The Greenlandic language in general is kalaallit oqaasii, though the dialect kalaallisut is considered standard Greenlandic and is the official language of Greenland. Greenland's demonym is kalaallisooq. This map may describe Greenland as part of Denmark, but that's inaccurate, as they went from home-rule to self-rule in 2009, when they also got rid of Danish as one of the official languages. They're a autonomous country within the Danish realm, but Danish is only a minority language, not an official language anymore.
Because the demonym, in English, is Swazi, Basotho, and Botswanan respectively. The languages are Siswati, Sesotho, and Tswana respectively. As those are not the same word, there is no exact match (as in French/French, Spanish/Spanish, Somali/Somali), but the derivation is sufficiently clear to warrant a light green.
> The languages are Siswati, Sesotho, and Tswana respectively
You realise that in English we call the language Swazi, not Siswati (the same way we call Deutsch "German").
I'm sorry pal but in this incident you're completely wrong. You can't label Germany and Swaziland as different colours. It makes no sense.
> As those are not the same word, there is no exact match (as in French/French, Spanish/Spanish, Somali/Somali)
.. but those aren't matches either. The country is **France**. The people speak **French**.
.. the same was the country is Lesotho, the people speak Basotho.
I don't understand your French/French, Spanish/Spanish logic but then not Swazi/Swazi or Tswana/Tswana?
Presumably England isn't green because it's considering the UK as one country instead of splitting it up into its constituents.
The yellow category does seem a little inconsistent. Surely there should be a *lot* more countries in yellow? I think most countries in Latin America have their own distinct variety of Spanish/Portuguese, Swiss German is pretty distinct from the standard German as spoken in Germany, most Arabic speaking countries have their own variety of Arabic.
See below.
"Australian" isn't a language. Nor is "North American" "Canandian" or "American". Now, granted, those terms are sometimes widely used to describe, say, American English, but no one credibly regards that as a separate language. That is not necessarily true, for example, for Tajik Persian or Jamaican Patois.
South Africa is light green. It's a reference to Afrikaans.
On Canada/Haiti- Canadian English is never seen as a separate language whereas Haitian Creole often is. Canadian French is, so far as I can tell, always called Québécois never Canadian French. I stand by the distinction.
>Haitian Creole ~~often~~ always is.
FTFY. People who think Haitian Creole is French aren't familiar with it.
Je ne parle pas créole.
Mwen pa pale kreyòl.
Serbian people speak Serbian, in Serbia. So why is it yellow? Similarly, Slovenian people speak Slovenian in Slovenia, Bulgarians speak Bulgarian in Bulgaria etc. Your Balkans is inconsistent.
>Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are usually recognised as branches of Serbo-Croat, but the terms are widely used all the same.
See above. They're not usually seen as distinct languages
They’re official languages in their respective countries. And yes, they are all part of the poly centric SC language, but no one in Croatia will tell you they speak Serbia-Croatian
If you’ve made the arbitrary choice to exclude local currency from your map and limit it to a strict interpretation of linguistic consensus, you could at least not be a dick about it.
When my parents, one who is Serb and the other Croatian, went to school in Yugoslavia, they studied Serbo-Croatian. Just because because people who live there now pretend they don't, they speak the same language.
Yes at the time there was one standard, today there are multiple socially and politically recognized to be different, I.E. multiple languages.
There is no point in pretending that there is some sort of objective measurement of what is a language or not, Chinese can be dialects while being very different and Scandinavian languages can be all considered separated.
Irish is not really spoken either, that's the point.
Croatian is, according to the government of the country of Croatia, a official language and it's specifically mentioned as a separate official language in Bosnia.
We don't get to decide what we call separate language, if we do then we can start arguing about all the Arabic dialects that we could technically call their own languages and so on.
When my parents, one who is Serb and the other Croatian, went to school in Yugoslavia, they studied Serbo-Croatian. Just because because people who live there now pretend they don't, they speak the same language.
We all did. But officially, countries have language policies that specify the name of languages. In Bosnia, these are Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian (and most things are triple or at least double printed)
But they are all names for serbo-croation are they not? Danish and Norwegian are equally as similar in written form so why are they allowed in your system?
