Talk:Scots language

Headline text

• /Archive1 (before January 1, 2005)
• /Archive2 (before July 17, 2005)

l

• /Archive3 (before January 29, 2006)
• /Archive4 (before January 1, 2007)

---

The linguistic relationship between Scots and English

Note that the following is a response to discussions from early last year which can be found in Archive4. To understand the context, you will need to read archive4.

thI think the point 82.41.4.66 is trying to make is in the article: Before the Treaty of Union 1707, when Scotland and England joined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, there is ample evidence that Scots was widely held to be an independent language as part of a pluricentric diasystem. See NOSTRA VULGARI LINGUA: SCOTS AS A EUROPEAN LANGUAGE 1500 - 1700 available at [1].

82.41.4.66 should note that abusing copywrite and pasting the article here won't make it likelier that anyone will actually read it. Linking to it will suffice. This should also be down below somewhere. 84.135.247.24 11:04, 29 January 2007

Boothman and others wouldnt read it. Cultural attacks need answering but the attackers would ignore a link I fear. Lies, ignorance and slight of hand/word play are at work here to treat English as some unique final language of mankind, from which (unlike any case in history) no other language can develop in separation. This is no less biased politically or culturally than the belief that Scottish Gaelic has never been a non-Irish language, or that black people could only ever speak "patois" rather than languages. Language is a term handed out by the state as a reward, and "dialect" as a punishment. How can the self-describingly ignorant be allowed to continue to repeat their "belief" (more like slur for personal entertainment id suggest) that Scots is a dialect (that would in fact be dialectS!) when dialects make up languages in the first place. This page will be read by those with an interest (despite the massive state propoganda and cultural annihalation through various educational reforms since the act of union and the physical punishment of children until the message was drilled in that Scottish speech was slang, despite its history!) and why should the "original research" of the likes of Boothman, and the clear Gaelic bias of Calgacus (who insists on what he would by his own logic have to define as the spuruious modern construct of "Middle English" rather than Ynglis , yet does the opposite with Gaelic and Middle Irish, seeing Middle Irish as less useful for his manipulation of history, and rarely mentioning the pre Irish linguistic origines of Scotland (unless he thinks that Scotland has no history prior to the Irish Scotii tribes in the dark ages:}) be here without a balance for the casual reader who genuinely wants to find out the facts, and might take at face value his/her attacks and not investigate the hypocrisy or double standards in his treatment of different languages.!?:}82.41.4.66 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is of course that the terms Irish, Middle Irish etc are all exonyms found within a language foreign to the language/s they designate while Ynglis is simply an older form of the word English just as Goidelc, for example, is an older form of the modern words Gaeilge or Gàidhlig. The comparison of the situation of Scots as an English language - which it undoubtedly is, having evolved from ancestral form of English which was referred to as English by its speakers who historically referred to themselves as English in an ethnic sense - with that of Scottish Gaelic as an "Irish" language is simply not valid. Scottish Gaelic is "Irish" in much the same way that French or Romanian is "Italian" - both of these languages after all are descended form Latin which originates in Italy and the modern form of Latin in Italy is known as Italian (this being just about the same type of train of thought which leads to Gaelic and the early Scots being classed as Irish). The difference being of course that nobody would be silly enough to so innacurately class all the modern Romance languages as subsets of a single branch not least because (in addition to basic common sense and a desire for fairly accurate use of nomenclature) each language has a fairly powerful nation/group of speakers behind it.

Càite an robh thu aig aon uair deug a-raoir? Cá háit a raibh tú ar a haon déag a chlog aréir?

Bha mi aig dannsa Bhí mé ag damhsa

The Scots "wis" is to English "was" as the Gaelic "bha" is to the Irish "bhi" it seems:}82.41.4.66 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The language of the Royal Court of Scotland even in the 11th century was already different from the Ynglis of the English Court for two reasons. the one in Scotland was the Northern Anglian dialect (which had been different from the Southern Saxon one from the beginning, akin to the case with Franconian and Saxon German), and also the Court language of England at this time was in fact French due to the Normans having arrived.

French began to diverge from latin as a written language with the Oath of Strasbourg in the 9th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg. I doubt that divergence between Scottish gaelic and Irish gailic can be traced back that far (particularly seeing as they shared a written orthography despite vernacular variation paralell to Scots and English which had one, up until the 18th century according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Irish .:}82.41.4.66 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The language of the Royal Court of Scotland even in the 11th century was already different from the Ynglis of the English Court for two reasons ... yeah, the language of the 11th century court in England was French, and in Scotland Gaelic. So, lol, it was different ... but English had nothing to do with it I'm afraid. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(just put that in there to get a response:} If Ynglis wasnt the royal language of the Scottish Court, ironically this still would have had an impact on divergence (IE the influence of French could not have been as drastic in the Scottish Anglic dialect as in the language of the population influenced in vocabulary by a Franco-Norman Court:} I take it you dont deny the Anglian/West Saxon separation between speakers in Scotland and around London and Westminster at the time:}?82.41.4.66 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation with the Gaelic languages is different and has come about as a result of differences in historical fortune with regard to each one in its own nation - Scottish Gaelic has had to face anti-Gaelic bigotry and anti-Gaelic pseudo historical propaganda by the English speakers of Scotland for centuries which Irish has not. Irish chauvinism also contributes to the promotion of Hiberno-centric terms such as "Middle Irish" when "Middle Gaelic" would be far far more accurate a term to describe the Gaelic language of that time. Rather than possessing a Gaelic bias and employing a double standard in his treatment of languages, as the anon user above claims, Calgacus employs exactly the same standard with regard to the English language/s in Scotland and Scottish Gaelic and it is the anon user and all those who similarly try desperately to divorce Scots from English entirely while denigrating Scottish Gaelic as merely a subset of Irish who are guilty of blatant double standards and subjective reasoning. siarach 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_Irish_language  :}82.41.4.66 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also in reply to some claims made by User:82.41.4.66 above in related discussions, Gaelic and Gaelic (as you so wittily refer to the Irish and Scottish languages) are not dialects of each other for the following reason : They are mutually unintelligable - the most basic definition of two seperate languages. In comparison Scots and English English are mutually intelligable and thus the debate over the status of Scots as languge/dialect goes on. I agree that if the likes of the Scandinavian languages, for example, are to be classed as distinct rather than dialects of one language then Scots should be regarded as a seperate language to English English but making demonstrably ridiculous statements/attacks on other languages in an attempt to bolster your arguments simply undermines your credibility. siarach 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the case within Irish Gaelic itself (between for instance the Munster and Ulster dialects, which demonstrate the same variance. My point is not to attack Gaelic, merely to point out how POV is involved in generally accepted definitions on what is and isnt to be considered as a language. It is not ridiculous (nor an attack, merely an alternative definition in response to some to point out the inconsistency of referring to one modern term "Middle English" as less spurious than another "Middle Irish", as another contributer here insists on doing) Either Modern terminology is to be used, or the words of the period in question, IE Ynglis was the word used and not Middle English (a Modern English phrase:}} whereas the opposite seems to be the case with "Middle Irish and Gaelic. The idea that "Ynglis" necessarily has always had the simplistic ethnic unity we assume may be a modern rereading (Take a look at the Dutch National Anthem and its use of the term "Duits" which in Modern Dutch means "German", but may have meant something more like "Germanic" at the time of its writing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_national_anthem#Lyrics ). "Ynglis" arrived in Scotland prior to printing and the influence of the Southern "dialect" (or related-mutually unintelligable language).

siarach is quite right in stating that Anglic speakers referred to their language as English: Old English Ænglisc, later, variously, Englisch, Engliss, Englisse and Inglis in the north of England and Scotland, all meaning English! It's only since the late 15th century that English speakers in Scotland started to refer to their variety as Scots. Linguistically it is perfectly valid to consider Scots to be part of English - if one takes English to mean all varieties descended from Old English. Scots simply being the name for the varieties, or descendants of varieties, spoken in Scotland.

Irish is certainly an exonym from the viewpoint of a Gael, but from an English language perspective, Irish is a perfectly legitimate English word for things Gaelic or Goidelic. It is now of course no longer politically correct to refer to Gaels in Scotland as Irish. Otherwise you'll get your erse kicked.

If Irish and Scottish Gaelic are mutually unintelligable how come, according to the Scottish Gaelic article, the BBC operates a Gaelic language radio station Radio nan Gàidheal which regularly transmits joint broadcasts with its Republic of Ireland counterpart Raidió na Gaeltachta. Why transmit unintelligible content?

