can generally get by with only English, places like Paris where it is harder, places like most of China where you can expect English only from 5-star hotel staff and the odd student. (WT-en) Pashley 08:10, 16 December 2009 (EST)


 * What about Hindustani? (Is that term still in use?) My understanding is that spoken Hindi and Urdu are, at least mostly, mutually intelligible. The written forms use different alphabets, Sanskrit-derived for Hindi and Arabic/Persian for Urdu. Does that qualify as a regional language for the subcontinent? (WT-en) Pashley 08:33, 16 December 2009 (EST)


 * My first thought was similar to Peter and Pashley's - a map to show the English speaker how they'll fare in the countries of the world. Perhaps grouped by percentage of English speakers, or by category eg "Almost universal",..."Typically only hotel reception staff". But going beyond that I think there would be merit in similar maps for other major world languages - then the traveller can get an idea of where their Spanish or Russian will get them by. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 10:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)




 * The problem with English is that it is a global language, useful almost everywhere, very often overlapping with the lingua francas we're trying to show above&mdash;the map quickly becomes a mess. I found a handy wikipedia:List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population, but it's quite incomplete, and consequently, so is this map.


 * I've added Persian, German, and Hindustani (I didn't realize Urdu and Hindi were so clearly mutually intelligible!), as you can see from the updated thumb above. I'm not terribly convinced a working knowledge of Farsi will go very far in Tajikistan, whereas Russian will get you everywhere you want to go. The other Central Asian languages are all Turkic. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:16, 17 December 2009 (EST)


 * This map is much better than the originally proposed map! One thing: It appears that Spanish is the language of northern Quebec on this map. Shouldn't it be French, as well? (this comment is about the regional language map) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)


 * I have no idea why Quebec is frustrating Inkscape so, truly, it is a troublesome province. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)


 * I love the (potential of the) English map. As well as filling in the blank countries it could do with refining further region by region within countries, eg in Yucatan it seemed a lot more than 0-5% spoke some English. Perhaps we could do that by compiling traveller experiences in text form first. I like the idea of a general Talk article within travel topics, which could use this map plus some of the material from Phrasebook International which it could possibly replace, and be a general guide to coping with language when travelling. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 03:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)


 * The "Talk" article idea sounds like a good solution to the Phrasebook International problems discussed on the votes for deletion page. I agree that using countries as the primary unit makes certain parts seem as though they speak more or less English than they do, but it's also a lot more manageable than dividing every country by state/province/prefecture. If the map is accompanied by text, I think differences could be pointed out in the text. The map is just a general overview, so people considering travel to a certain region can go to that region's article to learn more specific information about it. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Austria should be fit with German on the map. Switzerland is a harder case, it's split between German, French and Italian: most of the country speaks German though. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 20:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

I started a Talk article. (WT-en) Pashley 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Talk and the Talk section of articles
It seems to me that it would be a good idea to relate this topic to the Talk section that can be added to almost every Wikivoyage article. I see the possibility of also creating travel topics called See, Do, Eat, Drink, Sleep, etc. These topics would tally with the respective article sections and be a general guide to each of the subject sections.

While a good start has been made on the topic of Talk, the article, as it stands, is very English-centric. I can understand that a useful starting point for a Talk article is going to be about communicating in, or without, English. But I would challenge the implicit assumption that it should be about inglish exclusively. Perhaps the article is better titled Talk English, if it is to be about English exclusively. I think a general introduction about Talking with others who do not share your native language(s) is needed. - (WT-en) Huttite 20:37, 23 December 2009 (EST)


 * Since this article was only recently created, I think there is a lot of room to work within this article to provide further details about "Talk" with/in non-English languages. It needs more input in basically every field, so I imagine it will change a lot, if people start contributing. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)


 * What is there is very much a first cut, nearly all copied from the two things linked to above. It was not intended to be remarkably English-centric, though this is English WT so it mainly addresses English speakers. There are sections on topics unrelated to English &mdash; "regional languages" and "coping without a language"; both could be expanded.
 * I think a section on how to learn a language could be added. It likely needs something on alphabets, too. Is it useful to earn the Cyrillic alphabet to puzzle out signs, even if you speak little or no Russian? What about the Arabic, Hebrew, Tamil, .. alphabets? How can one cope with non-alphabetic systems like Chinese? There are probably things worth adding that haven't even occurred to me.
 * By all means, if you can improve it, plunge forward. (WT-en) Pashley 04:06, 24 December 2009 (EST)


 * I like the current focus (and title) as it is likely to be of most use to the native English speaker, and this is the English Wikivoyage. On the Spanish Wikivoyage version of the article (if one appeared) I'd expect to find the topic approached from the viewpoint of coping for a native Spanish speaker. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 01:49, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Re-order sections?
Current order is: * Using English * Regional languages * Language as a reason for travel * Coping without a language * Widely used expressions Would this be better? * Coping without a language * Regional languages * Language as a reason for travel * Using English * Widely used expressions Or some other order? What sections need to be added? Should more of the Phrasebook International text be brought here? (WT-en) Pashley 04:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

word list
Just to be sure it was forgotten unintentionally: the word list (as (WT-en) saved here) does not have any serious value, right? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:08, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Serbo-Croatian?
Someone recently added this to the list of regional languages. I'm inclined to delete it as insufficiently important and not widespread enough. WP says < 50 million speakers, way below other languages we list, and as far as I know, it is not much spoken outside former Yugoslavia. Anyone else want to comment? (WT-en) Pashley 21:08, 4 September 2010 (EDT)


