Content uploaded by James Lambert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Lambert on Feb 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
A multitude of “lishes”
The nomenclature of hybridity
James Lambert
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Abstract
The present paper deals with portmanteau terms based on the word English, the bulk of which
form a varied and extensive nomenclature used to describe hybrids of the English language
with other languages. A citation database of over 3500 entries was created containing 510
separate terms dating from the early twentieth century to mid-2016. These figures indicate a
widespread interest in the ways in which English hybridises with other languages and
becomes localised in various parts of the globe. The results also show a trend of continuing
increase in the coining of such terms to be expected in an increasingly globalised world.
However, to date there has been no exhaustive examination of names for English-language
hybrids. The present paper examines these portmanteau terms with regards to semantics,
etymology, history, frequency, and pronunciation, and presents an alphabetical table of the
complete set of terms discovered by the research as an appendix.
Keywords: World Englishes; language hybridity; portmanteau terms; blends; lishes;
etymology; terminology
1. Introduction
Many scholars of World Englishes will have come across such terms as Chinglish, Hinglish,
Konglish, and Spanglish, referring to hybrid forms based on English mixed with,
respectively, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, and Spanish. A limited number of these terms are quite
widely known, are common in the print media, and have even made their way into
dictionaries. Beyond the most common terms, World Englishes scholars may also be familiar
with some of the more esoteric terms, such as Bislish – English mixed with Visayan
languages (Meierkord 2012: 209), Danglish – English mixed with Danish (Phillipson 2001:
4), and Tamlish – English mixed with Tamil (Mehrotra 1998: 14). Tom McArthur is one of
the few scholars to turn any attention to the names for such hybrid forms of English. He
originally labelled such terms “Anglo-hybrids” – a term that does not appear to have caught
on – but later referred to them as “lishes” (1998: 14), now a common superordinate for such
terms. More significantly, writing on this topic in 1995, McArthur noted that “[w]orldwide
Anglo-hybridization is a subject that language scholars have yet to address in any detail” (2).
Some two decades later, while the situation has improved in terms of the study of hybrid
languages, there is still much work to be done regarding the terminology of such hybrids.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
This paper begins to address this gap in scholarship through an extensive analysis of these
terms. Utilising conventional lexicographical collection methods, a database of over 3500
citations taken from various sources has been amassed which provides documentary evidence
for the existence of the terms, their longevity of use, their frequency, and their various
meanings.
A review of the literature pertaining to portmanteau words based on the word English reveals
that there has been continuing, if haphazard, interest in cataloguing such formations from the
1990s onwards. The usual structure of many of the texts that treat these words is to discuss
the notion of language hybridity briefly and offer some five or six of the most common terms
as examples. There are also texts that present more lengthy lists, of between ten and thirty
examples, and in doing so include some less common terms. But, on the whole, there is at
present a paucity of information about these terms.
First and foremost, there is currently lacking any single text which comes close to
cataloguing the great variety of terms in use. McArthur (1995) lists 27 terms only (excluding
franglais as this is not strictly speaking a term based on the word English, but rather on the
French anglais). On par with McArthur is Fraser (2009: 93) who lists 27 forms (sourced from
Wikipedia 2008). Slightly better is Rowse (2011) who covers 34 terms, and better still Barrett
(2006) with 52 terms. Since 2004, Wikipedia has included a list of such terms. This list has
expanded from an original 11 terms to 52 terms (as of April 2016), about 30 of which had
separate pages. However, this list will change over time as entries are continually edited.
Wiktionary, as of April 2016, covered a different set of terms to Wikipedia, but only had 25 of
the 50 most common terms found by the present research. Additionally, in Wiktionary there is
no table that brings all the terms together, but rather each has to be searched for individually.
Urban Dictionary records at least 66 of the terms found by the present research, but as this
dictionary liberally accepts words, definitions, and sample sentences based solely on the say-
so of contributors, in the absence of corroboration from other sources the authenticity of
some entries must remain dubious.
Professionally published dictionaries do not seem to have extended coverage beyond the most
frequent and salient items. The latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the
online Third Edition, covers a mere 7 terms for such hybrids (Chinglish, Hinglish, Japlish,
Singlish (2 meanings), Spanglish, and Yinglish). The omission of the well-known term
Taglish (referring to hybrids of Tagalog and English), despite the recent expansion of the
coverage of Philippines English in the June 2015 update (see Salazar 2015), suggests a lack
of will among the OED editors to record these terms. An assessment of a selection of
regional, varietal, and slang dictionaries also found that little lexicographical effort has been
extended to these terms, with only the most common terms being recorded. Cummings and
Wolf (2011) covers Chinglish, but not the well-attested terms Honglish and Hongkonglish;
Kim (1998) records Manglish as a blend of Malay and English, but not the variant forms
Malenglish, Malglish, or Malish; Higgleton and Ooi (1997), written for the Malaysian and
Singaporean markets, records both Manglish and Singlish, but no other forms. The privately
published Meyler (2007) records Singlish for the mixing of Sinhala/Singhalese and English
and Tamlish for the mixing of Tamil and English, but only these two. Dictionaries of Indian
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
English appear to only cover Hinglish (e.g. Muthiah 1991), though the Lonely Planet booklet
Indian English: Language and Culture (2008) covers also Benglish (Bengali and English) and
Tanglish (Tamil and English). It should also be noted that most of the regional dictionaries
surveyed are now out of print and difficult to locate.
A second area in which information is lacking is the historical perspective. In fact,
information on when each of the terms first appeared in English, and if obsolete, how long
they persisted, is entirely absent from the literature. The only source which supplies any
information of this type is the OED, though, as noted before, only for 7 terms. Furthermore,
while OED entries are generally regarded as a good indication of when terms were first used
in English, for 5 of the 7 terms the present research has been able to antedate OED’s earliest
attestations, usually by a decade or more. For example, the OED’s earliest evidence for
Chinglish is 1957, yet this term has been in use since the 1930s (Gor 1936: 117). Beyond
OED’s 7 terms, the data presented here on the earliest attestations and the span of years for
which terms are recorded is the first presentation of this type of information for essentially
the entire set of terms.
A third area in which the literature to date has lacked detailed description is the meaning of
the terms. Generally, the texts that do treat these terms suffer from a dearth of detail, being
for the most part content with merely supplying the term itself followed by the two etymons
that constitute the portmanteau word (e.g. McArthur 1992: 442; Campbell 1998: 119; Wolff
2010: 7; Javaherian 2010: 39). Also common are texts that simply supply the word only,
leaving readers to discern the origin based on their own knowledge of potential hybrid forms
of English (e.g. McArthur 1998: 14; Young 2009: 162). Indeed, the seminal list in McArthur
(1995) does not offer any explication of what the terms listed actually mean, either on the
cover or in the accompanying text to the list (2), which is especially problematic for the terms
Manglish, Minglish, and Tinglish, which may refer to any of a number of possible blends of
English and languages beginning with M (Malay, Malayalam, Malagasy, Marathi,
Mongolian) or T (Thai, Telegu, Turkish, Twi, perhaps even Tartar). On the face of it, many
such terms may be considered relatively transparent, such as Arablish or Russlish, which
seem to indicate, respectively, hybrids of Arabic and Russian with English. Yet, as we shall
see, the situation is more complex than might first appear.
Another major defect of the current literature dealing with the nomenclature of hybrid forms
of English is the scant attention paid to the question of frequency. For example, Rowse
(2011: 198) gives both Portuglish and Porglish as hybrids of Portuguese and English, and
Wolff (2010: 7) gives both Rominglish and Romlish as for hybrids of Romanian and English,
but there is no indication if the synonyms are equally well-known or whether one is more
common. To date, no information on this aspect has been presented.
Similarly, little attention, if any, has been paid to the etymology of “lishes”, including
questions of how the terms have been formed from their two base forms, or if the terms were
originally formed in English or other languages. Finally, apart from the few terms recorded in
dictionaries, there has been no discussion of pronunciation.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
The following paper outlines the methodology for collecting the data before moving onto
discussions of the meaning, etymology (word formation), history, frequency, and finally
pronunciation of the terms. An alphabetical table of the complete set of terms discovered by
the research is presented in Appendix 1.
