Talk:Scots language

/Archive1 (before January 1, 2005)

History

From LaurelBush 16:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

I believe that until the late 15th century it is the Gaelic of Highlanders & Islanders that was called Scots (or Scottis) while the language of Lowlanders (basically a remnant of the Anglian of the kingdom of Northumbria) was called Ynglis. And the Gaelic as 'Scots' is consistent with history which has the first Scots people in Britain as Gaelic-speaking people from Ireland.

In the late 15th century Erse (meaning Irish) came into common use as a name for Gaelic. In the early 16th century Scots became (inappropriately, in my opinion) a name for Ynglis.

The use of Scots as a name for the Lowland language clouds our view of the past. It obscures both the reason that Scotland is so called and the role that an Anglian language played in Scotland's history.

I blame Pope Leo X, myself. What was he thinking ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:03, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

The situation is inherently confusing (the Scots are really the Irish and the Anglian speakers are actually the Picts so Scotland should really be called Pentland) but we're not going to make it less confusing by making up our own nomenclature for everything.

The situation that you describe is a direct result of the actions of Pope Leo X in deciding that Scotia should be the name of the land formerly known as Caledonia rather than the name of the land now known as Ireland which had been the case until the early 16th century. In the 15th century Scots meant "belonging to Ireland". In the 16th century, the Pope's decision meant that the same word now meant "belonging to Scotland" and thus explains why Scots began to be used to refer to Ynglis rather than to Erse. No doubt if the Pictish language had not been eradicated by the combined efforts of the Scots, Norse and Anglian invaders, Pictish would today be known as Scots, however confusing and inappropriate that might be from a historical perspective. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:54, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

From LaurelBush 17:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Thanks for the note about Pope Leo X, but if the Scots had not invaded then I guess he wouldnt have transfered the name.

Why not just call the language Lallans?

I suppose he wouldn't have but it's a bit late to say "Scots, go back to Ireland! You're confusing everyone." We're talking ancient history here -- 500AD was a long time ago.

As for calling the language Lallans, you might as well ask "why not call it Doric ?". Lallans and Doric are names for dialects of Scots as far as I'm concerned, not the name for the language itself -- and I know that there are others who disagree but most of them seem to come from Central Scotland where Lallans was spoken. Coincidence ? I think not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

In other words, the article does not call Scots 'Lallans' for the same reason that English is not called, for example, Cockney :) --Nantonos 01:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first sentence

I hope you're all ok with me changing the first sentence - otherwise rewrite it yourselves. The point is, if the section on "status" below leaves it a moot point whether Scots is a separate language or an English dialect, it's daft for the opening sentence to pre-empt that. Actually, this opening sentence is a remnant of the very bad original article, which has otherwise been completely rewritten. --Doric Loon 01:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Understood but rewrite is definitely better than delete. The point is that, even if Scots is a dialect, it's a dialect belonging to the Germanic family, not to the Celtic family. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:55, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Fair point - but I thought that was obvious from the table. --Doric Loon 11:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I've left your changes as they were. The table is a relatively new addition though. It wasn't there when we originally wrote the article, so at that time it was necessary to mention the language family within the article. As you point out, it's not so necessary now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

But now the article doesn't define what Scots is - the first sentence only says there is Scots and where you can find it, but not what is Scots. -- Anon

Anon, feel free to improve the definition if you don't like it as it is now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

outwith

I don't see how to cleanly fit it in the article, but I think that the term outwith (as th opposite of within) could be mentioned. This useful word seems to be slowly appearing in English English, but is definiteley of Scots origin -- Chris Q 13:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article on "Scottish English", and I think that's where it belongs. It's rather an intellectual word, part of the written style of Scottish academia, and I don't think I've ever heard it in a dialect context. -- Doric Loon

What's an "intellectual word"? Sure, it gets used in formal contexts, but it gets used outwith them too. :-) -- Anon

Anon is right it's not that "intellectual" a word but as Doric Loon says, its not a Scots word either. The Scottish English article is definitely the right place for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ancient Scottish tongue

"Derek Ross (Gaelic was introduced to Caledonia about the same time as English. Pictish is the ancient Caledonian tongue displaced by Gaelic in the west and English in the east.)"