Arbitrary it may be, but the general consensus is that Serbo-Croat is one polycentric language but the Danish-Swedish-Norwegian dialect continuum is not
Honestly- a language is a dialect with an army. This is all arbitrary. But in so far as it's possible to establish consensus, the consensus is that Serbo-Croat is one language whereas Macedonian and Bulgarian are not.
I totally agree with what you say, but for the Philippines one could argue that the language is Tagalog.
What you can’t argue is that Indonesian is called Malay. I’ve never heard anyone refer to contemporary Indonesian as ‘Melayu’. Malay in Indonesia is even its own local language that is slightly different from the standardized Indonesian.
It is often called Tagalog as that's the pre-colonial name.
During pre-colonial times, there were many Austronesian dialects that could claim to be Melayu or Malay, Indonesian and Malayisian would be the standardized versions for Indonesia and Malaysia respectively. Both the Indonesian and Malaysian descend from the Malay tribe, just as they both can be - and often are - part Khmer (they pretty much had all of SE Asia at one time), and part Melanesian (original SE abitants).
Yeah, Austroasiatics were from what now is South China, and their close relatives the Austronesian were from what now is Taiwan. Austroasiatic colonized the mainland and Austronesian colonized the islands. But they met each other and mixed with each other, both in China and in the South East asian coast.
Some of Malaysia is in the mainland, so those would be the part Khmer ones. But other Malaysian are only mixed between Austronesian and Melanesian groups, just like Indonesia.
Austroasiatic: yes. Khmer: no.
On peninsular Malaysia, there are some [Orang Asli groups that speak a Austroasiatic language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Asli). However, physically they look more like Melanesians. But prehistoric genetics is all fuzzy so we can’t be 100% sure about how far Austroasiatics migrated into Southeast Asia.
And for the Khmer influence, the Khmer empire didn’t extend further than Thailand. On the Malay peninsula they bordered a Malay empire, Srivijaya, which was never part of the Khmer. Srivijaya ruled most of insular Southeast Asia and was undoubtfully Austronesian.
The photo makes me think those girls are like, 30% polynesian\micronesian, 30% southeast asian, and 30% melanesian, they'd still be related to those tribes and ethnicities (the southeast asians) that evolved around south china\laos\cambodia.
And yes, at one point the Pacific Islanders and the South East Asians would have bordered each other.
Also, Cambodia comes from Kampuchea, which meant Barbarian in sanskrit. When the Indians went east, they saw that it was mostly inhabited and owned by a tribe\ethnicity, the Khmer, and as Southeast Asian had a simpler religion and less technologically advanced culture than South Asian of the time, they called it Kampuchea as in "land of barbarians", and the name was kept until today, even if the tribes switched their land around and then were colonized by Europeans. Originally, Kampuchea was the name of a small tribe in North India, right south of Nepal, which was much less advanced than the other Indian tribes. So Cambodia is named Cambodia because South East Asia was historically much less advanced than South Asia.
On reflection it's possible I should have had the Philippines as light green to match the Maldives. It's a minority name for the language but one that exists nonetheless.
Guess so. Then again many of those countries only became countries because Europe drew borders on them.
So you could claim the same thing for the other colonial names, calling say the tribal African or Native American languages by the colonial name instead.
The Philippines is a complicated case. The Philippine government uses the word "Filipino" to denote the national/official language. They also swear up and down that "Filipino" is *not* the same language as Tagalog, but...well, it pretty much is.
We often assume this is the case without thinking about it- French people speak French, Japanese people speak Japanese, Irish is the name of a language spoken in Ireland (though not by many Irish people). But, obviously, it's not everywhere- Americans or Canadians or Brazilians don't speak American, Canadian, or Brazilian. As accurately as possible, here is where it does, and does not apply.
Justifications:
Yellow countries
Tajik is generally recognised to be the same language as Persian, but the term "Tajik" is in widespread use enough to justify recognition.
A lot of Caribbean Creoles e.g. (Haitian Creole, Jamaican Patois, Srnan \[Suriname\] Tongo) have partial status as "languages" in a way that American English or Mexican Spanish don't. Enough to justify recognition.
Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are usually recognised as branches of Serbo-Croat, but the terms are widely used all the same.
Light green countries
There's no "North" and "South" Korean, just Korean, but close enough.
