Talk:List of official languages by country and territory

Italy

The list for Italy is ridiculous. Italian is the only official language nationwide. Then there is French co-official in Val d'Aosta and German co-official in Bolzano province. Stop. The other are ALL minorities'languages, not official ones, even at local level. And what about Emiliano,Piemontese etc listed in a list of Italy's official languages!OMG! (Easyboy82)

It's ridiculous to list both de facto and official. If it has not official language, then list none. Some countries have official languages, but another local language that is more common than the offficial language. How is this indicated here?

Also, the languages should be wikified. --Jiang 08:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The USA, for one, has no official language. But English is definitely the de facto national language, being spoken by the vast majority of citizens. It would be silly to list no language at all simply because none is technically, legally "official". I do agree however that the list should indicate which languages are regional, which de facto, which official; and be wikified.Matt gies 08:50, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This list is ridculous, and I'm going to put it on VfD tomorrow. How can you have "de facto" languages on a list of official languages?? If they're de facto, they're not necessarily official. Period. Change the title or it goes on VfD. Moncrief 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) And FRENCH is listed as an official language of the UK?? What! Not even de facto... oy vey. Moncrief

--Either way, it should be Scottish Gaelic, not French. Perhaps using the World Factbook to get languages? Nick04

I guess I'm not clear why "de facto" languages are still being included on a list of Official Languages. Does someone think they are the same thing or similar enough to fudge it? It's not the case, if so. De facto and official languages are two very distinct categories. Moncrief

I agree, and there's already a list of official languages. What this page is is really a List of Predominant Languages by Country, not official.Matt gies 20:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Matt, do you want to do the honor of moving to a new title? I think you or someone should. Moncrief, 20:50, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, this page should not be moved. That list is organized by language. This one is done by country. Instead, this list should be fixed so that it lists only official languages. Please cut the threats. --Jiang 00:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the list of local dialects of Italy, because this is a list of "official" languages: Italian is the one official language statewide. A 1999 Law (I'm sorry, but I don't remember its number) recognizes 12 minority languages, locally considered as official: French, Occitan, French-Provençal, Catalan, Sardinian, German, Slovenian, Ladin, Friulian,Albanese, Serbian-Croatian, Greek. The difference between a language and a dialect, of course, is not defined, but no other local way has official recognition. By the way,calling "Neapolitans" all local dialects of south is simply ridiculous, because they belong to many different linguistic groups.More, Abruzzo, in central Italy, has two different linguistic families, whose one is related to Roman and other central dialects(called: Osco-Umbrian) and the other related to the dialects of Apulia (called: Iapigian). Mirko

The Italian language isn't an official language in Libya, so i removed it.

Norway

The language of Norway is Norweigan, "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk" are only two different ways of writing it. As this is a list of languages, and not of written languages, the terms "bokmål" and "nynorsk" should not be included here. Therefore I have removed them.

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

I've found the following information on the official site of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina:

(srpski) Statutom AP Vojvodine, kao najvi?im pravnim aktom u Pokrajini, utvr?eno je da su u slu?benoj upotrebi istovremeno sa srpskim jezikom jo? i ma?arski, hrvatski, slova?ki, rumunski i rusinski jezik.

(English) The Statute of AP Vojvodina stipilates that the official languages, besides Serbian, are Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian.

I believe this proves that there are six official languages of Vojvodina. Boraczek 12:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

It is refional language. It means that Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian are languages with equal rights as Serbian.

I will rephrase it in article.--Avala 12:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

China

Huaiwei wrote People's Republic of China and removed the words mainland China with brackets. The reality is laws only govern the 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to use Mandarin Chinese as the official language. The brackets in fact made the issue clearer. - Privacy 16:24, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Come to think of it, listing the two SARS in their respective entities seems to suggest that they are seperate countries. Perhaps we should move them under the heading for the PRC, and thereby making the the distinctions clearer.--Huaiwei 18:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are dependencies (see List of dependent territories), as Aruba, Greenland or Bermuda. - Privacy 18:14, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

Guoyu

As far as I remember it used to be romanised as Kuo-Yü rather than Guoyu. - Privacy 16:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The local name of Mandarin is Kuo-Yü rather than Guo Yu. ROC doesn't use Pinyin. - Privacy 18:23, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

The ROC actually used to use several different romanization schemes. My copy of the "重編國語辭典", a dictionary published by the ROC government itself, lists 3 different romanizations for every entry.

That said, the official romanization scheme now is supposed to be "注音二式", in which "國語" is indeed romanized as "Guo yu".—66.163.1.120 16:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Official Languages of Ghana

In the article there are 15 official languages, used in “formal” or “non-formal” education. The following website: [1] lists 9 “government sponsored languages” and the areas were they are spoken. Dose anyone know anything about this? Zntrip 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional Official Languages

In addition to Ghana the following countries may have additional official language:

Austria: Croatian, Hungarian, and Slovenian and perhaps others are official in some municipalities.

The Central African Republic: Some tribal languages may have official status.

China: There are additional minority languages in some autonomous regions which may have official status.

Italy: There are 4 minority languages that are not included on this list, but I don’t know were they have minority status. (List of Languages of Italy and Italy the note about languages)

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: There are languages including Albanian, Turkish, Serbian, and Romany, which are official in some municipalities. -- Zntrip 23:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wales is Not a Country

The term "constituent country" is used to describe the major subdivisions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (except for Northern Ireland). None of the constituent countries claim to be independent from the United Kingdom and are not recognized by any foreign state. To list Wales, Scotland, or England on this page would not be proper because they are not real countries, nor do they claim to be. – Zntrip 22:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC) But Wales has its own Government and passes its own legislation. Welsh is currently an official language in Wales via Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011/Mesur y Gymraeg (Cymru) 2011 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/section/1/enacted/welsh or http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/section/1/enacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.121.124.132 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Country, Nation and State

Oh dear. I see that zntrip has not bothered to do his homework. Here are the links he will need if he wants to avoid future boo-boos: State, Country, Nation. You see, all three words do not mean the same thing. If they did, there would be no need for three different words. The UK is not a country, but a state, however , because I am not a fundamwentalist like zntrip, I am willing to have a double entry under both UK and Wales. If only he could be that reasonable. I am forthwith reinstating Wales. Here is the deposit he left at my talk page: " == Wales == Please stop this nonsense. Wales is part of the United Kingdom, which is a country. How can Wales be its own country when it is part of the United Kingdom? It can’t. French Polynesia is called a country, but that’s right — its part of France. The article, list of official languages by country, only includes countries that have international recognition and claim to be independent. Please do not put Wales on this page again. – Zntrip 23:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)." Sad, but true.--Mais oui! 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC) --Mais oui! 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this list be compiled in accordance with the list of countries, like many other lists by country? — Instantnood 10:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

I just made a few revisions that I wanted to justify to everyone: (1) reworded the first paragraph and added a definitions section (partly in conformity with Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and (2) for a few languages, added frequent alternate names.

I also had a few questions to ask:

(1) Within each country's listing, should the dominant official language(s) (e.g. English and French for Canada) be set apart from the rest of the listing (typically consisting of minority languages)?

I mean, it's a bit confusing to get lost in half a dozen minority languages with the internationally-known state-wide language buried half-invisible in the middle.

(2) (Tosk is the official dialect): is there a more technically concise way to phrase this? Such as, (official dialect: Tosk). I'm concerned some may object to the adequacy of the term dialect, even if scientifically correct.

(3) At the risk of stirring up a can of worms (see above), I wanted to talk about China (PRC).

Chinese (statewide) (pointing to Vernacular Chinese) is listed. (Standard) Mandarin is also listed. Does China makes a distinction between these two and offically recognizes both? I could be wrong but my hunch is that it does not. Putting Vernacular Chinese in there is redundant, as it is not officially recognized. Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is the premier official, state-wide language and the only Chinese language recognized with the exception of regional use for Cantonese. Can we remove Chinese (statewide)?

Unless--is someone putting it there to draw a distinction between Putonghua (technically Standard Mandarin) as the universal written language and Mandarin as a spoken language? (see: Chinese spoken language) But even then, one out of the two almost certainly should go as I suspect only one is officially recognized. Thanks --Dpr 08:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Vernacular Chinese should be removed; I’ll take the liberty of removing it. About Albanian, I read that Tosk was the dialect that the government used, but I don’t think there will be any objection to the use of the term dialect. I don’t think it is necessary to put dominant languages on the top of the list. The languages that have (statewide) after them are the dominant languages. Now about the alternate names, I see to many problems arising, because many languages have different names and I think the page will look too messy with additional names after all the languages. I think the name for languages on the list should be the same as that on the language’s page. (I.e.: Catalan not Valencian.) But I do like the new section at the top. -- Zntrip 16:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that liberty ;)! I appreciate your support. About the page becoming messy--well, it's a possibility. My intent was to label a very small number of those states who truly have a very prevalent alternate name (e.g. Pashto)--my intent was not to encourage a proliferation of such alternate names beyond those few cases where it was truly necessary; I certainly had to impose forbearance on myself as well! But I understand what where you're coming from: you may be right. Thanks again! --Dpr 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vernacular Chinese?

**Chinese (official statewide)

Instantnood added this item back into the entry for China. However, does anyone else support this? Wasn't this resolved above? Instantnood, are you asserting that there are two state-wide official languages in China, (1) Putonghua (Standard Chinese or Standard Mandarin) and (2) Vernacular Chinese? --Dpr 04:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dpr I did not notice a discussion over Chinese has started here. As I have explained to Zntrip at her/his talk page, Chinese is one written language, but many spoken languages. Chinese as the written language is official, wheareas Putonghua (or Standard Mandarin), being one of the many spoken Chinese languages, is the official spoken language. — Instantnood 06:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, linguistic articles show that there is not just, in fact, "one written language" of Chinese. There are, actually, many Chinese dialects and many written Chinese languages based on those dialects, though none are nearly as prevalent as Standard Mandarin/Guoyu/Putonghua.