The Goidelic languages have historically been part of a dialect continuum stretching from the south of Ireland, the Isle of Man, to the north of Scotland. A form of Middle Irish, known as Classical Gaelic, was used as a literary language in Ireland until the 17th century and in Scotland until the 18th century. Later orthographic divergence is the result of more recent orthographic reforms resulting in standardised pluricentric diasystems.

The situation vis-à-vis English and Scots was similar in the Middle Scots period where pluricentric diasystems also existed. Is this still the case in the modern period?

84.135.197.245 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: The joint Irish-Scottish radio broadcast (a single short program once a week which i dont believe exists anymore) the reasoning for the program could have been many things - curiosity value, to promote interest in the related languages, Gaelic unity along the lines of what goes on at the Columban Initiative etc. Regardless the languages are not mutually intelligable although not so distant that a bilingual broadcast of this kind is rendered daft. Ive listened to it before and its interesting to hear Irish Gaelic which sounds very familiar but is, frustratingly so given its familiarity, not understandable to speakers of Scottish Gaelic. siarach 11:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the English Linguist John C. Wells (1982) writes about Buchan Doric: "it featured in my own life story as the first dialect of English I encountered which proved utterly opaque to my attempts to understand it without first learning it."

It would seem not only varieties of Goidelic can be mutually unintelligible but also varieties of English.

84.135.197.245 12:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS sorry but someone arrived unannounced and ive somehow managed to inadvertantly delete the rest of the page (at least thats what it looks like! Sorry a genuine accident on my part!82.41.4.66 11:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume what's below is an attempt to reinstate it. The stuff had been archived you didn't inadvertantly delete the rest of the page. Unless there is any other compelling reason what is here below should be removed.

84.135.197.245 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between the relationship between the precursor of Scandinavian North Germanic languages, IE Norse, and Modern descendants, and the case with Scots and English, is the use of the same name for the modern descendant of one of the two descendants as the precursor. But for this point Portuguese could be argued not to exist as a language either, but to be a dialect group within Galician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician_language. And why does Gael not self identify speakers of a language who describe themselves as such with Ireland, if Ynglis identifies them as referring to themselves as English? That strikes me as rather inconsistent:}82.41.4.66 12:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the Danish and Norwegians both refer to the earlier form of their language as Norrønt. One assumes the later names Dansk and Norsk came about by self identification from the names of the territories in which their particular form of Norrønt is spoken. The Danes, Norwegians, Swedes refer their language together, respectively, as nordiske sprog, nordiske språk and nordiska språk which, one can plainly see, just looks like different ways of spelling the same thing.

84.135.197.245 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Boksmal (book language), and Nynorsk (new Norwegian) both to an extent were deliberatly created from the most Norwegianised versions of Danish from the early 19th century onwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language_struggle . Alll three plus Swedish originate in Norse though :}82.41.4.66 03:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

QUOTEthe clear Gaelic bias of Calgacus (who insists on what he would by his own logic have to define as the spuruious modern construct of "Middle English" rather than Ynglis , yet does the opposite with Gaelic and Middle Irish, seeing Middle Irish as less useful for his manipulation of history, and rarely mentioning the pre Irish linguistic origines of Scotland (unless he thinks that Scotland has no history prior to the Irish Scotii tribes in the dark age

RESPONSEI'm neither particularly pro-Gaelic or anti-Scots, I merely use my historical knowledge to cut down POV-pushing This Calgacus is entirely fictional; a construct, like the medieval Scottish Englishman, the ancient Greek Persian, the Nazi German Jew or even the modern American "terrorist", which functions to increase group solidarity and favor for a particular view. What could that POV be, eh? And yeah, on that point, when have I ever called medieval Gaelic "Goidelach"? That would be the equivalent of calling medieval English "Ynglis". It is merely a fact that no language, Latin or vernacular, distiguishes the English language (lingua anglica, Ynglis, Anglais, etc) of Scotland from the of the rest of the British Isles (it was spoken in Ireland and Wales too remember!), until the end of the middle ages. If I have any bias, it is a natural dislike for pretending that the English language wasn't spoken in Scotland until the 17th or 18th century. It saddens me that feel you have to allege a "Gaelic bias" in me because you see Gaelic and Lowland Scots as opposites, because the Scots-language movement has historically been extremely anti-Gaelic and "Celtophobic", from its routs in 18th century Gothism and Pinkertonism even to the present day. They are not, however, opposites; and I have great respect for the English language of Scotland, both as it is presently, and historically (whether you chose to call it Middle English, Scottish Middle English, Scottish early modern English, Scots, Lallans, Lowland Scots, etc, etc, etc). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC

Apologies Calgacus, but was it you; or your similarly named alter ego who (on this same discussion page) said something along the lines of Scots claim to have any historical existence, let alone a central role in Scottish history, is phantasmal? I also seem to recall you and I having a little disagreement on things like the source of the 'CH' in Scots, where you said that it was more likely down to Scots proximity to Gaelic that gave rise to this ... rather than the fact that words like richt, ocht and dochter are all ME/Saxon in origin. May I suggest that you are just as prone to POV as the rest of us? My view is you have a very honourable POV in promoting Gaelic; and in righting a few historical wrongs (e.g. Máel Coluim mac Donnchada)... but on this page, I think it's fair to say that not all of your responses appear quite so balanced. Now ... as for the article. I still have a bee in ma bunnit about inserting a couple of lines on the similarities of some older (but still living) Scots dialects to their Middle English ancestor. This I suppose is also POV; but it is the POV of published academics like Billy Kay. Do you still object to such an insertion? You were strangely quiet on my last couple of postings (now archived). Does anyone else object? Is it just me that sees no little irony in the fact that 'It's a braw bricht moonlicht nicht th'nicht' is all Middle English? §Angusmec 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as you don't try to make out that Lowland Scots is unique in preserving Middle English elements, that is fine. The myth that Lowland Scots is some unique pure Saxon dialect is one of my bugbears. The myth is partly a result of Scottish Teutonism, partly a result of truth (many Scots dialects are very "archaic"), partly a result of using certain texts which are actually Middle English as representations of Lowland Scots, and partly other things. One need only look to Black Country English to realize that preservation of different Middle English elements is pretty common in many English "dialects".

I remember suggesting that the retention of CH might have something to do with Gaelic influence, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Scots and Gaelic have a lot in common that isn't appreciated as much as it could be by people who don't know both languages (which includes virtually every scots scholar in history)... e.g. placement of articles on time expressions, e.g. "an dràsta", "the noo"; "a-màireach", "the morro", etc; appreciation of Lowland Scots-Gaelic interface has not been helped by the fact that Scots enthusiasts, including many of those who studied the language up until the mid 20th century, were extremely hostile to Gaelic, something that seems to continue to this day (see this talk page).

This phantasmal comment, which I'm sure was phrased differently, was, if you remember, in relation to the myth partly propagated my that "nostra" article, that Scots was the eternal language of the Scottish nation until dark days beset Scotland after the union of the crowns in 1603. In reality, Scots has little over two hundred years of documented use (probably closer to three hundred years of actual use) as a language of the Scottish court (compare with 1000 years + for the Scottish kingdom), and throughout that period was called "English" as well as "Scots". Horsbroch's article, which he's put online for wider use, covers this up by quoting loads of often badly informed foreign sources out of context, sources who happen to use the word "Scots" for Scottish English. Now, Scots was a distinct dialect/language in this period, certainly distinct from Tudor royal English, but that's not the same as it being another totally distinct language. Scots was always regarded as part of the same Anglo-British language continuum. Just read the sources, and pick up on how many call it "English"; perhaps Dr Horsbroch will write another article documenting Scots being called "English" in this period, but I doubt it. Moreover, the dismal fate of Lowland Scots in the modern period is mirrored by other English varieties who've never had a nationalist intelligensia to bemoan their fate. They suffered from the printing press and mass communication as much as from the standardizing Anglo-British state.

Also, I don't "promote Gaelic"; I rarely contribute to any topics which have anything to do with the Gaelic movement. But as a specialist in medieval Scottish history, I get involved in medieval Scottish articles and am in a good position to prevent Scots-pushing by users with that tendency. I also have a thing for favouring native names over crude anglicizations. My enthusiasm for using the name Jogaila is no more a result of "Gaelic-pushing" than my enthusiasm for using Máel Coluim and Donnchad, and comes from a general movement in the scholarly world to use proper native forms for historical figures. I've also been accussed of being a "Lithuanian POV pusher" for similar reasons by Polish users, a "Russian propagandist" by Ukrainian users, and a "Greek nationalist" by a Turkish user. I'm afraid I just get into these things because of my passion for neutrality. I take animosity towards me by POV pushers as a compliment.