 * I agree with you. It doesn't seem to have the number of speakers or spread across nations to be considered a major regional language. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:04, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

Singapore Malay-speaking?
As Burmesedays said above, isn't Singapore primarily English- (or Singlish-) speaking? When I visited in 1976, very few of the people I met spoke Malay - actually, only members of the Malay minority seemed to speak much Malay at all, though I admit my visit was very short. Has Malay-speaking among non-Malays in Singapore actually increased since then? I doubt it, but I stand to be corrected. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:46, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * English (of a usually very peculiar variety :) ), Mandarin and various other Chinese dialects are the most widely heard languages in Singapore. However, Malay is an official state language, the national anthem is even sung in Malay (Majulah Singapura) and I think about 14% of the population is ethnically Malay. It is therefore probably appropriate to include Singapore amongst countries where Malay is spoken. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:26, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Dutch/Afrikaans
I feel like we should probably add Dutch/Afrikaans on the map of world languages for these countries:


 * the Netherlands
 * Belgium
 * France (French Flanders)
 * Caribbean
 * Suriname
 * South Africa
 * Namibia
 * perhaps Indonesia

—The preceding comment was added by Ischa1 (talk • contribs)


 * Maybe, but not for Indonesia, as the country had to fight a brutal war of independence against the Dutch after World War II, so the few Indonesians who are old enough to remember it and are able to speak Dutch may prefer not to, and I seriously doubt there are so many other Indonesians who learned Dutch or used to live in the Netherlands that it's nearly as useful a language there as English, let alone Indonesian. I also think it's safe to assume that while Afrikaans is indeed useful in South Africa, there are many South Africans who won't want to speak it, for historical reasons. It's probably advisable in most cases to try English first there, I imagine. It may be less controversial in Namibia; I think I've read that that's true, though I don't know why it is. Also, Dutch won't go very far in the Caribbean except in a few places, notably including Curacao, Aruba, Bonaire, and St. Maarten. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking English to non-native speakers
This blog post at Slate, about how to modify your English when speaking to a non-native speaker who may not have native proficiency is something we should consider at least emulating in the "Using English" section of this article, and perhaps even consider as a separate page. Put it this way: I have figured out most of the things in it, but I'd have been a lot happier if I'd been able to read them somewhere before I learned them. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good stuff & yes, worth covering here. We do already mention some of it.


 * It is worth noting also that in many interactions both people will be using a second language. Consider a Swede in Pakistan or the Philippines; English is likely to be the language used, but no-one involved will be a native speaker and probably none will be familiar with the other's accent. The same sort of thing is quite likely to sometimes occur for any of the Talk. Pashley (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

World map of English language speakers just not credible?
This chart seems wrong to me.


 * 1) I can't find any source for the data it is trying to represent
 * 2) It doesn't explain what data it is trying to represent. Is the the number of native English speakers per country, or just the percentage who know English? (I assume the latter, but who knows?)
 * 3) You will notice that Canada and Sweden have the same color. Does that mean at least 10% of Canadians do not speak English at all?

I would suggest deleting this as it doesn't make sense at all and probably just wrong. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know. What percentage of Quebecois don't speak English? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Canada - "Approximately 98 percent of Canadians speak English or French: 57.8 percent speak English only, 22.1 percent speak French only, and 17.4 percent speak both". That would infer that 75.2% of the Canadian population can speak English. (2006 census).
 * I find it a bit hard to believe that almost 25% of Canadian do not speak English, although perhaps the statistics only reflect those who speak fluently. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't believe that, either. I'm guessing that's the percentage of Canadians who are not native speakers of English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well over 20% of Canadians have French as their native language, and there are rural areas of Quebec and parts of the cities where you do not hear English at all in the streets. There are also immigrant neighbourhoods like Chinatowns or the Greek Danforth area in Toronto where other languages are spoken. I have no trouble believing "at least 10% of Canadians do not speak English at all".


