Talk:List of languages by total number of speakers

Why don't the numbers add up? (Wikipedia hating maths vol. ∞)

English 390 + 1100 = 1490, NOT 1500
Mandarin 990 + 194 = 1184, NOT 1200
Another example on how Wikipedia excessively and absurdly relies on sources over logic. You can see this in many geography articles in Wikipedia, where the population density doesn't fit in with the population and area numbers provided. They just use "sources", making a mess at the end. 12qwas (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Modern Standard Arabic

"Arabic speakers first learn their respective local dialect. MSA is acquired through formal education." This may be possible but I think it's pretty unlikely that ZERO people in the entire world speak MSA as a first language. There's only a single source listed for this sweepingly universal statement. Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources agree that the number is essentially zero. Same as for Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Classical Syriac, Coptic, Old Armenian, Geʽez, Church Slavonic, and Biblical Hebrew. For sure there might be some people (news anchors, Qurʾān reciters, writers, linguists, etc.) whose command of MSA is near-perfect but it is still their L2: they acquired it long after their L1, they speak it less well than their L1, and they only speak it in some contexts and not in their day-to-day life. Even these proficient speakers might not been able to sustain an actual conversion in the language (rather than delivering a speech) without occasional switch to their native vernacular. And this number is so small (in absolute and relative to the ~500 million vernacular Arabic speakers) that it is essentially zero. There might be some families trying to raise children in MSA (I remember a YouTube video with kids speaking in MSA but I can't find it though...), but I wonder whether these kids keep their MSA as they age and interact exclusively with vernacular speakers. I don't know if there are sources that tried to look at these two populations. However, some studies found low MSA proficiency even in university professors (see Attitudes towards Language (s) of Instruction in Higher Education Institutions of Science and Technology in Morocco). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What is there about this version of Arabic that makes it so inorganic?

Pascalulu88 (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pascalulu88 I'm not sure I understand your question. MSA is like Latin: a classical, literary and liturgical (assuming MSA = CA) language. So it is inorganic. And there has never been efforts to make it organic. Because the vernaculars are entrenched. And because making MSA organic would mean that you have to accept that the language can evolve, whereas MSA, seen by most people as the language of the Quran, is considered pure, fixed, and never evolving. I don't think MSA will ever become organic. [However I wonder if vernaculars will be recognized as languages of their own (it happened to Maltese and to some extent to Hassaniya) and diverge further from each other with nationalism or if they will converge due to education in MSA, pan-Arabism and globalization.] a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

For people who do not speak or read Arabic, a name like "Modern Standard Arabic" does not immediately signify an inorganic "classical, literary, and liturgical language," hence my ignorant question. Standard American English or Standard British English are both organic and widely spoken and written versions of English. I simply did not realize that "Modern Standard Arabic" is a more artificial entity than "standard" versions of other languages.

Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pascalulu88 Yes it is confusing because the Arab world has diglossia so the standard here is literary. If you're interested you can read Modern Standard Arabic. The article starts with "MSA is the language used in literature, academia, print and mass media, law and legislation, though it is generally not spoken as a first language, similar to Contemporary Latin." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of Italian speakers?

In the list it says Italian has about 66 million speakers, with 63 as 1st language and 3 as 2nd language, but it the Italian language page it says "Spoken by about 85 million people, including 67 million native speakers (2024)". Which page is correct? 31.27.218.131 (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This page is correct, I edited Italian language accordingly. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)