Talk:English language

External link

Will the following link be accepted: Free English Grammar and Vocabulary Lessons? תיל"ם (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not appropriate to include. This article's main goal is describing English and explaining characteristics about it, not teaching the language. The external links currently on the article are for giving more information describing English that cannot be included in the text of the article (namely, archives of sound recordings). IndigoManedWolf (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

the link that you put in is

reasonable, But i think that you need more information next to it to show what you ment in more detail. 2A00:23C8:9C80:FE01:8E2A:85FF:FEB7:AC4D (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not true that “the majority of English vocabulary derives from Romance languages”.

Latin is not a Romance language. According to this article, only 28% of English vocabulary is of Romance origin. And I’m very skeptical about that claim as well, considering how much of French is Germanic in origin.

Also, I think much more needs to be done to emphasize how Germanic English is, considering how misleading those statements about the Italic loanwords are. They may be in the dictionary, but they’re not in common use.

To say that “much of English's most basic vocabulary remains identifiably Germanic, as well as aspects of its grammar and phonology” is a huge understatement. As far as I’m aware, absolutely no aspects of its grammar or phonology aren’t Germanic. As a matter of fact, in some aspects of its phonology (like /w/ and /th/), English is much closer to Proto-Germanic than most other Germanic languages.

Really, I think it should say that *all* of the basic and most-used words are Germanic in origin, and that *every* aspect of its grammar and phonology is as well.

The way this article is written gives undue weight to the Italic loanwords and makes it seem like some words that are almost never used but exist in a dictionary that the vast majority of the native speakers of the language will never read and wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, or words that were also loaned into *every* Germanic language, not only English, have made English some kind of hybrid anomaly. And that’s really not the case. It’s very misleading.

Also, you don’t see other non-Italic languages with the majority of their vocabulary made up of Italic loanwords, like Albanian, having undue emphasis given to that fact by having it in the heading of their articles. 2600:100A:B1CD:CDC1:189A:4B36:6A05:2BC9 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Latin is a romance language. I dont know how you could be so wrong about something so basic 2607:D600:995F:CA00:4D39:A27F:9EAF:6E5B (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Latin is a romance language" may astonish some, but it's actually stimulus for an interesting quibble, as can be illustrated by specialists who (try to) prompt students to think and understand with observations such as "Spanish [Picard... Logudorese...] is Latin, only later" or "Latin is a dead language, but it never died". -- As for the main thrust of this section, "I dont know how you could be so wrong about something so basic" makes the point nicely that English lexicon is solidly Germanic at its core, while also lexical grafts of Latin(ate)/Romance origin can be totally nativized. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a mystification allowed to prevent a slightly pedantic stumbling block. I've changed this. Remsense ‥ 论 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, as of today it says "While Latin and the Romance languages are thus the source for a majority of its lexicon taken as a whole, English grammar and phonology retain a family resemblance with the Germanic languages, and most of its basic everyday vocabulary remains Germanic in origin." I think this part should say that there is a heavy bias towards the 1/3 Germanic words in English, including a percentage of 75-85% of basic English vocabulary is Germanic in origin, and academic speech is more like 60-75%, some percentages to show that the majority of English words in speech are Germanic and emphasizing this lean towards Germanic words, the current writing is not enough for the facts presenting above this part showing only 1/3rd of the total words in English are Germanic, there needs to be more emphasis on this huge disparity in how common words are relative to their amount in the language. 2601:602:D201:6F90:EC66:4E4F:B119:30C (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's worth a reminder that the lead is a summary of the article body; while I agree this is likely a more precise articulation of the facts, we need a cited statement of this in the article body before we then summarize it in the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I sorted my response into Germanic and Romance words as evidence of this, ridding of the names of languages and groups (such as Germanic, Romance, English as it is normal to loan the names of languages and unfair to count as normal words) and wrote 1/3rd as one third, 75-85 60-75 as words as well as that is how they are spoken.