 * For the traveller who speaks only English, Amsterdam may be easier than Montreal. Pashley (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I found Montreal fully bilingual the last time I visited, but I still probably agree with you, even though I met 4 or 5 people in Amsterdam in a long weekend who spoke Dutch and no English. I think a lot of native English speakers would find the Amsterdam accent easier to understand than the Montreal accent, though I didn't have trouble with either (I also speak French, which helped me much more in Quebec City than in Montreal). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So to take this away from the Canadian example, is the map measuring the amount of people who speak English (to any usable level) against those who don't speak any English at all? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the map is more or less worthless as it stands now. We don't know what it measures and we don't know how it does that. If there were some explanation; e.g. percenttage of people with at least x years of high school English or native speakers. Or something like number of people with at least B1 English according to the common European framework... But I guess it is hard if not impossible to get credible data on that. Furthermore, the situation in tourist areas and bigger cities (a big part of what we cover on this wiki falls in either category) may be markedly different. The European Union however does a number of studies on foreign languages within its borders and there are some reasonably accurate maps coming out of that; most of them available on commons. For example the following ones

Maybe it would be a good idea to insert one of these maps (or all of them) in lieu of a better one with global coverage, which I don't see happening any time soon. Imho no information is better than badly researched information. And you can say about the EU what you want, but they aren't known for sloppy research... 141.30.210.129 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous contribution made by me Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the EU map would be a good replacement! It could then serve as a foundation for the specific data we are looking for. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A map with credible data is of course good, but I think a map on Europe only (or only EU!) is not relevant for this article. I think we got the Canada bit explained. Are there other weird things making this map incredible? Contrary to Wikipedia we do not have to have it 100 % right. I think the world map gives a good hint on where you get along in English and were you must be prepared to get along in other ways – which is what such a map should do. No map can tell all the story, because you may go to the one resort dedicated to English speakers or travel in countryside where few went to school. --LPfi (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well imho this map's coverage outside Europe is not all that good, and besides really duh-worthy facts (people in Australia and the USA speak English? Who'da thunk?) offers questionable "facts"... Where does this map get the information from that Kazakhstan speaks better English than Russia or China? Also imho the Europe map is better as above 50% and below "native" there is really not all that big a difference to the traveler. If you have to (on average) ask two people to find one who speaks English, that's good enough for me to not bother with a Dutch phrasebook for example. Also even in full resolution some smaller countries like Belize or Israel are hardly distinguishable specks on the map. Maybe we can produce our own map based on a blank world map, but than again I doubt there are credible numbers for anywhere but Europe and a handful of other countries, as most governments either don't care or have other problems than finding out who speaks English. And there are few international organizations I know about that gather this kind of data, which to a certain extent is highly subjective as "speaking" a language is not a black and white issue, but rather a continuum from barely to Shakespeare... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Although the map does not have to be 100% correct (as it would have to be on Wikipedia), I would still content that it is comparing 'apples to oranges' statistics for almost all countries and therefore rather misleading.
 * At the very least we should label this map to say what level of English in each country we are trying to compare against each other (fluency? high school English? written? spoken? ) Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with User:Andrewssi2. We shouldn't let the perfect be enemy of the good, but the map right now is worse than nothing (or as a first step the Europe map further up on this talk page) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italian minorities in Libya and Eritrea?
I'm not sure you'll have a lot of success with Italian in either of those places - I mean there are many citizens of those two states who speak at least one European language, but that is because they fled the country due to ongoing issues (Eritrea's ahem "government" as well the ahem "situation" in Libya), so it's unlikely you'll find them in those countries. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting BBC article
Native English speakers are the world's worst communicators. As a native speaker who has been an ESL teacher, I think I'm better than that ("not all men"), but I have certainly seen much of what the article discusses.

Any comment from our contingent of non-native speakers? Can we improve this article using ideas from the BBC one? Pashley (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure English native speakers are unique among monolingual speakers. Perhaps it is just more glaring because there are a higher number of well-educated and even well-traveled monolingual anglophones than there are for practically any other language. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. And I think the non-natives observed were a special group: people with significant experience of multicultural cooperation. I do not think an ESL student has any particular ability to adjust to other non-natives; as I said in another thread, adjusting is easier if you know several ways to say something. Perhaps native speakers just avoid learning how to adjust as they think they have nothing to learn. Maybe that is the point to try to get through to them. But adjusting your speech is the main point of the article as of now, so I think the BBC article at most prompts minor additions to our article. --LPfi (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ESL students will "dumb down" their English necessarily because their vocabulary is limited. They are also less likely to talk rapidly, with non-standard dialects or employing idioms, metaphors and so on. Plus they will usually also remember what their first stumbling attempts at English were like. None of that is a given for monolingual speakers of any given language. Plus second language speakers usually have at least some idea of how grammar works. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Anglophone?
Talk just acquired an old joke as a quote. It uses "anglophone" where I'd prefer "an English speaker". Other opinions?

