Why have the english never needed an official body to regulate their language?

I think you’re overestimating the control that the RAE or Académie Française have over Spanish and French, respectively. Although they do help provide formal norms, especially for spelling, their job is primarily descriptive. The French Academy, famously, has sought to prevent English borrowings from taking over and largely failed (*le fin de semaine*, anyone?). *Most* languages do not have formal regulatory bodies even today, to say nothing of history. Languages tend to govern themselves, and every conversation is a negotiation for meaning. Besides, the role played by the academies is often handled in English by style guides (CMoS, Oxford, APA, MLA, for example), which largely agree with respect to grammar and word usage recommendations.

Languages don't need organizations to resolve the problems you've described. If people don't understand one another, they ask for clarification. Organizations like the RAE or the Académie Française don't exist for those reasons. They exist in order to enforce linguistic supremacy - they are political tools to set up a particular dialect as a national language and drive all other varieties to extinction.

No language has ever needed an official body to regulate it. Some people want such a body, but nobody needs one. English functions just fine as languages always have without one. French and Spanish would both be perfectly happy and perfectly useable without theirs.

Not quite an answer, but the strength of English is its flexibility and willingness to adapt and steal vocab from other languages. An official body would prevent that strength.

No-one “needs” an official body to regulate their language, and the world would be a better place if none had ever existed

No language absolutely needs to have such a group. This is proved by the fact that English and many other languages have no such group. Languages existed long before such groups. Meanings of words often are not unique. A word often has multiple meanings. This exists even in the usage that is approved by the Spanish and French academies. English has style and usage guides that are used by many who write formally. Dictionaries also provide useful information, such as whether a usage is standard. These resources, along with editors, contribute to a level of uniformity that usually allows for clear communication.

>then how can english speakers understand the same meaning of a word when they speak to each other? We don't at times. In British English, "to table a motion" means "start discussing a proposed action". In American English, "to table a motion" means "halt discussion on a topic and bring it up later". There's other confusing words as well: * British people in the U.S. can confuse Americans by asking to borrow a rubber. In British English, that's an eraser. In American English, that's a dated slang term for "condom". * There can be regional differences as well. In the 1970s, when ATMs were first being introduced, several Wisconsin banks joined together to create the TYME (Take Your Money Everywhere) network of ATMs. This caused confusion when Wisconsinites went to other states and asked for directions to the nearest TYME machine.

Where would it be headquartered? London? Washington? Wherever you put it, you’ll make a lot of people angry.

Languages are what people speak and write. You can try to regulate them, but across hundreds of millions of speakers? If you see a style guide for English, it's generally for a journalistic entity that's setting standards for its several hundreds of writers (who are paid to write that way), or an academic journal that requires a certain format for submission. Dictionaries describe language after it's already in use.

In short, context, and Merriam Webster. And lastly, just asking.

I love how literally everyone is saying the same thing and OP is basically just "nuh-uh"ing them lol Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Any organization can say "this is a rule" but that does NOT impede how people actually speak. I mean...look at Arabic. It's literally codified but EVERY SINGLE ARABIC-SPEAKING COUNTRY has its own. Look at Icelandic for something similar.

>*"How do you resolve the problem in official and formal language when two english speakers have different definitions for the same word? Why did the English never need to create an official body to legally regulate the meaning of the words they use...?"* One factor that might be overlooked is that major English-speaking countries are also [common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) countries. Though law relies on statutes, it is mostly based on precedent, i.e. previous judicial rulings. This contrasts with the [civil law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)) systems of most of the rest of the world, where specific legal codes are the primary source of law. Thus where formal legal codes would be needed to "resolve a problem" of "different definitions" in civil law countries and would invite a codified language standard, these are not needed for legal purposes in common law countries.

If English ever did have a regulatory body, it would tell you to capitalize adjectives derived from proper nouns like *English*, *Spanish* and *Anglo-Saxon.*

Not having a body to regulate English has allowed a parity between English as spoken by English people in England, so “English”, and Nigerian English, Australian English and even American English. So we now have the ludicrous situation of English being referred to as “British English” even though the Welsh and Scottish dialects of English are also markedly different. But does it all really matter in a language we spread to half the world, and the simplified version that America then spread to the rest? It’s so convenient to monoglots that I’ve no complaints.

Long before any official organizational involvement, language existed. Whether it’s Spanish or English or Tagalog or Korean… Language develops organically on its own as people interact. No matter the strength or motivation or desires of a governing body, language will modify and adapt, and change on its own. Whether anyone understands those changes is a direct result of how close they are and how involved they are in the change. For instance, I’m 53, and I do not understand most of the changes presently made by teenagers. Similarly, there are particular dialects and slang that adaptations of English, which I do not understand, regardless of any or organizing body or lack there of.