You are quite right in stating that Pictish is the ancient Caledonian tongue although this is irrelevant as regards the statement i inserted stating that Gaelic was the Ancient Scottish tongue which, as the original language of Scots and the language of Scotlands foundation, it certainly is .

yours,

An Siarach

My point was that Gaelic, north of the Border, is no older than English, north of the Border. Depending on what you mean by Scottish, Gaelic is either "the Ancient Scottish tongue", or "an Ancient Scottish tongue". I'll not deny that Gaelic is the tongue of the Ancient Scots (nowadays known as the Irish) and I'll not deny that it's the tongue that they imposed on our ancestors when they invaded Caledonia (nowadays known as Scotland) and founded their kingdom there. I'll just say that the statement that you inserted is confusing to those who don't know the difference between the ancient meaning of the word Scottish referring to the inhabitants of Hibernia (and their overseas colony) and the modern meaning of the word referring to the inhabitants of Caledonia alone. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish despite the common knowledge that the Scots were an Irish tribe. I have never come across anyone else who would confuse the term "Scots" with the ancient Irish either. As we know the nation of Scotland was founded by the Scots, whos language was Gaelic and in all honesty i do not see any opportunity for confusion which may arise from the pretty succinct, and clear statement that Gaelic is the ancient scottish language. Gaelic is older north of the border than English, or rather Inglis as it was known then but this again is beside the point as Inglis was not the language of the Scottish people nor of the Scottish nation until a number of centuries later as anglicised culture gained the ascendancy. For example (it does not fit completely but i think it serves) Should Spanish gain the ascendancy over English in the USA at some point this will not change the fact that the dominant, and thus you could say (although it is not so clear cut in this example) 'ancient' and original language of the nation, was English although it may no longer be at this hypothetical point in the future.

yours,

An Siarach

I find your comparison with the USA quite apt. If we equate Pictish with the languages of the First Nations, American English with Gaelic and American Spanish with Scots, we can see that, although things haven't gone quite so far in the USA yet as they have in Scotland, there is a clear parallel: settlers from overseas come in and steamroller the existing linguistic and political structures replacing them with their own. And just as we can conclude that the ancient and original languages of the people living in the area now occupied by the USA were those of the First Nations, we can similarly conclude that the ancient and original language of people living in the area now occupied by Scotland was Pictish. However that is a side issue. Let's return to the main points.

Since you have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish, it would probably be a good idea for you to read the section titled "History" above to understand why the inhabitants of Ulster alone were known as Scots up to the 6th century, why the inhabitants both of Hibernia and of Caledonia were known as Scots from the 10th century up to the end of the 15th century and why from the 16th century onwards all Caledonians and only Caledonians were known as Scots despite the fact that only some of those in the west were truly of Scottish ancestry, the rest being of Pictish, British, Norse or English ancestry. If the Scots had not triumphed over the Picts as the result of a Viking victory over the Picts in 839 and MacAlpin's Treason, our native land would probably now be known as Pentland rather than Scotland.

As for the relative age of English and Gaelic, north of the Border, Gaelic would first have been spoken in the area occupied by modern Scotland about 500AD with the establishment of Dalriada by the Scots in the area now known as Argyll. English would also first have been spoken in the area occupied by modern Scotland about 630AD by the Northumbrian Angles who took over Lothian which was all modern Scotland in the east between the Forth and the modern English border. So there's only about 130 years in it. In both cases the invaders replaced Pictish with their own languages over the next couple of hundred years. The only real difference is that we managed to send the Angles back to England and the Vikings back to Norway but we never managed to send the Scots back to Ireland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"And just as we can conclude that the ancient and original languages of the people living in the area now occupied by the USA were those of the First Nations, we can similarly conclude that the ancient and original language of people living in the area now occupied by Scotland was Pictish."