2. Methodology
The present research belongs to a larger and more ambitious project to collect, detail, and
define the names of all varieties of English around the globe and throughout history, which I
have been working on for the past five years. Thus the data herein represents a subset of the
larger project’s entire database. The data is in the form of citations: extracts (normally at least
a sentence in length) containing the target term accompanied by bibliographic information of
the source text. The process of data collection employed is one that is well-known to
lexicographers, and constitutes the original research behind all important dictionaries,
including the OED and its decendants, the Middle English Dictionary, the Webster’s Third,
Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary, and all scholarly historical dictionaries (e.g. Lighter 1994–
1997, Silva 1996, Winer 2009, Green 2010). Historically, target words were garnered through
focused reading programs and citations were handwritten on slips of paper which were
collated alphabetically and stored in drawers for ready access (much like old-fashioned
library catalogues). Today, computer databases and corpora infinitely increase the ease of this
type of research, but the collecting process remains essentially the same. The beginning
dataset was the outcome of my personal reading in World Englishes literature, which brought
together a modest collection. Starting from this base list, a number of databases were
systematically searched for terms, with especial effort taken to discover the earliest
attestation possible, but also with the aim of collecting enough citations to give an indication
of the continued existence over the lifespan of the term until present. The major databases
accessed were, in alphabetical order, Global Newsstream, Google (including Google Books
and Google Groups), InfoTrac Newsstand, Jstor, LexisNexis Academic, the New York Times
Archives, Trove, Urban Dictionary, and Wikipedia (see References). Google Books was used
with caution, and citations were only taken when it was clear that the word had actually been
used in the text and that an accurate publication date could be determined. For the lower
frequency terms, all instances were collected, however, for the more common terms
collecting every instance is impractical. In such cases at least one citation per decade was
collected where possible.
Gradually, more and more terms were discovered, especially as there was a tendency in the
literature to list a number of related terms together, thus allowing me to bootstrap new terms
found accompanying those originally searched for. Further, when a new term was discovered,
possible variant orthographical forms were sought. For instance, once Czechlish (a hybrid of
Czech and English) was found, then a search for Czechglish, Czenglish and Czinglish would
be conducted. Some searches would return a zero response in all databases, but frequently
they were fruitful. The list was also increased by going through lists of major languages in
areas where English was a potential contact language and searching for likely hybrid terms.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
Finally, I contacted a number of World Englishes and lexicography colleagues who were able
to contribute terms and suggest further avenues of investigation. The resulting citation
collection was databased and coded for meaning, etymon, and date range (earliest and latest
occurrence found).
3. Results and discussion
The research discovered 510 different terms. Of these 164 (approximately 32%) were hapax
legomena (i.e., there was only once instance in the data), while 107 (approximately 21%)
were attested by 10 or more citations. See Appendix 1 for a tabulation of term, etymon, date
range, and number of citations. Most terms (371, approximately 73%) were derived from the
name of a language added to the word English. However, there were many terms derived
from the names of countries or regions where English is used (e.g. Aflish for African English,
Amglish for American English, Auslish and Ozlish for Australian English), while a modest
number were based on (derogatory) slang items (e.g. Krautlish for German English, Yanklish
for American English). The citational evidence included texts from the field of linguistics,
especially those discussing World Englishes or the global spread of English, as well as texts
from the field of folk linguistics, such as discussions about language on forums, blogs and
Usenet groups. Two specific places where “lishes” were commonly used were (a) complaints
about English influenced by other languages found on menus and especially instructional
leaflets accompanying products, and (b) in acknowledgements sections of theses and
published books where authors apologised for their heavily L1-influenced English and
thanked those that had helped improved it.
The research additionally collected a number of portmanteau words for hybrids of English or
varieties of English that began with the word English, such as Engalog (English + Tagalog),
Engbrew (English + Hebrew), Engolian (English + Mongolian), and Engleutsch (English +
Deutsch), but space did not permit a discussion of these here. Similarly, portmanteau words
based on the word English but not specifically related to World Englishes were also omitted.
These included such terms as Geeklish, Nerdlish, Slanglish, Techlish, Twinglish (the special
language of twins), and even Yodish (the grammatically peculiar English of the Star Wars
character Yoda).
3.1. Semantics
There are pertinent comments to be made about both denotation and connotation of these
words. In terms of denotation, the terms were generally used to refer to a wide range of
language contact varieties and features. Definitions provided by users of these terms fell into
three main groups: (a) no definition – the words are left to speak for themselves; (b) a simple
listing of the languages involved; and (c) a more detailed, yet still generally vague,
description of the character of the hybridity, occasionally with examples provided. The
following are examples of these three defining strategies:
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
(a) Now English is merging even more quickly with other languages of the world,
picking up not just individual words but developing new hybridised forms –
Banglish, Chinglish, Punglish, Singhlish, Spanglish, Hinglish. (Young 2009: 162)
(b) As examples, some forms of English are: Spanglish (Spanish English), Japlish
(Japanese English), Hinglish (Hindu English), Fingilish (Farsi English), and
Chinglish (Chinese English). (Javaherian 2010: 39)
(c) Don’t bother defining Runglish, simply let its rising bilingual tides of English-
flavored Russian and Russian-flavored English wash over your eardrums – as
thousands of speakers in a dozen societies already do. (Moscow News 11 Sept
2013)
Clearly the first two ways of defining the terms lack specificity as to the precise linguistic
process taking place in the formation of the hybrids, and while this may be interpreted
unfavourably as a lack of diligence on behalf of the definer, the lack of specificity is not
necessarily a downside. In fact, I would like to contend just the opposite. When two
languages exist side-by-side and intersect and interact with one another, the flow between
languages is two-way and highly complex, involving the adoption and adaptation of a range
of linguistic features at all linguistic levels in order to serve diverse communicative goals as
part of “the dynamics of mixed genres, styles, practices and discourses that make up the
complex linguistic repertoires of people” (Rubdy and Alsagoff 2013: 8).
The third type of definition – category (c) – are those that offer more than merely the
etymons, and these provide insight into the complex nature of language hybridity and how
that complexity is discerned by the users of the terms. For example, surveying the citations
for the various terms for blends of Japanese and English (i.e. Janglish, Jangrish, Japalish,
Japanglish, Japanlish, Japenglish, Japglish, Japlish, Jenglish, Jinglish, Nihonglish, and
Niplish), we find the following diverse characterisations:
• poor English
• a stilted Japanese version of English
• English as spoken by Japanese
• bastardized English
• horribly bastardized style of English spoken by Japanese ESL dropouts
• a mongrel product of English and Japanese
• Japanese-coined English phrases
• the Invasion of Japan by English Words
• English loanwords that have been adopted into Japanese
• weird translational malapropisms
• badly and often hilariously translated text
• translating Japanese into English in the Japanese word order
• a hybrid grammar introducing English components to standard Japanese,
or Japanese components to standard English
• Japanese words spelled out in English
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
• English written in Katakana
Leaving aside the abundance of negativity for the time being, in aggregate these attempts at
definition speak to the multitude of linguistic phenomena characteristic of language hybridity
in multilingual settings, albeit explained with differing emphases by different definers.
Individually, some of these definitions fall into the common definitional trap of being overly
precise (see Landau 1984: 148-151). So while defining styles (a) and (b) suffer from a dearth
of information about the referent, their tacit breadth of inclusiveness at least has the merit of
avoiding the problem of overspecificity sometimes found in defining style (c). This
overspecificity often takes the forms of unilateral stipulations restricting the meanings of
certain terms. For example:
I reserve the term Spanglish for English-influenced Spanish as a first language,
distinguishing it from Spanish-influenced English spoken as a second language,
which I call Englanol. (Nash 1970: 224).
As a result “two distinct dialects have developed which are causing havoc to
businessmen and tourists alike from both countries.” These are Japalish (Japanese
English) and Enganese (English Japanese). (English Today 1988: 35)
Anglish (Anglicized Yiddish), which turns Yiddish words into colloquial English
(as in shmo), and Yinglish (Yiddishized English), which gives English words and
expressions the qualities of Yiddish syntax and intonation (as in “a Heifitz he
isn’t”)[.] (Bluestein 1998: x)
There was also a reverse version of Hunglish that may be called “Engarian”
(English Hungarian), which adjusted the primitive English to the ears of the
immigrants. (Várdy and Szendrey 2016)
This is not to say that restrictions in meaning can never occur: Rüdiger (2014) convincingly
showed that the term Konglish is used by South Korean English learners to refer only to “a
lexical set of Koreanized English words in Korean,” as opposed to learner’s English, Korean
English, or “mistakes made by Koreans when using English.” However, we must remember
that South Korean English learners are not the only people who use the term Konglish.
Indeed, in the data, the majority of uses were at odds with Rüdiger’s findings, suggesting that
the word Konglish might have a different meaning in Korea than elsewhere.