Chinese as the written language is official, wheareas Putonghua (or Standard Mandarin), being one of the many spoken Chinese languages, is the official spoken language.

The "Chinese as the written language" you speak of is, in fact, the written version of Standard Mandarin/Guoyu/Putonghua. Therefore the spoken language and written language are the same. Had Classical Chinese been retained as a written standard, it would be a separate language from spoken Putonghua/Standard Mandarin. Written documents, in a province today are written in Putonghua, even if the people speak a different dialect. This is because the written language is based on Standard Mandarin which is not the native language of the place. I don't think the two can be separated.

If what I say seems incorrect, we can seek guidance on the Chinese language talk page, or identify official Chinese public sector sources which designate what the official language or languages is/are. Thanks. --Dpr 07:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Chinese as a written language is actually not based on Standard Mandarin. Standard Mandarin or Putonghua was defined by the PRC government in 1955 as the official spoken language based on pronunciations in Beijing dialect, and grammar syntax of modern written Chinese [2]. In fact the development of modern written Chinese predated Putonghua. In the Law of the People's Republic of China on National General-purpose Language and Characters 中文 (or 汉语文) and 普通话 are not treated as the same thing. Mandarin or Putonghua itself always refers to the spoken language, and never the written language. — Instantnood 10:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record I'm a him. Zntrip 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Zntrip, do you mean, "I'm for him"? It does seem that Instantnood is right, though the situation is still a bit complex. --Dpr 06:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Still it is repeatedly removed. — Instantnood 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No I was just saying I'm a male ;) As I have explained to Zntrip at her/his talk page. – Zntrip 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol. ;-) — Instantnood 05:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Minority languages

Are languages with geographical scope indicated in parentheses (but without specific annotation as minority languages), be assumed to be so (e.g. Slovenian (in Friuli-Venezia Giulia))? Should they be explicity annotated? Thanks --Dpr 04:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Slovenian is an official language in Friuli-Venezia Giulia. I just don’t know if the Italian government classifies it as a minority language. In Switzerland, for example, there is no nationwi-, uh, I mean statewide official language, but each canton has one or more official languages. Zntrip 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Forget what I said, I have a better answer. All languages on this list are official languages. If it has (national) next to it, it is also a national language. If it has the name of a province, territory, etc., next to it, it is a regional language in the specified area(s). If it has (minority language) next to it, then and only then, it is a minority language. Of course, some regional languages may be minority languages, but are not followed by (minority language) such as Slovenian in Friuli-Venezia Giulia. – Zntrip 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Official Written Languages

Why do we have to have written Chinese on here could someone please explain why the Chinese are special? Other countries have official languages and official written languages; so why Chinese? – Zntrip 03:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Zntrip, as you saw it was me who added that you can address your question to me. The reason is that, as I interpret it, Instantnood just stated above that China has an official written language (Vernacular Chinese or Baihua/Baiwen). Instantnood, please back me up here. The Chinese are special in a manner of speaking due to their unique linguistic history and the nature of their written language. If any other countries have such distinctions, they do in fact belong on the list as well. Thanks --Dpr 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dpr is right. Chinese is one written language but many spoken languages, which Mandarin is among one of them. Chinese (as the written language) is the official written language, and Mandarin is the official spoken language. — Instantnood 04:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly question the logic of adding the official writtern script into this list. Singapore officially uses Simplified Chinese for its Chinese writting system, but do you ever see this listed as an official language? Why do you insist on listing V. Chinese, and not S. Chinese, if you know want to include writting systems? What next? Pinyin?--Huaiwei 09:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Vernacular Chinese is not a script (i.e. traditional Chinese vs. simplified Chinese). Vernacular Chinese is modern written Chinese, as opposed to classical Chinese. — Instantnood 09:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"modern written Chinese". Thanks for the confirmation. Now find us any source which lists "modern written Chinese" as an official language together with Potonghua/Guoyu/Mandarin.--Huaiwei 09:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You know well Standard Mandarin and Chinese are not the same thing [3]. Is there any source that they are writing in standard Mandarin, which is always a spoken language and never a written language, instead of Chinese? Or are you going to say the two are just the same thing? — Instantnood 10:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to repackage established texts, and is not a venue for original research. I have yet to come across ANY literature which lists V. Chinese as an official language together with Putonghua/Guoyu/Mandarin. Have you offered us anything to verify this claim? It is not so much about how different they are. Do we regularly see writtern scripts being listed as official languages? Do wikipedia have to make an exception? In the same vein, can we add Pinyin, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese etc to this list?--Huaiwei 10:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Since scripts and romanisation methods are not language. Don't mix a language with scripts and romanisation methods. — Instantnood 11:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Modern English is a language too. Shall we add that as an official language alongside English Language in all relevant countries?--Huaiwei 11:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If Mandarin and Chinese are not the same thing, which one is spoken and one is written, what should be listed as the official written language then? — Instantnood 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it normal to list writtern languages as official languages? It is the same old question you are not answering.--Huaiwei 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If any other language has such distinctions, yes. — Instantnood 12:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So can you find us any official (or even secondary) source which lists writtern script as an official language together with the spoken for the PRC and the ROC?--Huaiwei 12:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about script here. — Instantnood 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in playing wordgames here. I still await verification of facts (and I dont really care if this is seen as an "instruction" or not).--Huaiwei 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei. Nowhere is the Chinese writtern languages listed as an "official language." Written language and spoken language are different things. This page is only for spoken languages. – Zntrip 22:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao are stating that Chinese is an official language [4] [5], and, as far as I know, the Republic of China is having laws requiring foreign-language television programmes to have Mandarin illustration (國語說明) or Chinese subtitles (中文字幕) [6]. If this page is only for official spoken languages then I'd say it has to be renamed accordingly, or else we'd be implying written languages are not languages. — Instantnood 13:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In what way does [7], [8], or [9] tells us anything that V. Chinese is an official language in any country? Your request that this list specify only "spoken" languages is quite out of this world, because as we repeatedly say, no respectable source in the world today apologises for not listing writtern scripts in lists of official languages. Afterall, can you find us any source which specifically calls Traditional Chinese the national language of Taiwan, let alone V. Chinese for any other entity on Earth?

Can we all please refrain from allowing ego to take centrestage and logic to take the backseat?--Huaiwei 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Practically only vernacular Chinese (白話文) is used in official purposes, not classical Chinese (文言文). In mainland China simplifed Chinese characters is the official script (note: not official language), but afterall we're not talking about script here. The subject matter is the distinction between Chinese, as a written language, and Mandarin a spoken language. — Instantnood 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You cant seem to make up your mind. So I suppose we now have three distinctions: Spoken Chinese, Writtern Chinese, and "Writing style" of Chinese (for the lack of a better description). And as far as you are concerned, the People's Republic of China has been grossly inaccurate all these while for only declaring Putonghua as their official language, coz they should be declaring Vernacular Chinese and Simplifed Chinese as their official languages too? Shame also for the rest of the world in committing the same gross offence?--Huaiwei 16:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To repeat, nobody is talking about script (i.e. traditional vs. simplified) here. Not even vernacular vs. classical, since in modern times only vernacular is an active language. The matter is the distinction between Chinese, as a written language, and Mandarin a spoken language. — Instantnood 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have to repeat, it means people cant comprehend what you are trying to get at. So now what? You want to add Chinese and Mandarin as official languages?--Huaiwei 17:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this list is exclusively for spoken languages, or failed to acknowledge the fact that spoken language and written language can be different. If it's the former, this list may have to be renamed accordingly.

The possible analogy to illustrate the differences between the written Chinese language and the spoken Chinese languages would be: Imagine Sweden, Denmark and Norway are one country under one central government, with three major spoken languages. The three spoken languages share one common and unified written language. One of the three spoken languages is designated official language, and the shared written language is designated official.

In the case of the PRC as well as the ROC, Standard Mandarin, a dialect of Mandarin, and Chinese (the written language) are official spoken and written languages respectively. — Instantnood 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The same points appear to be repeated, along with the associated errors in it. I kind of wonder why Scandinavian countries are being targeted again. There has been an endless debate over whether the various Chinese dialects are languages or not, largely because they share the same writing system. The writing script, nor the writing style, is considered a "language" in their own right, just as no language in the world are split into two "languages" in terms of the spoken and writern word, at least as far as linguists are generally concerned. Do we consider the roman alphabet as a language? No. If we apply this to the Scandinavian analogy, then those three spoken variants are likely to be considered spoken dialects rather than languages.

Trying to "distinguish" the article between the spoken and writtern style is trying to twist an international listing for the sake of one perculiarity. How many other languages see a need to make such a distinction?

I would like to remind once again, that no country as yet in the entire world distinguishes its official languages according to the spoken and writtern variants, even amongst Chinese-speaking entities. For all these while, the assumption has always been based on the spoken, and wikipedia will be making a glogal exception by listing writtern scripts in an "official language" page when their respective countries do not do so. This appears to contravene several wikipolicies, including Wikipedia:Verifiability (has he been able to show any "official language" listing writtern languages?) and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought (If unverified, expanding this list to distinguish between spoken/writtern etc is not found outside wikipedia, and amounts to original research).--Huaiwei 13:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

" no country as yet in the entire world distinguishes its official languages according to the spoken and writtern variants.. the assumption has always been based on the spoken " I doubt if this assumption is justified.

To repeat, nobody is talking about writing script here. Languages are never defined by scripts. A language can be written in different scripts, and it is still one language. Different languages can share the same script, but that doesn't mean they are the same language, or languages of the same language family. The debate on whether Chinese spoken variants are languages or dialects is not a result of a shared writing script, but rather, because of a shared written language. — Instantnood 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Then proof to us that the assumption is not justified. I think I have made countless calls for you to show us if any country on this planet lists a script/writing style as their official language alongside that of the spoken. Your failure to respond simply enforces this assumption. The assumption is not invalidated just because you say it is so.