BTW, everyone I've ever come across on wiki who throws accussations of sockpuppetry has themselves been a sockpuppet. I'd bet a good deal of money that you are one of these anons who have been posting. I could be wrong, but it'd be a first as far as this sort of thing is concerned. Please deny it if it isn't true. PS, Billy Kay and Dauvit Horsbroch are both active Scots language campaigners ... trying to make them out like impartial academics is disingenuous. Their varying academic credentials make them no less neutral than Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore as political scientist. PPS, you can interpret me not responding to you as an indication of your own superiority if you so wish; but in fact my enthusiasm for these kind of discussions comes and goes, as does my available time, and you're only getting a response now because I'm in a good mood and not particularly busy. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely its disengenuous to mark out Noam Chomsky (or any other academic) for having a motivation outside their academic training, which must by inference deligitamise the accuracy of their work. If its the case for him, (and the likes of Dauvit Horsbrooch), then going to Big College Oxbridge and Jeeves and Wooster School would make it disengenuous to quote Hugh Trever Roper, and growing up listening to Runrig and watching Postman Pat in Gaelic may have contributed to the "disengenuousness" of quoting some Gaelic expert as a reliable source. In fact is there an academic on the planet whos ever stood outside of the human race and thus remained quotable as an innocent observer of facts by this rule... or does it only count for the ones you dissaprove of?:}82.41.4.66 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you agree then:}82.41.4.66 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response raises a number of points. Let me try and tackle them one by one. Firstly, the 'Phantasmal' quote was basically copy/paste from the archive ... and was making the point that 300 years of Scots 'official' use is a lot less than Gaelic's 700. I suppose 'Phantasmal' depends on the degree of significance you apportion to 30%. [But can you at least see why such comments prompt some people here to accuse you of peddling a POV?]

Also, I will indeed put 2 or 3 lines together for the article on the relationship between archaic Scots dialects and Middle English ... on one condition. The condition being that you make a similar contribution on Gaelic's impact on the dialect. e.g. I had not realised that 'the noo' was an extension of a Gaelic convention. The article only has a handful of Gaelic based references, and needs more. That said, on balance, I think, based on the evidence, Scots retention of 'CH' is not a Gaelic trait. There are too many instances of Scots words using 'CH' with a direct mapping to middle english for the construct to have disappeared and then reappeared after exposure to Gaelic ... although one possible argument may be that CH was retained in Scots, unlike other English dialects, due to its proximity to (and therefore a degree of support from) Gaelic.

As for supporting any assertions on Scots, from impartial references ... I've found this to be pretty much impossible. I guess references and extrapolations from Trudgill may be feasible ... but pretty much all Scots related publications I've found are made by those with some form of vested interest.

Finally, and sadly, you've just lost 'a good deal of money'. I am not your elusive Anon(s). My contributions to WP are pretty much all on this page; and all signed. You can pick up on my linguistic 'traits' by looking for a preponderance of semi-colons[;], too many commas [,] lots of elipses [...], single ['] (as opposed to double) quotes, and (even though I do say so myself) a desire to back up everything I say with some form of logic.

PS, I would never take a non-response as validation of my 'superiority' (didn't think I had any) ... otherwise I would have already changed the article.[Although what prompted you to make such an 'out of tone' statement still puzzles me]

PPS, What's the sockpuppet metaphor? §Angusmec 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Retention of ch (gh) /x/ is more likely simply an archaism surviving in in Scotland because its loss or realisation as /f/ was an innovation introduced much further south, then spreading northwards. Certainly at least 100 years ago or so it was still being used by some older speakers in the north of England. Whether its current demise in Scotland is due to the further spread of this innovation or language shift to standard English I will leave to others to decide.

The use of forms such as the day for today began to appear in literature during the Middle Scots period at a time when Scots speakers in central Scotland would have had little or no contact with Gaelic in their day-to-day lives. It would certainly be somewhat strange for literate Scots speakers of the time to translate and then adopt something from what they considered a barbaric tongue. It is likely simply a corruption of to. The the in the now is by analogy from a corruption of even now. The year an analogous corruption of this year etc.

84.135.252.78 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Scots was recognised as the Germanic language of the country at least 100 years earlier than that http://www.scots-online.org/airticles/eurlang.htm. I havent mentioned opposites, merely defended the parity of their value in Scottish history:} PS you havent explained to me yet why the French shouldnt speak Franconian German as their name would suggest rather than a Romance language?:} 82.41.4.66 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that rant says sums your prejudice on the subject. Ps what does "all but proven "actually mean when you write it!?:}82.41.4.66 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the name is Goidelic or Gaelic, the term referred to the seme written language which had developped in Ireland, not Scotland. The point still stands that if the modern term for "Ynglis" has to be used to avoid your allegation of spuriosity/spuriousness, whereas the opposite is the case (apparently) with regards to "Middle Irish" (a spurious modern name so therfore less valid than Middle English as a definition!?). Id like you to explain precisely how this demonstrates objectivity:82.41.4.66 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your fantasy Calgacus again. I can only speak for myself, not someone you made up. I use the terms Old English, Middle English, Old Irish, Old Gaelic, Middle Irish, Middle Gaelic, medieval Gaelic, etc, terms in actual modern usage; I've never made use of either Ynglis or Goidelach. Oh, which language developed in Ireland, I'm curious to know? BTW, Edinburgh anon, you should keep it nice. I see from your talk page you have a history of nastiness. I should point out that being nasty rarely does anyone any good when the threat of physical violence is totally absent. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You seriously claim to be unaware that Gaelic was as Irisih as the |Irish word "Scot" that didnt exist in Scotland's original native languages lol:} lol sorry but Im not swallowing that line. I think we both know which language devlopped in Ireland and remained the written form of Scottish Gaelic into the 18th century, and I cant beliebve youre honestly unaware of the seperate written standard of Scots from English that went back centuries before the Scottish Gaelic written standard had even separated from Irish Gaelic. I can only draw the conclusion that you choose which parts of the complex story to highlight, and which to leave out:}82.41.4.66 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to follow all your responses; BTW "Gaelic was as Irisih as the |Irish word "Scot" that didnt exist in Scotland's original native languages ... I can only draw the conclusion that you choose which parts of the complex story to highlight" seems like the ironic comment of the century. You ain't going to get me sucking into a "this language is more important for our identity" argument. Move to eastern Europe and you'll have a great time. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have I mentioned that? I dont consider language nor ethnic identity to be a primary concern and havent cleimed that Scotland or Britain has ever been Mono-ethnic in origine. I do however support the equal legitamacy of Scots as a language varity to Scottish Gaelic on historical grounds, as it was also a state language.:}82.41.4.66 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Just noticed your quip "Threat of physical violence totally absent....!?!?" what on earth is that supposed to infer. That seems typically disingenuous with the fantasy figure ive noticed here commenting on things being "all but proven" (isnt that not proven?!) where in the name of Goidelic do you get the Gaul (or is that Gael:}} to somehow suggest through the language of a politicians spin master general, that i have used language appropriate in response to physical threats of violence!? Please enlighten us all where Iveresponded in a way that justifies such weasely moralising. cheers (and be nice:} count to ten before typing back)82.41.4.66 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) PS, tell us what street in Edinburgh.} then Id actually be impressed82.41.4.66 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By "history of nastiness" you mean what others might define as allowing free comment from others on my talk page. Point out my "nastiness" (Im curious to be enlightened as to what you constitute as nastiness...somebody answering you back perhaps?:}}82.41.4.66 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets see your evidence for this accusation! Or is it another cheap shot! The 18th century was the age of the "North Briton's birth and the "Anglification" (a term you doubtless object to but an accurate description nonetheless) of Scots (or whatever YOU would have it be called despite that being its name then as now) The Scots language revival only really emerges in the twentieth century after decades of indoctrination (particularly with the start of state school inspections in the 1840s. Pinkerton has as much to do with the birth of Britain and the early Romanticist age that also gave birth to the Ossian nonsense as the "Scots language Movement" so unless you can offer further evidence for this POV i can take it as a demonstration of Celtic chauvinism from you:}82.41.4.66 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Has there ever been a Scots-language movement of any significance never mind with any kind of historical continuity? I would be surprised if any present day Scots language enthusiasts entertain 18th century Gothism and Pinkertonism. Claiming that such influences persist even to the present day may well simply be a slight against Scots language enthusiasts.