"as of today it says While and the are thus the for a of its taken as a whole and a with the and most of its everyday in I think this should say that there is a heavy towards the one third words in a seventy fix to eighty five of of is in and speech is more like sixty to seventy five some to show that the of words in speech are and this lean towards words, the writing is not enough for the above this showing only one third of the words in are there needs to be more on this huge in how words are to their in the

Exactly languages source majority lexicon grammar phonology retain family resemblance languages basic vocabulary remains origin part bias including percentage basic vocabulary origin academic percentages majority emphasizing current facts presenting part total emphasis disparity common relative amount language"

there are 150 words in my response, 113 are Germanic, that's 75% Germanic words and we are talking about an advanced subject which isn't basic speech. 2601:602:D201:6F90:EC66:4E4F:B119:30C (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning in the article that function words contribute a huge amount to English speech having a Germanic majority of words as my sorting shows many of those words are function words and not content words while all the romance words are content words. 2601:602:D201:6F90:EC66:4E4F:B119:30C (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There are some basic words but most (90%) is not basic. 2A00:23C8:9C80:FE01:8E2A:85FF:FEB7:AC4D (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

to add on to that, 10% is basic. 2A00:23C8:9C80:FE01:8E2A:85FF:FEB7:AC4D (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, the source you're getting this from would be nice if you want to make changes as expediently as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 16:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit notice

I think it would be worth a shot to add an edit notice for this talk page, given many comments are posted here that seem to be from people learning English who are trying to practice or ask questions about it.

Draft editnotice

It may seem a totally spurious endeavor, but I'm actually a bit curious if it would save some people some time. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd guess the fishing thing was just someone being a joker. This edit notice seems worth trying. I have this on my watchlist and I expect others do as well. It would be nice to 1) cut down on the spurious talk posts, and 2) make it less likely that on-topic comments and suggestions get overlooked or missed in the noise. CAVincent (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As I'm sure others are aware, there are numerous other "general vocabulary" articles that see similar misdirected traffic on talk—perhaps if it helps here, it could help elsewhere, but we have to show the big banner to logged-in editors too, so I'm conflicted. Remsense ‥ 论 04:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking—surely in cases like these it would be possible to assign a CSS class specific to "noisecatching" edit notices that would simply be set to hidden by default for logged in users. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't support the proposed notice, but I agree that something is wanted to reduce the large number of "stray edits". The style sheet implementation is interesting, and I look forward to more discussion. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I had truthfully already put it there; if you would prefer I yank it I can do so. Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to leave it there as improvements are made. I was going to make a few edits, but decided not to go through the request procedure just yet. (1) I wasn't sure what the strike-throughs were for. (2) I would change "to discuss changes to the English language article" to "to discuss changes to the article about the English language". For someone learning the language, "English language article" is likely to be understood as an article written in English. I think the phrasing I suggest makes it more clear that there is an article on "English language", and this is what the talk page is about. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, to be clear.

1. The strikethroughs are attempting to square the circle of communicating to editors that presently have nearly no familiarity with English as much as possible. My thought was beginning learners might recognize bits like "practice" and "ask question" without getting through a sentence and actually be encouraged to post.
2. This is clearly better, thank you.

Remsense ‥ 论 20:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed this is improved phrasing. Fair point that the notice would need to be clear specifically to people with limited understanding of English. CAVincent (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Just circled back to this: 13-day-long gaps between incidents are the exception rather than the rule, so if the rate stays low I'm nearly willing to declare the notice a good idea on my part? Remsense ‥ 论 06:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2025

It was confirmed that English is both a Latin langauge with thousands of words derived from Latin and also a West German language. To not include the Latin content is grossly misleading re the information on wiki about the origins of the English language!! 2A00:23C7:E735:3700:80DA:78B5:B4C3:795D (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Spelling of "percent"

In Special:Diff/1287719185, because of the {{use British English}} template in the article's source and the {{British English}} templates in the edit notice and this talk page, I had intended to get the article to use British English. However, my edit was reverted in Special:Diff/1287722404 possibly because of how @CAVincent understood my comment, when I had intended to make the changes listed in the British English templates for this article. One of the changes made was changing to the British spelling of "percent", "per cent". I am curious as to why the article's prose uses "percent" and not "per cent". According to Wiktionary, per cent is Commonwealth English. Commonwealth English includes British English as a variety, but not the other way around. Z. Patterson (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting question: Which national variety of the English language should Wikipedia's article on English language use? I'm strongly inclined to say that should be American English, for the reason that it is the most widely used variety. I can't see any good reason for this article to use British English, other than that it has had a tag for a long time. I would also argue that the article should have dates as MDY for the same reason. (That said, I hadn't been thinking of the British English tag when I made my revert, and I would be fine with reintroducing your changes pending a discussion to not use British English. I just tried self-reverting, but it failed due to subsequent changes.) CAVincent (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, does an article have to specify at all which English it should use? Secondly, if it does, I would prefer British, because of where the language originated, not where it is most widely used. Thirdly, just for fun, many British people used MDY, not so long ago (in my living memory, at least). But let's not have a storm in a teacup. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