As i initially said this is perfectly true but irrelevant. The fact that Pictish was the dominant language in the area which was to become Scotland has nothing to do with the fact that Gaelic was the language of Scots and Scotland - which quite simply is enough to define it as the original, and ancient scottish tongue. Incidently the scottish language/culture was not 'imposed' upon our pictish ancestors but gradually became dominant - much as happened with Scots Lallans and Gaelic some centuries later - through intermarriage of Scot and Pict. Indeed it is now thought that rather than unifying Caledonia by conquest to create Scotland Kenneth Mac Alpin gained supremacy through marriage. The pictish tradition being matrilineal inheritence and this tradition survived, along with other Pictish traditions and noble/royal lines to form an integral part of Scotlands electoral monarchy and its sub-monarchies before the nation became anglicised in the South.

Another comparison of nations which is fairly relevant is that of the Roman Empire and its gradual change from an entity dominated by latin language and culture to (in its later Byzantine form) an entity dominated by Greek language and Culture. It does not matter that the Romans of the later era could no longer speak Latin, they referred to themselves as Romans (or Romaioi) nonetheless and the fact that they had switched to greek as the lingua franca had no bearing on the status of Latin as the ancient language of the Romans. Similiarly the fact that most Scots are monolingually English does not change the fact that the language of their ancestors and of the nation was initially gaelic.

"Since you have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish, it would probably be a good idea for you to read the section titled "History""

You misunderstand me. I am well aware of the history relevant to this topic and my statement was meant to signify my bewilderment at your own comment that there was possibility for confusion between Scots and Irish; something i do not consider as a realistic possibilty either regarding the layman or the budding scholar.

"If the Scots had not triumphed over the Picts as the result of a Viking victory over the Picts in 839 and MacAlpin's Treason, our native land would probably now be known as Pentland rather than Scotland. " Perhaps so but, while certainly interesting, i do not see how this bears any relevance to the fact that our nation is Scotland, was founded by the Scots whos language and culture were gaelic.

In reference to your statement regarding the comparitive ages of english (or its predecessor) and gaelic in Scotland again i must point out that this, while again interesting, is irrelevant as english was not the language of Scots nor of Scotland. I find it very interesting that you seem to consider yourself more Pict than Scot in terms of ancestry. Considering that what remnants of Pictish culture,tradition and language we have were blended during Scotlands birth (and the inter-celtic strife which preceded it) with the gaelic culture we inherit(along with many Norse customs due to later viking dominance).

Anyway it is a pretty minor point really and ive enjoyed the discussion.

yours An Siarach

Well, it is minor, no doubt about that, but as you say, it's still enjoyable to discuss. It's ancient history and we're all called Scots nowadays whatever our forebears might have been called and I'm quite happy about that. But the fact is that unless the Picts were all killed by invaders (which they weren't) the majority of our ancestors will have been Pictish rather than Norse or Scots, so I don't think it unreasonable to consider myself (and yourself actually) as Pictish in origin. That's why I don't see Pictish as irrelevant to the topic of "the ancient tongue of the original inhabitants of Scotland" even though it is irrelevant to subject of "the ancient tongue of the original Scots". -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah the Celtic mist and the dewy eyed dream of an ancient Celtic pedigree. What about the Gododdin and their Brythonic language? The ancient celtic language of Scotland? An ancient Celtic language of Scotland? P Celts Vs Q celts to determine who the true inheritors of the Celtic mist are. Best not mention the Norse.

Seamus P. Dantic

Why not ? What have you got against our Norse ancestors ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

They were in the Western Isles before the Gaels and left a lot of influence in Place names an Gaelic vocabulary. It waters down the Celtic purity causing the Celtic mist to fade and that could lead to the horrible idea that Scotland is as much Germanic as it is Celtic culturally.

Seamus P. Dantic

Enough of your near racist guff, Mr P. Dantic. Be P. Lite and pick on another minority.