I'm Canadian & anglophone, francophone and (in my view, horribly misused) Allophone (Canada) are the politically correct terms there. I've heard the joke before, but always either in Quebecois French with "maudit anglais" in the punch line or in English with "American". I do not think either would be appropriate here. Pashley (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason I used "anglophone" is because otherwise a variant of "speak" would be used four times in not many words. I'm not sure what your issue with anglophone is, but don't mind if you change it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nations completely fluent in English as a second language
The Netherlands is always cited as a nation where everyone speaks English really well. Not true. In one long weekend in Amsterdam, I happened to run into like 5 people who couldn't speak English well. Several of them were immigrants from other countries, such as Surinam, and two of them were the housekeepers at our hotel, who also didn't speak any French, Italian or German (the other languages we could have used - I'm not counting Malay, which was very useful for communicating at an Indonesian restaurant but nowhere else in Amsterdam). I think we should temporize a bit when making such statements. I was so embarrassed not to have learned any Dutch because I relied on such statements that my girlfriend and I looked for teach-yourself-Dutch videos and listened to them in our hotel in Amsterdam, so we could learn at least a few expressions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never been to the Netherlands, so I can't comment on that. But in Iceland, virtually everyone I met could speak English. That said, if you follow this YouTube channel by an Icelandic YouTuber, you'll see that her parents do not speak or understand English. And there was once I was seated next to a Danish woman on a flight from Singapore to Australia, and she did not speak or understand English, but she was quite elderly, so that may explain why. So yeah, of course even countries known for their English proficiency (as a foreign language) will have people who don't speak English. The dog2 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The folks I ran into in Amsterdam who had poor command of English ranged from a young (early 20s or so) counterman at a gelateria (his command of Italian was also poor) to the middle-aged women who were housekeepers at our hotel, so not all the Netherlanders who don't speak English are old. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. So how would you compare general English proficiency in the Netherlands with say, Malaysia, India or Hong Kong? The dog2 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In my experience, a lot of people in the Netherlands speak English well, more than in places like India, Singapore, Hong Kong or the Philippines. From what I've heard, that's true for the Nordic countries as well, but I have not visited those. Pashley (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the keys are "immigrants" and "elderly people". Several European countries switched from German to English as most important foreign language after the world war – if the process was slow not only 80+ people will have grown up before. Another factor is whether ordinary people have learnt foreign languages at all. In Finland university attendance exploded in the 1960s and a compulsory foreign language was introduced in the school reform of the 1970s (and at that time we already had a lot of films and TV programmes in English, subtitled). This means that people younger than 55 all have a reasonably good grip of English – and people of that generation or younger will more or less assume anybody has. Still, immigrants from countries where not everybody speaks English will not know the language just by having immigrated here, and the courses for immigrants hardly see English as a priority. The situation may be similar in many European countries. In some countries English got its status only after the end of the cold war, and some have had problems recruiting good teachers, and in these mostly young people know English well.
 * In some countries, like the Netherlands, there are lots of immigrants in the service sector, which means general proficiency does not necessarily agree with what you see as a tourist.
 * –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The young counterman at the gelateria was Dutch. I think more people spoke English well in the Netherlands and Germany when I was there a few years ago than in Malaysia in 2003, but keep in mind that I'm fluent in spoken Malay when in practice and therefore had no need to speak with anyone in English there unless they preferred to do so. I haven't been to Hong Kong since 1987 but definitely don't think English fluency was quite as prevalent there as in Amsterdam. And English was definitely spoken more there than in India in 1977. However, I think more Singaporeans spoke English well in 1976 than people in Amsterdam in 2013, though those were both short visits (and also, we spoke with one Malay cabbie in Malay when we were in Singapore). I'm counting Singlish, though, since we had no trouble understanding it, whereas some other English-speakers who hadn't already spent time in Malaysia before visiting Singapore would have had more trouble understanding that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since travellers are very likely to come into contact with those in the service industry who speak little or no English, I'm in favour of changing any wording as necessary. However, I am not entirely sure whether there's a specific text in mind or just a general desire to avoid sweeping statements of "everyone speaks English" across the wiki.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's true that in Northwestern and (Western) Central Europe not everyone understands English, but most do (to some extent) and you won't have problems finding someone speaking English. On the other hand, you certainly cannot take this for granted in e.g. Russia, Argentina, Uruguay and non-touristy parts of Spain. I have a feeling that the higher the number of speakers of the local language, the harder it's to get by in any other languages. Ypsilon (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Things would have changed in Singapore since the 1970s. Back then, you had schools with different media of instruction, so someone who went to an English-medium school would probably speak English well, while someone who went to a Chinese, Malay or Tamil-medium school would probably not speak English as well. And there were even two universities with two different media of instruction; the National University of Singapore taught in English, while Nanyang University taught in Chinese. And before World War II, school was a privilege only for rich boys, so girls and people from poorer families from that era would probably not have gone to school, and hence wouldn't know how to speak English. It has been compulsory to send your kids to school since independence, and all schools and universities became English-medium in the 1980s, so if you go to Singapore now, anybody born from the 1980s onwards should be able to have a conversation with you in English. And yeah, Singlish can be hard to understand because we incorporate words from other languages like Malay, Hokkien (Minnan/Taiwanese), Cantonese, Teochew and Tamil, but we learn standard British English in school, so people who finished university after the 1980s should be able to switch to standard English when talking to foriegners. The dog2 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, my brief experience in Singapore in 1976 was that English was much more widely spoken than in any city we visited in Malaysia, and I don't remember us running into anyone on our brief visit there who didn't have command of at least basic English. Most people spoke English very well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the paragraph. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I liked what you did and appreciate it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good except for one small point; Finnish is not related to English, and Finland is a Nordic countries. I'm not sure how English proficiency in Finland compares to the other Nordic countries though; maybe LPfi or Jpatokal can comment on that? The dog2 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say English proficiency in Finland is on the same level as in the other Nordic countries, at least among generations who've grown up with easy access to English-language media and the Internet and have had the chance to interact with English-speaking people (native and second language speakers) every day online and in real life. Myself I haven't actually studied that much English at school - I studied German and the "other domestic language" ie. Finnish, then English on the 8th and 9th grade where I found it very hard to learn the Received Pronunciation which we were supposed to use.
 * On the other hand, for instance Baby boomers could choose to study English at school, but they would have comparatively few opportunities to actually use it. It's entirely possible that people in other Nordic countries back then had more chances to use English and therefore have a somewhat better command of it. Ypsilon (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, more or less. Finnish is not an Indo-European language, and this often shows, while the Swedish speakers in Finland generally study English as first foreign, after the "other domestic" (while the Finns usually leave the "other domestic" till after English). Thus both groups have a handicap compared to other Nordic countries. Proficiency is still high, with not only "the educated class" speaking English well. Baby boomers were able to choose English, but they had a shorter compulsory school, and I suppose few not aiming at the bacalaureat chose studying it. So among them, it is mostly the educated class who know English. And while they might not have had the opportunities to practice it that we have had, and may feel awkward using the language, you'd still be able to communicate reasonable well with those who did study English. For my generation, while I haven't interacted regularly with English speaking people, and haven't watched television that much, one cannot avoid English. I might have a hard time understanding English spoken with an accent, or understanding colloquialisms, but speaking carefully there should not be any problems with communication, and really, to get directions for a sight or hotel, you'd have to stumble upon some odd exception to have problems (even most immigrants come from groups who know English reasonably well). –LPfi (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine
Must we have Ukraine as an example of countries where "anti-Russia sentiment is high, so speaking Russian to a local may be offensive."? Ukraine says:
 * For a large majority in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, Russian is their first language. In the capital, Kyiv, Russian is more commonly used than Ukrainian. The language is seldom used in Central and Western Ukraine.