So would I. I would think that British English would apply for these reasons. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Current British English is no more the original form than current American English; all of the major contemporary national varieties of English descend from Early Modern English. So, no, preferring British "because of where the language originated" is not a compelling argument. That said, MOS:Retain IS a compelling argument, though I haven't checked the article history to see what that would favor. CAVincent (talk) CAVincent (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:Retain explains why the existing variety should be retained - i.e. British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise, I like to spell it per​cent with U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, so that it breaks across lines. 😜 —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Huge inconsistency concerning the intro

I noticed that the fact, that English is closest related to Low Saxon and Frisian, is only mentioned in the very last sentence of the intro. Given that the intro shall be a summary of the whole article, this fact should be mentioned at the very beginning, because the classification and related languages is the very first paragraph. Overall, the intro gives the impression, that it tries to avoid mentioning that English is related to German and Dutch. While everybody knows, that Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French are related, and that Polish, Czech, Russian and Serbocroatian are related, we all know that there circulates great confusion about the classification of English, also due to many YouTube videos. Normally, intros of languages follow this pattern: "English is the most spoken Germanic language. Together with German and Dutch, it belongs to the West Germanic branch, and is most closely related to Frisian and Low Saxon." This would be the most normal first sentence of an article concerning the English language. The second thing which is apparently avoided, is mentioning that English ultimately derives its name from the Angeln peninsula in Germany, the cradle of the Anglo-Saxon world, because the Angles are named after this region. I think, all of this is deliberately avoided, because many English-speakers, especially British ones, don't like the fact, that practically everything in their country is somehow related to Germany. Given now that fact, that the classifcation is the first paragraph, the intro should be changed accordingly. Ephesos21 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The classification and related languages is the first section of the article. Therefore, the related languages have to be mentioned at the very beginning of the intro, because the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, but in the right order. Hence i suggest to change the first sentences to:

English is the most spoken Germanic language, and alongside German, Dutch and Afrikaans, it belongs to the West Germanic branch. It exists on a dialect continuum with Scots, and is next-most closely related to Low Saxon and Frisian. English originated in early medieval England, and has since evolved into a global lingua franca. The ultimate namesake of the language is the Angeln Peninsula, from which the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain, derive their name. English is the most spoken language in the world, primarily due to the global influences of the former British Empire (succeeded by the Commonwealth of Nations) and the United States. English is the third-most spoken native language, after Mandarin Chinese and Spanish; it is also the most widely learned second language in the world, with more second-language speakers than native speakers.

These sentences also include the only three big languages English is closely related to, as well as the Angeln peninsula. Those three languages are also the only ones English is closely related to, which are not in the course of supersedence, like Frisian or Low Saxon. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the prioritization of the lead as "hiding" anything—it's doing what all good leads do and balancing the contents of the article, and to whatever extent is feasible frontloading the very most important information for readers. I'll be blunt here—that Frisian and Low Saxon are mentioned at all in the lead is a generous appraisal of their relevance for most readers. Remsense ‥ 论 10:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be best not to mention ANY related language? And is the intro supposed to be a summary of the article in the right order or not? So IF Frisian and Low Saxon are mentioned, it would have to be at least in the right place or not? Two of the most essential things are not mentioned in the intro - related languages and the ultimate namesake. Understanding what the word English really originally meant, or what the root word of which the designation stems from originally meant, means dealing with the etymology of Angeln. Just like with hamburgers - there is no ham on hamburgers - because the ultimate root of hamburger is Hamburg and the "burg" component means "castle", while i don't know what the "ham" part means, but that's why there is no ham. To say that English derives its name from the Angles, ok, but they in turn also derive their name from somewhere and it's the ultimate root which is the most important one to understand the real original meaning. It's interesting that even the endless story of the Romance vocabulary origins is dealt with in the intro but you don't find it necessary to talk about the closely related languages. It seems to me that the first sentence:

"English is the most spoken Germanic language, and alongside German, Dutch and Afrikaans, it belongs to the West Germanic branch."

is not desired in the introduction because of: a) .....Germanic language -> are we related to Germany?? b) .... alongside German -> are we related to Germany?? c) .... to the West Germanic branch -> are we related to Germany??