If you are looking for 'ancient' then the ancient language of the area now called Scotland is of course Brythonic. This was replaced in the West by Old Irish, ancestor of Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic, and in the south by a Germanic language, ancestor of modern Scots, over a similar time period (500-1000). Of course, if you use the term 'Scotland' to refer only to those parts of the country currently held by the invading Scotti at a given time (eg, just Argyllshire, for instance), then the language of that Scotland has always been a Gaelic one; but such a definition is circular. --Nantonos 01:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a little more awareness of what "Scot" meant historically. Scot simply meant "Gael," and was never simply the equivalent of "Irish" or "Scottish" in their modern senses. Caledonia specified modern "Scotland" north of the river Forth, as did Alba/Albania and Scotia. Alba was called Scotia by non-Gaelic writers to identify the ethnic group who lived there, 900-1300. This is the reason why neither Scotland nor Ireland are referred to in their native languages by derivatives of their own ethnic groups: Gaels were never simply confined to either Ireland or Scotland. Lothian on the other hand is not "Scotland" until very late. About c. 1186, the border writer Adam of Dryburgh refers to Lothian as "the land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots." He does so because (east) Lothianers were not Gaels, they were English. This is still how it is understood during the Wars of Independence. Look for instance at the letter from King Robert I to the chiefs of Ireland:

“Whereas we and you and our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom, we have sent you our beloved kinsman, the bearers of this letter, to negotiate with you in our name about permanently strengthening and maintaining inviolate the special friendship between us and you, so that with God’s will our nation (nostra nacio) may be able to recover her ancient liberty.”

Bruce elsewhere uses Scotia Majora to designate Ireland, and Scotia Minora to designate Scotland. He is not using wild anachronisms, he using Scotia in its proper Latin sense. The correct English translation of Scotia is Gael-land, in the same way Angle-land is the correct translation of Anglia, Frank-land of Francia, Rus-land of Russia, etc. "Scot" has changed in meaning so much since the 14th century, that the translation "Scot" for Latin "Scot" is simply inaccurate. If this were more widely understood, we'd much have less popular confusion of the topic.

I'll just say there's little evidence for extensive penetration of English outside Lothian into the Gaelic speaking areas of Scotia, Galloway and the western lowlands outside of burghs until after the Wars of Independence. After all, the "Scots" were subjecting the men of Lothian to raids, devastation and blackmail during the Wars of Independence, forcing the Lothianers to repeatedly request the help of their lord, the King of England, of who's kingdom they were still notionally part.

Quite frankly then, saying that a series of English dialects confined largely to Lothian until the end of the Middle Ages has an "equal claim" to the name "Scots" is quite ridiculous, and is the equivalent of calling Swedish dialects in Finland "Finnish" or Russian dialects in Kazakhstan "Kazakh." It is only because of the unique history of Scottish identity that such a historical distortion has occurred. When English replaced French as the aristocratic language of eastern/south-eastern "Scotland" after the Wars of Independence, as burghs expanded, and as similar trends occurred in England giving more vitality and prestige to English, the language spred so that by 1500, it had possibly as much as half the Scottish population using it. It was after this point that the new herrenvolk of the land sought to alienate the Gaels by calling them "Erse," and ever since until the 20th century Anglo-Scottish writers have sought to alienate as much of Gaelic culture as possible from their history, to avoid the barbarous and catholic associations involved. You can get a whole list of examples of this from William Fergusson's great work, "The Identity of the Scottish Nation; An Historic Quest," which include various absurd attempts to prove that Pictish was related to Gothic, as with the crusade of the scholar John Pinkerton to purge all Gaelic elements from Scottish history. ~ Calgacus 21:13, 29 July 2005

"saying that a series of English dialects confined largely to Lothian until the end of the Middle Ages has an "equal claim" to the name "Scots" is quite ridiculous" Quite! Just like the French calling their dialect of Latin French after the name of the west Germanic Franks who spoke Old Frankish and established a lasting realm in an area that covers most of modern-day France. Surely the French should be calling their language something else?

Ken Mair 09.08.2005

Well, it's not "just like." I'm talking about equal claims, and besides, the word Franken/Franconia is still used for both language and territory.