You might want to be careful about how you use Russian in Ukraine, but as an example I think it is awkward. Better leave the discussion on subtleties to the country article. The Czech Republic is already there as an example, and to my understanding there are no such problems (but I haven't discussed Russian with Czechs).

–LPfi (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of what I gather is from the news and from travel vlogs, but my understanding is that because of the Russian annexation of Crimea, and its support of the separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk (all of which have ethnic Russian majorities), anti-Russian sentiment is very high among the ethnic Ukrainians, though most ethnic Russians in Ukraine are still very much pro-Russia. I know that Ukraine has passed laws that criminalise the display of Soviet symbols, just as Poland and the Czech Republic have, similar to how Germany and Austria criminalise the display of Nazi symbols. For instance, referring to World War II as the "Great Patriotic War" (by which the war is referred to in Russia) is now a crime in Ukraine. The dog2 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. So if you say anti-Russian sentiments are high, you have to add that this is true only in parts of Ukraine. Too complicated to be a good example.> –LPfi (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's much better examples out there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll leave you to edit it appropriately then if you know better. The dog2 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Canada
User:The dog2 recently deleted some text about Inuktitut, I think correctly, with an edit summary:
 * My understanding is that most Inuit know how to speak English, even though Inuktitut may be their native language. But on the other hand, Quebecois are typically monolingual in French and do not know how to speak English. But if I'm wrong, could our Canadian editors please correct me.

Yes but, as with more-or-less everything one might say about language, it is more complicated than that. For one thing, there are several languages among the Inuit; Inuktitut is only the best-known. For another, many Inuit, especially in Northern Quebec, speak French but not English. Also, lots of Quebecois speak good English.