And so, mind telling us what you are actually calling for? I do not think it didnt come to people's attention that you tried to add Simplified Chinese/Traditional Chinese (which are writtern scripts) and Vernacular Chinese (a writing style. Writtern language? Not always). Your above literature makes no mention of how you should consider it justifiable to list writing scripts or styles, something I have been asking all these while. Instead, you continue to assume that others cannot tell what a script is.

Meanwhile, I find this quote rather interesting. (Source: [10])

Putonghua/Guoyu "embodies the pronunciation of Peking, the grammar of the Mandarin dialects, and the vocabulary of modern vernacular Chinese literature, but features of various local dialects were also incorporated."

Is it therefore neccesary to list vernacular Chinese as an "official language" when it is claimed to be incorporated into Putonghua/Guoyu?--Huaiwei 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The edit that simplified and traditional script were added to the list was my mistake, and is undone. Nobody is talking about script here, but language. But then as you have asked, yes the PRC does have a law (quoted before [11]) stating that regulated characters (規笵汉字, i.e. the simplified script) and Putonghua should be used.

If it were true that modern written Chinese is only the written form of Standard Mandarin as you have claimed [12], then I would be wondering if you are going to tell a speaker of Shanghainese who speaks little Standard Mandarin, for instance, that she/he has been speaking one language (Shanghainese being a dialect of Wu), and yet writing in another language for her/his whole life. This is a question you have not yet answered directly [13].

In fact written Chinese is a written language shared by several spoken languages. (And as a matter of fact, I have already quoted the interesting quote before [14] [15], just that you might have missed it.)

If only spoken languages can be official languages, then are governments printing their documents in their official languages? — Instantnood 17:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sure I constitute "somebody", so "nobody" is an erroneous word to use. Next, you appear to have grave incapabilities in understanding what it means for a country to designate a language as an official language. In what way does this declare that simplified script is an official language? Even if you want to insist it does, and you now actually backtracking what you just said, and is now trying to add Simplified Chinese as an official language of the PRC? In what way does my statement above equate to your conclusion that "modern written Chinese is only the written form of Standard Mandarin"? You appear to have problems comprehending my statements, so it is no wonder that you then claim I am not "answering your questions". For instance, what question do I need to answer in [16], when your question over "Chinese" isnt even related to what I was talking about in the previous comment? What does the fact that Chinese script being borrowed by multiple languages has anything to contribute to this discussion? Are you going to add Traditional Chinese as an official language of Japan next? And last but not least, your last statement is surprisingly ignorant. The government prints in whatever writtern form their spoken languages utilise. Could you show us any country on earth listing writting scripts as official languages together with their spoken variants? Do countries where English is an official language also list the Roman alphabet and Modern English as their official languages? Or take the Malay language. Do Malaysia list the Roman alphabet as the official language least people decide to go back to using Jawi? Coming back to the Chinese language, has any country/territory with any form of the Chinese language as their official language listed the writtern script, or the writtern style, as their official languages, even when a choice exist, hence the need for the Chinese govt to set in law the script to be used? Going back to what has already been asked...does this constitute as a national language? If so, mind telling us why is Simplified Chinese missing in Section 153A of the Singapore Constitution, which states that:

Official languages and national language

153A. —(1) Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 official languages in Singapore.

(2) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script:

Remember me drawing the example of the Malay language? Now, according to your definition, Roman script will be an "official language" just because the law says it should be used. So mind explaining to us why this did not happen?

How many times have I been asking this question, because Instantnood's endless rheotics seems to be answerable constantly by the same question anyway? :D--Huaiwei 18:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion to determine whether scripts, be it traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, etc., should be included on this list. Rather, this is to discuss if Chinese (as a writtern language) and Standard Mandarin should both be listed. It was you who kept on asking if any country is listing a script as official (note: script, not language.. nobody has ever said official script = official language, or script = language), and therefore I mentioned about the law. I did not say script = language.

From what you said [17], you have effectively implied and asserted that written Chinese is just the written form of Standard Mandarin, official languages can only be the spoken languages, and the languages on government documents are the written form of the official (spoken) languages. Please substantiate this claim. For what I know, the real side of the fact is that written Chinese is a writtern language shared by several Chinese spoken languages. If your claim that Standard Mandarin and written Chinese are the same is not substantiated, then both Chinese and Standard Mandarin (Putonghua for the PRC, Kuo-yü for the ROC) shall be included in the list. — Instantnood 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not? Then mind telling me what is the whole issue about over Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and sources like these? You made quite an interesting statement there. May I know what do you write if you are not using scripts? You insist on talking about Chinese as a "writtern language" without talking about scripts, when you are actually talking about Classical Chinese/Vernacular Chinese, which is more of a writing style than merely as a writing language (the later usage of which is confusing for people less familiar with the Chinese language). While not a perfect analogy, do you consider Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and Modern English as distinct languages, fit for inclusion as official languages alongside English? You try to claim that "no one has ever said official script = official language, or script = language" Oh? So why are we still talking about adding scripts to official language lists? And meanwhile, you appear to be less upfront in telling us why you consider writing styles as official languages too?

Once again, I question your basic ability in reading paragrahs in (hopefully comprehensable) English. In what way do any of my statements suggest that "written Chinese is just the written form of Standard Mandarin"? This is an original claim by you I have no part to play in, so perhaps you should be explaining to us how you came to this unusual conclusion. Next, you question the idea that "official languages can only be the spoken languages". I am quite humoured by your insistance that I substantiate this "claim". This article itself is proof. Every single list of official languages as far as anyone can find consistantly lists spoken languages, and not written ones, IF the two are distinct, ie, there are more than one script for that particular spoken language. I think I have listed more then enough examples for your reference. On the other hand, you have yet to show us if Malaysia has the roman alphabet as its official language?

That "the languages government documents are the written form of the official (spoken) languages" is not exactly a complete sentence, but if I may speculate, you are seemingly now asking if government documents are always in their respective official languages? If that is what you are implying, then no, and this is not what I implied too anyway. I merely indicated, that when governments need to write documents in their official languages, they use whatver script is used for their spoken languages. If a choice exists, then some countries do indicate formally the choice of script to be used, such as how the PRC and Singapore does so in the above examples. But as I then asked...does this amount to them becoming "official languages"? You arent answering me, and instead, appear to constantly misrepresent and misquote me with your own imaginations of what I am actually saying.--Huaiwei 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

From the naming conventions for Chinese-related topics: " In general, one should avoid using the term "Chinese" to be synonymous with the spoken Mandarin Chinese. ". — Instantnood 18:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So why are you trying to add Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Vernacular Chinese to this list?--Huaiwei 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have already admitted [18], that was a mistake, and is undone. What we are discussing here is whether Chinese the written language (note: not script) should be included in this list. We'll also have to decide which article should be linked to, if it is decided to be included. — Instantnood 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have not avoided discussing the addition of Vernacular Chinese thou. Meanwhile, I have been asking myself for a long time...Chinese written language? I did not know we have a new "language" only for writting, despite having learnt to write it since goodness how long ago. What is its Chinese equivalant? Has this article amounted to being a site for original research by calling Chinese writing (and its styles) a "language"?--Huaiwei 21:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "new language", but a written language shared by several spoken languages. Nobody is saying that writing styles are languages. — Instantnood 21:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Vernacular Chinese is a writting style, and so is Classical Chinese. Your exercise in adding Vernacular Chinese in this list includes calling it a "language". Similarly for Classical Chinese, itself saying it is a writing style, is a part of the article Chinese written language, the later of which quite unexplainably called itself a "language". You "nobody is saying XXX" refrain is getting old and surprisingly dismissive and irresponsible most of the time, as demonstrated in this case yet again.--Huaiwei 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was because I was unaware of the Chinese written language article, and thought vernacular Chinese and classical Chinese were the only articles talking about the Chinese written langauge. If Chinese written language is the article that talks about Chinese the written langauge and can be linked to, the next thing to do is to decide if Chinese, as a written language, should be listed; or else, rename this article as "list of official spoken languages by country" (or "list of spoken official languages by country"). — Instantnood 00:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already quite clearly stated that I question if a "Chinese written language" exists in the first place. I could barely made sense out of your comments above, irregardless. Meanwhile, I think I have addressed your idea of turning this article into one on "spoken languages" more then extensively already, and to which you still hadent verified your statements. If you still cannot show us that writtern scripts/languages/styles/whatever-you-want-to-call-it enjoy "official language" status in any country, then what is the rational of changing this page title?--Huaiwei 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are we debating semantics, rather than looking at the actual laws?

Article 19 of the Constitution:

……国家推广全国通用的普通话。

... The state will promote the national common [language] Putonghua.

Article 2 of the Law on National Common Language and Script (中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法):

本法所称的国家通用语言文字是普通话和规范汉字。

The common language and script referred to in this law are Putonghua and standard Chinese characters [i.e. Simplified Chinese]).

As such, it can be seen that China does not have an "official language", only a common language, which is Putonghua. China also has a common script that is used with the common language and appears to have the same "official" status, i.e. Simplified Chinese.

-- ran (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ran. What Huaiwei actually wanted to know was: if there's any script designated an official language. And the answer is obvious. Scripts are not languages, unless leaves are plants. — Instantnood 09:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You answered the exact problem you tried to introduce into this article. You wanted to change this page title to "List of official spoken languages by state", when you yourself admits that "scripts are not languages". So is there a need for this page to be changed at all?--Huaiwei 11:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Christ.. Script is one of the components of a written language. Written languages can be official. — Instantnood 12:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And there you go again. Writtern languages can be official? Proof? And what do you mean by "Script is one of the components of a written language", when it is basically refering to the writtern form? Is "writting" a language? You still hadent answered these questions.--Huaiwei 12:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Take Hong Kong as an example: Cap 5 s 3 states that English and Chinese are both official languages. Cap 5 s 4 says all ordinance shall be enacted and published in both official languages. If a language can be used to enact and publish laws, is it a spoken or a written language?

