Disputatio:Globish

Doubt

Globish seems to be a neologism adopted by a single French author to describe his teaching method. As such, I'm surprised to see the article surviving on en:wiki (which has a rule against neologisms), and it seems even more dubious for us to invent a term Lingua Globica to match. I suggest one of three possibilities:

1. If Nerrière's book is notable, which it may well be, the article could be about the book, and we should call it Parlez Globish.
2. Or if his teaching method is what's notable, maybe we should have an article about him.
3. Or, if we want an article about Global English (Google 767,000) or International English (Google 2.2 million) or World English (Google 1.5 million), which are the usual terms for this concept, we could choose whichever seems to be most used, move to it, and develop the article. All three terms are much more widely accepted than Globish (Google 64,000). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:20, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I edited my note above to add Google results to each term. Some hits wouldn't be relevant to language, of course, but the numbers are significant, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:37, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with it being moved to one of those terms. I think the article is about the language not someone's teaching technique or his book, however.--Rafaelgarcia 22:48, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: agreed. I'll get to work on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I never did more on this, but I agree with Rafael's point that this present article is about the language. Also with the point made below that Globish is a registered trade mark. So our rule is to rename this page "Globish" (compare other wikis, e.g. de:Globish). Does anyone object? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

As for each auxiliar international language, also this has its criticism and there are some discussion about it.

• It is suspected of cultural imperialism, because it spreads only one culture and language from which the subset of words is taken: this criticism is often by the speakers of other "neutral" languages, meant as language not spoken in any nation. In fact, the English speakers are only a little part of the world population.
• Globish is not an economically free language. It is a registered trademark and some marketing is done with it, since its owner did not renounce to rights on it (as for example L.L. Zamenhof did), so it can be not well accepted that a second world language is a business for one person or more. Also, often it is said do be easier as it is in real, since it is trated as a "product" to be sold. E.g. it is said that to speak Globish one needs to learn a well defined set of words and rules, but - to increase the hypotetic number of speakers and encourage people to study it - it is also said that anyone who has a basic level English does unconsciously speak Globish (so to that even Yasser Arafat has been claimed to be an "excellent exponent" of this language), without caring the level or the number of words and rule that one knows.,
• As semplification of English it is criticized for its pronunciation, not clear for not English natives. English has 38 phonemes: so much as 12 vowels and 24 consonants, and further 10 diphthongs should be added often audible, understood and well pronounced only by native English speakers (with important differences according to the place where the each speaker was born).
• It is considered an "English for dummies" by people that should learn it. After learnt it, it is not possible to watch and understand a movie in English or, in general, to understand everything written or said in English. So it is felt to be in a certain sense frustrating, an English that made learners to "be used" for job, and not for free comunication of thinking.
• Globish requires people who already know standard English to "forget" many words and use only the 1,500 ones that are allowed; this is not always easy to do (expecially if Globish is not used everyday) and they could be attempted to use words taken from the standard English, to be more precise and expressive, so that it would be teorically not possible to be understood by a Globish speaker.
• Sometimes it is not well accepted by some native English speakers, who - except some dialogues in specific contexts abroad (talk with a taxi driver or with a seller) - are not always disposed to renounce to part of English lexicon, and sometimes feel such semplifications as some sort of "violence" against the language of Shakespeare.

{{sense signar|83.29.132.97|19:03, 19 jul 2009 (CEST)}}

delenda?

Vide supra. Pagina nunc fontem nullum habet, nisi sit enumeratio .pdf verborum huius "linguae" ab auctore ipso creata. Quis nobis dicit hanc linguam notabilem esse? Quid corroborat nomen "lingua Globica"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

My first thought, on reading supra, was to delete it, but then I checked and saw that twelve other wikis (including English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish) have it. For reference, the English definition (minus the footnotes) currently is:

Globish is a trademarked name for a subset of the English language formalized by Jean-Paul Nerrière. It uses a subset of standard English grammar, and a list of 1500 English words. Nerrière claims it is "not a language" in and of itself, but rather it is the common ground that non-native English speakers adopt in the context of international business.

So maybe it has some notability among dialects and auxiliary languages. If it's kept, the name Globish, being a trademark, probably has to be its lemma. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:37, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

And the -ish of the trademarked name needs to be accommodated in the gloss; hence "Globish ('lingua quasi universa')"? ¶ L&S doesn't have globalis or globicus (it does have globatim and globosus), so I went for 'worldwide' = universus. Of course globalis may be acceptable in modern Latin (Vicipaedia uses it in numerous places, an international corporation uses it for a name, and so forth), so "Globish ('lingua quasi globalis')" might be OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:41, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

OK, but it would need a source, confirming notability, independent of Nerrière. After all, there's no saying that the creators of those other wiki entries were independent of him. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I see that in the discussion above some independent comments are already cited. We can use those. So there's no notability problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)