One Inuk (singular of Inuit) I know is fluent in English & Inuktitut, & speaks another Inuit language, French & Cree (I do not know how well). In her youth she worked as a translator & that was needed since many Inuit spoke only Inuktitut. However, she's in her 80s and I do not know the current situation. Pashley (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I did ask a similar question to a while back (see User talk:Ground Zero). While nearly everyone is bilingual, there's still a minority who don't speak English nor French. (although aren't all schools in Nunavut in only English and French?) SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, of course there are exceptions. I know your prime minister Justin Trudeau is an example of a Francophone Quebecois who speaks English fluently. Speaking of which, I heard the new governor-general is fluent in Inuktitut, so it'd be interesting to see if she gives her Speech from the Throne in Inuktitut during the next State Opening of Parliament. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about schools in Nunavut, but I would be very surprised if they do not provide instruction in Inuktitut. As Nunavut official languages are Inuktitut, English and French, I think the only constraint on teaching in Inuktitut is getting qualified teachers who can speak it. I think that a lot of the teachers are from "the south". Ground Zero (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about now, but I did read this article, but that three years ago. In particular "But of the 43 schools across Nunavut, all the schools operate in English, except for one in Iqaluit: it operates in French ". SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are two more articles: 1, 2. The picture that they paint is that there isn't enough Inuktitut instruction. "Right now, education in Inuktut is mostly only available up to Grade 4, with subject matter taught primarily in English and French after then." So I think it is incorrect to say that instruction is "in only English and French". Ground Zero (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But still I guess that means a traveller having to need to speak Inuktitut isn't really necessary (although there would still be the older generation who may not be able to speak fluent English). SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 09:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Few travellers will go to Nunavut or other Inuit areas of Canada. As there are only 65,000 speakers of the language innthe country, a traveller's chances of meeting a unilingual Chinese-speaker or Hindi-speaker in Toronto or Vancouver are much greater. I don't think this article should go into this granular level of detail. Ground Zero (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point we try to convey is that Even in majority English speaking countries there may be places where your English doesn't help you. This is probably never the case in metropolises, but in small villages off the beaten track. It is unusual to English to be the majority language where you find those places, while it might be co-official such as in some African countries, with some other non-English language the main lingua franca. Kenya might be a prime example. –LPfi (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's even the case in Australia as well (an example) as well as Papua New Guinea (although if you go off the beaten track in PNG, you may meet someone who has never seen a foreigner before) + a lot of Pacific Island countries except for New Zealand. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Spanish language varieties, French language varieties etc.
We have - and I love it - an exhaustive article on English language varieties. While of course English is the most popular (second) language and a lingua franca worldwide, what about educating tourists and travel(l)ers about varieties in French, Spanish, and maybe other languages they might encounter? In (rural) Latin America, you might not get far with either British or American English or any other variety of English, for example,... Aren't the varieties of Spanish (Spanish Spanish v. Latin American Spanish v. Mexican Spanish) or French (France French v. Quebéc French v. Afro-French?) as significant as the differences between the English language varieties? What do you think?

Even within Germany, no bigger than the state of Montana, we have dialects and varieties of German considered quite significant. For example, somebody who speaks a little German might not understand Sächsisch as spoken in rural Saxony or Schwäbisch as, for example, spoken in Allgäu. Heck, even I didn't know a few Saxonian words like addeln or bransen.

Another example: Few from outside Berlin would use Schrippe for what is in standard German called Brötchen - Baden-Württemberg etc. use Weckle/Weckla/Weckli and Bavaria Semme(r)l, while Rundstück is used around Hamburg,... Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * And if you include Austria and Switzerland, it will get even more colourful (or more complicated). In Austria - and nowhere else - some call a tomato Paradeiser as opposed to standard German Tomate. What most call Johannisbeeren are Ribiseln in Austria. There are several different terms for a carrot throughout Germany and Austria - Möhre, Mohrrübe, Karotte, Gelbe Rübe, Wurzel etc.
 * In Switzerland a sign can read Fehlbare werden verzeigt - a sentence not even understood by most Germans. It means that those who do whatever is banned on the sign will be angezeigt, i.e. reported to the police/authorities.
 * I don't know, however, how significant the differences between Spain's Spanish and Argentinan or Peruvian or Mexican Spanish are. Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we have different phrasebooks for some varieties of some languages, e.g. Brazilian Portuguese phrasebook or Lebanese Arabic phrasebook, and I see no reason why there can't be one or multiple phrasebooks for Spanish varieties (as long as they are different enough from each other to warrant separate phrasebooks). The reason for the existence of the English language varieties article is, I think, because you can't expect to have an English phrasebook in an English-language website. Vidimian (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should expand at least for the most common(ly encountered) languages from a "phrasebook" article to a "X language varieties" article. Is it correct that Arabic is more like the family of Romance languages than a single language, but seen as a single language for (mainly) religious(?) reasons? Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak Arabic, but AFAIK, yes it's a continuum of varieties spoken from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Oman, but its modern standard is still actively spoken somewhere (Saudi Arabia), so its analogue in the Romance continuum would be more like Italy still speaking Latin, the other Romance speakers getting educated in Latin despite having vernaculars significantly drifted from it and being able to understand/speak it with varying fluency. I think there is also a nationalistic angle involved in considering Arabic a single language — not all Arabs are Muslims. Vidimian (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another approach to the travel-relevant local words different from the standard variety is to note them in the "Talk" sections; for an example, see Austria. Vidimian (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes and we also have a Swiss-German phrasebook. We used to have separate ones for European Spanish and Latin American (now there's just one, with a short section mentioning there are differences). But let's just say if you're confident in your tourist-level Spain Spanish, talking out of my own experience, that confidence will be gone in a few minutes off the plane in Buenos Aires. There are also noticeable differences in smaller languages like Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian, though mostly related to pronunciation and mostly a thing in rural areas. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops! There are definitely differences in Norwegian. In Troms, I hardly notice they don't speak Swedish, while in Bergen, I am lost. And people from Helsinki commonly don't understand anything when confronted with the Närpes dialect. Norwegians are good at understanding dialects, as everybody there uses theirs, and in Närpes people will (try to) speak standard Swedish when somebody from southern Finland enters, but that doesn't change the fact that the dialects are different.
 * What matters, though, is whether or not the locals can adjust their speech such that the traveller can use their school German or their Hermod (or whatever app is used nowadays) Spanish to communicate with locals. If there are a few key differences, tell about them, if the differences are too big, warn and create the separate phrasebook.
 * –LPfi (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And speaking of Spanish, there's no single "Latin American Spanish". There are many varieties of Spanish in Latin America than can differ quite substantially from each other. Argentinian Spanish, Mexican Spanish, Caribbean Spanish and so on all differ from each other significantly. And in say, Colombia, there are multiple varieties of Spanish, so someone from Bogota doesn't speak the same way as someone from Cartagena.