If scripts, be it characters, alphabets, whatsover, are not components of written languages, what is the relations between scripts and written languages? (This is beyond the subject matter here, so please don't go into details, or perhaps proceed to relevant talk pages.) — Instantnood 12:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow....so from those two sources, we have conclusive evidence that writtern "languages" are official? I have heard of officially designated writtern scripts, but never on "writtern languages", if the later exists at all. I have argued that "Chinese writtern language" is not actually a "language". Class/ver. Chinese are Chinese writting styles which has evolved over time, so are they "languages"? What are your two sources supposed to demonstrate?

Next, scripts are not "components" of a writtern language? Yes, because a "writtern language" does not exist. "Writing styles" and "Writting scripts" do. Still cant get this into your head?--Huaiwei 13:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If there were no written languages, then what is written Chinese? What are the relations between written Chinese and the spoken languages of Chinese? What language is the PRC and the ROC governments using in its written documents? — Instantnood 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Writtern Chinese is what is it: Writtern Chinese. It is not a language. When I learn "Chinese" in school, I dont see myself learning two languages, and no one thinks it is so too. The PRC government writes Putonghua in simplified script. The ROC writes Guoyu in Traditional script. Simple. You mean you didnt know this? :D--Huaiwei 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the connections between written Chinese and any of the Chinese spoken languages is like two languages.  

" The PRC government writes Putonghua.. ..The ROC writes Guoyu.. " Great.. so are you going to tell a Shanghainese speaker who speaks little Putonghua/Kuo-yü that she/he has been writing in Putonghua/Kuo-yü in her/his whole life? If they write Putonghua/Kuo-yü, why does the ROC bother to say 國語說明 and 中文字幕 in its law [19]? Why not 國語字幕? — Instantnood 18:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nobody" = Instantnood who insists that Chinese writting = a language. Hence, someone who speaks putonghua and writes in Chinese script is using two languages. Right? Wrong? A Shanghainese speaker writes Shanghainese in whatever script he so chooses, although there is little distinction between writtern Shanghainese from that of writtern putonghua anyway. If you want to tell this person that he is writing in Putonghua, he will more likely snap back at you that he is simply writing in Chinese (汉字). I dont think I am bothered to do something that stupid. Meanwhile, what "language" is 中文字幕?--Huaiwei 19:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

(response to Ran's comment at 01:26, October 8) From this, can we then conclude that Putonghua is not the official language of China, but is only a de facto official language?--Huaiwei 11:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

" [C]an we then conclude.. "  No. What Ran has done was a direct literal translation, unless you can argue an officially designated common language is not an official language. — Instantnood 12:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Its not like I cant read it myself. So by the above, are we now interested in debating the true status Putonghua have in China? Come to think of it...where is ver. Chinese in the whole picture?--Huaiwei 12:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is so stupid. Written Chinese is not a language. A way that people communicate a language is through writing, the written words are part of the spoken language. They are not a different language. Its that simple. – Zntrip 19:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The spoken languages of Chinese are so diverged and are not mutually intelligible, more so than Danish and Swedish, or Italian and Portuguese, that many, if not most, linguists classify them as separate languages. Yet speakers of these different spoken languages write in the same way. What would you call this shared written language then? — Instantnood 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Written languge is a way of communicating a spoken languge. The Chinese written languge is what it is a way of communicating spoken dialects of Chinese through writing. – Zntrip 23:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

How would you comment on the fact that the languages of different Chinese speakers are not mutually intelligible, yet they write in the same way, as though it's one language? — Instantnood 06:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Written Chinese satisfies all the defining properties of human language:

• 'Arbitrariness:' There is no relationship between a sound or sign and its meaning.
• 'Cultural transmission:' Language is passed from one language user to the next, consciously or unconsciously.
• 'Discreteness:' Language is composed of discrete units that are used in combination to create meaning.
• 'Displacement:' Languages can be used to communicate ideas about things that are not in the immediate vicinity either spatially or temporally.
• 'Duality:' Language works on two levels at once, a surface level and a semantic (meaningful) level.
• 'Metalinguistics:' Ability to discuss language itself.
• 'Productivity:' A finite number of units can be used to create an infinite number of ideas.

Written Chinese is also different from any spoken variety of Chinese in grammar and vocabulary.

On the other hand, I should point out that Vernacular Chinese (the modern standard style of Written Style) is not mentioned anywhere in the documents I quoted above. Only Putonghua and Simplified Chinese characters have official status.

-- ran (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that some members in wikipedia has taken to redefining the status of certain aspects of languages irrespective of how overall views within linguistic circles at least generally agree as. If one applies any form of writing system in the above, then it too qualifies as a "language". Is this the way we do things here?

Language, if I may quote directly from the article, is a system of expression and communication. We all along know, that communication can take place via various mediums, the most familiar, and earliest of which to mankind is through sound (although one can argue that sight is also expression and communication). The Chinese language, like most other languages, developed its spoken form much earlier then its writtern one, but does this mean we have "two" languages developing, even if lapses occur in the syncronisation of the two over time?

Some appear to take Spoken language and Written language literally as "languages" in their own right, but is this though well established, even when the two can be "quite distinct" as mentioned? Spoken language is seen basically as the spoken aspect of languages. Ditto for writing. Are they independent languages, even if the above two phrases exist? For example, "Written language" is often used interchangeably with "Writing systems", suggesting it is far from suggesting a distinct language in every instance.

"Written Chinese is also different from any spoken variety of Chinese in grammar and vocabulary."? Are you therefore suggesting, that it is impossible for me to write down what I say in Chinese word for word, and vice versal, without being grammatically incorrect and realising I do not have a chinese character for each word I use? What "language" has I been unconciously learning when I learn to write Chinese since young, if it is not Chinese?--Huaiwei 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No one is taking spoken language and written language as languages in their own right. What we have to acknowledge is the fact that Chinese is one language when written, and several languages (or, to be more politically correct: several not mutually intelligible spoken variants) when spoken. — Instantnood 06:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

To argue by example, if people in Italy who speak Venetian dialects, Piedmont dialects, and Sicilian all use standard Italian for writing, this does not prove that Italian is "one language when written," but rather that all three have learned to use a language/dialect non-mutually intelligible (or poorly intelligible) with their native language, or L2 (which may happen to be native language for many people in Italy).

"Official" written Chinese—whether considered (a) only similar/related to/a basis for Putonghua (Mandarin) or (b) essentially identical to it—is merely a Chinese written language, only one among many written Chinese languages/dialects. Chinese is not "one language when written"—Cantonese, Minnan, etc. all have written forms (unless "one language when written" is taken to mean a single written standard language statewide).

When users of one of those languages/dialects use or learn official written Chinese, this does not mean they are using/learning a hypothesized single written Chinese super-language, but merely learning or writting (transcribing) a particular Northern Chinese dialect/language that has been created/designated as the official standard.

How would you comment on the fact that the languages of different Chinese speakers are not mutually intelligible, yet they write in the same way, as though it's one language? — Instantnood 06:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "they write in the same way"? They may use (roughly) the same characters to transcribe their languages as spoken, just as speakers of English and Turkish both use the Latin/Roman alphabet. If they all use standard written Chinese, that means they have learned a L2 (with possible/probable exception of native Mandarin speakers).

Written Chinese is also different from any spoken variety of Chinese in grammar and vocabulary. -- ran (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese language, like most other languages, developed its spoken form much earlier then its writtern one, but does this mean we have "two" languages developing, even if lapses occur in the syncronisation of the two over time? [...] Spoken language is seen basically as the spoken aspect of languages. --Huaiwei 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I know Instantnood is saying that no one is taking written and spoken languages as languages in their own right, but it sure seems like this may be a danger. In any case, most written forms of any language do diverge from the spoken forms, sometimes by very little, sometimes significantly. These different forms (registers) do not imply that different languages exist: Do you speak the language of the UN Charter or the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps not, but would you claim that the language you use and the language of those documents are different languages?

However, there does come a point when the two can be considered separate languages, even if they are used in the same time period by different or the same social groups. Case in point, Classical Chinese (Wen yan wen) and vernacular Chinese (Bai hua) are different languages (actually, Classical Chinese and the vernacular Chinese dialects). Or Classical Latin and vulgar ("vernacular") Latin--perhaps a Roman lawyer wrote in the former and spoke to his wife in the latter, buth they are still two different languages. --Dpr 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The analogy of Italian would have to be read with care. Unlike Italian and Venetian, which Venetian speakers write in Italian as an L2, written Chinese is not considered to be the written equilvalent of any of the spoken Chinese languages, although a large part of its foundations was on Mandarin (note: Mandarin here refers to the language/group of dialects, not Beijing dialect or Putonghua). The development of vernacular Chinese, the modern form of written Chinese, predated Putonghua. It's true that Min Nan, Wu, Cantonese, etc., can be written... but so as Beijing dialect (belong to the northern group), Chengdu dialect (southwest) or Wuhan dialect (Jianghuai) of Mandarin. They are all considerably different from written Chinese, and are not commonly functioning as languages as per the criteria Ran has listed above, with the arguably exception of written Cantonese.

Chinese speakers have long been accustomed to write in a way which is quite different from what they speak, that written Chinese and one's own spoken language is rarely, if not never, considered separate languages. Nor do non-Mandarin speakers consider themselves writing in Mandarin. The connections between Written Chinese and any one of the Chinese spoken languages is not like separate languages. Just that we have to acknowledge that Chinese is one language when written, but several when spoken. — Instantnood 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Written vernacular Chinese may have predated Putonghua but is it not the case that current-day written Chinese is essentially the same language as spoken Putonghua (differing only in register)? The former may have a higher register, but they are certainly the same language, and would be thought of as such by most of their users today—not to say, of course, that these users are necessarily native speakers, in the main (though some may be, today). In other words, if you asked university students in 2006 who hail from Guangdong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Liaoning, etc, whether the (1) language they converse together in is different from what they (2) write their exams in or (3) what the Chinese commercial code is written in, would they identify 2-3 different languages, or only one?

