![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
By calling "Euro English" "a variety of English" it implies that, like other varieties of English or any other language, it has a reasonably definable vocabulary and grammar. It implies that one can decide to write a particular document in Euro English in preference to writing it in BBC British English or established U.S. English.
The examples given are simply common mistakes that non-native speakers of English make when speaking English, just as a native English speaker can be observed to use "embarazada" in Spanish to mean "embarrassed" when it means "pregnant", and and to say "Je suis plein" in French to indicate he is full when it really means "I am drunk". One might quip that the person speaks a sort of Anglo-Spanish or Anglo-French, but it doesn't follow that there is "a variety of Spanish" known as Anglo Spanish with a word, "embarazada", that means "pregnant". Likewise, unless there is a variety of English whose speakers have in common the use, not subject to correction, of "provide" to mean "foresee", then this is not a feature of a Euro English that is a discernible variety of English.
@A455bcd9: can you add any context to this? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euro English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I truly cannot make sense of this paragraph. It looks like a failed edit? Aaraak (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I see good examples of French in Euro English, but there are no examples of other Romance, Germanic, Slovak etc. languages being influences in Euro English. Add examples of how other languages add to Euro English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotechniks (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
While the UK was a member of the EU, Euro-English has been influenced and dominated by British English. With the withdrawal of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the EU, popularized as Brexit, the number of native English speaker is mostly automatically reducing to the Irish ones, giving eventually more room for romance languages
This feels like opinion, we can't know that Brexit "giving eventually more room for romance languages"
Also a bit odd to say "UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", United Kingdom of GB & NI maybe but not the other way around
--Zander Brown (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The table here asserts that the verb "planify" is a Standard English word. I have certainly never heard it or seen it in writing before, and according to Google's Ngram viewer, it came into existence, at a very low level, around 1960. I suspect "planify" is itself a Euro-English construction. According to this article, the word "planification" "assumes the existence of an unusual verb planify." This makes me think both are EU-English coinages, rather than one developing from a pre-existing native English word. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69699/11-examples-odd-dialect-called-eu-english Secondus2 (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Origin might be known: "... The OED adds that the term "subsidiarity" in English follows the early German usage of "Subsidiarität". More distantly, it is derived from the Latin verb subsidio (to aid or help), and the related noun subsidium (aid or assistance)." The footnote might be of interest: "Early German usage: Subsidiarität (1809 or earlier in legal use; 1931 in the context of Catholic social doctrine, in §80 of Rundschreiben über die gesellschaftliche Ordnung ("Encyclical concerning the societal order"), the German version of Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931))"."[1]
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect European English. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#European English until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions "Informations" and "competences", I could add "softwares" and "codes" and a long list of slightly confusing and contradictory rules around animal names.
The thing is, these aren't minor slip-ups that American/Australian/British/etc English speakers make, they are instantly recognisable as coming from EFL speakers, a bit like messing up articles and pronouns. The "rules" are horrible and governed far more by convention than logic, but that's how it is.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And "competences" is a poor example to use, we do pluralise that noun as "competencies", but I don't think the way in which we do it maps one to one with what the French do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Some words such as 'actor,' 'axis' or 'agent' are given a meaning as wide as in European languages while their meaning would keep a narrower range in native English.
OK, well there's a reference for this, the statement is actually lifted verbatim from the article, but what use is it with out a practical example, or comparison of the meanings in English vs other languages? Why did someone put that in there without explaining ... what's the point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The title says it all. I've never read, heard, or seen anyone use this word. Please tell me if I'm wrong, otherwise I will replace it with a more suitable alternative soon. TucanHolmes (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
To answer the original question, yes, but as a spoken colloquialism, never in written language. So it may be considered incorrect grammar but in common usage like "should of". Executor is possibly the right word, but the correct answer is we don't construct a sentence that way except when deliberately using non-standard English to make a point ... why say "I'm more the sort of person who wants to get things done!" when you can make the point in four words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:E1C:3F00:61B5:DDF1:63BE:BF48 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This article mixes completely different things: false friends and other typical mistakes of non-native speakers of English, the international English of Erasmus students, the jargon of EU Burocrats. The references, on closer inspection, do not prove that "Euro English" is an establish notion. -- Oisguad (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"The English adjective eventual has undergone a semantic widening " is untrue. In English, 'eventually' means 'in the end' or 'finally' or close to that (maybe 'in the end or after a long time' ?). This is a complete *change* of meaning from 'possibly', not widening. In a widening, the meaning of 'possibly' would be retained and added to, and not lost, as has alleged by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic Gazelle (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist, but if "Euro English" is based on common EU jargon, it's a variety at best (if it were actually codified, then standardized variety). People speaking this jargon come from all over EU and don't have any common "dialect" while using this jargon.
I personally wouldn't go as far as to call a mix of second-language mistakes, jargon and Basic English features some kind of "unified" variety (or dialect, as it currently stands), but I'm sure this was objected to before. We don't speak any kind of "Euro" English here, this is one huge misconception. Me and my family have different levels of English proficiency, and that doesn't make me speak a common dialect or variety of English as them, let alone someone on the other end of the continent. -Vipz (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Should the article talk about the locale English (Denmark)? iirc it was meant for europeans who wanted to keep their numbering, dates and money formats but also wanted to use English as the language 77.228.120.110 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)