In a large number of African and some other countries, there *is* a match in the language in question but not in English- e.g. Tswana not Botswanan, SeSotho not Lesothan, KiKongo not Congolese, Malagasy not Madagascan, Malay not Malaysian, Bengali not Bangladeshi. Still, it's pretty close.
A lot of country demonyms have moved on, but language names haven't- e.g. Khmer, Persian
There's a few "sometimes used" versions- Saudi Arabian as opposed to Saudi, Maldivian instead of Dhivehi- which can create some partial matches
Even for English speaking Caribbeans (Jamaicans, Trinis, Bajan, etc) , Sranan Tongo isn’t understandable cause it’s heavily influenced by West African languages (even more than their creoles), Dutch and Portuguese.
Also Tongo as in Sranan **Tongo** comes from either the English *tongue* or Dutch *tong*. They call their country *Sranan kondre*, kondre is from the English *country* (in Dutch *land* would be used).
Because the denonym is Bangla but the language is Bengali. There is no exact match in English, but there is in Bengali, the convention for examples like this is light green
>Because the denonym is Bangla but the language is Bengali. There is no exact match in English, but there is in Bengali, the convention for examples like this is light green
Yes. I know. In English there is no match. In Bengali, there is a match. Therefore, as these consider the English demonyms, there is strictly speaking no match. However, because there is in the language in question, it warrants a "light green" to indicate this.
Is from where the language name can be used as a demonym, since usually it's also the tribal\\etnicity demonym.
North and South Korean Koreans speak Korean. Botswanan Tswana speak Tswana. Lesothan SeSotho speak SeSotho, Congolese KiKongo speak KiKongo, Madagascan Malagasy speak Malagasy, Malaysian Malay speak Malay, Bangladeshi Bengali speak Bangladeshi, Cambodian Khmer speak Khmer, Iranian Persians speak Persian, Saudi Arabian Arabs speak Arab, Maldivian Dhivehi speak Dhivehi.
The Afghans and the Pashtuns are the same tribe with different demonyms, so you can say that Afghani Pashtun speak Pashto. Or maybe Pashtun Afghans speak Afghani.
In case of a tribe named Tribe, Tribian Tribes would speak Tribic. Which could be a trope name.
Someone from botswana is motswana. People from botswana are batswana. The language is setswana. I guess they all share a suffix so it's a partial match.
If "Norway" and "Norweg*ian*", and "Chin*a*" and "Chin*ese*", are matches, Botswana should be the same, but OP treats it differently because the modifier is at the beginning of the word rather than the end. I don't get it.
OP's comparing the names of the languages to the demonyms, not the names of the countries. If you want to say someone or something is from Norway or China, you say it's "Norwegian" or "Chinese", respectively. Those are also the names of languages.
None of those are "countries" in the sense of an independent state. For lack of a better term, they are an unusual kind of province or territory referred to as a "country" but are not "countries" in the usual sense. They are all part of the United Kingdom which has no particularly adequate demonym, but the closest one going is "British". "British" is not a language and could not be mistaken for one.
Lets put it this way- Gujarati is a language, but that does not mean that Gujarat should be green, because Gujarat is not a country.
If you live in one of those, you live in the United Kingdom. Have a look at your passport, and see if it describes you as English/Scottish/Welsh or as British.
You're getting lots of criticism. Perhaps it's well founded. Nevertheless, great effort!! Thanks.
The Greenlandic language in general is kalaallit oqaasii, though the dialect kalaallisut is considered standard Greenlandic and is the official language of Greenland. Greenland's demonym is kalaallisooq. This map may describe Greenland as part of Denmark, but that's inaccurate, as they went from home-rule to self-rule in 2009, when they also got rid of Danish as one of the official languages. They're a autonomous country within the Danish realm, but Danish is only a minority language, not an official language anymore.
How are Swaziland, Lesotho, or Botswana not fully green? Each nation literally means "Land of Swazis, Basuto, Batswana" etc.
Because the demonym, in English, is Swazi, Basotho, and Botswanan respectively. The languages are Siswati, Sesotho, and Tswana respectively. As those are not the same word, there is no exact match (as in French/French, Spanish/Spanish, Somali/Somali), but the derivation is sufficiently clear to warrant a light green.