It's a fact that written standard Chinese doesn't perfectly coincide with any "original" Chinese dialect, but it does coincide with spoken Putonghua today. (So the cart came before the horse: written Chinese was developed, and now it has become the spoken standard, rather than developing a written standard equivalent to a spoken language...but in reality it's not completely different from the creation of Italian from Tuscan; the former wasn't identical with the latter but merely based on it.)

Anyway, today, in certain areas the dialects (fang yan) are in decline, with family members routinely speaking to each other in Putonghua in some cases. The number of native speakers of Putonghua is growing (also cf. Mandarin in Singapore). It doesn't seem fair, in any case, to say that the language these individuals speak is a different language than the written standard (even if it differs in register).

By the way, Minnan would certainly seem to be a viable "written language" (cf. the Zh-minnan Wikipedia).

Best, Dpr 08:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Putonghua is defined by the PRC based on the phonology of Beijing dialect, vocabularies of Mandarin and the grammar syntax of modern written Chinese (以北京语音为标准音，以北方话为基础方言，以典范的现代白话文著作为语法规范的现代汉民族共同语) [20]. Putonghua and written Chinese are rarely said to be the same thing, especially by non-native speakers of the dialects of the northern division of the Mandarin. Chinese and Putonghua are taught as different subjects in classrooms in Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 10:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In international academia today (including a large number of instructors/academics from China teaching worldwide), there is only one Modern Chinese language, not two distinct written and spoken standards: spoken it may be equivalent to Putonghua, written it may be theoretically equivalent to modern written/vernacular Chinese (现代白话文 or Bai hua), but the two are not seen as different languages. Of course that's not to say all forms of Mandarin are seen as equivalent, but the modern standards—whether written or spoken—are considered the same language: modern Chinese or modern standard Mandarin (MSM).

If you were to ask, in 2006, students at just about any Chinese university—who would hail from many different places such as Guangdong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Liaoning, etc...or workers at a major firm in Shanghai where Putonghua was spoken as well as written...or workers in a government office...whether the (1) language they converse together in is different from (2) the language they write their exams or their reports or paperwork in or (3) the language the Chinese commercial code (for example) is written in, would they identify these as 2-3 different languages, or only one? --Dpr 17:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the relations between written Chinese and Putonghua, or written Chinese and Shanghainese (or Cantonese, or Hakka) are like two languages. Written Chinese is shared by all the spoken Chinese languages, and Putonghua was developed partly based on it. A native speaker of Shanghainese who speak little Putonghua can write the same Chinese as a native of Beijing do. Nobody actually writes Putonghua. People write in Chinese. The same for "Chinese subtitles", not "Kuo-yü subtitles" [21]. This is in fact reflected on Wikipedia by the naming conventions for Chinese-related topics: " In general, one should avoid using the term "Chinese" to be synonymous with the spoken Mandarin Chinese. ". — Instantnood 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I was following this conversation between instantnoof and Dpr, and I am beginning to get the impression that Dpr is a Chinese speaker, while Instantnood is not. I would caution against taking what is writtern in the naming conventions too literally. "One should avoid using the term "Chinese" to be synonymous with the spoken Mandarin Chinese" cautions against users who assume Chinese is nothing but Mandarin Chinese, while Cantonese, for example, is another language. There is a need for this, as it is a rather common misconception amongst those less in the know about the Chinese language. In addition, some forget, that the term "Chinese" can refer to an ethnicity, a culture, a country, a nation, a state, etc, and not merely a language...or even a single aspect of it. Does it actually apply to this situation in discussion here? Not exactly.

People write in Chinese. Yes, exactly as I said a long time ago. But to say that people "do not write in Putonghua" does not mean people do not use a specific writing system for any other specific dialect. Written Cantonese, for instance, so far the only Chinese dialect I know which has distinct characters not used amongst other Chinese dialect speakers. Can someone write in Cantonese? I was kinda wondering if the so-called "Chinese subtitles" appearing in Hong Kong movies are catering to the Cantonese or Mandarin-speaking community, and there are no discernable difference?--Huaiwei 20:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends. In the 1980s and late 1990s some films have the Chinese subtitles in standard written Chinese, while some others (perhaps more) have subtitles nearly word by word the same as the dialogues. Now they can easily produce different versions for different markets. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is so sad. Written Chinese is not a languge! Are some of you crazy? Some user pages say that this user knows Mandarin or Cantonese or English, but not Putonghua. People don't say "I know Mandarin, English, and Putonghua." Written Chinese communictes words of Chinese dialects. – Zntrip 23:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1) I'm pretty just it's just a battle over terminology now.

Standard Mandarin is academically recognized as one single language, in the contemporary period. When it's written (some feel) it should be called written Chinese and when it's spoken, it is Putonghua (or a certain variety of many Mandarin dialects)...but regardless, it is linguistically the same language (today).

Does anyone disagree with my question above? If we were to poll people who routinely use both spoken Putonghua and written Chinese, would they maintain they are using 2 different languages? The spoken Putonghua words a university student, or financial firm employee, or government worker, utter, are, when written down, written Chinese. (I think Huaiwei was trying to state this earlier).

2) A native speaker of Shanghainese who speak little Putonghua can write the same Chinese as a native of Beijing do.

L2 learners who can write in Written Chinese but not speak Putonghua are no different, linguistically, than people who can read/write Latin but can't speak it. In either case, we're still dealing with the same language.

If old Official Mandarin (Guanhua, 官话) and colloquial Mandarin dialects (北方话) are compared, these would actually be distinct languages/dialects, but this is not the case today. Originally there was a distinct vernacular Chinese which developed into a written standard (Bai hua [wen])—which was then the basis for Putonghua—and was at the time distinct from any colloquial Mandarin dialect. But for people today currently learning or using standard Chinese/Putonghua in school or on the job, etc. the two are essentially the same, single language. There is a distinction from a historical point of view, and Chinese law refers to this, but linguistically they are now the same (except for different registers).

3) Should they be listed as 2 separate languages? A case can be made for both sides.

Adding written/vernacular Chinese as a separate language would make China a unique case among all the states listed on this page. If we only put down Standard Mandarin on the list, this would be correct linguistically (today), yet incorrect in terms of historical perspective and also official terminology.

(However, Standard Mandarin is not a term used in official Chinese documents; in official contexts, no term unifies them despite their scientific/linguistic unity...except perhaps Hanyu 汉语. Maybe the fact that Putonghua, the concept, is intrinsically a spoken language, makes it understandably incompatible with a designation as a written language, and makes it difficult to recognize the two as one language but at least in international [i.e. non-Chinese language] contexts, we can use "Standard Mandarin" and correctly encompass both written and spoken.) --Dpr 00:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, speakers of different Chinese spoken languages have long been accustomed to write differently from what they speak, and nobody would actually consider themselves to be writing Chinese as a second language, nor to be writing in Putonghua. Both written Chinese and their own spoken language are native to them. Written Chinese and a spoken Chinese language are not the same things, but they are not two separate languages.

Although it's true that the development of modern written Chinese (baihuawen) was considerably based on the northern group of dialects of Mandarin (note: Mandarin here does not mean Standard Mandarin/Putonghua/Kuo-yü, it means the language that Putonghua is a dialect of), elements of other dialect groups of Mandarin as well as other Chinese spoken languages were brought into it by writers and advocators of baihuawen who spoke other spoken languages. Many famous Chinese writers by then were from places like Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Guangdong and Sichuan.

Linguistically some may argue modern Standard Mandarin/Putonghua/Kuo-yü and modern written Chinese share many characteristics in common, nevertheless in terms of terminology it is plain wrong to say people write in Standard Mandarin. It is also wrong, and perhaps hegemonic, to say modern written Chinese is Mandarin on paper. — Instantnood 08:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This I have to disagree, even though I am also opposed to regarding Mandarin and Chinese as the same thing: There is precedent in referring written Chinese as Mandarin on paper. First, the textbooks I had way back when I was in primary school in Hong Kong refers to the subject of (written) Chinese as "國語". Second, the Chinese Protestant version of the Bible is also referred as the "Mandarin (官話) version" by its publisher on an article on the translation's history.

I still vividly remember that when I took Chinese in primary school, the teacher talked about "國語和口語的異同" (differences and similarities between Mandarin and the colloquial language), although we learnt zero spoken Mandarin. —Wing 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall the subject was actually called 中國語文, meaning Chinese language, 國文 or 中文 for short. 國語 might be another variation, but I'd doubt if that would actually mean Mandarin. The Bible is published in many languages. I am not too sure when was the Guanhua version you're talking about published. If it's called Guanhua version it possibly predated the development of modern written Chinese (Baihuawen) and the recognition of the pronunciation of Beijing dialect as the foundations of Kuo-yü by the ROC government in the 1910s. The Bible was also published in written Cantonese and Pe̍h-oē-jī. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that the Cantonese one too. I was quite surprised when I bumped into it in the public library.

As for the 官話 version, which is still the predominant version being used, it was published in 1919. It was in the early years of the formation of modern written Chinese, not exactly predatingit. —Wing 02:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the Chinese Union Version article, work started in 1890, and finally published in 1919. This history of the development of Kuo-yü between 1920 and 1935 is perhaps relevant here. — Instantnood 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

(response to Zntrip's comment at 23:04, October 9) Which user page is saying this user knows Mandarin? Why speakers of not mutually intelligible languages write the same thing? — Instantnood 08:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I screwed up. :( But still, nowere is wrtiiten Chinese listed as a languge. On the People's Republic of China page the official languge is "Manderine" and at the bottom it is noted that there is an official writting standard. Diffrent things. – Zntrip 22:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That isnt a fault of yours thou. If there is a classication for Mandarin, I would be adding myself to it. Instead, we have, for some reason, a category for Chinese language, for Min Nan, and for Cantonese language.--Huaiwei 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's "zh" Babel code is ambiguous. On the user template it says "written Chinese" (中文) and on the category template it says "spoken Mandarin" (漢語). We either should drop zh-yue or create a zh-guoyu (official IANA code) category; in either case we should at least make the user template and the category template consistent.