The pinnacle of the effort to fix restrictive meanings to a set of terminology can be found in
two papers in American Speech by Feinsilver (1979, 1980). These debated the merits of
various terms for Hebrew with interpolated English (Engbrew or Englibrew), Yiddish with
interpolated English (Engdish, Engliddish, Yiddiglish, Yidlish), and English with interpolated
Yiddish (Yinglish). Feinsilver rightfully spurned the term Yidgin English (based on pidgin
English) but went on to note that “Although perhaps a bit awkward, Engdish seems more
logical than Yidlish for the first-named category (Yiddish with interpolating English), since
then the beginning of each classifier – Engdish, Yinglish – indicates the outside influence”
(1979: 158). To be sure, this is at least logical. Yet, she later noted that a new coinage
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
“Engliddish seems less awkward than my Engdish” (1980: 79), a claim less easy to justify. In
any case, Feinsilver’s nomenclatural suggestions and fine distinctions did not enjoy
widespread adoption, perhaps partly for the reasons proposed by David L. Gold:
All the glottonyms suggested by Lillian Mermin Feinsilver [...] Engliddish,
Yidlish, Yinglish, Englibrew, Yidgin English, Engdish, and Yiddiglish, are
infelicitous, unnecessary, and unwieldly. They are infelicitous in that they lack the
sober and neutral tone which linguistic terms should have. [...] Would anyone say
with pride (or even sheepishly) “I speak Yidlish” or “I speak Yiddiglish”? (Gold
1985: 185)
While everyone is perfectly free to use whatever terminology they see fit to indicate whatever
meaning they specify, such distinctions rely on an underlying oversimplification of language
contact and hybridity, a simplistic imagining of two discrete entities: language X in a matrix
of language Y, and language Y in a matrix of language X, based on an assumption that some
type of purity preceded the mixtures, and that the resulting mixtures exist separately from one
another. In reality, the multidimensionality of language contact in multilingual environments
ensures no such neat compartmentalisation (for an up-to-date overview of the range of
language mixing involving the English language denoted by these terms, see Schneider
2016). Thus, as desirable as it might be to have rigid nomenclatural clarity, there are many
factors that militate against the adoption of such restricted senses, not the least of which is the
great variety of meaning in popular usage. Were such restricted senses to actually be adopted
in the field of linguistics, these might then be at odds with wider usage, thus creating
nomenclatural ambiguity.
In terms of connotation, there was an abundance of negativity connected to the terms, written
from the perspective of the native speaker viewing nonstandard varieties as nothing other
than poor English, or else from the perspective of the language purist decrying the mixture
and hence dilution of languages. For example, one commentator asked “Is Icelandic slowly
turning into Icelanglish?”, then answered “By Óðinn, I hope not!” (Iceland Review 2012).
Common adjectives describing language mixing were awful, dreadful, horrible, and terrible,
and no less than 16 different sources used the term bastard or bastardisation. However, a
disparaging or superior attitude was not universal: some texts were explicit that the terms
were used “jokingly” while others professed positive attitudes and even “love” for the terms
and the varieties they referred to:
• many Japanese proudly use Japlish items in their speech and writing as a mark of their
modernity
• Franglais and Japlish have taken their places alongside the world’s great languages.
• I love “Germanglish”
• Personally, I love Singlish.
• The Icelanglish he makes up is so original, I love it!
• …which I lovingly call Ugandlish
• …I’ve come to know and love as Uganglish
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
Newspaper articles also were generally positive in tone, although a tendency towards
sensationalism means that the spread of hybrid forms is occasionally touted as the universal
language of the future (e.g. McCrum 2010).
Finally, the data revealed two meanings not previously discussed in the literature. First,
certain “lishes” were used to refer to what are otherwise recognised as varieties of English
rather than hybrid forms. For example, Auslish and Ozlish refer to Australian English,
Brenglish and Britglish to British English, Newzildish to New Zealand English, and so on.
Even Indglish and Indlish, referring to Indian English, do not denote a hybrid of Indian and
English, as there is no language “Indian”. Second, a number of “lishes” referred specifically
to the use of the Latin alphabet to write languages traditionally written in a non-Latin script –
such as Greek, Arabic, and Persian. Thus of 22 citations for Greeklish, half referred to Greek
written with the English alphabet, a practice necessitated in the early days of the Internet
when the capacity to type Greek letters was not supported by most software. Similarly,
Fingilish usually refers to transliterated Farsi in chatrooms, text messages, and the like. Also
used are Fanglish, Farglish, Farslish, Penglish, Pingilish, and Pinglish – though not
universally, being also used to refer to Farsi English or Persian English.
3.2 Etymology
Blends, also known as portmanteau words, are not an original part of English. That is, none
occur in Old or Middle English, nor even in Elizabethan English, with the earliest known
example being the rare and now obsolete term tomaxe, a blend of tomahawk and axe
(Johnson 1759: 17). More enduring has been gerrymander, coined in 1812 from the surname
of Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts + salamander, with two other early examples
still with us today being bodacious (bold + audacious) from 1845 and brunch (breakfast +
lunch) from 1896. Despite their slow beginnings, today blends are a common form of word
formation, and their popularity appears to be on the increase. Blends are common in technical
vocabulary camcorder, pixel, transistor; computing, digerati, emoticon, netiquette, sysop,
webinar; the arts, biopic, bromance, rockumentary, sitcom; marketing, advertorial,
edutainment, infomerical; politics, Brexit, Reaganomics, stagflation; as names for celebrity
couples, Bennifer, Brangelina; and a host of other arenas of modern life, botox, chillax,
gaydar, labradoodle, mansplaining, moobs, staycation. Clearly this type of word appeals to
modern English users.
One reason for the popularity of portmanteau words in naming language hybrids may be the
fact that the names themselves embody a type of hybridity. For many blends it is not possible
to know where the first word ends and the second word begins. For instance, with Spanglish
the internal letter -n- is shared by both original etymons, so that in the end product the origin
of the medial -n- is essentially from both donor words (i.e., it is not Span- + -glish, nor Spa-
+ -nglish, but rather Span- + -nglish). This overlapping is reflective of hybrid languages,
where certain features (phonetic, orthographic, semantic, syntactic) are also difficult to
disentangle.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
There are a number of different levels to which the various “lishes” have been blended, based
on whether there is any overlap of letters or phonemes, and whether either or both of the
words are truncated. First is full blending in which there is an overlap of letters from both
etymons and truncation of both, such as:
Hinglish = Hin(di) + (E)nglish (sharing the n)
Chinglish = Chin(a) + (E)nglish (sharing the n)
Portuglish = Portug(uese) + (En)glish (sharing the g)
Hunglish = Hung(arian) + (E)nglish (sharing the ng)
The second level involves overlap, but truncation of only one of the terms:
Nenglish = Ne(pali) + English (sharing the e)
Bengalish = Bengali + (Eng)lish (sharing the li)
The next level has no overlap (i.e. no shared letters), but both etymons are truncated:
Neplish = Nep(ali) + (Eng)lish
Mexlish = Mex(ican) + (Eng)lish
And, finally, no overlap, but only one etymon is truncated:
Frenchlish = French + (Eng)lish
Thaiglish = Thai + (En)glish
Twinglish = Twi + (E)nglish
Brazenglish = Braz(ilian) + English
There are also instances of no overlap and no truncation, e.g. Efikinglish and Ijawinglish,
from Efik + inglish (= English) and Ijaw + inglish (= English). While these are not technically
portmanteau words they were retained in the data as they are clearly attempts at creating
hybrid terms.
Some etymons appear to have greater valency than others when it comes to the formation of
portmanteau words. Table 1 lists the most valent.
Table 1: Number of variant names by etymon
Etymon
Names
Etymon
Names
Japanese
11
Yoruba
7
Malay
11
Croatian
6
Russian
11
Farsi
6
Chinese
10
French
6
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
German
9
Indian
6
American
8
Malayalam
6
Italian
8
Punjabi
6
Urdu
8
Swahili
6
Tamil
7
Yiddish
6
Thai
7
Although Japanese, Malay, and Russian top the list when analysed by etymon, hybrid
German and English has the most names (15: with 9 based on German, 5 on Deutsch, and 1
on the slang term Kraut), followed by hybrid Japanese and English (14: with 11 on Japanese,
2 on Nippon, 1 on Nihongo), while adding hybrid terms based on Farsi and Persian totals 11
names. The most homonymous term is Pinglish, which can refer Palestinian, Pakistani, Papua
New Guinean, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, and Punjabi English.
One peculiarity of these “lishes” are forms that end in -inglish but for which the first etymon
has no corresponding -i- vowel, such as Binglish (Bengali English), Dinglish (Dutch
English), Gringlish (Greek English), and Portinglish (Portuguese English). These forms
result from a respelling of English to Inglish, because spelling them with the original “e” of
English would not give the correct pronunciation (i.e. a blend of Gr(eek) and English would
give Grenglish, which could be read as /ˈgrɛŋglɪʃ/). So, to retain the /-ɪŋglɪʃ/ ending, the
spelling is altered to Gringlish, which can only be read as /ˈgrɪŋglɪʃ/. There were 45 cases of
such adaptive respelling in the data set (approximately 9% of the total).
Another variation in the spelling occurs with those forms ending in -rish rather than -lish,
such as, Chinrish and Chingrish (Chinese English) and Jangrish and Jingrish (Japanese
English). These are based on the respelling of English as Engrish to derisively denote
varieties of Asian Englishes in which a salient feature is the substitution of /l/ and /ɹ/. The
form Engrish, as a (mis)pronunciation of English, dates back to at least 1946 (Telegraph, 7
Sept), but its use as a name for “defective” Asian English is more recent, dating only from
1985 (Sunday Mail, 1 Dec).
The etymologies of some terms depend on terms that are neither language names nor regions.
