Comments on: American English in a global church

By: p3r1h

p3r1h — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:55:07 +0000

Language (and spelling!) is a part of culture. Though not as strongly as it used to be, the church is very much engaged in cultural imperialism. I wouldn’t expect allowances for or recognition of different ways of spelling.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:39:42 +0000

I honestly don’t understand what you mean when you say this his assertion–borne out by the data he’s provided–is “simply possible and potential.”

However, even if the statement were–somehow, miraculously–untrue, it wouldn’t really be relevant to the question of whether the article should use American English. An American publication should publish in American English, irrespective of who reads it. The same is true for a Canadian publication.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:02:51 +0000

Thanks for the update, Tom. I appreciate your clarifying your previous statement of “the vast majority of english speakers in the church are American” as being simply possible and potential.

By: Tom D

Tom D — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:55:05 +0000

Kim,

If you want hard data, I recommend getting a copy of the 2010 Deseret News Church Almanac.

I’m afraid that I don’t have a copy myself, but I am fairly sure that my assertions are correct. My conservative review of the Wikipedia entry on LDS membership statistics suggests this possible breakdown of potential English usage:

8,776,040 American English spoken natively or taught

(United States 5,974,041; Mexico 1,158,236; Philippines 614,585; Guatemala 215,186; Honduras 131,098; Japan 123,225; Dominican Republic 110,036; El Salvador 102,043; South Korea 81,251; Nicaragua 63,964; Taiwan 49,054; Panama 43,703; Costa Rica 36,666; Puerto Rico 20,064; Russia 19,946; American Samoa 14,740; Ukraine 10,557; Liberia 5,093; Guam 1,874; Virgin Islands (US) 543; Kazakhstan 135)

805,270 British English spoken natively or taught

(United Kingdom 183,672; Canada 177,600; Australia 123,650; New Zealand 99,488; Nigeria 88,734; South Africa 48,112; Hong Kong 23,223; Zimbabwe 17,241; Kenya 8,416; India 7,576; Jamaica 5,990; Malaysia 5,646; Belize 3,430; Singapore 2,890; Ireland 2,772; Sri Lanka 1,277; Swaziland 1,132; Bahamas 810; Barbados 696; Lesotho 606; Namibia 562; Aruba 458; Saint Vincent 427; Antigua and Barbuda 181; Saint Kitts and Nevis 162; Cayman Islands 145; Malta 132; Bermuda 126; British Virgin Islands 111; Falkland Islands 5)

3,278,395 Unknown English taught in South America

(Brazil 1,060,556; Chile 554,749; Peru 462,353; Argentina 371,885; Ecuador 185,663; Colombia 163,764; Bolivia 163,119; Venezuela 144,089; Uruguay 92,117; Paraguay 74,802; Guyana 3,935; Suriname 1,057; French Guiana 306)

189,826 Unknown English taught in South Pacific

(Samoa 67,120; Tonga 54,672; French Polynesia (Tahiti) 21,567; Fiji 15,242; Kiribati 13,475; Marshall Islands 4,476; Micronesia 3,841; Vanuatu 3,783; New Caledonia 1,883; Cook Islands (Rarotonga) 1,834; Northern Mariana Islands 757; Palau 423; Niue 268; Solomon Islands 246; Tuvalu Islands 131; Nauru 108)

650,069 Unknown English taught in Europe & Asia

(many, many countries)

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_statistics
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:09:14 +0000

Then I would be happy to see some evidence of this common knowledge. Forgive me if I don’t simply take your word or it.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:17:08 +0000

Kim, what makes you think I’m offended? I haven’t expressed any offense, and I’m not offended. I’m also not “hung up.” All I say is that reliable common knowledge and common sense are enough to tell us that most of the English-speaking Mormons in the world are concentrated in the English-speaking countries of the world. You’re free to question that all you want, and it won’t offend me, or give me any hangups, even if I think it’s a bit silly.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:34:51 +0000

Get offended all you want, ltbugaf, but I don’t see why you are so hung up on an argument based solely on assumption and speculation. Besides, how does my asking for a source for Tom’s claim ignore everyday knowledge and experience? I’m not saying Tom is wrong after all.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:26:26 +0000

It’s hard to believe, though, that there could be enough English-speaking Mormons in non-English speaking countries to outweigh the nearly six million members in the USA, when the total membership of the Church is only around 13 million. In a vacuum of pure logic, I suppose you have a point, but I don’t see why we should ignore everything that our everyday knowledge and experience tell us. If that’s what you prefer, though, have fun.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:08:26 +0000

don’t you think the numbers of English-speaking members in non-English speaking countries are most likely to be quite minor compared with those in English-speaking countries?

It doesn’t matter what I think, ltbugaf. I’m not the one making the claim. Tom claimed that the vast majority of English speakers in the church are American, and I simply want to know how he knows this. For that matter, common sense doesn’t answer this question either.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:48:22 +0000

Well, Kim, don’t you think the numbers of English-speaking members in non-English speaking countries are most likely to be quite minor compared with those in English-speaking countries? I don’t think we need any more than common sense to tell us that.

I’d like to offer two clarifications for things I’ve written: First, I didn’t mean to say “the article” is about the distinction between two words; it’s really only one line of the article that’s about those words. Second, I didn’t mean that “there’s not a single person” who had trouble understanding, since of course, I can’t know that. What I meant, and what I should have written, is that no one who’s commenting on this ‘blog appears to have had any trouble understanding.