About written Chinese as an official language, please refer to http://www.legislation.gov.hk/chi/home.htm. Chapter 5 section 3 clearly states (deliberately or not) that "written Chinese" (中文) is an official language (法定語文).

Now look up chapter 5 section 3 from the English page, at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/home.htm, and it says "The English and Chinese languages are declared to be the official languages of Hong Kong" (without saying whether it's written or spoken); nowhere does it mention either Mandarin or Cantonese, only "Chinese". —Wing 18:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

中文 may mean the Chinese language in general, or specifically written Chinese. From the context of the Chinese version of Cap 5 s 3 there is no clue to tell which meaning is it using. As for Babel, I believe the code zh was intended for people who can write in Chinese, communicate with other contributors on Wikipedia in Chinese, and contribute to the Chinese version of Wikipedia. zh-min-nan was created because of a Min Nan version exists, and both zh-min-nan and zh-yue were created because there are users whose speaking ability of any of these languages is different from their proficiency in written Chinese. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That was also what I thought, until I accidentally found out that in the category, it is 漢語 instead of 中文. I do think 漢語 is normally taken to mean Mandarin. If it really means written Chinese, I think that should be changed to 中文 to avoid confusion. —Wing 02:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. 漢語 is ambiguous comparing to the clear contrast between 中文 and 普通話. — Instantnood 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

(response to Zntrip's comment at 22:23, October 10) The PRC infobox says Chinese is an official language, and Putonghua (the name of Standard Mandarin in the PRC) is the official spoken standard. — Instantnood 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The infobox dosent really say Chinese is the official language in China. Anyway, like I asked many times before, notice it makes no mention on Chinese writing?--Huaiwei 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of official languages, including those prescribed by laws, orders or regulations, and de facto ones. In other words whether or not the official status is recognised by legal procedures is not relevant here. If Chinese as a written language is not official at all, what would you think the PRC government uses on written documents that possess the force of law? — Instantnood 22:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of official languages indeed, and Chinese is but one language already listed. I do not think anything is lacking, as do others who have participated in this discussion so far. Most of us apparantly need greater convincing.--Huaiwei 23:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So could you please tell what is the PRC government using on written documents, say, joint communique on establishment of diplomatic relations, trade and customs agreements? Is that Putonghua? If it is not, what is it? — Instantnood 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I have already answered this question. It is writtern in Chinese characters to reflect Putonghua. What else can it be? Hanyu Pinyin?--Huaiwei 09:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've found something interesting: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. — Instantnood 10:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From the above links it's pretty obvious the PRC do not call the Chinese written language Putonghua. — Instantnood 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses

Should categories such as minority language be put in separate parentheses from the regional location, or all in one set of parentheses--such as Irish/Gaelic (Northern Ireland only; minority language) OR Irish/Gaelic (Northern Ireland only) (minority language)?--Dpr 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I just did it to be consistent. I would say that they should be separate. – Zntrip 22:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan

The short name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" and therefore will be located under "T" beacuse the list is classified by the short name. – Zntrip 04:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Only states, which are defined as sovereign, internationally recognised, independent political entities, are listed. This is not a list of countries or nations, although many states listed, are simultaneously also countries and/or nations." - Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of China, the territory of Taiwan is clearly not soverign. Nor "Taiwan" satisfies the standard of international recognition. It should be removed. Besides, among the extremely few countries that have diplomatic relations, they recognize only "Republic of China". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.39.96.94 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand in which way you decided about countries to list. 1) This is not a list of States recognized by UNO, because Taiwan is recognized only by Vatican City and definitely not by UNO; 2) This is not a list of States recognized by almost one country, because you missed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (not recognized by UNO, but recognized by Turkey)and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, whose two buildings in Rome, Italy, are recognized as a sovereign State by a lot of countries, though not by UNO; 3) This is not a list of de facto States, because you missed Transdnestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh,Tamil Eelam, Somaliland and others, all States de facto existing and administering their territory. On the contrary, you included officialy recognized States which are not really existing, such as Palestine (de facto occupied by Israel), Afghanistan and Iraq (de facto occupied by USA) and Somalia (de facto divided into many different States and whose government lives in exile abroad). And neither this list is full, because you missed Western Sahara, partially recognized, but de facto occupied by Morocco. Can you explain how do you chase the States to list, please?

Given that Western Sahara, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, and the Palestinian Authority are listed, Taiwan should be included. Under the definition of "sovereign, internationally recognised, independent political entities," Taiwan would technically meet each requirement. Given that it has its own government that exerts political control over the island as well as maintains its own military, Taiwan would satisfy the requirement of a "independent political entity."

As sovereignty is the "quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory," as the ROC government exercises supreme and independent practical control in all sense over Taiwan, that requirement is met.

Taiwan as the ROC is recognized by 23 UN member nations and possesses numerous diplomatic missions and embassies throughout the world. Therefore, it would be internationally recognized.

The policy of the Taiwanese/ROC government has been to refer to the state as the "Republic of China (Taiwan)," with Taiwan being the short name. As states like North and South Korea are referred to with the aforementioned designations and not the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "Republic of Korea," Taiwan should be listed as said under "T". Hartnrm (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By country versus by state

Why this list has to be sorted by (sovereign) state? Most similar lists on the English language version of Wikipedia are sorted by country. Is there any specific reason? Thanks. — Instantnood 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, last fall, this guy (Mais oui!) kept adding Scottland and Wales to the list. I reverted his edits. He told me that the were countries and then he changed the page name. See here, here and here. – Zntrip 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The constituent countries of the UK are not creating the same problem on other by country lists. Why should this list be an exception? Why is it necessary to restrict this list to be sorted by sovereign state, instead of by country? — Instantnood 16:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what his logic was, if you want, go ahead and change it. – Zntrip 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Iff it's not getting into trouble again. ;-) — Instantnood 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

France

The status of French polynesia (artilce # 7)says that "Le français, le tahitien, le marquisien, le paumotu et le mangarevien sont les langues de la Polynésie française." So why my changes about marquisian, tuamotuan and mangarevian have been reverted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jussia (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Statewide"

I wanted to add the following explanation to the Definitions section to avoid confusion, but I'm confused myself and not sure it's correct. Can someone verify it? If it's true, add it; otherwise add whatever the true explanation is because, as this comment illustrates, it is confusing. jnestorius^(talk) 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• statewide means across the listed sovereign state. For example, under Austria. "Croatian (in Burgenland) (statewide minority language)" means that Croatian is spoken in the federal state of Burgenland within Austria, but is recognised as a minority language across the entire sovereign state of Austria, not just in Burgenland. On the other hand, under United States "French (in Louisiana)" indicates the language is official only in the state of Louisiana.

Historical official recognition

I am interested in listing languages which have historically had official recognition, but not currently. Illinois recognised "American" as the state's official language in 1923. That stayed on the books for the next fifty years. Comments? samwaltz 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a new list, since I think that information would be awkward to fit within the confines of this one. Would you want it to include official languages in states in states that no longer exist, where these differ from those in overlapping current jurisdictions? -- Avenue 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland

Silesian has no official status. Additionally German and Lithuanian are minority languages in some municipalities. --xRiffRaffx 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of page, presentation of list

This article seems to deal more with "languages with an official [formal legal] status" rather than "official languages" (the latter category being somewhat tricky even). Would there be any support for renaming the page accordingly?

Also, looking at the list I realize that a lot of work has gone into it, but (1) see that a lot of work is yet to be done on what is listed for many African countries, and (2) wonder if a table format might be more useful. The latter might get complicated since you run into the issue of the inherent fuzziness of the categories, but with asterisks it might be easier for users to browse.--A12n (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Palau

CIA World Factbook says Palauan is official "in all islands except Sonsoral (Sonsoralese and English are official), Tobi (Tobi and English are official), and Angaur (Angaur, Japanese, and English are official)" 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730 made English the official language of the law courts. m.e. (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And this law was repealed over 130 years ago. There is no official language of the UK as a whole. 86.139.115.77 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

'Cornish'

Is there really such a language as 'Cornish' today? I thought it was a myth. And does anyone have any evidence that it has any official status, even in Cornwall? There is nothing in the Cornish article to suggest so anyway. m.e. (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[28] It's not an official language but an officially recognized minority language, and as such cases are included in this list, all is in order. -- Jao (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a cite of that article as a supporting source to the article, per WP:V. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Zambia

English is the official language of Zambia, and there are 7 national languages: Bemba, Kaonde, Lozi, Lunda, Luvale, Nyanja, and Tonga. So maybe someone can add that edit. (I don't know how to edit the pages.) also, here's a citation: Spitulnik, Debra. 1998. “Mediating Unity and Diversity: The Production of Language Ideologies in Zambian Broadcasting.” In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity, eds. Pp. 163-188. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace500 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

How about we say under Georgia something like

Russian language is considered official by the separatists controlling the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhasia.