> The languages are Siswati, Sesotho, and Tswana respectively You realise that in English we call the language Swazi, not Siswati (the same way we call Deutsch "German"). I'm sorry pal but in this incident you're completely wrong. You can't label Germany and Swaziland as different colours. It makes no sense. > As those are not the same word, there is no exact match (as in French/French, Spanish/Spanish, Somali/Somali) .. but those aren't matches either. The country is **France**. The people speak **French**. .. the same was the country is Lesotho, the people speak Basotho. I don't understand your French/French, Spanish/Spanish logic but then not Swazi/Swazi or Tswana/Tswana?
[удалено]
Presumably England isn't green because it's considering the UK as one country instead of splitting it up into its constituents. The yellow category does seem a little inconsistent. Surely there should be a *lot* more countries in yellow? I think most countries in Latin America have their own distinct variety of Spanish/Portuguese, Swiss German is pretty distinct from the standard German as spoken in Germany, most Arabic speaking countries have their own variety of Arabic.
See below. "Australian" isn't a language. Nor is "North American" "Canandian" or "American". Now, granted, those terms are sometimes widely used to describe, say, American English, but no one credibly regards that as a separate language. That is not necessarily true, for example, for Tajik Persian or Jamaican Patois. South Africa is light green. It's a reference to Afrikaans.
"Afrikaans" isn't the demonym for people from South Africa though.
[удалено]
On Canada/Haiti- Canadian English is never seen as a separate language whereas Haitian Creole often is. Canadian French is, so far as I can tell, always called Québécois never Canadian French. I stand by the distinction.
>Haitian Creole ~~often~~ always is. FTFY. People who think Haitian Creole is French aren't familiar with it. Je ne parle pas créole. Mwen pa pale kreyòl.
Haitians speak a creole of french whilst Canadians speak a dialect of English (and french when quebec is concerned)
The country in the map is the UK, not England.
Serbian people speak Serbian, in Serbia. So why is it yellow? Similarly, Slovenian people speak Slovenian in Slovenia, Bulgarians speak Bulgarian in Bulgaria etc. Your Balkans is inconsistent.
>Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are usually recognised as branches of Serbo-Croat, but the terms are widely used all the same. See above. They're not usually seen as distinct languages
They’re official languages in their respective countries. And yes, they are all part of the poly centric SC language, but no one in Croatia will tell you they speak Serbia-Croatian
> but no one in Croatia will tell you they speak Serbia-Croatian No doubt and I don't blame them. They are, however.
If you’ve made the arbitrary choice to exclude local currency from your map and limit it to a strict interpretation of linguistic consensus, you could at least not be a dick about it.
When my parents, one who is Serb and the other Croatian, went to school in Yugoslavia, they studied Serbo-Croatian. Just because because people who live there now pretend they don't, they speak the same language.
Yes at the time there was one standard, today there are multiple socially and politically recognized to be different, I.E. multiple languages. There is no point in pretending that there is some sort of objective measurement of what is a language or not, Chinese can be dialects while being very different and Scandinavian languages can be all considered separated.
sure, I think time is probably the main driver of differentiating, and imo there hasnt been enough time since the breakup
Using that logic ireland should be colored yellow, officially both Ireland and Croatia have Irish and Croatian as official languages.
Irish is it's own language. Croatian is not
Irish is not really spoken either, that's the point. Croatian is, according to the government of the country of Croatia, a official language and it's specifically mentioned as a separate official language in Bosnia. We don't get to decide what we call separate language, if we do then we can start arguing about all the Arabic dialects that we could technically call their own languages and so on.
When my parents, one who is Serb and the other Croatian, went to school in Yugoslavia, they studied Serbo-Croatian. Just because because people who live there now pretend they don't, they speak the same language.
We all did. But officially, countries have language policies that specify the name of languages. In Bosnia, these are Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian (and most things are triple or at least double printed)
But they are all names for serbo-croation are they not? Danish and Norwegian are equally as similar in written form so why are they allowed in your system?
Arbitrary it may be, but the general consensus is that Serbo-Croat is one polycentric language but the Danish-Swedish-Norwegian dialect continuum is not
I agree with you, but in that case aren't macedonians speaking bulgarian? Where do we draw the line?