Also the Angeln part may be undesired because it's in Germany (coincidentally Saxony is also in Germany and the term Anglo-Saxon has therefore an all-German root). Ephesos21 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be best not to mention ANY related language?

No, I'm saying mention of Frisian and Old Saxon is seemingly borderline in a balanced summary of the article's contents, which is what an article lead attempts to be.

And is the intro supposed to be a summary of the article in the right order or not?

No, it doesn't necessarily need to be "in order". The ideal way to structure and order four broad-concept paragraphs doesn't necessarily map to the ideal way to structure and order the sections of a 10k-word encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Still, the first four sentences should be changed to:

"English is the most spoken Germanic language, and alongside German, Dutch and Afrikaans, it belongs to the West Germanic branch. It exists on a dialect continuum with Scots, and is next-most closely related to Low Saxon and Frisian. English originated in early medieval England, and has since evolved into a global lingua franca. The ultimate namesake of the language is the Angeln Peninsula, from which the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain, derive their name."

Because there is no reason not to mention the closely related languages. It's actually the most logical thing, and we all know that there IS great confusion about which languages English is actually closely related to. There is the French myth and the North Germanic myth haunting everywhere. And secondly, because Angeln is the ultimate namesake and not the Angles. There is seemingly enough space for the sentence:

"The namesake of the language is the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain after its Roman occupiers left."

The "after the Roman occupiers left" part can be replaced with the Angeln part, because the ultimate root seems to be more important than mentioning that the Angles only came when the Romans had left. It's also strange that the introduction even has space for the percentages of the vocabulary origins, but there's allegedly no space for the closely related languages. The vocabulary origins have undue weight in the intro, much of the article deals with the English dialects, and those are not mentioned in the intro at all. Ephesos21 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, for the reasons I've said. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you quickly explain, why the fact that the Angles settled in Britain after the Romans had left, is more important in a sentence dealing with the name origin of the word "English", than that Angeln is the ultimate namesake of the word? Ephesos21 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Because the direct origin suffices in a brief summary. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

One question: which of the following two sentences - both of which consist of 22 words - gives more infos about the name origin, or asked in a different way, is it more appropriate to mention Angeln or the leaving of Britain by the Romans in a sentence about the name origin of the word "English"?

Via the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain, the language ultimately derives its name from the Angeln peninsula.

The namesake of the language is the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain after its Roman occupiers left. Ephesos21 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The latter, because it's important anchoring context in the history of Britain for readers, and likewise for the linguistic situation given the departure of the Romans means that of Latin also. Remsense ‥ 论 13:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

But this is a sentence about the word origin. How on earth could the leaving of the Romans be more important than the ultimate namesake in a sentence that is supposed to give info about the name origins? Ephesos21 (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a sentence about the origins of the language, including its name. Remsense ‥ 论 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No the sentence:

"The namesake of the language is the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples that migrated to Britain after its Roman occupiers left."

clearly is only about the namesake. And what does the disappearance of Latin have to do with the name origin? Ephesos21 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The sentence is about what it contains, and it's a perfectly coherent sentence providing a detail both about the name origin and the historical context of the language origin itself. Not sure what to tell you at this point—maybe you're overthinking things and need to take a break from scrutinizing these sentences for a bit. Remsense ‥ 论 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I notice that you are trying by all means to keep Anglia out of the introduction. Your arguments are not convincing at all. The article is not about England but about the language, and this specific sentence IS about the namesake, and you're trying to prevent this very namesake Angeln from being included in the intro. The leaving of the Romans can be dealt with in the intro of England. It would also be possible to include both the Romans thing AND Angeln in one sentence of course. But i know exactly what you're gonna say then (too long and stuff) because your only aim seems to be keeping Angeln out. So, what do you say about including both the Romans and Angeln in one sentence? Ephesos21 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Shrug. I patiently explained my reasons to you, and that it becomes my fixation on omitting a piece of relative trivia from a summary of a summary rather than your fixation on including it is pretty ridiculous. Mazeltov. Remsense ‥ 论 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The ultimate namesake can never be trivia in a sentence dealing with a word's origins. On the other hand, a random historical fact about England, which is not connected to the namesake at all, becomes trivia in this case. If the namesake were at least partially influenced by Latin, there would at least be some sense in establishing a connection to the Romans, but not even that is the case. You don't want Angeln, the true namesake of the English language and England, to appear in the intro. And your arguments are all obsolete. Ephesos21 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure it can. Remsense ‥ 论 14:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you said you explained it patiently, but still i didn't understand. What was the exact reason again for not expanding the introduction by just a few words, and thus including the original name origin? Is it because Angeln is in Germany? After all, it's only about a few words. Few words but great gain of knowledge. And can someone really think that it's uninteresting what "English" really ultimately means? Is it not one of the most essential facts? What does the word mean, and which languages are related. Most essential but both absent. Ephesos21 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Most etymologies don't (or shouldn't) go back to the earliest reconstructed protolanguage. We stated what is indeed the only namesake for "English". In turn, the namesake for the Angles is their peninsula of origin. It's quite concretely a tangent, and one that is superfluous in the lead, and maybe even in the body. Remsense ‥ 论 15:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