? It's entirely factual, it doesn't address whether or not the separatists have merit to their control, and it informs the reader of Russian language's status in this area. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Only is Kosovo is listed under Serbia, and if Taiwan is listed under the People's Republic of China, and with the same notation. If others are listed separately, then it has to go for all. It's the only way to reach NPOV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your POV. However, reality is different: in reality, the status of Kosovo (recognised by dozens of countries) and Abkhasia (recognised only by Russia and Nicaragua) are quite different, and lumping them together would be misleading. Also, the status of Republic of China is considerably different from both of them: ROC has elements of recognition from most of the world's countries, but for political reasons, it's done in unusual ways such as the American Institute in Taiwan, essentially an embassy with another name. Taiwan is something like reverse Ichkeria: Ichkeria was recognised only in form, but nobody took it seriously; Taiwan, OTOH, is taken seriously by everybody, and unrecognised only in form. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think listing the partially recognized regions separately is the clearest and most neutral solution. It leaves it up to the reader to decide what to think of the regions' current status. Offliner (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

The entry for Mexico is wrong. The Constitution does not state any official language, but there are 63 indigenous languages that are explicitlly recognized as national (General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples) together with Spanish. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Mexico) Ajusco —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Namibia, the Netherlands

Some adjustments made in Namibia and The Kingdom of the Netherlands, regarding the true situations there. (Afrikaans being the lingua franca of Namibia, Dutch being official nationwide in NL)

Comment

The current version of the article is confusing. The article sometimes uses the word "national" to designate a "national language" (e.g. Burkina Faso) but other times the word is used to designate that the language is official with respect to the national government but not necessarily subnational governments (e.g. Canada). The term nationwide is used in a few places, and the term statewide in others, but even that is confusing and inconsistent. (Because "statewide" might be taken to refer to a subnational unit, such as the states of India, Australia, or the USA.) --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Only Azerbaijani has a official status in Azerbaijan. Russian is only spoken by half the population of the capital (Baku), its a minority language of the city of Baku, that has no place in the list of official languages by state Neftchi (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the constitution of Azerbaijan Republic, which clearly reads that Azerbaijani is the state language. Neftchi (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're much too trigger happy and obviously did not read the articles lead: It includes all languages that have official language status either statewide or in a part of the state, or that have status as a national language, regional language, or minority language. Pay another attention to the word Russian in all other Ex Soviet nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But does Russian have official minority language status in Azerbaijan? As it says in the article: "Minority language: (as used here) one spoken by a minority population within the state and officially designated as such" Munci (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian is only spoken by barely half the population of Baku, and if you need a lesson in topography - Baku is not all of Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We might be getting mixed up here. My reply was intended towards Xrai who did not read well the article himself despite telling you, Neftchi, off for not having done so. Munci (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic "de facto" official in Nova Scotia?

According to Nova Scotia's own article, there are less then 1, 000 speakers of Gaelic in the province. Perhaps it was "de facto" official at one point, but it certainly isn't now. It has virtually disappeared. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 11:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

There is no regional language recognized in Hungary, so I removed German. And added all the 6 officially recognized minority languages. Links were added too. --maxval (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the reference to the constitution in Hungarian for one in English. I also found this link on the official website of the union about the minority languages, it indicates there are even more recognized languages?Nico (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation is the following: in Hungary there are 13 officially recognized ethnical and national minorities, and their languages are recognized as "official minority" languages. However under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Hungary has granted status of "recognized minority language" only to 6 of these 13 languages. So there are two levels of recognized minority languages: those recognized by both an international agreement and by national legislation, and those recognized only by national legislation. This is the de iure situation. The de facto situation is that there is almost no possibility to use any of the minority languages, there are so much technical difficulties that it is virtually impossible to use a minority language in Hungary. A friend of mine went to a local authority saying "I want my issue to be resolved in Croatian", the people working there first looked at him strange, and then said him "OK, come back in 2 weeks, we will try to find a translator until then"... :-) --maxval (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Order

What kind of alphabetical order is this? Why is "Ivory Coast" sorted under C? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.249.133 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's local name is Côte d'Ivoir. But you are right, Germany isn't under D, Switzerland isn't under H, Finland isn't under S, etc. The list should be consistent. --Dbjorck (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Eritrea

Where did you find that English would be the official language of Eritrea? Really, Eritrea has no official language. However, Arabic and Tigrinya are the de facto official languages of the country. Lele giannoni (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

[29] CMD (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland

An editor has been adding Somaliland to the "Partially recognised states" sub-heading alongside states that are actually partially recognised. The problem with this is that Somaliland has no recognition at all as a state, and is instead internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. Logically, it therefore belongs in its own section that should be clearly labeled "Unrecognised territories" or some variation thereof. He has argued that this is a problem because apparently "giving Somaliland its own category does not help the reader with the topic of this article in the slightest". Correcting patently false information, as done here, is obviously helping the reader; offering him/her instead misleading info is certainly not. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a twisted presentation of the situation; an editor has merely reverted your separation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the Partially recognised states section is just to separate states whose statehood is in great question from the rest. Dividing it up further doesn't help the reader with the subject of official languages, and breaks the well boxed TOC. CMD (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was I corrected the false claim in this list that Somaliland is amongst the Partially recognised states of the world (it is internationally recognised as a region of Somalia). I did this by creating a new Unrecognised territories heading so that Somaliland's actual unrecognised status is clearly indicated rather than continue to misleadingly insinuate that it is partially recognised by listing it under the Partially recognised states heading. You then proceeded to revert that edit for what can only be described as weak reasons. The table of contents/TOC bit is a non-issue and can easily be worked around. The territory's actual status, however, cannot. Middayexpress (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Somaliland is listed on this wikipedia page under the Partially recognised states heading. However, unlike the cited states, it has no recognition as an independent state and is instead internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. Given this, would it be more accurate to list the territory under a new, separate sub-heading titled Unrecognised territories or some variation thereof? Middayexpress (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it is essentially a de-facto state within territory that the Somalian government claims but does not control. As such, I can't really think of any candidate better than Somaliland for the "partially recognized states" section. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland has no recognition as an independent state. It is internationally recognised as an autonomous region of the Federal Republic of Somalia. As Tony Blair explains: "The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community." [30] Middayexpress (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Partially recognised states is simply a useful catch all in this case. Most territories in that section are almost universally recognised as various regions of other states. Their exact international status (or lack of) is unrelated to the focus of this article, and will not help the reader with understanding the article topic. Further information about each one is always present in the wikilink. CMD (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If the international status of those territories were irrelevant here, then they shouldn't have been listed under the Partially recognised states heading indicating their status in the first place. But then again, many could not be neutrally listed as countries either; so their status is by default made relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I noted their "exact" international status is irrelevant. As you note, they don't really fit in with the majority of countries, but since there's only 10 of them they make a nice section unto themselves. CMD (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• CMD is right here. This list should focus on languages. Intentionally tangling it up in wikipedia's endless disputes about the exact wording used to describe the status of certain territories would be bad, but that's exactly what will happen if we start adding extra pigeonholes into which territories can be assigned depending on their exact international status. "Partially recognised states" is fine. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A territory's status obviously matters here because it is explicitly written in the lede that "only states, which are defined as sovereign, internationally recognised, independent political entities, are listed." Middayexpress (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

endless bickering....try 'partial' and see how it holds up. Soosim (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment : responding to RFC. I have previously been asked to comment on this topic and it strikes me as being very contentious. From my study of international relations as a postgraduate student many years ago, the matter should be looked at from an international relations perspective. It would be good if editors who practitioners or academics could comment specifically. It is however a matter of transition where factors come into play. My preference would be for Nation States claiming (or pursuing or with incomplete) international recognition. I think that the word Nation is critical as there are a number of federal Nation States where the individual states have considerable autonomy. Isthisuseful (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Add to Partially recognized states - I think adding Somaliland to that section is a good way to go. I agree you can get too caught up in trying to use really exact wording when in this case, we really just want to differentiate independent states from not so independent ones since the focus of this article is solely the language used in the states. Ender and Peter 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• From a linguistic point of view, it does not matter weather a territory is recognised as a sovereign state or not. From a categorisation and organisational POV, I believe it best to let the wording stand almost as is, while noting in the article that the country of Somaliland has no International recognition. Again, it makes almost no difference to the quality and usability of the article if any such differentiation is provided, but since the title itself is indicative of the 'List' like nature of the article, it would be best to make these changes. --HarshAJ ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Somaliland isn't a partially recognized state as they are the only ones who "recognize" themselves. Take a look at the list of states with limited recognitions and the graphic on the page. It doesn't seem like that much more of a stretch to start recognizing Texas if we are going to recognize Somaliland.Dreambeaver(talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Rather than create a separate sub-heading, the existing one could be broadened so as to include such entities as Somaliland without encouraging the reader to infer something untrue. Something like “Partially recognized and de facto states”, perhaps? Otherwise I agree with Enderandpeter and HarshAJ.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What an utter mess!

I came here expecting a list of official languages by state. And it lists loads of minority languages?! They have no place here in my mind; there are plenty of language articles about. There are Chinese communities everywhere, should every country list all the Chinese languages as minority languages??? There's China Town in the US... A couple of countries even list sign language. Really?? Why does that belong in this list, and only for those countries? There are deaf people everywhere, you know. I say, restrict the list to only official languages, de jure and de facto. Nothing else. And no language should be allowed to be added without a reference. And EVERY language should state if it's de jure, de facto, and in what region if not statewide. Currently the list is not consistent at all. Frankly my dear, it is ugly. --Dbjorck (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Denmark

List of official languages by state lists Danish as statewide official language of Denmark, consistent with Danish language. But the article Official language lists Denmark as one of fifteen countries without an official language.