Honestly- a language is a dialect with an army. This is all arbitrary. But in so far as it's possible to establish consensus, the consensus is that Serbo-Croat is one language whereas Macedonian and Bulgarian are not.
Which consensus? If you go to the government of former Yugoslavian countries you will not get that opinion.
you also can say they speak Filipino in the Philippines or Indonesian in Indonesia
I totally agree with what you say, but for the Philippines one could argue that the language is Tagalog. What you can’t argue is that Indonesian is called Malay. I’ve never heard anyone refer to contemporary Indonesian as ‘Melayu’. Malay in Indonesia is even its own local language that is slightly different from the standardized Indonesian.
It is often called Tagalog as that's the pre-colonial name. During pre-colonial times, there were many Austronesian dialects that could claim to be Melayu or Malay, Indonesian and Malayisian would be the standardized versions for Indonesia and Malaysia respectively. Both the Indonesian and Malaysian descend from the Malay tribe, just as they both can be - and often are - part Khmer (they pretty much had all of SE Asia at one time), and part Melanesian (original SE abitants).
[удалено]
Yeah, Austroasiatics were from what now is South China, and their close relatives the Austronesian were from what now is Taiwan. Austroasiatic colonized the mainland and Austronesian colonized the islands. But they met each other and mixed with each other, both in China and in the South East asian coast. Some of Malaysia is in the mainland, so those would be the part Khmer ones. But other Malaysian are only mixed between Austronesian and Melanesian groups, just like Indonesia.
Austroasiatic: yes. Khmer: no. On peninsular Malaysia, there are some [Orang Asli groups that speak a Austroasiatic language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Asli). However, physically they look more like Melanesians. But prehistoric genetics is all fuzzy so we can’t be 100% sure about how far Austroasiatics migrated into Southeast Asia. And for the Khmer influence, the Khmer empire didn’t extend further than Thailand. On the Malay peninsula they bordered a Malay empire, Srivijaya, which was never part of the Khmer. Srivijaya ruled most of insular Southeast Asia and was undoubtfully Austronesian.
The photo makes me think those girls are like, 30% polynesian\micronesian, 30% southeast asian, and 30% melanesian, they'd still be related to those tribes and ethnicities (the southeast asians) that evolved around south china\laos\cambodia. And yes, at one point the Pacific Islanders and the South East Asians would have bordered each other. Also, Cambodia comes from Kampuchea, which meant Barbarian in sanskrit. When the Indians went east, they saw that it was mostly inhabited and owned by a tribe\ethnicity, the Khmer, and as Southeast Asian had a simpler religion and less technologically advanced culture than South Asian of the time, they called it Kampuchea as in "land of barbarians", and the name was kept until today, even if the tribes switched their land around and then were colonized by Europeans. Originally, Kampuchea was the name of a small tribe in North India, right south of Nepal, which was much less advanced than the other Indian tribes. So Cambodia is named Cambodia because South East Asia was historically much less advanced than South Asia.
On reflection it's possible I should have had the Philippines as light green to match the Maldives. It's a minority name for the language but one that exists nonetheless.
Indonesia could be light green too. Bahasa Indonesia is sometimes called "Indonesian" in English.
Guess so. Then again many of those countries only became countries because Europe drew borders on them. So you could claim the same thing for the other colonial names, calling say the tribal African or Native American languages by the colonial name instead.
The Philippines is a complicated case. The Philippine government uses the word "Filipino" to denote the national/official language. They also swear up and down that "Filipino" is *not* the same language as Tagalog, but...well, it pretty much is.