Examples include Boglish for Irish English, referring to slang terms for the Irish such as
Boglander and Bogtrotter, Gyplish for Egyptian English, from slang Gyppo ‘an Egyptian,’
Krautlish for German English, from slang Kraut ‘a German,’ Niplish for Japanese English,
from slang Nip ‘a Japanese person,’ and Yanklish for American English, from slang Yank ‘an
American.’ Some of these require local knowledge, such as Bonglish for Bengali English,
from Indian English slang Bong ‘a Bengali,’ Mallish for Malayalam English, from Indian
English slang Mallu ‘a Malayali,’ and Idlish for southern Indian English, from idli, a type of
steamed round bread commonly eaten in south India for breakfast. The Australian term
Woglish, more commonly termed Wogspeak, is based on a specific Australian English use of
the derogatory term wog to mean Australians of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern
background. Panglish (when not referring to a globalised pan-English) refers to the hybrid
English and Japanese of ‘pan-pan girls,’ female sex workers of post-WWII occupied Japan.
Qinglish is a variant spelling of Chinglish based on pinyin q = /tɕʰ/.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
The etymology of the term Japlish is disputed and contentiously so. The two schools of
thought are that (a) it is a full blend from Jap(anese) + (Eng)lish, or that (b) it is a half blend
from the pejorative slang term Jap + (Eng)lish, and therefore is racist and offensive.
Chronologically both etymologies are possible since the term Japlish only dates back to
1960, whereas the slang shortening has been recorded since the 1850s (Green 2010).
Furthermore, the latter formation has analogies with such terms as Bonglish and Yanklish, not
to mention the clearly pejorative Niplish. In any case, it will do well to remember that using
the term Japlish may cause offense.
The origin of some terms can present problems. The term Sheng, from Kenya, refers to a
range of hybrids of primarily Swahili and English, but also including various other local
mother tongue languages. The term dates back to 1965 (Wolverton 1965: 113), and although
there is an extensive literature devoted to it, I cannot find any discussion of the term’s
etymology except in its Wikipedia article which states that it is from S(wa)h(ili) + Eng(lish).
This may be the case, but corroborating evidence is lacking. Certainly, it is not formed in the
usual manner. Another case in point is the term Yeshivish, referring to the hybrid English
used in yeshivas, Jewish religious schools, which may be from yeshiva + (Engl)ish, or merely
an extension of the regularly formed adjective yeshiva + -ish.
While in the minority, some terms appear to be badly formed, or are otherwise difficult to
account for. For example, while Italglish is regularly formed from Ital(ian) + (En)glish, the
variant form Italgish is missing the second -l-. The form Khasilish, for Kashmiri English, is
perhaps a typing error, and the origin of the term Rublish for Russian English is not obvious,
perhaps some play on the word rubbish and/or rouble is intended?
In terms of coinage by individuals, there were few definite cases of this in the data. The term
Britglish (for British English) appears to have been invented by author Anthony Burgess in
1973, but its companion term in his article, Ameringlish (American English), is found earlier,
from 1969. The term Janglish (Japanese English) was coined by James Kirkup in 1966 as a
disparaging title with an underlying pun on the word jangle ‘to sound discordantly’. Caution
needs to be exercised in regards to claims of coinage as the data contained a number of
examples of writers professing the invention of a term that had actually been in existence for
many years.
Finally, of note is that possibility that some terms may have originated in foreign languages
and then been borrowed into English. This is almost certainly the case for Denglish and
Deutschlish for German English, which also appear in English-language text spelled
Denglisch and Deutschlisch as well as being well-attested in German texts. Espanglish,
located in English contexts from 1986 to 2012, must be a loanword from Spanish where it is
recorded as early as 1954 (Tió). Similarly, Danglish appears in Danish texts, Franglish in
French texts, Poglish in Polish texts, and many of the Russian-English hybrid names are
found in Russian (Ruslish/руслиш, Russlish/русслиш, Runglish/рунглиш), suggesting that
these may have been coined there first, though I have not been able to confirm this.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
3.3 History
Perhaps the earliest “lish” is Amerenglish from 1923. The OED does not consider this term a
portmanteau term, but rather a use of the prefix Amer-, for which they cite other instances
(Amerasian, Amerindian). However, as it also fits the derivational pattern of other “lishes”,
and forms a pair with Ameringlish, it has been treated as a blend for the purposes of this
study. A further five “lishes” appear in the 1930s: Spanglish 1933, Chinglish 1936,
Germenglish 1936, Frenglish 1937, and Swenglish 1938. There were rare examples of
portmanteau words with the second element English prior to the 1930s, such as Chinglish
from 1904 and 1908, and Spinglish from 1917, but these referred to peoples of mixed
parentage or background, not to languages. An isolated instance of Greeklish from 1911 was
from a limerick about an America college fraternity named Theta Delta and was not actually
referring to hybrid languages.
The 1940s and 1950s combined saw only modest increase, adding another 5 terms, while the
1960s added another 15 terms. The 1970s added 42 terms to the list and the 1980s a further
48, by which time the study of World Englishes was also gaining ground. It was not until the
1990s that large increases were seen, with 125 terms coined, and a further 152 terms coined
in the 2000s. From 2010 to 2016 a further 88 terms appeared in the data. Thus, coinages from
the 1990s onwards account for approximately 76% of total terms. These figures are
dependent on the sources surveyed. Had I access to large databases of scanned-in newspapers
from the Philippines, or Africa, or India, etc., we would expect to see a good percentage of
antedatings of the current earliest instances, with a consequent reconfiguration of the rate of
neologism for each decade, and potentially the addition of many more terms. However, it is
doubtful if the overall pattern of increase would change dramatically. One interesting point to
note is that the hybrid term appears to be preceded by the ordinary two-word compound term,
usually by many decades. For instance, the term Chinese English dates back to 1840, while
Chinglish only to 1936, Australian English dates from 1851, but Auslish only from 1991,
Hungarian English from 1897, but Hunglish from 1978, Global English from 1962, but
Globish from 1995.
Finally, the data did not contain any examples of terms that had clearly died out. This is
consistent with the increase in the popularity and frequency of these terms as time progresses.
3.4 Frequency
Assessing frequency is no simple task. One must be especially careful when using Google to
determine frequency as there is a very real risk of fantastically overestimating the frequency
and subsequent importance of a term. A good example of the pitfall to be avoided is afforded
by Stejskal (2008: 7), who states that a “Google search for Globish in August 2006 yields
approximately 182,000 hits.” While this might seem a plausible figure and an indexicalisation
of the global importance of this term, the inflated number is not trustworthy, and the actual
number would have been much lower. For example, a Google search done on 29 April 2016
returned “about 359,000 results” for the word Globish. However, this mighty figure is an
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
estimate devised by a mathematical algorithm, not an exact count, and includes a vast number
of cloned webpages. As one wades through all the results pages, the number reduces, until
Google finally admits there are only 33 pages of results containing only “328 results”.
Moreover, even this small number includes numerous duplications of the same text repeated
on multiple webpages as well as over 10 results pages of non-English-language sites. The
other databases used generally provide more accurate numbers of hits than Google, but still
duplication exists, resulting from syndicated news articles appearing in numerous
newspapers. The Nexis database returned a high number of hits for many terms: Namlish
(Namibian English) 100 hits, Swenglish (Swedish English) 137 hits, Taglish (Tagalog
English) 226, etc. Going through the results for Namlish reveals that 65 results were
duplicates, reducing the actual total of instances to 35.
The duplication of a news or magazine article across a number of sources means that any
term contained therein is spread to a much wider audience of readers. Indeed, five or ten
citations from Google Groups, or from a range of different blog sites, may not reach as many
people as a single usage of a word in the New York Times or the London Guardian. This
leads to another problem in trying to determine frequency: do we consider a citation on the
front page of, say, the Times of India, to count as one example of a word in use, or,
considering the paper has a print circulation of over a million plus an online version, does the
citation constitute over a million examples? For the purposes of the present research,
examples in newspapers and magazine were counted as single instances, and duplicates were
ignored. For the most common terms it was not feasible to collect all citations available.
Despite this, the frequency in the resulting data remains a good indication of overall rate of
frequency as the same collection process was applied to all terms. Graph 1 displays the
number of citations per term.
Graph 1: Citations per term
159
40 49 51
26 22 27
916 8
19 12 76931664032213331
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30+
Terms
Number of Citations
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
There were 159 terms (approximately 31%) for which only one citation was found. The
number drops steeply, with 40 terms represented by two citations, 49 by three citations, and
51 by four citations. At the other end of the scale, 15 terms were represented by 30 or more
citations. Some of the single-citation terms appeared to be nonce formations, that is, created
for the occasion. For example, Foronda (1991) “arbitrarily” coined the terms “Mandenglish
or Fukienglish or Cantenglish” for hybrids of English with Mandarin, Fukien, and Cantonese,
respectively. The lack of further citations for these three terms seems to justify considering
these nonce formations. Yet, access to more resources would undoubtedly discover further
corroborating evidence for many of the 159 hapax legomena in the data. Indeed, as the
research progressed many terms for which only a sole example existed were subsequently
found to be well-attested once more databases and sources were investigated.