That scenario does, of course, parallel the usurpation of "Scot" by in some ways. The significant difference is that Frank was originally a narrow tribal affiliation, rather than a generic ethnic term. It'd be more comparable if the Romani of northern Gaul had started calling themselves Germans or Teutons. Besides, the French usurpation occurred more than half a millenium earlier. ~ Calgacus 13:03, 10 August 2005

It's not unusual for people to call their language after the country they live in or after what they consider their ethnicity to be. Many people in Scotland consider themselves Scots and call their language Scots. Strange but true. Even if some think these people are English usurpers.

Murdoch Soulis 13.08.2005

It is quite unusual when the country already has a language, and when the new "language" is just an extension of another language in a bordering country. Etymologically, "Scot" is no ethnically neutral word. If speakers of Northumbiran dialects north of the Tweed wish to call the group of Anglian dialects within modern Scotland by a name, they should take an ethnically neutral name like "Caledonian," "Albanish" or "Scenglish," or a historic name like "Inglis" or "Northumbrian" (Scotland, after all, lies to the north of the Humber). But "Scots" is an cynical manipulation of historical perception, a linguistic cloak stolen of the Gael, which disguises them and usurps the Scottish Gael's history, sidelining them to the historical dustbin. Well, that's a bit extreme; but you get the point? ~ Calgacus 15:29, 14 August 2005

when the new "language" is just an extension of another language in a bordering country - a bit like Gaelic being an extension of Irish then? The rest sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Jean Armour 14.08.2005

Except that the two are actually standardized languages in countries with no common border, rather than a bunch of dialects that run into another bunch of perfectly intelligible dialects, which are all part of the same standardized language. So "a bit" is really only a "very very little bit." The link was rather silly BTW. :P

~ Calgacus 00:35, 15 August 2005

The sea is the common border between Ireland and Scotland, allowing far easier communication between the two countries than existed between the East and West coasts of Scotland in the era before roads and railways. That's why it's easy to trace a historical dialect continuum for Gaelic all the way from the South of Ireland to the North of Scotland even if the lack of modern native speakers now means that there are big holes in the present day continuum. This is an identical situation to the British one where an English dialect continuum can be traced from the South of England to the North of Scotland.

You also seem to be ignoring the role played by Pope Leo X and the Church in the renaming of Hibernia from "Scotland" to "Ireland", of North Britain from "Caledonia" to "Scotland" and hence of Scots to "Gaelic" and of Northumbrian English to "Scots". Given the influence of the Church at the time that is surely a major piece of ignoring. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another high quality response! The sea may be a good communication channel, but that doesn't make it a common border, otherwise Scotland could be said to have borders with every coastal nation on the planet. And you're ignoring the fact that until the later middle ages, the center of Scottish Gaeldom was in Fife, Angus and Strathearn ... the East! Ireland wasn't simply renamed Hibernia suddenly by Leo X. It never had merely one name. "Scotia" just means "Land of the Gaels" and that fact has meant "Scotia" has always been used for Ireland and Ireland and Scotland collectively, before Leo X and after him. "Land of the Gaels" had first been used for northern Britain by the Anglo-Saxon chronicle in the 10th century, and Hibernia is the most common name for Ireland from about the same period; though Scotia survives too. It just so happens that Scotia by-and-largely ousted Albania as northern Britain's main Latin name, making it difficult to use Scotia in an official context for Ireland. Nothing to do with Leo X, whose decision affected various rights within the church, and led to Anglo-Scots taking over Irish monastic colleges in places like Germany.

~ Calgacus 10:13, 15 August 2005

"Anglicised"

Lowland Scots is Anglo-Saxon based, so how can it become "anglicised"? I changed it to "englished".

Yes but "english" is an adjective not a verb and when you start to use it as a verb it's not clear that you really mean "anglicised". So in the interests of clarity for our readers, I have changed it back. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yi nychtbour

Might it be possible that the "yi" of the Knox quotation is in fact a thorn followed by a vowel? If "yi" is a contraction of "your", it would be more likely to have been rendered "yr", with the second element perhaps even superscript. With the present translation, some people may be getting the impression that Scots is a non-rhotic variety, perhaps even similar to what is spoken in the north of England. Would it then be better to translate the quotation as "Love God above all and thy neighbour as thyself"? Of course, "your" is the Modern English for "thy", so the present rendering is technically correct. I'll leave it to the rest of you.

