Talk:English language: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Joe Quick (subpages template) |
imported>Michel van der Hoek No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Creation== | ==Creation== | ||
I started this page myself because I thought it was odd to have an article like [[History of the English language]] without a page devoted to the lingo itself. At the moment it's extremely general and lacks evidence to back up most of the claims, and there are blank section begging to be filled in, so please feel free to hack it to pieces. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 03:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | I started this page myself because I thought it was odd to have an article like [[History of the English language]] without a page devoted to the lingo itself. At the moment it's extremely general and lacks evidence to back up most of the claims, and there are blank section begging to be filled in, so please feel free to hack it to pieces. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 03:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Just did some minor editing. I haven't got time to become heavily involved in yet another Germanic language, but I did clean up some things that are still considered "common knowledge" but that have become highly questioned (Bede's notion that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes are the sole basis of Old English). I also moved around some stuff. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 11:47, 3 June 2008 (CDT) |
Revision as of 10:47, 3 June 2008
Creation
I started this page myself because I thought it was odd to have an article like History of the English language without a page devoted to the lingo itself. At the moment it's extremely general and lacks evidence to back up most of the claims, and there are blank section begging to be filled in, so please feel free to hack it to pieces. John Stephenson 03:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
- Just did some minor editing. I haven't got time to become heavily involved in yet another Germanic language, but I did clean up some things that are still considered "common knowledge" but that have become highly questioned (Bede's notion that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes are the sole basis of Old English). I also moved around some stuff. Michel van der Hoek 11:47, 3 June 2008 (CDT)