84.135.197.245 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perth and Kinross Council are at last helping promote the language in primary schools http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Scots_training_for_Perth_teachers.html/translate/english

}82.41.4.66 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a Finnish academic's opinion on Scots http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Scots_language_to_feature_in_Finnish_lecture_series.html

}82.41.4.66 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And heres some more on the same subject http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/renvall/eka/news/birevents06-07/birevents_nihtinen06.html

}82.41.4.66 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And this you say after just posting a campaign piece for removing Gaelic names for Scottish rulers. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced. :p Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That must have been some other bloke using this IP. I find nothing wrong with providing the Gaelic names for Scottish rulers in brackets behind the usual English forms. Its a piece of interesting and informative information which could be made more interesting by providing an explanation of what the names mean, like Malcolm Canmore is a baldy pal of Columba with a big head;-)

84.135.197.245 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, German anon. As far as I can see, and I wrote none of those royal articles, many of the names are given explanation; I should point out that, as in Scottish usage Cenn often means chief, Cenn Mór very likely means "great chief" rather than "Big Head". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first to be misled by my using T-Mobile to access the internet. I blame the airport lounges myself.

Cenn Mór would of course likely mean great chief, much like English head of department etc.

Your mentioning Mr. Pinkerton's Gothism brought Charles Mackay's 1877 work The Gaelic etymology of the languages of western Europe: and more especially of the English and Lowland Scotch and of their slang, cant, and colloquial dialects to mind. The title certainly leaves no doubt where he is coming from. A year later he published A Dictionary of Lowland Scotch whose Gaelic etymologies for everyday English words remain unsurpassed to this day.

One must admit that Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Mackay certainly give the impression that Lowland Scotch had an uncanny propensity for attracting nutters, which going by this talk page, continues even to the present day. None of which answers the question whether there has ever been a Scots-language movement of any significance never mind with any kind of historical continuity? Who? When? Where? and What? come to mind. Material which would certainly make an interesting addition to this article.

84.135.245.85 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this then:} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance 82.41.4.66 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy was part of a Scots language literary revival (despite the imposition of English at school level) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_MacDiarmid 82.41.4.66 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres a copy of the 2006 Census test for the real one in 2011 (and note the inclusion this time, unlike in the 2001 Census, of a question on Scots as well as Gaelic and English:} http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/2006-census-test-form.pdf 82.41.4.66 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of marginal poets who wouldn't even make the D-list having a blether in the Oxford or Abbotsford Bars hardly constitute a movement, the Salvation Army or Siol nan Gaidheal are movements, they fire the public imagination, they are the talk of the town. Ask your average Scottish bod in the street about Hugh MacDiarmid and the Scots-language movement and you will encounter blank stares. The Scots-language movement is like the Loch Ness Monster: many have heard of it, some claim to have seen it, but no one has produced any tangible evidence of its existence. I was hoping Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) could point us in the direction of sources for its existence. If such a creature exists, it deserves a paragraph or two in the article.

84.135.250.145 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres an article on Hugh Mcdiarmid for all you Andrew Motion fans to compare and contrast on whose an A and whose a D:} http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=108725200682.41.4.66 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah well you mean "marginalised" (Id rate the dire laureate Andrew Morion as an E at best:} check this literary advance out as its a contemporary one http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressoffice/contact/2002/October/scotslanguage.html

http://www.itchy-coo.com/abootus.html

http://www.itchy-coo.com/iccultsubdoc.pdf

http://www.spl.org.uk/ed_meet/fitt.html

}82.41.4.66 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a BBC radio interview with Mathew Fitt http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/6962

}82.41.4.66 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Im just off out to the street to ask an average bod about "Siol nan Gaidheal", and Im awaiting their immediate recognition of this "fire-inspiring phrase":}82.41.4.66 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the Scottish Parliament (despite the prejudices of Scots who were indoctrinated by UK educational policy to regard it as slang thanks to state language planning policy pushing English) are now due to public pressure having to take the language seriously for the first time since the Act of Union http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cpg-scots.htm  :}

and tak a kiek at this tae http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm  :}82.41.4.66 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lallans.co.uk/collogue.html Id say this might "fire the imagination" to quote someone else on this page:} (were it not for the marginalisation that renders Scots language poets like Hugh Mcdiarmid unknown to the "bods" on any particular street:}82.41.4.66 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that with Siol nan Gaidheal. I meant the Celtic League and inspirational characters such as Alan Heusaff. There are Cross Party Groups [2] for all number of things, none of them necessarily part of any wider movement but simply enthusiastic bods from the chattering classes indulging their egos. Whoever wrote that Walcome til the Scottish Pairlament wabsite [3] should perhaps get in touch with the Cross Party Group for Dyslexia [4]. I checked out the Scots books for adults and kids available at Amazon, noticing the publisher Itchy Coo [5]. Is what's presented there really another language or simply fun dialect writing not dissimlar in nature to the African American Vernacular employed by Joel Chandler Harris in his tales of Uncle Remus or Simon Wheeler's narrative in Mark Twain's "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" ? The change in attitude is simply a more egalitarian acceptance of other peoples accents and dialects. Why shouldn't kids have fun with dialect? There's always standard English for formal use. I'm afraid none of that is conclusive evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement, though it would seem officialdom is prepared to pander a few enthusiasts, while apparently, not actually doing anything serious in the way of establishing Scots as a language.

84.135.250.145 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its notable how African American speech is subject to the same policy of ridicule and ghettoisation as Scots (for which children were under British state policy physically punished at schools up until the nineteenseventies. The main difference being only the official status of Scots as the language of Scotland with a seperate orthography from English (as was the case with Low German and the equally "ridiculous" Afrikaans:} In theory an African American official language would be a move I would find no difficulty with (check out the history of so called "patois" (ie languages of African slaves and other non white colonial subject:)82.41.4.66 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you would have to presume that Frissian is an "egalitarian accented Dutch" as it faces the same absorption by a similair language that Scots has faced by eduacational policy and media bias against it as a language as well http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:gyA2Z0gITlkJ:www.mercator-education.org/research-projects/endangered-languages/Article%2520EOLSS.doc+frisian+language+destruction&hl=de&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=5 (:82.41.4.66 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a better article on the phenomenon http://members.chello.nl/e.hoekstra8/108Stannert.pdf  :}82.41.4.66 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

and heres a speaker's personal experience of language prejudice http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=609102006

}82.41.4.66 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

have a read of this "fun dialect" article from the same English newspaper:} http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=364912006

}82.41.4.66 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frissian (sic) is not an "egalitarian accented Dutch" but clearly a language because Frisian is used in many domains including education, legislation, and administration. Primary education is bilingual. A standardised variety exists and it is used as a teaching medium and is a required subject. None of the above applies to Scots. The Itchy Coo document [[6]] which you linked to proves my point. Why isn't their submission to the Cultural Comission in the language they apparently think so highly of? Because kids may have fun with dialect. Standard English is for the serious stuff. None of the links you keep producing provide any evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement. I suppose if you continue long enough, the infinite monkey theorem may prove itself and evidence yet be produced.

84.135.250.145 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

by the by, sorry but Im not used to spelling it in English as Im trying to learn de Fryske sprake, and am more used to seeing it written in other languages. Heres a good beginner's course Im using http://www.allezhop.de/frysk/ tank!:}82.41.4.66 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All that demonstrates is the different attitudes towards linguistic policy in the UK and the Netherlands and what is actualy possible for the Scots language despite the policy of driving it from society and ghettoising it into a "patois". In a sense the reason there are no( to use your words "concrete examples") (ok maybe "concrete phrase wasnt your phrase sorry:}82.41.4.66 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) is precisely because there has been such a deliberate erosion of the value of Scots, through such policies as standardising the teaching of English but offering no Scots language lessons, and the physical punishment at schools of children for using the language, to drive home the state's opinion that it is just "bad English". The unwillingness to include it as a question on the census is an indicator to the cringe that Scots feel (undoubtedly in many instances at least acquired at school while being assaulted for speaking it) at even acknowledging its existence. These attitudes wont change overnight. It will take a generation or two, but the point about books for children is precisely the same one the British State has realised for the opposite motivation... to "get them while there young":82.41.4.66 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a report on the first ever use of Scots in parliament since the Act of Union http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4920268.stm

}82.41.4.66 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And how about the status of Yiddish then? It was never taucht at school level or used for official purposes. (in fact many Germans sadly unsurprisingly at the time!) regarded it as "bad German", but it has its own body of literature and is clearly grammatically different (and written in Hebrew Script). Is it any less a language seperate from German than Afrikaans is one seperate from Dutch due to the lack of its beauracratic status?:}82.41.4.66 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has produced any evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement, now or in the past, one can only assume that for Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), it is part of an entirely fictional, Pinkerton inspired, Teutonist, anti-Gaelic conspiracy. A construct which functions to increase group solidarity and favour for a particular view. User 82.41.4.66 also seems to be deluded into thinking such a creature exists but for other reasons. Perhaps he wishes to be leader, in order to increase group solidarity and favour for a particular view.