 * And with regard to Arabic, there's also slight differences between how Muslims and Christians speak Arabic. For instance, Muslims refer to Jesus as "Isa", while Arab Christians call him "Yasu". The dog2 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

European soldiers
Hnishy63 added that "European soldiers are likely to speak some English, because it is the official language of NATO". To what extent is that true? Do soldiers get actual education in English, other than about military jargon? Of course, in the Nordic countries, some of which have conscription, English is widely known regardless, and for professional armies, a course could be part of the military training. But are they? Was the addition a guess, or do you know to what extent such courses are arranged? –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that even though English (and French) are official languages and used for documentation and cooperation at high levels, troops internally may use other languages, and only those involved in cooperation between units need to be proficient in English. I don't know at what level that would be. I don't think battalions are formed across countries other than in very special circumstances, and then involving specially trained personnel. Thus, only officers, communication personnel and members of special units would need to know English. –LPfi (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know how it works in Europe, but in Singapore, our military conducts bilateral exercises with the Chinese military. Most of the Chinese soldiers don't speak English, and most of our Malay and Indian soldiers don't speak Mandarin, but they still participate in the exercise. We don't force our Malay and Indian senior officers to learn Mandarin, and most of the senior officers from China don't speak English, so I believe they have professional translators in the military for the senior officers so they can talk to each other. The dog2 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I toned down the sentence a bit. It is based on my personal experiences about 30 years ago. It's only a general rule and NATO has considerably expanded since, probably diluting overall English proficiency among its members.--Hnishy63 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What kind of experience was that? You probably did not meet a random sample of soldiers and a random sample of other people from the same countries (or whatever), and both selections may have been very biased. NATO expanding hardly affects the tendency of proficiency in individual countries, so your experience may still be valid, but I am not sure it was in the first place.
 * If it is, either NATO countries give courses as part of soldier training, soldiers de facto improve their English skills once recruited or people proficient in English are more likely to join the army. I don't believe in the latter two (other than for specific positions), while the former one should be checked.
 * I removed the sentence for the time being, as it was oddly placed (the bullet was about country-level proficiency) and too general (not all Europe is a NATO member – in Switzerland I assume the status affects few and in Russia only intelligence officers). And what about international marketing, diplomats, journalists & al? Granted, some work only in e.g. the Spanish-speaking world, but many benefit from knowing English.
 * –LPfi (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if accurate, I'm not sure it's relevant to this article. How often do tourists go around talking to European soldiers? I think it seems like somewhat niche advice for the general "Talk" article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you could notice a uniformed soldier on the bus or in a pub and ask for advice or just start chatting. That would of course mainly be soldiers off duty, those on duty should probably not be disturbed. However, I am not convinced that a sufficient share would be significantly more proficient than the random clerk or waiter for the tactic to be worthwhile – if they all really are, then I think it indeed should be mentioned. –LPfi (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NATO has Bureau for International Language Co-ordination and encourages soldiers to raise their English proficiency; it helps them to get better-paid positions in peacetime. In wartime, quick communication is literally vital; you may well lose your life for insufficient language abilities. And diplomats and journalists are not identifiable by their outlook while soldiers are.--Hnishy63 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can believe that. For conscription armies, though, the time in service is too short for anybody to get radically better at their language (if it's 6 months for a private like in Finland, or something comparable – most time is needed for pure military training). For countries with little second language education, I assume many soldiers don't study English on their own, even when encouraged. We'd need statistics or good observations. On the "official": French is also an official language, do soldiers speak good French too? And on being vital: yes, when it comes to coordination, but the life of a private seldom depends on them being able to talk themselves with people from foreign units. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Loan words in English
Should this be covered under Talk or English language varieties? I think we should cover it somewhere because words that are borrowed into English often have a different meaning from in their original languages. For instance, we use "madrasah" in English to refer to Islamic religious schools, but the original Arabic word refers to any kind of school, so a Christian school will also be called a "madrasah" by an Arabic speaker. The dog2 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, to me, madrasah, caffè and jamón are overwhelmingly obvious examples, not borderline obvious, but really plain in your face obvious. I'm sure you will take it as a personal attack, as proof that I have a personal grudge against you. But yes, they're as obvious as you can get, and this stuff would better be left to w:False cognate IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Obvious to you because you speak multiple languages. Not obvious to people who only speak English. An English speaker visiting Japan might ask for "manga" and by pointed to the Batman or Superman comics, not knowing that the word in Japanese refers to any kind of comics, not specifically Japanese comics. And those are not false cognates, they are true cognates but false friends. And when I found it confusing when I visited Spain before I realised that jamón is just the generic word for ham in Spanish. The dog2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * just to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us what were your thoughts about "jamón" before you realized it means "ham", what was your confusion. You should speak about "prosciutto" as well. Ibaman (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it meant specifically Spanish dry-cured ham like jamón ibérico. And likewise, I thought prosciutto meant specifically Italian dry-cured ham, like prosciutto di San Daniele and prosciutto di Parma. If you say "jamón" or "prosciutto" when speaking English, those are what people will understand them to mean. An English speaker will not use "jamón" or "prosciutto" to refer to the regular ham from the supermarket that you put in your sandwich. The dog2 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, that means you're PRESUMING that every "English speaker" is linguistically unaware of these subtleties, and must be thoroughly informed about the existence of false friends and shibboleths. Call me pedantic if you will, but to me, this is all too obvious to need mention in a travel guide. Other opinions will be welcome. I find so unconfortable when it seems we're engaged in a dialog that no one else cares about. Ibaman (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that only caffè seemx obvious to me; the others don't. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in the edit on caffè, but what I meant is the word "latte" in Italian just means milk, and is not a type of coffee like in English. If you go to Italy and ask for "latte", you will get a glass of milk. If you want the type of coffee we call "latte" in English, you have to say "caffè latte". The dog2 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed – which is why I agree that your edits should be included. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite rare for such things to matter. e.g. I do not think either jamon or prosciutto needs an explanation of its meaning in the original language, though their English meanings might be mentioned in articles on the relevant cuisine.
 * Taking Chinese cuisine as an example, terms that are routinely used by English speakers like dim sum and mapo tofu should be mentioned (& checking the article, they are).
 * Beyond that, it is all judgement calls & there's a slippery slope to avoid. Having been an expat in China, I use jaozi, zi ran nui rou, gambien tudou (spicy french fries, the most popular dish among my circle) and other Chinese expressions, but I'm not sure if those belong in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What I'm thinking about is more about English speakers getting confused when they travel to those countries and see those terms on labels or restaurant menus. The dog2 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