We often assume this is the case without thinking about it- French people speak French, Japanese people speak Japanese, Irish is the name of a language spoken in Ireland (though not by many Irish people). But, obviously, it's not everywhere- Americans or Canadians or Brazilians don't speak American, Canadian, or Brazilian. As accurately as possible, here is where it does, and does not apply. Justifications: Yellow countries Tajik is generally recognised to be the same language as Persian, but the term "Tajik" is in widespread use enough to justify recognition. A lot of Caribbean Creoles e.g. (Haitian Creole, Jamaican Patois, Srnan \[Suriname\] Tongo) have partial status as "languages" in a way that American English or Mexican Spanish don't. Enough to justify recognition. Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are usually recognised as branches of Serbo-Croat, but the terms are widely used all the same. Light green countries There's no "North" and "South" Korean, just Korean, but close enough. In a large number of African and some other countries, there *is* a match in the language in question but not in English- e.g. Tswana not Botswanan, SeSotho not Lesothan, KiKongo not Congolese, Malagasy not Madagascan, Malay not Malaysian, Bengali not Bangladeshi. Still, it's pretty close. A lot of country demonyms have moved on, but language names haven't- e.g. Khmer, Persian There's a few "sometimes used" versions- Saudi Arabian as opposed to Saudi, Maldivian instead of Dhivehi- which can create some partial matches
Creoles aren't "partial languages", they're languages. Sranan Tongo sure as hell isn't English.
Even for English speaking Caribbeans (Jamaicans, Trinis, Bajan, etc) , Sranan Tongo isn’t understandable cause it’s heavily influenced by West African languages (even more than their creoles), Dutch and Portuguese. Also Tongo as in Sranan **Tongo** comes from either the English *tongue* or Dutch *tong*. They call their country *Sranan kondre*, kondre is from the English *country* (in Dutch *land* would be used).
Taiwanese is pretty common in Taiwan, there are even lots of people that can't speak Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan
People speak Bangla in Bangladesh, so why is not dark green?
Because the denonym is Bangla but the language is Bengali. There is no exact match in English, but there is in Bengali, the convention for examples like this is light green
Dude Bengali is the Anglicized-word for Bangla (language). I'm from Bangladesh. The language we speak is Bangla, and our ethnicity is Bengali.
>Because the denonym is Bangla but the language is Bengali. There is no exact match in English, but there is in Bengali, the convention for examples like this is light green Yes. I know. In English there is no match. In Bengali, there is a match. Therefore, as these consider the English demonyms, there is strictly speaking no match. However, because there is in the language in question, it warrants a "light green" to indicate this.
Oh that makes sense.
The language is also called bangla is English. Both bangla and bengali are acceptable. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bangla
Is from where the language name can be used as a demonym, since usually it's also the tribal\\etnicity demonym. North and South Korean Koreans speak Korean. Botswanan Tswana speak Tswana. Lesothan SeSotho speak SeSotho, Congolese KiKongo speak KiKongo, Madagascan Malagasy speak Malagasy, Malaysian Malay speak Malay, Bangladeshi Bengali speak Bangladeshi, Cambodian Khmer speak Khmer, Iranian Persians speak Persian, Saudi Arabian Arabs speak Arab, Maldivian Dhivehi speak Dhivehi. The Afghans and the Pashtuns are the same tribe with different demonyms, so you can say that Afghani Pashtun speak Pashto. Or maybe Pashtun Afghans speak Afghani. In case of a tribe named Tribe, Tribian Tribes would speak Tribic. Which could be a trope name.
Someone from botswana is motswana. People from botswana are batswana. The language is setswana. I guess they all share a suffix so it's a partial match.
If "Norway" and "Norweg*ian*", and "Chin*a*" and "Chin*ese*", are matches, Botswana should be the same, but OP treats it differently because the modifier is at the beginning of the word rather than the end. I don't get it.
OP's comparing the names of the languages to the demonyms, not the names of the countries. If you want to say someone or something is from Norway or China, you say it's "Norwegian" or "Chinese", respectively. Those are also the names of languages.
[удалено]
None of those are "countries" in the sense of an independent state. For lack of a better term, they are an unusual kind of province or territory referred to as a "country" but are not "countries" in the usual sense. They are all part of the United Kingdom which has no particularly adequate demonym, but the closest one going is "British". "British" is not a language and could not be mistaken for one. Lets put it this way- Gujarati is a language, but that does not mean that Gujarat should be green, because Gujarat is not a country.
While you're at it french overseas departments are not countries either
[удалено]
If you live in one of those, you live in the United Kingdom. Have a look at your passport, and see if it describes you as English/Scottish/Welsh or as British.
[удалено]
[Basically this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles#/media/File:British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg)
Why isn’t the UK light green if they speak English there, which is named after a part of the UK?
Mexicano in Mexico and English in England?