Channel
@englishlanguage
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Posts recorded as deleted · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
93,377subscribers
+18 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001409414787 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Usernames | @englis @englishlanguage |
| Created | Between 1 March 2019 and 31 October 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 November 2026 |
| Measurements held | 128 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 November 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/englishlanguage |
Education — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 20 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 100% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and the other topics.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Nov 2026, 00:57 | 93,377 | -2 |
| 9 Nov 2026, 21:19 | 93,379 | -14 |
| 9 Nov 2026, 11:47 | 93,393 | -55 |
| 8 Nov 2026, 09:36 | 93,448 | -28 |
| 7 Nov 2026, 23:59 | 93,476 | -39 |
| 7 Nov 2026, 05:49 | 93,515 | -13 |
| 6 Nov 2026, 21:01 | 93,528 | -24 |
| 6 Nov 2026, 08:00 | 93,552 | no change |
| 5 Nov 2026, 22:36 | 93,552 | -15 |
| 5 Nov 2026, 09:56 | 93,567 | no change |
| 4 Nov 2026, 23:14 | 93,567 | +15 |
| 4 Nov 2026, 11:27 | 93,552 | -6 |
| 3 Nov 2026, 22:36 | 93,558 | -3 |
| 3 Nov 2026, 11:36 | 93,561 | -16 |
| 2 Nov 2026, 22:28 | 93,577 | -24 |
| 2 Nov 2026, 11:18 | 93,601 | -3 |
| 1 Nov 2026, 14:36 | 93,604 | +7 |
| 31 Oct 2026, 20:41 | 93,597 | +7 |
| 31 Oct 2026, 13:56 | 93,590 | -14 |
| 30 Oct 2026, 23:50 | 93,604 | first reading |
236 posts held, back to 27 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 197 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 9 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 236 (27 July 2026 – 9 November 2026) |
| Views total | 310,310 |
| Reactions total | 2,015 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 10 Nov 2026, 19:13 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Measured directly from 19 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
5,600 reactions across 232 posts, in 29 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 62.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 3,502 | 62.5% | |
| 👍 | 1,485 | 26.5% | |
| ✍ | 418 | 7.46% | |
| ❤🔥 | 48 | 0.857% | |
| 🤣 | 32 | 0.571% | |
| 🆒 | 18 | 0.321% | |
| ⚡ | 12 | 0.214% | |
| 👌 | 12 | 0.214% | |
| 🏆 | 11 | 0.196% | |
| 🥰 | 9 | 0.161% | |
| ☃ | 8 | 0.143% | |
| 🔥 | 6 | 0.107% | |
| 🤨 | 6 | 0.107% | |
| 💔 | 5 | 0.089% | |
| 😭 | 4 | 0.071% | |
| 👏 | 3 | 0.054% | |
| 🗿 | 3 | 0.054% | |
| 🤓 | 3 | 0.054% | |
| 🤷♂ | 3 | 0.054% | |
| 💯 | 2 | 0.036% | |
| 9 further kinds | 10 | 0.179% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 236 of the 236 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 5,693 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 236 most recent posts we hold, published 27 July 2026 to 9 November 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @englishlanguage. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 236 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 27 July 2026 to 9 November 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 1 of 63 posts held from the last 30 days (1.59%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
💡 oxford comma debate classroom: a compact English review oxford comma debate classroom. Pin oxford comma debate classroom before the next session. Say it once out loud, then write a second line that contrasts it. englis ORIGIN_PATH card Keep the footer for the channel only. Ref 444b · marker 836. 🏴 Our channels
❤18👍2
🤔 A red herring was once a smelly fish for fooling hounds A red herring is a strongly smoked herring. Salted and smoked for weeks, it turns reddish brown and smells strong. In 1807 the journalist William Cobbett told how, as a boy, he had dragged a red herring across a hare's trail to throw the hounds off the scent. He used the story to mock newspapers fooled by a false report about Napoleon. Today a red herring i…
👍10❤2
🧠 Affect is usually the verb; effect is usually the noun The news will affect prices. The news had a big effect. Exceptions exist (“to effect change”), but this pair fixes most learner mistakes. 🏴 Our channels
❤15👍3
📚 A “red letter day” once marked saints in the calendar Medieval calendars printed feast days in red ink. Those dates became red-letter days — special, memorable. Today it means any unusually good day, with or without a saint. 🏴 Our channels
👍10❤6
🧠 Lie down or lay down? Even native speakers mix them up lie (lay, lain) = to be in a flat position. No object. lay (laid, laid) = to put something down. Needs an object. I'm going to lie down. Lay the book on the table. The trap: the past tense of lie is lay. Yesterday I lay on the beach all day. 🏴 Our channels
👍22❤3
🤔 An icebreaker was a ship before it was a workshop game Icebreaking ships cleared frozen harbours so trade could start. English then used break the ice for the first words that loosen a stiff room. Corporate “icebreaker” games are the same metaphor in office clothing. 🏴 Our channels
❤8👍7
❓ For three years, or since 2019? English picks the clock carefully Use for with a length: for three years. Use since with a starting point: since 2019. I have lived here for five years. I have lived here since 2019. Present perfect likes both; past simple wants a finished time (“I lived there in 2019”). 🏴 Our channels
❤19👍1
📚 "Robot" comes from a Czech word for forced labour In 1920 the Czech writer Karel Čapek wrote a play about a factory that makes artificial workers. He wanted to call them labori. His brother Josef suggested roboti, from robota, the unpaid work serfs owed their lord. The play, R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), opened in Prague in January 1921 and in New York in 1922. In the end the robots rise up and wipe out hum…
❤11👍3
📚 Serendipity was coined for a fairy tale, not a lab In 1754 Horace Walpole wrote about a Persian fairy tale, The Three Princes of Serendip (an old name for Sri Lanka). The heroes, he said, kept finding things they were not looking for. He named that gift serendipity. Science later borrowed it for lab accidents that pay off: penicillin, X-rays, vulcanized rubber. 🏴 Our channels
❤11👍2
🧠 "Literally" now also means "not literally" Oxford and Merriam-Webster both list a second sense of literally: used for emphasis, even when nothing literal is happening. "I literally died laughing" does not mean a funeral. The exact sense is still there in science writing. The emphasis sense is no longer only a "mistake." 🏴 Our channels
✍10❤5👍1
___ did you invite to the party?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
❤🔥16❤10👍7✍1
❓ Who or whom? Most native speakers just guess ___ did you invite to the party? Choose the right word in the quiz. 🏴 Our channels
❤12👍5🔥1
Showing the 12 most recent of 236 posts we hold for @englishlanguage. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
We recorded 1 post on @englishlanguage as deleted — posts this register held that were missing from the channel’s public page on two separate reads, taken from different network addresses at least an hour apart.
A deletion is not wrongdoing. This register can see that a post it held is no longer on the channel’s public page, and when — not why. Expired ad placements, reposts, rotating links and corrections all look the same. This is a count of recorded detections, not an exact total: it misses deletions we could not see, because only a post we held and later re-read inside the page can be seen to go, and it may include a small number of wrong records. How this is measured.
The 2 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
___ did you invite to the party?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
She has lived in Madrid ___ 2019.
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 236 most recent posts we hold, published 27 July 2026 to 9 November 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 16 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 43 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 11 November 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“English Language & Grammar” (@englishlanguage), 93,377 subscribers as measured 11 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/englishlanguage.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.