84.135.250.183 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you might try rereading some of the links on this page, and rethinking how objectively you judge the merit of evidence not fitting your own prejudices :}. After all, many white Britons saw little "evidence" of "negro intelligence" in the days before the Mau Mau made them reconsider British colonial policies (doubtless they were discouraged from looking for it in the first place:})82.41.4.66 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change. A fairly objective definitition, if I may say. How well does the evidence fit? Where are the protesters, demonstrations, widespread demands for change, media coverage? A few links to a few enthusiasts does not make a movement. Do trainspotters form a movement? What "Negro intelligence" has to do with the existence of a Scots-language movement will no doubt remain a mystery.

84.135.254.162 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both threatened the status quo of the British Empire, hence its equivelant lack of enquiery into either.} Also, its no wonder theres no movement wide enough to fit your sturdy requirements when Scots speakers are indoctrinated through state education to think of the language as slang, and then have this reinforced by its only ever being borrowed from on tv to show the lack of intelligence of the speaker (in this it shares a history of social demarcation on tv and films with ebonics in shows such as Amos and Andy, both being mocking forms to reinforce the dominant group's position in the minds of their speakers and listeners:}}82.41.4.66 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a movement which is apparently not wide enough to fit the sturdy requirements previously quoted, could be a threat to the status quo of the British Empire? The British Empire surely felt safe enough to be able to ignore a few enthusiasts? Are you aware of what you are actually writing?

84.135.254.162 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you might say "Sturdyness" is in the eye of its beholder:}, and the "sturdy" British Empire vanished pretty swiftly despite its "feeling so safe". As for size, a ruthless Imperial mindset could regard even the smallest "threat" as quite "sturdy"! (otherwise why reinforce the annihilation of difference through state policy?):} check this out as an introduction to how the world gets defined by the rulers fears and obsessions:}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_%28book%29#Chapter_1:__The_Scope_of_Orientalism 82.41.4.66 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are competing with Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) for the best paranoid, fictional conspiracy. This anti-Scots one orchestrated by the British Empire and later the British state. Perhaps what we are observing is the Scots victim mentality resulting from some kind of perceived ethnic persecution involving not just torture and abuse but also systematic brainwashing. The point of dispute perhaps being, who is the biggest victim?

If Gaels and Scots (sic) really wanted to continue speaking Gaelic and Scots no amount of coercion or persecution would have stopped them. They chose to, probably for base utilitarian and economic reasons. Despite the indescribable suffering the Jews had to endure. They still managed to get Hebrew going. Get real.

84.135.244.221 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew was as dead as the dead sea scrolls (unlike Yiddish which apparently was in fact permitted at school level and for some official purposes in Eastern Europe for the relatively brief period between the World Wars), and it suits the Us Government to promote Hebrew for political reasons. (try criticising zionism in the U.S. and see the response from the ADL [Anti Defamation League}). Again it is a case of state policy and the will of the powerful effecting language and culture. Despite their equal suffering http://www.swagga.com/maafa.htm http://www.africanholocaust.net/ http://www.cultural-expressions.com/thesis/saide.htm http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/CoursePack/diaspora.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan Having never been classed as slaves (unlike black people) in the United States (the most powerful cultural policy maker on the planet at present), Jews have not suffered the same demarcation in American semiotics as the African American. What I mean in saying this is that though both are seen as outsiders, one is at least given the presumption of having a culture, the other presumed to have left it on the slave ships from West Africa, or the cotton fields in their slave ancestry. Hence Ebonics (unlike the "made up" language of Yiddish ie Jüdisch [Jewish]) has never been given the status of a language, as the state has had (less than) no reason to examine it( a slave class with a language!?:}, whereas both Hebrew and Yiddish, though one was less alive than the unexamined African American speech, and the other was no less different from German than some forms of African American speech are in syntax from American English, are covered through the media and therefor given an unequal voice akin to the unequal military expanditure ("expanditure" was a typo, but maybe its a good word for "expanding expenditure"!:] on the state of Israel compared to the homeless of New Orleans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Levees_Broke Shalom!:}82.41.4.66 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens, tell us more...

84.135.252.78 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

“ [Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. 'Deconstruction' is somewhat less negative than the Heideggerian or Nietzschean terms 'destruction' or 'reversal'; it suggests that certain foundational concepts of metaphysics will never be entirely eliminated...There is no simple 'overcoming' of metaphysics or the language of metaphysics. ”

(Introduction by Allison, in Derrida, 1973, p. xxxii, n.

"a shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey un flot" (Max Weinreich)

http://www.geocities.com/yotaino/langwij.html

http://bryan.myweb.uga.edu/AAVE/

I think the problem lies in the "thickness" of reality (in contrast to the thinness of definition as to what is linguistically appropriate to merit ridicule or esteem), as language and ethnicity is in the mouth of the describer:}82.41.4.66 12:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists are like questionnaires (it depends on who writes the questions). There has been an active campaign to marginalise Scots for the last 200 years (hence the lack of coverage for Hugh Mcdiarmid and no Scots permissable on regional tv outside of a handful of comedy series designed to emphasise the only situations the state deems it appropriate for... imagine the outcry if only Gaelic tv allowed was a comedy half hour programme...there would be cries of racism from some corners no doubt:.) However, attitudes are changing (particularly thanks to the Good Friday agreement:} and the impact of this on recognition of Scots both in Scotland and Ulster) change in attitudes of the state towards education, the ratification by the govt of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (covering Scots and Ulster Scots) in 2001 and more emphasis in primary and secondary education on the history and present use of Scots (check out the Scots books for adults and kids available at Amazon to see the best sellers):}82.41.4.66 12:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Though "Big Head" may be a more apt definition...or am I being nasty?:}82.41.4.66 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, on both counts. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LEt me know when you can quote this "nastiness" fantasy calgacus, and everyone can decide for themselves rather than take your objective opinion as gold on the matter:}82.41.4.66 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or they can just check your contribution history. Simpler than you thought, eh? Happy editing! ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

lol Jeez youre such a drama queen "abscence of physical violence threats"... "being nasty" please everyone, if you could give a damn, then check away. Im just curious why you didnt just let everyone decide rather than giving your rather defencive spin on me.} happy sniping:82.41.4.66 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone, read my contributions:} thanks calgacus, you saved me the time of telling everyone myself lol.}82.41.4.66 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

heres an example of anti Pictish Gaelic-pushing chauvinism from another page: Talk:Gaels From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If you put the ethnicity model used for most of the rest of the world on Scotland, then all of this makes sense. But most books on the topic avoid the awkward points that you make, for the obvious reason that this would eliminate most of the authors from Scottishness, of which they are generally immensely proud (as their society, whose structures and identity are of Gaelic origin, has made them out to be). Hence most users, who fall much lower down the intellectual food chain that these authors, will give you grief for your views. But anyways, I don't know how alterable the template is. It's probably best for the minute to delete Scots and Irish from the group, as most Gaels are either Scottish or Irish, and, as you say, keep it linguistic, permitting only the inclusion of the Welsh and Bretons (the modern Cornish are totally English, and have no place there according to the arguments you have outlined). - Calgacus 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

I take it then, that prior to the Gael influence on "North Britain, there was an empty land, and no part of Scottish Culture is valid other than thanks to your beloved Gaels? Id say that was rather subjective, though doubtless youre far higher up the food chain than Scottish non Gaels from what you indicated in the above contribution:}82.41.4.66 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And then theres this:

Actually, "Middle Irish" mss from Scotland survive only from England too. England's a big place. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)" Great argument cos it is pretty big lol:}82.41.4.66 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see very little relationship between these quotes and your comments. I'm afraid that unless you expand your interpretation of these comments, it will be concluded that this is simply your paranoid fantasy-Calgacus construction emerging again: the ideological enemy your mind has been constructing either consciously or subconsciously. That's the problem with being POV. I'd suggest you read these talk pages more carefully, chill down a little, and quit spamming talk pages such as this. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen. This conversation is going nowhere. Remember that these talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article not for arguing over its topic, and still less for taking shots at one another. Any further argument on this topic or personal attacks on each other are not appropriate. I encourage all editors to remove any future inappropriate comments by any participant in accordance with the WP:No Personal Attacks policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out the etymology of the Russian language's name being Germanic (for a Slavic language:}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives (maybe Scots isnt the only language with a linguistically anomalous name after all) :} 82.41.4.66 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"This conversation is going nowhere". I think I must agree with this sentiment and also add that I think the article itself is going nowhere. From reading this article and these comments one could assume, if one was so inclined, that on the one hand there is a bunch of radical kilted Gaels who hate everything English (including the Scots Language) and on the other, a bunch of semi-literate knuckle-dragging Scots speakers who refer to Gaelic as "Irish" and who think their culture is superior to the Gael's. The whole argument is balderdash. Most Scots thankfully celebrate their Scottish Gaelic, Lowland Scots and Scottish English languages as well as the diversity and cultural wealth of this country. In this land of ours, one thing we can be sure of is that we are all imigrants. This article (including the talk section) unfortunately displays a contempt for the general opinions of most Scots and is full of the politics of an ugly form of nationalism (and I am a nationalist myself). It promotes the false view that there is a conflict between Lowland Scots and Scottish Gaelic (except for in the minds of a few nutcases here). After reading everything here I have come to the conclusion that the whole thing reeks of political point scoring combined with a narrow minded parochial outlook. Sadly, this article does not have a scholarly feel to it at all. Can't someone please do a better job than this bunch of nutters?--62.249.233.80 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and Irish

According to this academic, "Scotis" was the "Ynglis" term used in Scotland for Gaelic both in Scotland AND in Ireland up until the 15th Century:} http://www.scotslanguage.com/Scots/What_is_Scots/The_Scots_Language_and_its_European_Roots//translate/scots 82.41.4.66 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Scottish source referring to the Gaelic language of Ireland as "Scottis", and the "academic" cited no example. It's certainly plausible ... a couple of 12th/13th century English sources talk about the Scottic race of Scotland and Ireland, but as references to Scottish Gaelic as "Scottish" are rare in Scottish anglophone sources in the 15th century, I would doubt it and guess that the author has just added "and Ireland" without really thinking about it; if the writer was knowledgable about the era and topic, he would regonize the significance of such a reference and would have given it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well its the only mention Ive come across so far. Ill see if I can find any other sources to verify it (even if I have to visit the Scottish reading room in Edinburgh):}82.41.4.66 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident my explanation covers it; your best bet would be to email the writer, whose name you already apparently know. Calgacus 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I dont know her yet but thanx, I have done (and who knows what will come of it!):}82.41.4.66 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Subordinate clauses

I've lived in several locations around Scotland all my life and I can honestly say that I've never heard of "Verbless subordinate clauses introduced by 'an' and expressing surprise or indignation" as was stated in that section. Davedim 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have.

For a reference try here (§12.4). Cheers, Mendor 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ye've nivver heard onybody uisin them, an you bidin in Scotland aa yer life? Weel, weel. Fa wid hae thocht it ? Derek Ross | Talk 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Frisian

There is no need for that Frisian comment, its unsourced and its fully allowed by wikipedia to remove such unsourced stuff.

Even if Scots was a different language to English and not just a dialect it still has the same routes, no one would argue it wasn't at least from the same family. Frisian on the other hand is closer to English then to Dutch, its a totally different situation.--Josquius 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Source added. The comparison isn't about the genetic relationship of the varieties in question but the sociolinguistic attitudes to, and the influences of the power languages on the varieties in question.

84.135.228.87 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a different situation though due to them being different languages. In the Netherlands you have Dutch and Frisian, they are exclusive of each other. They have a few words in common but are mostly totally alien, you have to speak one or the other. In Britain though there's a wide variety of different dialects. There's a sort of a scale going from north to south- down London way you have the Queen's 'pure English' then in Yorkshire it gets a bit away from that and then in Scotland Scots. Its a gradient, northern English dialects have a lot of things in common with Scottish dialects. In any but the harshest of dialects though you can be totally understood by a non-ignorant speaker of more standard forms.--Josquius 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is denying that there is a gradual dialect transition from North to South in the UK. It's the same situation as you get going from Belgium to Portugal where, village by village, the dialect gradually changes from North to South. Nevertheless most people would agree that there are (at least) three separate languages spoken within that area. Why is it so difficult to apply the same logic to the UK? -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

From Frisian Language "Up until the fifteenth century Frisian was a language widely spoken and written, but from 1500 onwards it became an almost exclusively oral language, mainly used in rural areas. This was in part due to the occupation of its stronghold, the Dutch province of Friesland (Fryslân), in 1498, by Duke Albert of Saxony, who replaced Frisian as the language of government with Dutch."

One could paraphrase:

Up until the seventeenth century Scots was a language widely spoken and written, but from 1600 onwards it became an almost exclusively oral language...

An acceptable basis for a sociolinguistic comparison?

As Derek Ross writes, dialect continua are not unusual. Anyone who uses terms such as sort of a scale, Queen's 'pure English', a gradient and harshest of dialects clearly has no linguistic training what-so-ever. But hey, this is Wikipedia. Popular ignorance often wins over informed knowledge. 84.135.228.87 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Josquius should read Glauser, Beat (1974) The Scottish-English Linguistic Border. Lexical Aspects, Bern: Francke.

This research showed that the phonological an lexical borders where almost identical to the political border and consequently one of the most marked in a European language continuum.

Nogger 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The way it is explained here with Frisian being replaced by Dutch due to historical factors and all that makes perfect sense. In the article however it reads the way I was saying- like Frisian is a obscure dialect of Dutch which is being overwhelmed by standard Dutch. Language continuums- no there isn't one between Belgium and Portugal. A few hundred years ago there probally was, in medieval times there certainly was but these days due to standardisation which has been particularly bad in France...not really. It will go up and down a lot, in some areas old dialaects will remain and in others standardised forms will have taken over.--Josquius 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has

Its subordination to Anglo-English has also been compared to the subordination of Frisian to Dutch in the Netherlands.

That has to do with social status perceptions between a prestige language and the vernacular. The subordination has nothing to do with an obscure dialect of Dutch, the word compared also occurs, some have compared, you may disagree with the comparrison. The statement is sourced. Feel free to add a suitable sourced commentary that rejects the comparrison. All-the-same how obscure dialect of Dutch can be interpreted form the above sentence reamains a mystery.

BTW Language continuums- no there isn't one between Belgium and Portugal Think French-Portuguese.

84.135.238.243 09:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if French has overtaken many of the intermediate dialects between borh extremes of the dialect continuum spectrum, it still forms part of the unbroken gradient between them. In fact a better protest could be made regarding Basque getting in the way, and ironically, due to the Franch impact on Basque speakers North of the border with Spain, the French State policy has in fact strengthened the case for a dialect continuum between Belgium and Portugal, by encouraging the use of a Romance language amongst a population that were previously non Indo European in their speech.ممتاز 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems (unfortunately) that the Scotsgate Website is no longer active, so should be removed from the links, as it now may discourage any intrepid Scots language scholars through its dissapointing promise of info on the subjectممتاز 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation required?

There are several statements made in the article that verge on POV,IMHO, that I believe require some 'backup'. I've marked these with the 'citation required' tag. Markb 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibook

Would anyone like to write a book on learning the language? I would like to learn it. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here, although I already put up a request for it on wikibooks.--66.176.63.70 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I started the book at [7] , but I'd like help from someone that knows the language. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the Scots language

Could editors of this article please add its sub-articles to their Watchlists? There is currently a rather bizarre intervention by a new user over at the History of the Scots language article, who seems to be under the impression that that topic concerns (or should concern) a Celtic language and not a West Germanic one. --Mais oui! 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a dablink to this page, the history one and Scottish Gaelic. Hopefully it will sort things out. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As a new user I have to say I find it bizarre that the article is under the heading History of the Scots language.The only Scots language in my opinion is Scottish Gaelic,the rest is just an English dialect.--Sandbagger 10:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The lack of Personal Pronouns

While in English these are (I, you, he, she, we, they, me, you, him, her, us, them etc) in Scots a lot of these are different {something like} (A, ya(yae), he, she, we(wi), they, me, yis, him, her(hur), us, them) and so on, other notable differences arise from these such as (A'll = I'll) and (is'nae = isn't) this is one of the major and most notable differences between the two and also it is the most widely used in speech, why is it not referenced? ok, i'm not expert and maybe i'm missing something in the difference bewteen dialect and language but this seems like an ommision to me JavaByte 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the same as many English dialects as well as Scottish ones, not too different.--Josquius 03:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

True Josquius, another one is 'Ken' which apparantly mean 'Know' in Scots, there are people in the North East of England who use 'Can' (or Kan?) instead of 'Know, "D'ye can when ee's coming back".