From the figures in Appendix 1 it is possible to assess which term from a set of synonyms has
been the most commonly used. For example, for hybrids of German and English, the terms
Gerglish, Gerlish, and Germlish have 16 or more citations in the data, whereas Genglish,
Germanglish, Germenglish, Germinglish, and Gernglish have 8 or less. For hybrids of Italian
and English, the terms Italglish and Italish significantly outweigh the competing forms
Itaglish, Italgish, Italianglish, Itanglish, Itinglish, and Itlish. And while Manglish for Malay
English is clearly the most common form, Malenglish was about half as common in the data,
with other forms far behind these two frontrunners.
3.5 Pronunciation
The following discussion is not based on a corpus of spoken instances, for which access is
not at present feasible. The majority of terms in the list are unfamiliar to myself, as they will
be to many readers, but knowledge of the English spelling and pronunciation system can be
invoked to make some pertinent comments. Many of the hybrid terms found by the study
pose no difficulties if the ordinary rules of English spelling/pronunciation correspondences
are applied. For example, the orthographical form Chinglish can only reasonably map to the
pronunciation /ˈtʃɪŋglɪʃ/, and the same goes for Hinglish /ˈhɪŋglɪʃ/, Taglish /ˈtæglɪʃ/, and
Yinglish /ˈjɪŋglɪʃ/. However, the same cannot be said for many other “lishes”. Take, for
instance, Russlish and its alternative spelling Ruslish, based on the word Russian. Here two
pronunciation options vie, namely /ˈrʌslɪʃ/, based on the spelling, and /ˈrʌʃlɪʃ/, based on the
first syllable of the pronunciation of the word Russian /ˈrʌʃən/. However, since these words
are used in Russian as well, where they are spelled руслиш and русслиш, we can expect that
Russian speakers of English might also pronounce Ruslish or Russlish with an initial /ru-/.
Another set of difficulties arise from the odd pronunciation of the English word English,
which while spelt with an initial “E” is not pronounced with an initial /e/ or /ɛ/. Thus
Spenglish, for hybrid Spanish and English, presumably should be pronounced /ˈspɪŋglɪʃ/ and
not /ˈspɛŋglɪʃ/, though orthographically /ˈspɛŋglɪʃ/ would be consistent with all other English
words beginning or containing the letters “spen” (e.g. dispense, Spencer, suspend). The
alternative form Spinglish clearly indicates /ˈspɪŋglɪʃ/. A similar situation occurs with
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
Swenglish and Swinglish, both referring to hybrids of Swedish and English. For Swenglish,
McArthur (1998: 14) notes that the pronunciation is /ˈswɪŋglɪʃ/. Similarly, an
alt.english.usage Usenet discussion stated that Wenglish (for Welsh English) was “usually”
pronounced /ˈwɪŋglɪʃ/, which implies that /ˈwɛŋglɪʃ/ also occurs, which would make sense
due to the initial /wɛ-/ of Welsh.
Portmanteau words based on the word German create a number of forms that on first sight
might be pronounced with initial /gɜ(r)-/: Gerglish, Gerlish, Gernglish. These presumably
should be (in non-rhotic dialects) /ˈʤɜglɪʃ/, /ˈʤɜlɪʃ/, and /ˈʤɜŋglɪʃ/ respectively. Similarly,
the synonymous Genglish and Ginglish analogically should be pronounced /ˈʤɪŋglɪʃ/. The
hedging here points to the necessity for study in this area.
4. Conclusion
The research presented in this paper is the most comprehensive and up-to-date reckoning of
an expanding set of portmanteau terms based on the word English. Back in 1995, McArthur
wrote that “[s]uch mixes may be enjoyed, mocked, or denounced by teachers, linguists, the
media, and others, but regardless of praise or blame they steamroller on: the daily usage of
tens of millions of people” (2). If one thing has been made abundantly clear from the present
research, it appears that this is more so than ever. A total of 510 terms were found by the
research, for which earliest attestations were sought and the frequency of occurrence was
estimated. The results indicate that many terms have been in use over a considerable period
of time. Writing about the situation in India in 2007, John lamented that “[e]nough labels and
tags have not been invented to describe the variations of English that are sprouting across the
country” (4). Considering the results of the study, today John may be buoyed at the clear
trend of increasing numbers of new “lishes” for each successive decade since the 1950s, and
the fact that nothing in the data suggests this trend is likely to falter. In terms of semantics,
the data reveals that terms are used to refer to a wide variety of hybrid language types and
features, notwithstanding the restrictive senses sometimes prescribed. A perspective that
views language hybridity in a pejorative light is apparent in the data, yet alongside this a
more positive perspective is also found. Etymologically, the terms show an array of blending
strategies, but for a small number of terms the origin presents difficulties. Further, there is a
suggestion that some terms may have originated in other languages. The data is generally
quiet on pronunciation, and the research did not investigate this aspect, however, it is evident
that the pronunciation of many terms is not clear-cut, indicating that work in this area is
needed.
A limitation of the present research is that novel forms that are not readily predictable from
source etymons (e.g. the term Hokaglish) were not searched for, and the number of such
terms is unknown. Another limitation is that the results are restricted to the texts of the
corpora and databases used. Google Books, for example, while containing an incredible
wealth of texts, still has a large hiatus for the decades 1900 to 1960, and also has limited or
zero preview for many texts it indexes. Further, all databases used are biased towards texts of
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
Inner Circle Englishes, and provide comparatively limited coverage of texts from Outer and
Expanding Circle Englishes. One hopes that the future will bring greater access to such texts,
and so the data presented here should be seen as a snapshot of the state of play in the first half
of 2016. The author kindly welcomes notification of any terms overlooked, any antedatings
of earliest attestations, and any untapped sources that may prove to be productive.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest thanks to Thorsten Brato, Jane McGettigan, Bruce Moore,
Zoya Proshina, Sofia Rüdiger, and Lise Winer, for their invaluable input and assistance in the
making of this paper.
References
Barrett, Grant. 2006. The Official Dictionary of Unofficial English. New York: McGraw Hill
Professional
Bluestein, Gene. 1998. Anglish Yinglish: Yiddish in American Life and Literature. (2nd ed.)
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Burgess, Anthony. 1973. “Ameringlish Isn’t Britglish”. New York Times Magazine, 9 Sept., 86.
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Cummings, Patrick J. and Wolf, Hans-Georg. 2011. A Dictionary of Hong Kong English:
Words from the Fragrant Harbor. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
English Today. 1988. “So-called Roque Fart”. 4: 35.
Feinsilver, Lillian Mermin. 1979. “Yidlish or Engdish, Yinglish or Yidgin English”.
American Speech 54: 158.
Feinsilver, Lillian Mermin. 1980. “How about Engliddish and Yiddiglish?”. American Speech
55: 79.
Foronda, Marcelino A. 1991. Kasaysayan: Studies on Local and Oral History. Manila: De La
Salle University Press.
Fraser, John R. 2009. English: The Prototypical World Language for the Twenty First
Century. USA: Lulu.com.
Global Newsstream. 2016. <www.proquest.com/products-services/newsstand.html>
(accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Gold, David L. 1985. “Names for Jewish English and some of its varieties”. American Speech
60: 185.
Gor Yin Leong. 1936. Chinatown Inside Out. New York: Barrows Mussey.
Green, Jonathon. 2010. Green’s Dictionary of Slang. London: Chambers.
Higgleton, Elaine and Vincent B.Y. Ooi. 1997. The Times-Chambers Essential English
Dictionary. (2nd ed.) Singapore: Federal Publications and Chambers.
Iceland Review. 2012. 7 June. Reykjavík, Iceland.
Indian English: Language and Culture. 2008. Melbourne: Lonely Planet.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
InfoTrac Newsstand. 2016. <go.galegroup.com> (accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Javaherian, Khosrow. 2010. Global English: Read and Write Sound Method. New York:
iUniverse.
Johnson, Samuel. 1759. “The art of advertising exemplified”. The Idler, 40. London.
Jstor. 2016. <www.jstor.org> (accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Kim, Su Lee. 1998. Manglish: Malaysian English at its Wackiest! Kuala Lumpur: Times
Books International.
Kirkup, James. 1966. Tokyo. Tokyo: Phoenix House.
Landau, Sidney I. 1984. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
LexisNexis Academic. 2016. <www.lexisnexis.com> (accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Lighter, J. E. 1994–1997. Historical Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Random House.
McArthur, Tom. 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McArthur, Tom. 1995. “The Anglo-hybrids”. English Today, 11: 2.
McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCrum, Robert. 2010. “All the world speaks Globish”. Newsweek. 12 June.
<www.newsweek.com/all-world-speaks-globish-72941>
Mehrotra, Ram Raja. 1998. Indian English: Texts and Interpretation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Meierkord, Christiane. 2012. Interactions Across Englishes: Linguistic Choices in Local and
International Contact Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyler, Michael. 2007. A Dictionary of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Meyler.