Chris Guthrie

You know, I think that you're right, Chris. Thanks for sharing that.-- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Status

Writing "as you hear the sounds in your head" is not the result of the lack of an institutionalised standard literary form but the result of a disregard for, or lack of knowledge of the existing literary tradition. Scots spelling may not be standardised in the way English is. Variation does exist but is more than writing "as you hear the sounds in your head". Unwillingness to teach the pupils this so that they are in a position to make informed choices reveals the institutionalised disregard for the idea of treating Scots as a language on par with English. Children are taught how English is (usually) written and not told to "write as you hear the sounds in your head". With Scots children aren't tought how Scots is usually written but told to 'make it up as you go along' i.e. "write as you hear the sounds in your head". This implies the educational establishment doesn't take Scots seriously and consequently don't afford it the same respect as English.

[1] provides links to resources Dictionaries and descriptions of orthograhic conventions exist an example is [2]

Murdoch Soulis

Again, I agree with this, in general. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"On the other hand, it can be be seen as a teaching method to get around the fact that the pupils, the teachers, and the teachers parents alike have been taught in school that Scots is 'bad spelling' and thus, that pupils will self-censo any Scots that they do know."

Isn't that just "institutionalised disregard for the idea of treating Scots as a language on par with English"?

84.135.215.162 16:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, which is why I left that strong possibility in the article. On the other hand, it has been observed by some Scottish primary teachers (no cites, this is personal communication) that some children will self-censor and claim not to know words that in fact they do know and use in the playground. So I presented both possibilities. Of course, that does not preclude referring to a standardized Scots spelling at a later stage, and I links some of those in the references section. --Nantonos 16:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language Suicide

Language suicide is a far better term because it describes how Scots speakers have, over generations, been borrowing so much lexis, pronunciation and syntax from English so that some varieties of 'Scots' have becomes virtually indistinguishable from English and can be considered to have become the same language. This is particularly true in urban centres and the central belt.

Language interference is the effects of a language learner’s first language on their production of the language they are learning. This would mean features of Scots affecting people's English not the other way about. See Scottish English.

I don't agree with what looks like an attempt at redefining a general notion. It is clear enough that language interference can be much more than what it is said to mean above. The above narrow definition of 'language interference' is not a widely used one. The term 'language suicide' is even more rare. But let's keep this discussion at Talk:Language suicide. — mark ✎ 22:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

language attrition seems less ambiguous.

Hugenots?

If I'm right Hugenots were protestant refugees from Catholic France. The Auld Alliance was between two Catholic States before the reformation. Hugonots would have came later and probably had no effect on the language.

Ken Mair 15.07.05

Spoken in

We seem to have a bit of an edit was between |states=Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and |states=United Kingdom It would be better to discuss it here rather than just revert back and forth. I also think that the discussion would be better on technical and clarity grounds rather than polarizing into Scottish Nationalism and English nationalism/Unionist positions. The intent after all is to show where the Scots language is spoken.--Nantonos 01:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But whichever we choose (and I'm not too worried which it is) let's make sure it's right. In my opinion the most accurate would be UK and ROI for the states and Lowland Scotland, NI and County Donegal for the regions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem more sensible to do it by region, since it is a regional language. For instance, Javanese language says it is spoken in "Java (Indonesia)," not just Indonesia. john k 21:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like 84...'s latest edit. It seems to be exactly accurate and I vote that we settle on it as the version to use. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to say it is only spoken in the Lowlands? What language do people then speak in those parts of the Highlands where Gaelic is no longer spoken? john k 05:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the clearances, the folk who live in the Highlands are very few in number with a fair proportion of incomers. In the Eastern Highlands you are more likely to find Scots and in the West more likely to find English, so its not strictly accurate to say that Scots is only spoken in the Lowlands but neither would it be accurate to say that it is spoken throughout the Highlands. Note that most Gaelic speakers now live in the Western Isles or on the West Coast (and to a lesser extent in the cities). The Highlands themselves are extremely sparsely populated nowadays and it would almost make sense to say that no language is spoken there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVing

This article is hugely biased towards the 'Scots is a true language' POV. I happen to agree with that view, but the article as it stands is scarcely neutral.