This is certainly used by the older generations in Sunderland, and i would assume in Northumberland also. Gazh 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

but could it not be said that this is the influence of Scots on these English dialects, if this isn't clear then should there not be some mention of the fact?, also why is there so few examples, classic's such as 'A dinnea ken' or 'bye tha noo!' are not mentioned yet constantly confuse tourists and English alike?! JavaByte 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not sure, i mean 'the' is also used inbetween sentances in the colliery accents (Seaham, Peterlee, old Sunderland, Houghton, Hetton etc) quite frequently 'See ye the morra' (see you tomorrow), I'm not sure if this is the same usage as Scots though. If it is, and more 'Scots' examples can be found I'd even like to suggest that 'Scots' could be of 'Northumbrian' origon as opposed to Scottish?

Although i would imagine i would face a bit of opposition if i was to claim that. Gazh 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its definatly not Scots influence on northern English. Its northern English influence on Scots from way-back-when. Old Northumbrian (Anglish?). Modern influence on northern English is a southern dialectifying (hey I made up a word) not a Scots dialectifying one.--Josquius 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird discussion. Whatever our personal opinions on the dialect/language debate, folks, we surely all have to agree that there is a single dialect continuum all the way from Shetland to Scilly. And, given that fact, is it really so surprising that the various Northern and Scots dialects have undergone parallel development to some extent ? Of course there are similarities. That is because all the modern dialects, whether Scots or English, ultimately derive from the Old English, spoken in the Isle of Thanet -- if you want to go back their ultimate origins in Britain. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright Derek. Well i think a point i would like to make is that there is a difference between 'Scots' and 'Scottish English', often 'Scots' being perceived as the real dialect of Scotland and SCO-ENG being the cleaned up formal version. If parts of England use 'Scots' then surely it is not actually 'Scots'? Gazh 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, would you say that if parts of Scotland use 'English' then surely it is not actually 'English' ? I hardly think so. Yet what you are saying sounds very similar, albeit with England and Scotland reversed. I agree that there's a difference between Scots and 'Scottish English' but Scots is only one that counts as a standalone language because it's the one which was used by government, education and the Scottish literary establishment when Scotland was independent. Scottish English only really gained ground after the Union. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots and Scottish English are just artificial points along a partially social and partially geographic dialect continuum, formed through the varying powers of modern standard English to influence Scots/Scottish English. Historically, all features of Scots (spoken north of the Forth or west of Clyde-Nith) must either 1) derive from forms of Middle English which had already developed before the period 1150 to 1300 (most significantly those forms in the area between the Bishopric of Durham and the Firth of Forth, but also the Midlands and Anglo-Welsh marches) or 2) later developments, either through continued outside influence or native changes. It is incalculably misleading to label Scots a descendant of "Old English" if the implication is that they separated in the Old English period; you might as well say Scots and English are both descendants of proto-Germanic. Most of the immigrants in the period 1150 to 1250 who brought English to non-English Scotland seem, from the records, to have come from the area in an around the estates of David, Earl of Huntingdon (this is particularly the case in Aberdeenshire, Angus and Fife), from Greater Northumberland and the Anglo-Welsh marches (important west of the Clyde), but also bare in mind that a large proportion of the people who spoke English in 13th century Scotland were second or third generation Flemish military or burghal settlers; the extreme Northumbrian character of Scots is likely to come mostly from the way English was spoken in "Lothian", an area for the most part, forming as it did part of the core zone of the earldom of Bernicia/Northumbria, no less "Northumbrian" in the 12th and 13th centuries than any other part of the old kingdom/earldom. This is because English speakers in the period 1200 to perhaps as late as 1450 were thinly - often very thinly - scattered elsewhere in what became the Scottish Lowlands and thus Lothian, a large source of these English speakers anyways, had a sustained period of concentrated influence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The implication is not (and was never intended to be) that they separated in the Old English period. That would be silly. Just as silly as denying that they are both descendants of Proto-Germanic; or indeed Proto-Indo-European. Which no one is doing either. What I was implying was that English has moved northwards and westwards through its Old English, Middle English phases, and indeed during its Modern English phase, ever since it was introduced to Britain at the end of the Roman period. And long before it was differentiated into Scots/Southern English or even Northumbrian/Southern English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that this implication is taken by most people (and made several times above), even if it is not meant. Just check the chronology on the History of the Scots language article. Such a chronology in fact seems to indicate that its inventors actually meant this implication. BTW, placing articles rather than prepositions before time expressions is characteristic of Celtic idiom, either Gaelic or Welsh (c/f to-morrow, am morgan, but a-màireach and the morra), not Germanic idiom. "To-morrow" is certainly in use in southern English by the 13th century, so it may be the result of Celticisation in Northumbria before then or Celtic influences in Scotland or Cumberland spreading to Northumberland and Co. Durham after. It's funny because "the now" is not Germanic at all, there is no "to-now" (semantically absurd) in southern English, but there is an dràsta in Gaelic, lit. "the now". There needs to be more research on that kind of thing. Things like that are most likely to survive language change because although bilingual people can easily identify vocabulary based on language, they do not consciously identify grammar (listen to any foreigner speaking English, the classic one being the German couple in Casablanca who ask "how much is the clock?"); but for these very reasons it is also a very badly researched area of the English and Scots languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The the in the likes of the morra (OE to morgen) is simply a "corrupt" form of other prefixes or particles, spreading by analogy e.g. even nou > eenou > the nou. These began appearing in the literary record from the 1600s, replacing to forms for example. This was long after any Celtic influence was likely to have been the source. 90.240.89.28 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only in that period that you get any extensive evidence of popular language, so I'd be careful about giving such a theory the status of fact. "The noo" is problematic for such a theory, and to me, the example you give to get around it is too convoluted to be persuasive let alone convincing. Any articles you can direct me to? As for "celtic influence" being being redundant by then (and again the date may be irrelevant), no part of Scotland was more than a few dozen miles from a Gaelic speaking region even a century later, and that's besides the fact that most of the Scottish Lowlands that was English speaking in the 1600s had been Gaelic speaking only three centuries (9 x 12 generations) previously. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations in DOST help show when particular usages appeared in the literary record. The entry for the in the SND provides some insights. Perhaps there is something in the DOST history of Scots. As to the fact that no part of Scotland was more than a few dozen miles from a Gaelic speaking region, interesting as it is, it doesn't tell us much since most people at the time never got further than the next ferm toun, and that extremely rarely. Hardly a situation in which language contact would be a regular occurance. The influence of previous generations? Since you are speculating that it may be the result of Celticisation in Northumbria before then or Celtic influences in Scotland or Cumberland spreading to Northumberland and Co. Durham after, you should perhaps provide some evidence that is more than personal conjecture. Any articles you can direct me to? The person making a claim is usually expected to provide something to back it up. Admittedly lack of evidence is not proof of no evidence so there is a remote possibility that it was in fact picked up off extraterrestrials in the 12th century when they built the Acharn Falls stone circle near Aberfeldy. 90.240.89.28 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, shame on me for making a good-faith request! Why is it so bad that I ask you to direct me to articles that could do more justice to the arguments you put above than you have done? This is surely the natural thing to do, no? It was certainly not done for the sake of winning any argument, as you seem to think, but for my own information. And of course I wasn't as you should realise making any claims ... but rather forwarding a suggestion I suspect to be correct. It was my fault I guess for forgetting the natural hostility of many quaint "Scots" enthusiasts to all things "Celtic". I'm sure live would be simpler for all of us, and indeed more comforting for yourself, if those aliens hadn't come in the middle ages and removed all evidence of Gothic Pictish and "Pre-Literary Scots" that may have proved the slow transition from Pictish to Scots your forebears got all wet in their pants about. Sadly though, unless archaeologists unearth an alien craft bound for Mars stuffed with an 8th century edition of Hardyknute and other Gotho-Pictish manuscripts - perhaps they could try digging at Aberfeldy - it will have to remain a charming idiosyncrasy of the 18th and 19th century Scots language movements. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They [Scotch enthusists] are somewhat irritating. Though to be fair, the influence of aliens in many fields is underestimated. Some good reads which may bear some relevance to the matter at hand are MacKay's The Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe and More Especially ... and his Dictionary of Lowland Scotch. 84.71.235.85 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Dictionary can be downloaded here and the other here. Enjoy:-) 84.71.235.85 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are fascinating tomes, German anon. Now when are you gonna get an account here (or do you have one already)? You've been around a long time, it's a shame you haven't settled down yet. User:Gothic Pict is available, as are User:Mischievous Alien and User:Mischievous ET; so is User:Hardyknute. I dunno if User:John Pinkerton is available, but User:I Heart John Pinkerton is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno where you get your IP info from, using Orange, can drive to Cambridge within an hour. How about User:Helveticus? 84.71.235.85 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to those alien crafts then? Well, it's a funny coincidence that you have had German IP addresses for like a year. Whether you're actually in Germany or not, your German IP addresses are convenient, and since your IP varies every second post, "German anon" will do as your name until you get an account. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Derek, you make a valid point about English being used in Scotland, however i would add that English originated in England (or angland? germany?), i would despute that the Scots 'language' originated in Scotland, or an area that is now Scotland ;)