The Moscow News. 2013. 11 Sept. Moscow.
Muthiah, S. 1991. Words in Indian English: A Reader’s Guide. Delhi: HarperCollins.
Nash, Rose. 1907. “Spanglish: Language Contact in Puerto Rico”. American Speech 45: 223–233.
New York Times Archives. 2016. <www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/nytarchive.html>
(accessed 10 Mar. 2016).
The Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Third edition. <www.oed.com> (accessed 3 Mar. 2016).
Phillipson, Robert. 2001. “Global English and local language policies: What Denmark
needs”. Language Problems and Language Planning 25: 1–24.
Rowse, Arthur E. 2100. Amglish In, Like, Ten Easy Lessons: A Celebration of the New World
Lingo. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Rubdy, Rani and Alsagoff, Lubna. 2013. The Global-Local Interface and Hybridity:
Exploring Language and Identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rüdiger, Sofia. 2014. “Konglish – What it is and what it isn’t”. Paper presented at IAWE
2014: Asian Contexts and World Englishes, New Delhi, India, 18–20 December.
Salazar, Danica. 2015. Release Notes: New Filipino Words. <public.oed.com/the-oed-
today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/release-notes-new-filipino-words>
(accessed 10 April 2016).
Schneider, Edgar W. 2016. “Hybrid Englishes: An exploratory survey”. World Englishes.
Available online. DOI: 10.1111/weng.12204.
Silva, Penny. 1996. A Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
(prepress ver.) English World-wide, 39(1): 1–33
DOI: 10.1075/eww.38.3.04lam
Stejskal, Stella-Maria. 2008. Teaching English in Switzerland – Commitment to Common
Standards or Movement towards “Globish”?: A Survey amongst Future Teachers in
Bern. GRIN Verlag.
The Sunday Mail. 1985. 1 Dec. Brisbane, Australia.
The Telegraph. 1946. 7 Sept. Brisbane, Australia: 2.
Tió, Salvador. 1954. A Fuego Lento, cien Columnas de Humor y una Cornisa. Puerto Rico:
Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Trove. 2016. <trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper> (accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Urban Dictionary. 2016. <www.urbandictionary.com> (accessed Mar.–Apr. 2016).
Várdy, Steven Béla and Szendrey, Thomas. 2016. “Hungarian Americans”. Countries and
Their Cultures. <www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La/Hungarian-Americans.html>
(accessed 1 Apr. 2016).
Wikipedia. 2004. “List of dialects of the English language”. <en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language&oldid=2168541> (accessed 8 Apr.
2016).
Wikipedia. 2016. “List of dialects of the English language”. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language> (accessed 8 Apr. 2016).
Wikipedia. 2016. “Sheng”. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_slang> (accessed 8 Apr. 2016).
Wiktionary. 2016. <en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page> (accessed Mar.–Apr.
2016).
Winer, Lise. 2009. Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad & Tobago: On Historical
Principles. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Wolff, Martin. 2010. “China EFL: The four great lies”. In Martin Wolff, ed. Of the Students,
By the Students, and For the Students: Time for Another Revolution. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1–18.
Wolverton, Robert E. 1965. Classical Elements in English Words. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams and Co.
Young, Robert J. C. 2009. “English and the language of others”. In Theo D’haen and Iannis
Goerlandr, eds. Literature for Europe? Amsterdam: Rodopi, 161–172.
Author’s address
James Lambert
Department of English Language and Literature
National Institute of Education
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616
james.lambert@nie.edu.sg
Appendix 1
20
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Aflish
African
1975-2015
7
Afringlish
African
2007-2010
4
Algerlish
Algerian
2011
1
Amelish
American
2014
1
Amerglish
American
1940-2009
4
Amerilish
American
2011
1
Amerenglish
American
1923-2016
18
Ameringlish
American
1969-2012
10
Amerlish
American
2006-2001
2
Amglish
American
1989-2015
9
Amglish
Amharic
1998-1998
2
Amlish
American
1991-2012
9
Anglish
American
1997-1999
2
Arabish
Arabic
1994-2016
9
Arablish
Arabic
1984-2011
19
Argentenglish
Argentine
2010
1
Argentinglish
Argentine
2004-2010
2
Arglish
Arabic
2006
1
Armenglish
Armenian
2007-2016
5
Armlish
Armenian
2008
1
Assamlish
Assamese
2009
1
Asslish
Assamese
2003
1
Auslish
Australian
1991-2015
18
Ausslish
Australian
2005
1
Bahamglish
Bahamian
2006
1
Bahasaindlish
Bahasa Indonesia
1995
1
Bahasa Malayglish
Bahasa Malay
2009
1
Balenglish
Balinese
2014
1
Balinglish
Balinese
2007-2914
4
Banglish
Bengali
1975-2015
19
Belglish
Belgian
2005-2015
6
Bengalish
Bengali
1972-2012
4
Benglish
Bengali
1988-2016
27
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Bhojlish
Bhojpuri
2004-2012
3
Bhutenglish
Bhutan
2015
1
Bicolglish
Bikol
2010
1
Bicolish
Bikol
2012
1
Bikoglish
Bikol
2012
1
Binglish
Bengali
1996-2015
7
Binglish
Bangalore
2010
1
Bisaglish
Visayan
2001-2015
7
Bisayish
Visayan
2005-2013
3
Bisaylish
Visayan
2005-2012
5
Bisglish
Visayan
2012
1
Bislish
Visayan
1999-2016
11
Blanglish
Black
2009
1
Blinglish
Black
1997-2016
19
Blingrish
Black ?Engrish
2010
1
Boglish
bog (Irish)
2010-2013
3
Bohoglish
Bohol
2012
1
Bonglish
Bengali
1995-2014
18
Brazenglish
Brazilian
1999-2015
6
Brazinglish
Brazilian
2006-2015
5
Brazlish
Brazilian
1988-2012
3
Brenglish
British
1993-2014
2
Brenglish
Brussels
1996
1
Brilish
British
2011
1
Bringlish
British
1967-2001
4
Bringlish
Brussels
1996
1
Britglish
British
1973-2014
6
Britlish
British
1976-2010
4
Brulish
Brunei
2003-2016
11
Brunglish
Brunei
2007-2016
7
Brusslish
Brussels
2007-2009
2
Bulglish
Bulgarian
1986-2014
9
Burmenglish
Burmese
2011-2015
5
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Cajunlish
Cajun
2007
1
Camglish
Cambodian
2008-2012
2
Canish
Canadian
2005
1
Cantenglish
Cantonese
1991
1
Cebglish
Cebuano
2010-2016
3
Cebuanish
Cebuano
2005-2015
5
Cebuglish
Cebuano
2001-2007
3
Chabacanolish
Chabacano
2001
1
Changlish
Chinese
2000-2012
7
Chenglish
Chinese
1979-2013
13
Chenglish
Czech
2005
1
Chinelish
Chinese
2006
1
Chinenglish
Chinese
1997-2015
5
Chinglish
Chinese
1936-2016
45
Chingrish
Chinese Engrish
1996-2014
7
Chinish
Chinese
1997
1
Chinlish
Chinese
1996-2014
4
Chinrish
Chinese Engrish
2008
1
Corsish
Corsican
2016
1
Croanglish
Croatian
2011
1
Croatlish
Croatian
1993
1
Croenglish