Which one is correct? Please discuss here: talk:Official language#Denmark--Nø (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Total number of languages in the list

I've been looking all around for a total of how many languages in the world have official status. While this list is perhaps the closest thing I've found, it does not mention the total number of unique languages in the list, although that would be super helpful. Is there any quick way to count this or do we just do it by hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.240.149 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana (United States of America)

This page says "French (in Louisiana)," and yet the Louisiana page itself only lists English.  Which page is correct?  This discrepancy should be resolved.  allixpeeke (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of official languages by country and territory. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530095532/http://www.leismunicipais.com.br/twitter/222/legislacao/lei-2251-2010-pomerode-sc.html to http://www.leismunicipais.com.br/twitter/222/legislacao/lei-2251-2010-pomerode-sc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328015129/http://gabeira.locaweb.com.br/causas/causa.asp?id=941&idSubd=40 to http://gabeira.locaweb.com.br/causas/causa.asp?id=941&idSubd=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402095437/http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=604 to http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=604
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402000000/http://www.ipol.org.br/upload/Image/lei1.jpg to http://www.ipol.org.br/upload/Image/lei1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403102145/http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2008/Regional_und_Minderheitensprachen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile to http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2008/Regional_und_Minderheitensprachen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090717092821/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20%28Eng%29.htm to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20%28Eng%29.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328053229/http://www.orusovo.com/namcon/ to http://www.orusovo.com/namcon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Osetia

Abkhazia and South Osetia are not recognized countries and should not listed in this list as a countries. If those are listed as a just territory than Georgian Language is official and Russian must be excluded.--Paata Shetekauri (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of official languages by country and territory. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225173704/http://www.parlament.al/eng/dokumenti.asp?id=1117&kujam=Constitution to http://www.parlament.al/eng/dokumenti.asp?id=1117&kujam=Constitution
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226203613/http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfgh-site/english/downloads/englishverfassung.pdf to http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfgh-site/english/downloads/englishverfassung.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030413081529/http://www.senate.be/doc/const_de.html to http://www.senate.be/doc/const_de.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918053759/http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=83 to http://www.ipol.org.br/imprimir.php?cod=83
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120604042024/http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/saogabriel.html to http://treinamento.folhasp.com.br/linguasdobrasil/saogabriel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402095438/http://www.sinepe-pe.org.br/noticias/municipio-do-ms-adota-o-guarani-como-lingua-oficial/ to http://www.sinepe-pe.org.br/noticias/municipio-do-ms-adota-o-guarani-como-lingua-oficial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217010705/http://www.presidencia.gov.ec/modulos.asp?id=110 to http://www.presidencia.gov.ec/modulos.asp?id=110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115152902/http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/036C62FE5F92F2EFC1256F5B0054FA42FR?OpenDocument&3FR to http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/036c62fe5f92f2efc1256f5b0054fa42fr?OpenDocument&3Fr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Corrections needed for UK/GB/British entries, +

The page is called "List of official languages by country and territory", but it includes other languages.

The introduction needs to explain exactly what it means by "countries and dependent territories"; and whatever terms are used must be used in accordance with their UN-regognised meanings.

I think that the language of Brazil might be better described as "Brazilian Portuguese".

One needs to disinguish between written and spoken languages. The prime example is perhaps China, in which I believe that the written Chinese language is the same throughout but the common spoken Chinese of some regions is more-or-less incomprehensible in other regions.

Gibraltar exists, and is not Spanish.

The Falkland Islands exist, and are not Argentinian.

A Tamil language page exists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language

None of the following places are in the UK, & IoM + IP should be preced by "the" :

  Pitcairnese (in Pitcairn Islands)
  Guernésiais and French (in Guernsey)
  Jèrriais and French (in Jersey)
  Manx (in Isle of Man)

Guernsey and Jersey are (when not knitwear or cattle) islands (+ islets?). The Channel Islands (when not American) are two Crown Dependencies: the Bailiwick of Jersey, which is the largest of the islands, and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, consisting of Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Herm and some smaller islands. Therefore, if Guernsey is mentioned, one should either also mention Alderney, Sark, Herm, and Jethou, or use "the Bailiwick of Guernsey"; and in the latter case one should also use "the Bailiwick of Jersey".

The UK is a State; England, Scotland, and Wales are countries and nations; and Northern Ireland is administratively on an equal footing with those.

The first column should be in three parts, in this order :

National States (recognised as such by the UN, whether or not Member States)
Countries which are not so recognised
Inhabited Territories not included in the above

Be guided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories !

94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Cooks and macrons

Turnagra, I am happy to expand my reasoning here. One of the pillars of the macron debate is that in NZ macrons are so widely used they are part of NZ English. As articles with a heavy leaning towards one particular country can use that county's variety of English. This guideline is usually used for simple UK-US spelling, but it sometimes has a wider scope. Hence, macrons in NZ articles. This article is not NZ specific so that guideline does not apply. I accept that macrons are now usually used with English in NZ, but I do not see how that also is the case outside NZ, sometimes yes, but usually not. This principal has been in place for a while now and I think generally accepted by editors, including NZ editors. Hence a macron with the word Maori in a NZ based article; no macron with Maori in non-NZ based articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from with that, though this seems like an unnecessary distinction and we shouldn't be intentionally misspelling words. The page for Cook Islands Māori uses macrons throughout and in the title, so in this instance at least it's consistent with the direct usage on Wikipedia about the language. Turnagra (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I realise the rule I outlined results in different spellings of the same word in different articles, but that is no different from words like color/colour. This macron issue is not the same as the placename issue so I want to make that clear, the issues are not the same. I think we need to be clear if we are using Maori as a Maori language word (hence using Maori spelling), or using an English language word, hence English spelling. You say the 'correct' spelling is 'Māori'. Even if I agreed with you that is only the correct spelling in NZ because NZ English is treating the word as a foreign language word. Writers in, say, Texas, will likely use the word Maori without a macron because the word Maori is treated there as an English language word, and English invariably does not uses macrons. To claim it is the correct spelling worldwide is rich, if not a touch arrogant I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines for words such as colour/color also expressly say that you shouldn't edit a page just to change it from one to the other. At any rate, I would have thought that the arrogant approach would be instead to use the spelling of a completely unrelated area for a group - such as someone from America saying that the New Zealand Ministry of Defence has spelt its name wrong. The macron aligns usage on this article with usage elsewhere regarding the language, people, and culture, and doesn't make things more difficult for anyone.

As an aside, I never once mentioned place names and I'd thank you to not drag that into here as well. Turnagra (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I will try to summarise my view on macrons as best I can. Foreign language words enter the English language all the time and as they do they go through stages of assimilation that varies from word to word. In a general sense, the spelling moves from an exact copy of the foreign spelling, though adaptations to align with the Roman script, English usage of that script, ironing out awkward pronunciation (for English speakers) to an accepted anglised version that becomes fixed. That word has been an English word throughout these stages, because it is used in the English language, even at the start when it was the same as the foreign language word. It can also evolve by changing the words meaning when used in English. Definitions vary but generally the word starts as a 'foreign' word, becomes a 'loan' word, then becomes a word of foreign origin. Some Maori language words have progressed through these stages to the last stage where they have become fully assimilated into English, which includes an anglised spelling and meaning. The word Maori, spelt without a macron, is one such word. It is therefore wrong to say it is being misspelt without a macron. Misspelt in te reo, yes, but in English no. What has been happening in recent years is an attempt to move words like 'Maori' back in time to when they first entered the English language when they would most likely be viewed as 'foreign' words which would be written closer to the foreign language spelling. (This assumes the current Maori language spelling was in place when the word 'Maori' was first usedd in English, which it was not.) I think it is wrong to do that: languages evolve all the time and the current non-macron spelling of certin words is simply the anglised version of the Maori word. It is unfortunate that so many people take offence at that when it has nothing to do with insulting the original foreign language of a word. There are countless words in English of foreign origin that bare little resemblance to the spelling in the original language: are we going to go round changing all of those too? There are te reo words starting to be used in English now. I would expect them to be spelt close to if not the same as they are in Maori, including macrons - but over time I would expect them to become more anglised, which would probably mean any macrons would be dropped. I am sorry if this sounds like a lecture or if to you it is patently obvious, but I do not know you, and in the past I have often felt that other editors have not understood my point, which is not the same as understanding it but disagreeing. I think your example of an American spelling our defence force as the 'Ministry of Defense' is off topic. If the term refers to that ministry then it should be spelt with a 'defence' because it is the name of that entity: if it refers to the broader less defined way in which we manage our defence then it can use 'defense'. It is no different from the term 'Prime Minister' or 'prime minister' - both spellings can be used correctly in context, and incorrectly out of context. The word 'Maori' in any regional form of English can be used with a macron, in context, but in most cases the context will dictate it should not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to say, but your hypothesis is completely opposite what's actually happening. A lot of the arguments around macrons were outlined in the RfC on them, which while it was on macron use in place names does outline quite a few good points about macron use generally. In older documents, macron use is almost non-existent - even in pivotal documents around te Tiriti o Waitangi or other Māori sovereignty areas. In the past 20 years of so, there has been a marked increase in the use of macrons in New Zealand English (and overseas when talking about NZ topics). In some instances this is important, as Wētā Workshop learnt recently. Instead of your claim that macrons will fall out of use, their use is actually increasing with an emphasis on using the proper spelling for words derived from te reo Māori. As for the defence argument, you've actually completely understood my point and agree with it - just as the Ministry of Defence have said that their name is spelt with a C and as such that should be used, Cook Islands Māori have said that their name includes a macron and as such this should be used over alternate spellings.

At any rate, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and we need to go with current usage - which is overwhelmingly to use the macron. Turnagra (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles?

I propose: List of official languages by country and territory ("Official language" and "National language" columns), List of regional official languages by country and territory ("Regional languages"), List of recognized minority languages by country and territory ("Minority languages"), and just get rid of the "widely-spoken" column, which shouldn't be in this article anyways. The 6-column approach leaves a ton of whitespace, very long article, and a bunch of those terrible tall and skinny cells. Multiple articles would greatly improve readability, in my opinion. However, you'd lose the ability to, for instance, compare regional languages and minority languages within the same country. Thoughts? Linshee ☺ 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello 2600:1700:37F0:8CB0:6C97:DA06:34A1:8178 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand and Maori

The article Languages of New Zealand says that "The Māori language of the indigenous Māori people was made the first de jure official language in 1987." So shouldn't Māori be listed here under New Zealand? GilesMartin1945 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

What counts as a minority language?

See above. In Belgium, Limburgs is spoken (the same Limburgs as the (recognised) minority language in the Netherlands). Now I understand if it is only recognised languages by the country we are talking about, but in that case I am rather sure Yiddish should not be listed for the Netherlands (the other 4 should, as far as I know). Ouroboros777 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)