What is the difference between 'a true language' and 'a not true language'?

Ken Mair 09.08.2005

An army and a navy, apparently. Seriously, though, you're right. The distinction between language and dialect is very, very fuzzy. On the one hand you have languages like Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, which are almost mutually intelligible, and on the other languages like Chinese which have 'dialects' which are as different or more different to each other than English is to German. Where is the dividing line? Well, in the case of Scots, it's quite hard to say. A lot of its speakers would consider it no more than a dialect of English, and yet the Scottish executive recognises it as a seperate language. The problem is that this article leans heavily towards the latter point of view, on no particular evidence. BovineBeast 19:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the German article: [3]? In some ways less detailed, but has a sample from the Lorimer Bible with commentary, and on this question it leans to the opposite view. --Doric Loon 05:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly needs NPOVing as well. I would, but I don't have a great deal of time on my hands. BovineBeast 12:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the most useful linguistic argument to distinguish between languages and dialects is the standardization (Ausbausprache), as long as the varieties in question are not completely unrelated linguistically (Abstandsprache), such as—for instance—Spanish and Basque. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 18:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation is undoubtedly important. That is why one of the indications of a language is taken to be a body of literature. Such as Scots has. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but every dialect has dialect poetry, so unless you are going to declare every English dialect to be a language, which seems to me a bit pointless, you have to look for a broader body of literature than the typical folksy things which people use dialect for. And I'm not convinced that Scots does have that. Apart from the obvious lyric poetry, the odd TV drama about crofting life and a partial Bible translation which is much loved in folksy nostalgic contexts but is seldom read in Church, there is not really a great body of literature in Scots. I would be looking for longer novels, non-fiction books, academic literature, and dramas which are not set in typical dialect situations: plays in Doric which are set in Aberdeenshire farming villages are typical dialect literature; on the other hand, plays in Doric which are set in England with English characters speaking Doric not because they really would do but just because that's the language of the play - now that would indicate a literary language. --Doric Loon 11:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you put any date restrictions on the literature that you find acceptable. After all the heyday of Scots would be pre-1603 at which time novels hadn't been invented, and academic literature was written in Latin which rules out two of the three categories that you have suggested. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for delay - I've been away!) The problem with that is that pre-1603 no-one was trying to claim Scots was a separate language. Scots speakers called their language Inglis and there was no issue. No, I think if you are claiming the status of a modern rather than a historical language, you are looking for the full range of literary use today. After all, this is not like some third world country without an intellectual tradition: every Scots speaker is literate, and a significant number are in the forefront of every field of European artistic and intellectual life. If NONE of them are writing these kinds of texts in Scots, that suggests to me that its only a daftie fringe of Scots speakers who think of it as a language in that sense. C'mon, you know perfectly well the majority of Doric speakers would not thank you for making them fill out their tax forms in Doric. Which is not to say they don't value and revere it on another level, of course... dialects are precious! --Doric Loon 20:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's strictly true that no one was trying to claim Scots was a separate language prior to 1603. Elizabeth I is said to have claimed it as one of the languages in which she was fluent. So I think that Scots can be fairly claimed as a historical language. In fact our own Scottish literature article gives a good starting point for a historical literature search. As to the modern status of Scots as a language, there's no doubt that the range of published modern literature is much smaller than for most langauges. However, as I am sure you are well aware, there are strong reasons (financial, cultural, political, etc.) why someone wanting to make their mark is more likely to publish in English rather than Scots. At its most basic, no one will ever get rich writing best-selling novels in Scots. However that's not to say that it isn't possible to write well-crafted novels at all. Just that it isn't a good idea from the individual author's financial or "status" point of view (unless they love the language so much that they are in danger of being accused of belonging some daftie fringe in any case.) Derek Ross | Talk 18:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely! Of course it would be possible to use Scots for all these things, but for the most part the native community is not motivated to do it. --Doric Loon 19:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Loon, it's nice to see that we agree on why Scots literature tends to be a bit thin on the ground since 1707 but I thought that we were discussing whether it is reasonable to claim Scots as a separate language from English or not. And I don't see how the native community's lack of motivation fits in to that. After all Gaelic speakers don't have any more motivation to publish in Gaelic than Scots speakers to publish in Scots, yet no one is in any doubt that Gaelic is a language. The only reason that I brought up the lack of motivation issue was to indicate why it might be a bit difficult to come up with modern examples of the type of evidence that you are looking for. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The lack of academic writing doesn't stop Gaelic being a language. But the problem with Scots is that linguistically it CAN be thought of as a dialect, and therefore a claim of separate language status needs special pleading. All I am saying is that it is a weak argument to use the literary tradition as evidence for this. --Doric Loon 17:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Derek Ross that because the literature is sparse now doesn't mean it's not a language--Navajo has an equally sparse literature, and yet no one would argue it is not a language. Now, I realize that Navajo is clearly not a dialect of neighboring English either, and no one sane would argue it was. In terms of linguistics, genetically speaking, Scots became as separate language when Middle English started going through the Great Vowel Shift and Scots did not. This means that Early Modern English was likely not mutually intelligble with Scots, and would bet that Current Modern English is not either.Kaibab 06:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regulated by