Croatian
1992-2016
2
Croglish
Croatian
2013-2016
4
Cronglish
Croatian
1999-2016
3
Cubanglish
Cuban
1983-2012
7
Czechglish
Czech
2005
1
Czechlish
Czech
1982-2015
10
Czenglish
Czech
1989-2016
11
Danglish
Danish
1990-2016
10
Denglisch
Deutsch (German)
1965-2016
17
Denglish
Deutsch (German)
1996-2016
22
Denglish
Danish
2006-2006
2
Denglish
Dutch
1983-2016
6
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Deutlish
Deutsch (German)
1977
1
Deutschlisch
Deutsch (German)
1970-2006
6
Deutschlish
Deutsch (German)
1979-2015
12
Dinglish
Deutsch (German)
1990-2016
11
Dinglish
Dutch
2003-2006
4
Dunglish
Dutch
1965-2016
13
Dutchlish
Dutch
1986-2006
9
Efikinglish
Efik
2010
1
Egyplish
Egypt
2009-2013
4
Espanglish
Spanish
1986-2012
9
Esperanglish
Esperanto
2002
1
Estlish
Estonian
2011
1
Eurish
European
1993-2015
4
Eurlish
European
2006-2011
2
Euroglobish
European
2014
1
Eurogrish
European ?Engrish
2002
1
Eurolish
European
1979-2012
9
Ewenglish
Ewe
2014
1
Fanglish
Fante
2004-2014
7
Fanglish
Farsi
1991-2008
2
Farglish
Farsi
2006-2015
3
Farslish
Farsi
1985-2012
7
Fenglish
Farsi
1993
1
Fillish
Filipino
2006-2008
2
Fingilish
Farsi
2005-2016
13
Finglish
Finnish
1943-2016
19
Finglish
Farsi
2003-2016
13
Finnglish
Finnish
1976-2014
12
Franglish
French
1967-2016
19
Frelish
French
2014
1
Frenchlish
French
1974-2016
12
Frenglish
French
1937-2015
34
Frenish
French
1997
1
21
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Frimlish
Yiddish
2015
1
Fringlish
French
1982-2015
15
Fukienglish
Fukien
1991
1
Gamblish
Gambian
2012-2016
4
Ganglish
Gaelic
1990-2016
3
Ganglish
Ghanaian
2013-2014
3
Ganglish
Ga
2006
1
Genglish
German
1977-2016
8
Georglish
Georgian
2006-2016
4
Gerglish
German
1968-2015
16
Gerlish
German
1976-2008
18
Germanglish
German
1967-2014
6
Germenglish
German
1936-2006
7
Germinglish
German
1996-2013
4
Germish
German
1972-2016
12
Germlish
German
1974-2016
20
Gernglish
German
1996-2006
7
Ghanenglish
Ghanaian
2006-2012
5
Ginglish
German
1989-2016
8
Ginglish
Gujarati
1996-2015
4
Globish
global
1995-2015
8
Globish
global (Nerrière’s sense)
2004-2016
9
Globlish
global
2005-2014
7
Greeklish
Greek
1987-2016
22
Greenglish
Greek
2004-2010
3
Greenglish
Greenland
2010
1
Grenglish
Greek
1987-2016
16
Gringlish
Greek
1988-2016
15
Gringlish
gringo (Spanish)
1991-2011
7
Gujaratish
Gujarati
1972
1
Gujjish
Gujarati
1994
1
Gujlish
Gujarati
1999-2016
14
Gunglish
Gujarati
2010-2014
2
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Guyanglish
Guyanese
2015-2016
2
Gyplish
Gyp (Egyptian)
2015
1
Hanglish
Hangul (Korean)
1995-2012
5
Hangulish
Hangul (Korean)
1995
1
Hausenglish
Hausa
2011-2012
2
Hausinglish
Hausa
2007-2015
3
Hebglish
Hebrew
1993-2011
2
Heblish
Hebrew
1979-2013
12
Hebrish
Hebrew
1989-2016
11
Henglish
Hebrew
1988-2016
3
Henglish
Hindi
1993
1
Hindish
Hindi
1972-2013
12
Hindlish
Hindi
1985-2015
26
Hinglish
Hindi
1967-2016
73
Hinglish
Hebrew
1980-2016
2
Hinlish
Hindi
2013
1
Hokaglish
Hokkien & Tagalog
2016
1
Hmonglish
Hmong
2003-2015
11
Hongkonglish
Hong Kong
1993-2015
11
Honglish
Hong Kong
1993-2015
11
Hunglish
Hungarian
1978-2016
20
Ibibionglish
Ibibio
2010
1
Icelandlish
Icelandic
2009
1
Icelanglish
Icelandic
2004-2013
6
Idlish
idli (Southern Indian)
2006
1
Igblish
Igbo
2013-2015
4
Igbolish
Igbo
2002-2011
2
Ijawinglish
Ijaw
2010
1
Ilocanglish
Ilocano
2007-2010
3
Ilongish
Ilonggo
2012
1
Ilonglish
Ilonggo
2001-2012
3
Iluklish
Ilocano
2002
1
Indenglish
Indian
1979-2011
4
22
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Indglish
Indian
1984-2015
11
Indianlish
Indian
2007
1
Indiigboglish
Indi Igbo
2007
1
Indinglish
Indian
1974-2007
2
Indish
Indian
1984-2008
14
Indlish
Indian
1962-2014
22
Indoglish
Indonesian
2006-2016
9
Indonglish
Indonesian
1991-2007
6
Indonlish
Indonesian
1995
1
Inglish
Indian
1985-2014
18
Inglish
Indonesian
2011
1
Iowish
Iowa
1983
1
Irglish
Irish
2000-2007
2
Islish
Israeli
2005
1
Israelish
Israeli
2006
1
Itaglish
Italian
1986-2010
6
Italgish
Italian
2000-2016
3
Italglish
Italian
1985-2011
14
Italianglish
Italian
2011-2014
2
Italish
Italian
1988-2011
12
Itanglish
Italian
1973
1
Itinglish
Italian
1997
1
Itlish
Italian
1993
1
Jamlish
Jamaican
2002-2006
4
Janglish
Japanese
1966-2013
27
Jangrish
Japanese Engrish
1998-2015
7
Japalish
Japanese
1971-2005
12
Japanglish
Japanese
1973-2016
24
Japanlish
Japanese
1997-2011
5
Japenglish
Japanese
1986-2015
12
Japglish
Japanese
1990-2015
6
Japlish
Japanese
1960-2016
53
Jaunlish
Jaun-Jaun
2012
1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Javenglish
Javanese
2009-2015
4
Javlish
Javanese
2010-2011
3
Jenglish
Japanese
1988-2005
5
Jenglish
Jewish
1991
1
Jinglish
Japanese
1973-2013
30
Jinglish
Jewish
2006
1
Jingrish
Japanese Engrish
2005-2011
4
Jordenglish
Jordan
2015
1
Kamponlish
kampong Malay
1997
1
Kanglish
Kannada
1993-2015
27
Kanlish
Kannada
2009-2014
4
Kannadlish
Kannada
2006
1
Kannalish
Kannada
2000-2007
3
Kashinglish
Kashmiri
2003-2005
2
Kenglish
Kenya
1986-2015
3
Khasilish
Kashmiri
2004
1
Kinglish
Kiwi (NZ)
1998-2005
2
Kinglish
Korean
2000
1
Kinglish
Kannada English
2004-2015
3
Kiswanglish
Swahili
2006-2016
7
Kiwilish
Kiwi (NZ)
2005-2016
4
Kiwinglish
Kiwi (NZ)
2005-2015
4
Konglish
Korean
1975-2016
30
Konglish
Konkani
2004-2004
2
Konklish
Konkani
2011-2015
7
Korenglish
Korean
1992-2015
4
Korglish
Korean
2000
1
Korlish
Korean
1988-2010
3
Krautlish
Kraut (German)
2001-2010
4
Latvenglish
Latvia
2006-2016
5
Lebanglish
Lebanese
2013-2013
2
Lebenglish
Lebanese
2014
1
Libglish
Liberian
2015
1
23
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Liblish
Liberian
2009
1
Lithuanglish
Lithuania
2010-2015
7
Lithuenglish
Lithuania
2011-2016
3
Macedonglish
Macedonian
2007
1
Malalish
Malay
2005
1
Malanglish
Malay
2013-2015
2
Malayalish
Malayalam
1995-2011
6
Malayanglish
Malay
1991
1
Malayglish
Malay
2005-2016
15
Malayish
Malay
2009
1
Malaylish
Malay
1992-2006
5
Malaylish
Malayalam
1996
1
Malaynylish
Malay
1989
1
Malenglish
Malay
1994-2014
13
Malenglish
Male
2007
1
Malglish
Malay
1997-2008
6
Malglish
Malayalam
2004-2007
3
Malglish
Maltese
2016
1
Malish
Malay
1992-2006
6
Mallish
Malayalam
2004-2007
2
Maltenglish
Maltese
2007-2016
6
Mandenglish
Mandarin
1991
1
Mandinglish
Mandingo
2006-2015
4
Manglish
Malay
1989-2016
27
Manglish
Malayalam
1992-2016
18
Manglish
Maltese
2016
1
Manglish
Mandarin
1995
1
Manxlish
Manx
2013-2015
4
Maralish
Marathi
2001
1
Maranish
Maranaoan
2012
1
Marathinglish
Marathi
2012-2015
4
Marathlish
Marathi
2014
1
Marlish
Marathi
2008-2014
4
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Merklish