pardon me for getting itchy about "footnotes" and "references" that spoil the flavor of a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * oh well, in the ITALIAN PHRASEBOOK it should be stated in no uncertain terms that LATTE means MILK, and this is the most accurate translation. As of this moment, with more than ten years as a wikiuser, I'm too accustomed to ttcf and WV:Tone,  and copyediting accordingly,


 * We might want to add a warning about this specific kind of false friends in Talk. It is very common to use a loan word for some specific version of something, like in these examples. I don't think we need to point that out were we actually tell the meaning of the word ("coffee: caffè" is quite clear without a nota bene, the word really means coffee). –LPfi (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think English language varieties would be the place to cover these, and some of them aren't really loan words. Jamón is Spanish, not English, as far as I'm concerned. And you probably know that madrassah means Islamic academy in languages like Malay. The place to deal with its meaning in Arabic is in Arabic phrasebooks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the meaning in Malay. The word for school in general is sekolah, while madrasah is specifically an Islamic religious school. And likewise in Singapore English, we use madrasah to refer only to Islamic religious schools. I just remember my Arab friends found it weird when I used it that way, because in Arabic, "madrasah" is just the generic word for "school", whether secular, Islamic, Christian or whatever. And what I was saying about jamón is that English speakers use it to refer specifically to dry-cured hams from Spain. But in Spanish, it is a generic word for any kind of ham, including the cheap ham from the supermarket that you put in your sandwich. The dog2 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * English speakers normally don't use the Spanish word for ham at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is not in the phrasebooks, where the words are clearly defined. The problem is with words not in the phrasebooks (or when the traveller didn't look it up), such as ordering a latte presuming one knows what it's called, because one knows how to order it in Italian cafés in other countries. Likewise (or the other way round), if asking for "mail" in Finland, you could very well be directed to a computer instead of the post office. Thus, Talk is the right article for this. –LPfi (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So let's say you know your friend is going to Spain on holiday. Wouldn't it be a normal thing to ask your friend to "please bring back some jamón for me"? Or couldn't someone say "I want to try the jamón" when they're going to a Spanish restaurant? The dog2 (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. And LPfi, the place to mention that latte means milk, other than the Italian phrasebook, is Italy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to put this kind of information in specific places. Nobody's going to read Talk on the off chance that it will happen to have information about the difference between ordering a caffè latte and a café au lait in the particular country and language that will be relevant.  They're far more likely to read the article about the country, the phrasebook for the language, or (if we have one) an article about the food in that country.
 * I'd never ask a friend to bring jamón back from Spain; first, it's almost certainly not legal for casual importation. Second, the word just means ham.  If I wanted jamón iberico, I'd ask for jamón iberico specifically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I guess that might be a difference between Singapore and American English then, since we don't get as much exposure to Spanish in Singapore. And unlike in the U.S., it is legal to bring jamón iberico into Singapore from Spain. The dog2 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dying languages
I'm not sure it is relevant to travel, but Disappearing tongues: the endangered language crisis is an interesting article. Pashley (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)