No doubt the SND carries great weight with linguists as a record of both written and spoken usage. It however does not regulate the language or even attempt to. It is a record of usage nothing more.

The language is not regulated by onyone. People are free to choose how they write and speak it. Social pressure to comform to any notion of a standard, especially in the written form, is as good as non existant.

Evidence for its existence as a separate language

The article said the following:

Evidence for its existence as a separate language lies in [...] the substantial lexical, grammatical, and phonological differences from other Anglic varieties.

I have deleted that particular argument because these differences are not substantial and because languages don't need any substantial lexical, grammatical or phonological differences in order to be considered seperate languages (as in the case of Serbian and Croatian); dialects may well differ lexically, grammatically and phonologically from a standard language (like in the case of German and Swiss German which seems to be quite similar to the case of English and Scots). If the differences really were susbstantial, then there could be little doubt about the existence of Scots as a seperate language, think for instance of Spanish and Basque, Finnish and Swedish, German and Sorbian, Scots and Scottish Gaelic. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 11:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to contribute to the English Wikipedia using Scots instead of English, I would be reverted immediately for using ungrammatical sentences, bad spelling and strange vocabulary and generally being incomprehensible. That implies that the differences are much more substantial than those between the different varieties of English which are accepted here or between Swiss, Austrian and German German all of which appear to be acceptable on the German Wikipedia. The differences do not need to be as substantial as the ones that you have chosen where each language comes from a completely different family. You may not believe that the differences are substantial enough to be evidence but other people do. So you should not have erased the claim. You should instead have attributed it to those who believe it. The fact is that linguistic differences may not be the only indicators of a separate language but they are certainly one of the indicators. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss German is certainly not acceptable at the German wikipedia. Those who wish to write in Swiss German can do so at the Alemannic wikipedia (Swiss German is Alemannic). The German wikipedia accepts only the different varieties of the standard language, but not the dialects. It's the same on the English wikipedia: Non-standard varieties are not acceptable either, for instance Norfolk English, Newfoundland English or African American English.

Back on-topic: "Substantial" linguistical difference (in related languages) is not correlated with the division into different languages. Therefore, it is logically impossible that it would be an argument for the division into different languages.

Proof that there's no such correlation: Related varieties that are considered different languages can either have or have not "substantial" linguistical differences (Dutch—German vs. Croatian—Serbian); related varieties that are considered the same language can either have or have not "substantial" linguistical differences (Standard German—Walser German vs. Received Pronunciation—General American). -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 22:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely bizarre. One can take the view that Scots is a language or the view that it isn't, but it seems distinctly perverse to claim (as the map does) that Ulster Scots is a language/dialect (solid border) and completely ignore Scots, letting "Scottish" just be an "accent"! I suppose this is another result of the unco situation we have where Ulster Scots has more legal recognition than Scots -- Mendor 11:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]