Merkin (American)
2001-2010
4
Mexiglish
Mexican
2006-2016
5
Mexlish
Mexican
1995-2000
3
Minglish
Marathi
1996-2015
5
Minglish
mingled
1985-2016
26
Minglish
Malay
2002
1
Minglish
Malayalam
2004-2013
3
Minglish
Manx
2006
1
Minglish
Maltese
2006-2014
3
Moldovlish
Moldovan
2010
1
Monglish
Mongolian
1974-2015
10
Monglish
Hmong
2006
1
Morglish
Morocco
2006
1
Namlish
Namibian
1991-2015
14
Navlish
Navajo
2009-2015
4
Nenglish
Nepali
1999-2016
8
Nepanglish
Nepali
2000-2011
6
Neplish
Nepali
2002-2015
7
Newfoundlish
Newfoundland
1991-2016
3
Newzildish
New Zealand
1988-2016
6
Nigerenglish
Nigerian
2011
1
Nigeringlish
Nigerian
2010-2015
3
Nihonglish
Nihongo (Japanese)
1988-2011
8
Ninglish
Nigerian
2010-2013
2
Ninglish
Norwegian
2004
1
Niplish
Nip (Japanese)
1998-2008
5
Nipponglish
Nippon (Japanese)
2003-2013
5
Norweglish
Norwegian
1994-2016
3
Norwenglish
Norwegian
1980-2016
11
Odinglish
Odissa
2012-2015
3
Omanglish
Oman
2012
1
Orilish
Oriya
2014
1
Ozlish
Oz (Australian)
1997-2015
14
24
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Paklish
Pakistani
1997-2016
6
Pampanglish
Pampangan
2010
1
Panamanglish
Panama
2011
1
Pangalish
Pangasinan
2012
1
Pangasinenglish
Pangasinan
2010
1
Panglish
pan-English
1987-2014
12
Panglish
pan-pan girls
1982-2013
5
Penglish
Persian
1993-2015
7
Perlish
Persian
2006-2015
4
Phinglish
Philippine
2008-2013
2
Piglish
Pilipino
1998-2005
4
Pingilish
Persian
2004-2014
4
Pingilishi
Persian
2006
1
Pinglish
Palestinian
1950-2013
6
Pinglish
Punjabi
1993-2012
15
Pinglish
Pakistani
1999-2010
6
Pinglish
Persian
1989-2016
16
Pinglish
Polish
1984-2000
4
Pinglish
PNG
1998
1
Pinglish
Portuguese
2004
1
Pinoyglish
Pinoy
2005-2007
3
Poglish
Polish
2006-2016
7
Polglish
Polish
1975-2016
15
Polilish
Polish
1997
1
Ponglish
Polish
2002-2016
11
Porglish
Portuguese
2006-2016
4
Portinglish
Portuguese
2001
1
Portlish
Portuguese
2005
1
Portuglish
Portuguese
1997-2013
8
Punglish
Punjabi
1984-2016
32
Punjabish
Punjabi
2010
1
Punjablish
Punjabi
2007-2013
3
Punjish
Punjabi
1994
1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Punjlish
Punjabi
1998-2014
13
Qinglish
Chinese
1997-2016
4
Ringlish
Russian
1996-2016
7
Romenglish
Romanian
2005-2012
6
Romglish
Romanian
1999-2016
5
Rominglish
Romanian
2005-2016
4
Romlish
Romanian
1984-2011
3
Rublish
Russian
2014
1
Ruglish
Russian
1993-2010
9
Runglish
Russian
1998-2016
28
Rusglish
Russian
1999-2013
9
Rusinglish
Russian
2015
1
Ruslish
Russian
1997-2012
4
Russenglish
Russian
2001
1
Russglish
Russian
1991-2014
11
Russilish
Russian
1997
1
Russlish
Russian
1971-2016
28
Rwanglish
Rwanda
2013-2015
2
Samoglish
Samoan
2006-2009
2
Sardish
Sardinian
2016
1
Scandlish
Scandinavian
2009-2016
3
Scanglish
Scandinavian
2005-2012
8
SEAnglish
South-East Asia
2010
1
Serblish
Serbian
2010-2016
3
Serbocroenglish
Serbo-Croatian
1998
1
Sheng
Swahili
1965-2016
15
Shenglish
Sheng
2011-2014
2
Shinglish
Singapore
2012
1
Shonglish
Shona
1995-2015
10
Siculish
Sicilian
2005-2016
2
Sindlish
Sindhi
2008-2014
3
Sinenglish
Singapore
2000-2009
2
Sinenglish
Sri Lankan
2000-2010
3
25
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Singhlish
Singhalese
2005-2015
4
Singlish
Sri Lankan
1972-2016
12
Singlish
Singapore
1973-2016
47
Singlish
Sindhi
2008
1
Slovaklish
Slovakia
2003-2016
3
Slovenglish
Slovenia
2012-2016
5
Southafringlish
South African
2007
1
Spanglish
Spanish
1933-2016
59
Spantaglish
Spanish/Tagalog
1995
1
Spenglish
Spanish
1967-2014
12
Spinglish
Spanish
1970-2008
6
Srilish
Sri Lankan
2005
1
Suidlish
South African
2005
1
Sundanglish
Sudanese
2009
1
Surobenglish
Surabaya
2009
1
Swaglish
Swahili
2010-2016
4
Swahilish
Swahili
2002-2015
4
Swahinglish
Swahili
1998-2014
7
Swalinglish
Swahili
2007-2010
3
Swanglish
Swahili
2004-2016
13
Swedlish
Swedish
1995-2013
6
Sweglish
Swedish
1996-2014
3
Swenglish
Swedish
1938-2016
23
Swinglish
Swedish
1957-2016
20
Swinglish
Swiss
1995-2016
4
Swisslish
Swiss
2005-2013
5
Taglish
Tagalog
1973-2016
34
Taiwanlish
Taiwan
2015
1
Taiwglish
Taiwan
2010
1
Tamglish
Tamil
1991-2015
10
Tamilish
Tamil
1972-2016
14
Tamlish
Tamil
1993-2015
31
Tanglish
Tamil
1991-2016
24
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Tanglish
Tagalog
1999-2008
2
Tauglish
Tausug
2012
1
Telegish
Telugu
2014
1
Telenglish
Telugu
2010
1
Telish
Telugu
2014
1
Telugish
Telugu
1972-2012
5
Teluglish
Telugu
2000-2014
9
Tenglish
Telugu
2004-2016
8
Tenglish
Thai
2012
1
Texlish
Texas
1975-2004
4
Thaiglish
Thai
1992-2016
9
Thailish
Thai
1970-2016
12
Thainglish
Thai
1973-2013
7
Thanglish
Tamil
1997-2016
15
Thenglish
Thai
2003-2013
3
Thinglish
Thai
1996-2016
10
Tibetlish
Tibetan
2011
1
Tinglish
Tamil
1974-2015
19
Tinglish
Thai
1994-2016
15
Tinglish
Taiwan
1993-2011
4
Tinglish
Telugu
2003-2015
4
Tinglish
Tamil/Telugu
2009
1
Tinglish
Tagalog
1994
1
Tonglish
Tongan
2002-2015
11
Tringlish
Trinidadian
1997-2015
7
Tululish
Tulu
2004
1
Tunlish
Tunisia
2011
1
Turklish
Turkish
1994-2016
11
Twanglish
twang (Southern US)
1979-2015
8
Twinglish
Twi
2000-2014
15
Ugandlish
Ugandan
2010-2014
6
Uganglish
Ugandan
2006-2015
5
Uglish
Ugandan
2012-2016
9
26
Appendix 1
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
UKlish
UK
2002-2004
2
Ukrainglish
Ukrainian
2016
1
Ukrenglish
Ukrainian
2010
1
Urdenglish
Urdu
2000
1
Urdinglish
Urdu
1998
1
Urdish
Urdu
1983-2015
23
Urdlish
Urdu
1997-2012
7
Urduish
Urdu
1998-2015
5
Urdunglish
Urdu
2010
1
Urglish
Urdu
1995-2005
2
Urgulish
Urdu
2007
1
USlish
US
2003-2009
5
Venezglish
Venezuela
2010
1
Vietglish
Vietnamese
1992-2015
10
Vietlish
Vietnamese
1967-2013
11
Vietnaminglish
Vietnamese
2016
1
Vinglish
Vietnamese
2010-2015
7
Vinglish
(Indian) vernaculars
2015
1
Vinish
Vietnamese
2003-2016
4
Wanglish
white Manglish/Malay
2009
1
Warayglish
Waray
2008-2010
2
Waraylish
Waray
2008-2012
3
Wenglish
Welsh
1985-2016
20
Whinglish
White
1997-2015
3
NAME
ETYMON
YEAR RANGE
COUNT
Windlish
West Indian
1999
1
Woglish
= wogspeak
2000-2009
3
Worldlish
world
1995-2015
9
Xhenglish
Xhosa
2012-2016
3
Xhonglish
Xhosa
2000-2016
10
Xhoslish
Xhosa
2010
1
Yanglish
American
1997-2014
3
Yanklish
American
1993-2011
11
Yenglish
Yiddish
2000-2010
4
Yeshivish
Yeshiva
1995-2016
12
Yiddiglish
Yiddish
1980-2005
3
Yidlish
Yiddish
1967-2011
11
Yinglish
Yiddish
1942-2016
25
Yorlish
Yoruba
2009-2010
3
Yorubanglish
Yoruba
1977-2015
6
Yorubenglish
Yoruba
2005-2013
4
Yorublish
Yoruba
2013
1
Yoruglish
Yoruba
2007
1
Yorunglish
Yoruba
1985-2010
2
Zamblish
Zambian
2007-2015
5
Zimblish
Zimbabwe
1999-2015
5
Zimglish
Zimbabwe
1998-2016
3
Zulish
Zulu
2013-2016
2
Zulunglish
Zulu
2010-2016
4
27
