The only obstacle I see is that the wiki of English says it is rectricted to correct English only. This additional rule apparently has not been discussed anywhere; and I think it should be taken down, for consistency. However, if we do need a special tag for correct English, it could be correct English.
Well, if we're about to go deep with the language tags, here is my proposal...
(WARNING! POSSIBLE TAG OVERKILL BELOW.)
Let's say there is an image containing text in several different languages (e.g., English and German). Let's also say that the artist who drew this image is more proficient in German than in English. So what do we have?
english (because some instance of English is present)
Well, the current English wiki states it's only to be used where the English is correct. I really think it's more useful that way, so searching for correct English posts only requires english instead of english -engrish.
jjj14 said: Well, the current English wiki states it's only to be used where the English is correct. I really think it's more useful that way, so searching for correct English posts only requires english instead of english -engrish.
I wouldn't trust that, since we have posts tagged "English"+"Engrish" simultaneously.
And, what about seeing all English posts together, regardless of their grammatical correctness?
D'Eye said:
english (because some instance of English is present)
I see the tag correct_language as serious overkill, especially if it can overlap with instances of incorrect languages in the same post.
The specific correct language tags (correct_german and whatnot) could be worthwhile, only if there are many applicable posts: there are only 5 instances of Portuguese, so splitting them into Correct Portuguese and Incorrect Portuguese wouldn't help.
I think an implication from Engrish to English is good. If it has English text, whether it's correct or not, it should have the English tag. That would be the same as any of the other language tags. If people think english is only to be used for absolutely perfectly correct English, then what about English with a minor typo or misspelling in there, that even a native speaker might make? That's not necessarily engrish in my opinion, but then do we take an expansive view of "Engrish" or do we allow a few errors for the english tag? I'd rather there not be a line drawn, as that may lead some not to tag either in middle-ground situations (rather than tagging at least one like they should).
Aristocrat said: german ranguage and other similar searches potentially return posts with correct German but another language used incorrectly.
That's the point. Come to think of it, we once had tags like ratin, gelman, flench (all of which are aliased to ranguage as of now) etc.
EB said: ... If people think english is only to be used for absolutely perfectly correct English, then what about English with a minor typo or misspelling in there, that even a native speaker might make?..
I agree. Quoting myself: "because some instance of English is present".
As far as I know, the term Engrish relates to Japanese speakers' tendency to inadvertently substitute the English phonemes "R" and "L" for one another. Whereas engrish (and ranguage in general) on Danbooru, AFAIK, often refers to images containing machine translated text. On top of this, there is also an infamous Wasei-eigo (for the reasons incomprehensible to me, Japanese people seems to have that uncanny affection towards English language). So, perhaps, we just should use engrish tag only in cases of Extreme Engrish, as seen in pool #2213?
D'Eye said: So, perhaps, we just should use engrish tag only in cases of Extreme Engrish, as seen in pool #2213?
In short, I prefer Engrish tagging all images with English errors, even minor ones. That way, we can control the search results accurately. Particularly interesting and funny posts can go to the pool.
(WARNING! ANALYSIS OF SOME INDIVIDUAL POSTS BELOW.)
Notably, lack or excess of articles (a/an/the) or of prepositions are small mistakes in the sense that they don't take up much space, but they are very conspicuous, and common in Engrish images. Examples: post #964018 and post #985282.
In post #1044840, the word "from" is written "form". Most likely, this is a typo. Differently, I suppose "destiny" written as "DESTNY" in post #974555 is not. Anyway, I would tag both Engrish.
The post #977994 was tagged Engrish, probably because a syllable was romanized "HU" instead of "FU". I would avoid that tag in this case, because both romanization systems are technically acceptable. However, post #997968 is different, because "HANTER" is not a proper romanization of ハンター (that would be "HANTAA" or "HUNTER").
That last case wouldn't be about romanization at all, actually, considering it's actually an English word. No matter how it's spelled in Katakana, it has only one correct English spelling.
That's what Engrish is, misspelled or misused English, not Japanese names like in the first case, which wouldn't be a candidate for Engrish in the first place.