I don't think anybody actually *needs* something like that. 😅 It's just a different approach to take. In English, if we notice a person from a different country or region seems to be using a word differently than we do, we can just ask what they mean, or even look it up in a dictionary. And anyway, the beauty and expressiveness of English comes from its organic nature. We have so many wonderful dialects. They're gorgeous.

In contrast to the OP I'm struggling to know why you need an official language body. Surely understanding the meaning of words is essentially what language is about. Yes there are minor regional differences and yes American English differs, but if understand the word "dog" means a four legged animal that barks, my English speaking neighbour doesn't understand it as a four legged animal that meows. If in doubt, there are excellent dictionaries that can be referred to. We don't all walk round looking at one another in baffled incomprehension. Where a specific definition is required for the purposes of law then that will be written in to the legislation but that is usually specific to the context as much as a particular word. New words are frequently added to English. This has been going on since time immemorial. Shakespeare introduced numerous new words. It is a dynamic language which I believe has more words than any other.

>Why are there peoples who need to create an organization that defines fixed definitions for the words in their language (the spanish people) and peoples who do not (the anglosaxon people)? The main historical reason is that England established a political culture of individual liberty much earlier than Spain or France (by the 17th century). Attempts to establish an English Language Academy were rejected as an overreach of royal authority.

Languages have been completely unregulated for millennia—not only without regulatory “academies” but without dictionaries—until about 400 years ago. Trying to control/define a language in the way that the AF or the RAE are intended to can slow change but cannot completely halt it. Speakers are going to say what they are going to say.

Because it is stupid. If you speak the language you will learn what words mean by context. We make fun of "grammar nazis" for a reason, now imagine if we subsidized grammar nazism with taxpayer dollars/pound sterling? Grammar nazis are stupid ppl that think they are smart.

Spanish speakers use different words in different places, I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that they all speak the same exact language with the same exact words and meanings. Plus, the SAE publishes different dictionaries for Spain and Latin America, so that alone already refutes your argument. If English speakers don’t understand the meaning of a word you just… ask them what they mean. Brits say trousers, and I say pants. I know what trousers mean, and they know what pants mean based on context. I’m willing to bet money that there’s a Spanish word that’s used differently in another country that you just don’t know about. There’s no need to resolve any issues about different meanings or spellings because that’s just how language works. You just know from their accent, where they’re from, or they just tell you what the word means if you ask.

They don't. They're political tools used to enforce that the dialect of a specific group is the correct way of speaking. That's all they ever are. Just institutionalized bigotry. Spain in particular did this because they didn't like how the colonies and also the Galicians and Catalans spoke differently from the Castilian nobility.

People can’t regulate language, you silly goose! Language does what it wants.

I mean, it would probably be helpful, but we can get by. Our amalgamation of a half dozen different dictionaries, various legal definitions posited by common law courts, and the various grammatical rules listed out for formal English by English textbooks, organizations like Cambridge, and the King James Bible doesn’t work well, but it does allow for a degree of certainty in there being common understandings of words legally, formally, and informally, and a mutual idea of correct grammar. As for why an organization was never established, firstly, there were attempts. Groups like the American Philogical Association, the National Education Association, and the Simplified Spelling Board did set out to become something akin to the ARE or AF, but failed out of either a lack of interest by the general public, lack of interest by the organization, or failures to obtain funds. Secondly, the US and UK are notoriously finicky about whether General American or Received Pronunciation should be the standard for the language, and given their long-term post-WWII alliance status, neither group has really wanted to antagonize the other. Thirdly, the US populace is really devoted to Freedom of Speech rights and hates frivolous spending on the part of the federal government, and a spelling reform agency would probably be viewed very negatively. Fourth, the book 1984 is very popular in the anglosphere and is very opposed to spelling reform. Fifth, it’s just not that big of an issue. Most people don’t know anything about issues with the lack of a centralized regulatory body for English except “haha you can spell potato as ‘poughtaightough’ and it still makes the same sound”, and most English-speaking countries don’t really care and don’t want to go through the political trouble of justifying millions of dollars going to something that most people don’t care about. And the benefits are just not that significant. At best, it might accelerate the speed at which English literacy can be taught in public education by a few months.

Our dictionary publishers like Oxford and Merriam-Webster fill the role of making sure English speakers can understand each other. They don't have any legal power, but I don't really see why they would need it. Also some words have slightly different meanings or understandings to different people (like whether the shirt I'm wearing is pink or red), and that's just. Fine. It's not that big of a problem

Having many dialects is a small source of pride to most English speakers, especially in the UK. And in the UK we hate being told what to do. Just look at how many words we have for a bread roll.