But if we only know that the Angles are the namesake, we will never know what the word English means. The fact that England takes its name from the Angles gives no insight into the meaning of the name at all. The etymology of Angeln of course is the interesting thing here. And "eng" means narrow in German. I read somewhere, that it has something to do with the narrowness of the Schlei estuary south of Angeln. Ephesos21 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There's quite literally a link to Angles (tribe) provided, where their namesake is given. Indeed, many but not all will never know why who skim this article and don't click—and that's correct, because it's not that important for readers of this article. You seem unfortunately to have very little regard for how to best balance the article, which itself balances what sources say and deemphasizes what they tend not to say, so I might leave it here unless there's something more concrete than your personally favored trivia I can speak in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 15:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That's your opinion and doesn't have to be right. Secondly, the Frisian and Low Saxon thing. You said, the intro doesn't have to be in "the right order", but is there a plausible reason why the related languages appear at the very end rather than at the beginning? Or is the reason, that you consider mentioning these languages ​​so superfluous that they should be glad they're even appearing at all? In general, it would indeed be better if the introduction followed the same order as the main part of the article. Ephesos21 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's based in what sources say and don't say when discussing the origin. Many stop at the tribe. I quite enjoy etymology and lexicography personally, and moreover I personally feel knowledge of those things is important for people to have (those are my actual personal opinions) but that has nothing to do with what best serves a general readership, which is a balanced survey of our sources. That's what we're required to provide. Remsense ‥ 论 15:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes but what about the Low Saxon and Frisian thing now. It should be at the beginning. It think, that what people are most interested in, are actually the closely related languages. All the YouTube videos are about how languages are related... "yes and the Spanish feel so close to the Italians bla bla" and "Romanian is also related to Italian and Spanish although everyone forgets it bla bla..." These are the things people are talking about and interested in the most when dealing with languages. But somehow you manage it to prevent German, Dutch and Afrikaans from being mentioned in the intro. The following is completely unknown by the majority of people: that English is most closely related to Frisian and Low Saxon, two languages that are in the course of supersedence, and that German, Dutch and Afrikaans are the only larger languages it is closely related to, and at sometime, will be the only ones. This is what people are really interested in. And they think it's closest to French or Danish, we all know it. Your argument to not include those languages is apparently undue weight and that the intro wouldn't be a proper summary of the article anymore if they were included. At the same time, the dialects are not mentioned at all, and is the grammar even mentioned? A large part of the article is about the dialects, but this doesn't bother you at all. And for what there is also enough space in the intro, are the exact percentages regarding the vocabulary origin - clearly too much detail for the intro. One must therefore realize that you are only using your arguments to avert what you don't like. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

English "originated" in early medieval England

English is a West Germanic language that originated in early medieval England and has since evolved into a global lingua franca.

Originated is not false in a certain sense, but many years of teaching both historical linguistics and what might be called language history have taught me to expect that the more naive (about language in general, language evolution, etc.) the audience, the easier they can be misled -- in this instance, to conceptualize actual origin, genesis. Subsequent text in the article clarifies, but developed or emerged or similar should help to deflect the possible misconception at the outset. // Further in the sentence, evolved is a bit odd as language evolution is normally understood; a simple statement "has since become a global lingua franca" is true, simple and clear. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So... how about:

English is a West Germanic language that developed in early medieval England and has since become a global lingua franca. Wolfdog (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)