If you can tag it typo, don't use Engrish. Even native speakers make stupid mistakes. I don't want to see Engrish on posts because someone messed up its/it's, you're/your or uses "of" instead of "have" either (which are all horrible mistakes). Also, don't use Engrish if the someone misspelled a name. Names are not part of the English language.
If used correctly, Engrish can and should implicate English
pool #2213 - Why does it exist? Some sentences in there may sound weird, but that's all. post #271170: What's wrong with "Thank you for your coming"?
I agree that typos and differing romanizations (hu/si/ti/tu/etc) shouldn't get the engrish tag. I think different people will have differing opinions on what constitutes Engrish, some people might say it's only stuff like Does MARISA come to like me if it puts on this brassiere?, while others might also include things like writing "Lupin" as "Rupin" or "Brief" as "Blief".
S1eth said: pool #2213 - Why does it exist? Some sentences in there may sound weird, but that's all.
I created it to be a showcase of the weirdest sounding Engrish examples, since these make me (and, I presume, many other people) laugh. The pool may need to be trimmed down a bit, and I have removed ones that don't fit in the past. For example, there used to be a post in there that said "Happy Barentain", but I removed it since that's exactly what バレンタイン would be in romaji, so it's not that extreme of an error.
Never using Engrish for typos (the/teh, from/form, etc.) Now I agree with that stance, mainly because now I know they are tagged typo.
I assume small but conspicuous mistakes that are associated with foreign speakers, like "I want a cheese" would still be tagged Engrish, however. Terrible/notable/long posts can go to the "Extreme Engrish" pool.
uhm, imho engrish is not a subset of english language. the wikipedia link above tells us that it refers to unusual forms of english language usage by native speakers of some east asian languages. i wouldn't consider this a legitimate offspring of english but a degeneration. it's more like a popular culture trend inherent in japan than anything related in english language. using english words or names don't make a phrase/sentence english. they could be vaguely recognizable to us, but they are not english. english has well established set of rules and grammar. these are expected to be followed. and if you're searching for english text, you expect to see english not a bastardization (for a lack of a better term) of its form.
old english, middle english, and modern english are all different from engrish.
if there are mistakes however, then i guess it's better to use the typo or error tags. i've checked the tags list and we had misspelled and misspelling but both got zero post now.
regarding an instance of "english text" appearing doesn't equate an automatic implication of english. the text should be evaluated as a whole as it appeared in the post. if it falls better in engrish then, i think it's best to use this tag. if a typo/error is also applicable then add it as necessary.
the tag name engrish with the letters eng at the beginning should be enough to inform us that a recognizable instance of english text could be expected. the eng part is its only 'link' in english and that should be enough because we are not going to read something cyrillic, arab, or hebrew.
i don't see the need of mixing english with engrish when they co-exist independently for years.
however, forum #70424 states that there's already a big consensus here. so i guess, this is already futile. but i will respect the decision of the majority. this is after all a dissenting opinion. thanks for reading.
I'm against an english/engrish implication for the reasons cyberia stated in the other thread.
however, forum #70424 states that there's already a big consensus here. so i guess, this is already futile. but i will respect the decision of the majority. this is after all a dissenting opinion. thanks for reading.
You can't really have a "Big Consensus" with 7 people posting in a thread, 1 of them not voicing an opinion, 1 disagreeing outright, 1 ...I'm not sure, and 4 agreeing. A big concensus is the entire mod team agreeing and nobody disagreeing. This is neutral at best.
With me posting this right here in disagreement, cyberia disagreeing in the other thread, and you disagreeing it's pretty much even at this point.
I agree with ghostrigger, -1 for this implication.
ghostrigger said: however, forum #70424 states that there's already a big consensus there. so i guess, this is already futile. but i will respect the decision of the majority. this is after all a dissenting opinion. thanks for reading.
This isn't really a big consensus, or a long enough discussion for something this important. It's just this habit Danielx21 has of rushing things and mistaking a lack of responses for agreement.
Anelaid said: for the record, I disagree with an engrish -> english implication, the entire point of the two tags is that they are opposing.
EB said: If people think english is only to be used for absolutely perfectly correct English, then what about English with a minor typo or misspelling in there, that even a native speaker might make?
If we go by Anelaid's argument, I'd like to know the answer to EB's question.