The English language is the result of all the people who invaded, but never fully conquered the land. That's why I can choose between large and wide when the French and Germans can only choose one. Then we did the whole empire thing\* and I grew up in the '80s knowing that 'pukka' means 'good/reliable' despite not knowing how to speak Punjabi. Languages naturally change over time. Instead of asking why we didn't create a body to prevent that, ask why your country did. \*sorry

where would this institution be and who would have final say? Sure in the two examples you gave they are in france and spain but they can’t control anything outside their own country, and even then barely. So who’s dialect gets to be right? Is it British english? Going off a quick google search puts the number of British dialects of english at 40 so which one. Ok britain is a shit island who’s day in power has long past, maybe america? OK which one. What makes general american english more correct than AAVE, or southern english or Appalachian english or Minnesotan english. Point is, prescriptivism is dumb and not what any linguist worth their salt has that opinion. It’s dumb in french and spanish but in those cases they got enough stuck up pricks together who thought their specific dialect of the language was “correct” to run an institute. As for how english speakers are able to understand each other, same way we humans always have. If you want more of an answer than that you have the entire field of linguistics to check out

Imagine how the idiots in power would weaponize being able to regulate language... INGSOC vibes...

Just because English doesn't have a body like the RAE it doesn't mean it's unregulated. There are lots of powerful institutions in England other English speaking countries that regulate the use of English. For example the state and independent school systems, the management of the the publishing and broadcasting industries, to an extent the church especially in the past, the government departments publish official documents, the class and employment systems. All those have been used to enforce and privilege certain ways of using English and suppress others.

>How do you resolve the problem in official and formal language when two english speakers have different definitions for the same word? No dictionary is going to cover all the details and nuances of meaning of every word in any language. I'm sure the RAE's dictionary is a very incomplete description of the meanings of Spanish words, not something that defines what every word means exactly in every possible context. Speakers don't "have" definitions of words. They have ways they use the word and ways they understand it, not in the form of written definitions. We see hear a word used for many things and apply it to similar things, without ever having to come up with a definition. We can use our experience and intelligence to know when a word might be ambiguous and give it a definition just for one specific usage or replace it with a phrase if we need to.

No language actually needs those bodies, in my opinion. Those organizations mostly just drag their heels and whine about inevitable language change. The words, pronunciations, and grammatical structures that real speakers use are not at all determined by those bodies, except for maybe in the tiny minority of people who actually care what they have to say.

no living language has ever needed a regulatory body. those are futilely imposed by people with control issues and only ever partially work

We have Google now. And free dictionary or urban dictionary apps. But mostly it’s about context clues and tone. And if we don’t know a word here or there, and mature adult, we ask: “sorry did you just say that girl is fit?” American looks at the girl and she doesn’t look all the “fit” but she’s pretty. US fit=muscular or toned. In UK it means really attractive. This is just an example. (I know the US now uses this slang.)

Only a snollygoster needs their language regulated.

How has every other language worked for all of human history before such bodies of authority existed? It's not like those authorities even have that much control over how people use the language anyways, that's just not how language works. Bodies like the RAE mostly govern official, formal, or otherwise academic language. There are organizations like that for English, but they are more specialized and do not claim authority over the language as a whole. An example wouid be 'style guides' like the APA style guide by the American Psychological Associaiton, which dictates a lot of academic writing. There are also journalistic style guides which dictate how to write news articles and title headlines.

There’s no official body, but the Oxford English Dictionary is the most trusted dictionary for spellings. It also lists American variants for words too.

Who needs an official regulating body when you have Urban Dictionary?

I agree with the other commenter, as they are more political tools than tools of language, as Spain and France both posed vast colonial empire which still speak variations of their languages today. English on the other hand (and most languages) simply don’t need that. If you speak to another person and you are understood? Great, the language is working. There are also still dictionaries that most people refer to for final clarification, like the Mariam-Webster. The last thing is, which english speaking country would hold the power to define English? The U.K., where the language originated but is a lesser power today? Or America, where most of the world’s english speakers live, is the most powerful country in the world, and would really take issue having to listen to the British?

It’s the influence of Samuel Johnson The only major dictionary before his was highly prescriptive and reflected the idea that there should be custodians of proper use of the language But Johnson was the iconoclast who wrote one of the most influential dictionaries ever, and who took a descriptive approach. And that’s the approach which has dominated in Britain since (and all versions of English that spun off from it)

The academies exist to be ignored.

One factor in why English isn't regulated by the state is that state responsibility for education is devolved in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. (The UK and Canada don't even have an education ministry at the top level.) Language regulation is often carried out by education ministries and promulgated via standard national textbooks. This couldn't really happen in these major English-speaking countries.