I'm sure that we would all dispute such an assertion, <grin>. Ultimately English was introduced from the Continent (in the form of Old English). However the modern dialects of its successors have developed at different times and places within the UK as their speakers spread throughout Britain, so it's certainly possible to claim that at least some of the Scots dialects (and I'm thinking particularly of the northern ones) "originated" in Scotland in the same sense that Northumbrian "originated" in Northumbria. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet you would Derek. What we also have to remember is that throughout modern times there has been increasing efforts to make the North East dialects more 'English' sounding, something that is in full effect right now, so, certainly from an alternative view i think it could be very viable to suggest that a 'Scots' dialect could have even originated further south than Northumbria, and with general standardisation of English it could have been cleaned up all the way until the North-east where it appears it lives on in modern times. Gazh 12:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, you might be right about the grammar coming from Celtic (or pre-celtic?) origons, but i would hazard a guess that even after 'colonisation' of Britain by the Germanics that Celtic languages were the language of the people for a while after, Northumbria could quite well have been very celtic with germanic rulers. I even think me mate Bede talked about this in the early days ;) Gazh 10:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The vast majority of English people are descended from British speakers, esp. so in Northumbria where British was probably the majority language of the kingdom until the 8th or 9th century. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is where the discussion could get really interesting, however i don't think we can stray off topic as I'm sure someone would come along and smite us, i will ask though - how on earth did they get large populations to change language ? Gazh 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sugest add a new section - Scots in common use

for obvious reasons, as examples of Scots useage and to inform of the kind of Scots phrases that are used today in Scotland.

Question

Why is scots language so similar to english? Scots doesn't even have the fancy symbols like á or ž? Scots may be an Scotlish, similar to Signaporish. 67.162.51.226 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Scots is directly derived from English, however it is important to remember it had official language status in Scotland, and therefore its name is not in dispute. Gazh 08:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots is most certainly NOT derived from English in any way. It shares the same root langauge, but is not a deviation of English - Duncan Sneddon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse it does, When the original English was brough here (the date is disputed, pre-roman norweigon invaders maybe?) it probably was alot more like Scots than modern standard british english, but it's root is the same; English, and the fact that it has altered in it's own way over the centuries would mean that it is derived from English. Gazh (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Scots in England

There are several hundreds (if not thousands) of Scots speakers in northeast England, especially in the borderlands of Northumberland. I'm unaware of any serveys that have been conducted over the issue but Scots is definitely spoken south of the border in certain areas. Could be alter the map to show "possible Scots speaking regions" in a lighter shade of blue south of the Scottish border? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.50.109 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very tedious task and i wouldn't recommend it, afterall where does Scots end and English begin? It would be original research to even begin to answer that with intent. Gazh (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazh is right. There are researchers who have plotted "isoglosses" in order to answer this sort of question. However it is so dependent on which linguistic features you pick to differentiate between Scots and English that the answer varies quite a bit. Wikipedia is a "general knowledge" source whose remit is to give an overview of a subject. Anyone wanting that level of detail should go to the specialist literature on the subject. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know more about these isoglosses Derek, if there is some kind of break in the accent/dialect shift i'd be tempted off the top of my head to say it would be around the Tees if anywhere, my accent is quite typical of a young person from south Sunderland, yet i would say i have more in common with an Edinburgh accent than a Leeds one. The idea that some native people anywhere in Northumberland would speak in an accent alien to mine is a bit mad, i have been upto Berwick and Alnwick many a time and i have to say the young people especially sound very Newcastle. Gazh (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, Gazh. It certainly fits with my own experience anyway. Isoglosses generally plot divisions between extremely minor speech differences -- the sort of differences you would expect between a North Newcastle speaker and a South Newcastle speaker. Things like using back-r instead of front-r, or a southern "a" instead of a northern one. It's extremely unlikely that any native person in Northumberland would speak in an accent completely different from yours. However there will be very minor differences from one speaker to another. If you want to know more about isoglosses, the WP article is a reasonable starting point but you would really need to go to the linguistics section of a good library to find out more. It's fascinating stuff though, particularly when you can find research on a part of the country that you know well. For instance here's an article on Berwick speech which I think most people would find pretty enjoyable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it was very interesting to say the least, the conclusion is sad but inevitable about the 'standardisation' of English on this side of the line, my kids will certianly be speaking full accent and dialect i will see to that. Cheers Gazh (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Analogy Scots-English and Portuguese-Spanish

I have deleted the second sentence in the following: "It is often held that, had Scotland remained independent, Scots would have remained and been regarded as a separate language from English[citation needed]. This has happened in Spain and Portugal, where two independent countries developed standardised languages, Portuguese originating from a common Galician-Portuguese language, which itself originated from a common Iberian Romance language shared with Castilian Spanish." 1) The analogy is based on wishful thinking, for please remember that Portugal was a world power for a couple of centuries and consequently had every opportunity not only to retain its language but to spread it over other continents. The same cannot be said for Scotland. 2) The analogy is confused, because Galicia has never been independent, Scotland has been so for much longer, but the Galician language has nonetheless survived - even survived the repression of its language under Francoism, something which was rather more radical than suffered by Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compromiso (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign Compromiso (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Galician has been developing separately from Latin since the early centuries AD; English didn't even enter the heartland of Scottish territory until the 13th century, and wasn't even the language of the Scottish court until the late middle ages and even then it was only the language of half the population. I think that's prolly more important. It's likely that ... and I don't see why it's important ... Scotland would have developed some kind of colonial "empire" in the 18th and 19th centuries had it remained independent, though again I'm not sure what if any impact that would have had on language development. There are other parallels that could be used. The Scandinavian language"s" are rather fictional as distinct languages; Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are separate and distinct languages because there are three states called Norway, Denmark and Sweden ... absolutely nothing to do with lingustics; timewise, I think Dutch and German would be the best hypothetical parallel. It works better timewise, and both Scots-English and Dutch-German share the fiction of being thought of (for political reasons) as particularly distinctive in their respective dialect continua. East Low German or Low Prussian would prolly be the best non-hypothetical parallel though. Those parallel well chronologically with the spread of Scots English, and like Scots English, East Low German is a semi-distinct collection of varieties rather than one standardised variety ... which is what Scots English is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Deacon. that sums it up quite well. I would also add that the Portuguese-Spanish analogy has been made by authors outside Wikipedia, so it's not just "wishful thinking" on our part. For instance, Tom McArthur makes it in The English Languages (ISBN 0521485827) on page 146, although like the Deacon, he prefers the Scandinavian analogy to the Iberian one.-- Derek Ross | Talk 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

well, deacon, the spanish wiki page on galician names 8th century as the time it separated from latin (in common with other romance languages) but nothing written until 12th / 13Th century, so it doesn´t seem to have the earlier pedigree which you suggest. "De los comienzos del siglo XIII datan los primeros documentos no literarios en gallego." my point was really the fact that galician survived even though repressed from the end of the reconquista. the spanish wiki page talks of the 16th to 18th centuries as dark ages, when the dialect (whoops, language) was rejected by its own people - seems to correspond with scotland. perhaps it is the decline of centralised power in spain in the 19th century (contrasting totally with the imperialist expansion of england) which saved galician. i guess the analogy, derek, is useful just to explore its (in)appropriateness ... but i must say, to come back to "wishful thinking", that the idea of england allowing an independent scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries to acquire a empire is a bit rich. look what the english did to the danes! i am pretty sceptical of the dutch/german analogy. galician is pretty comprehensible for a spanish speaker, and scots for an english english speaker, but dutch - no way, unless you come from where they speak platt. having said that, please don´t get me wrong, i love the linguistic jungle of europe, let´s not raze it for monoculture. Compromiso (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Ah, don't pay any attention to any of those silly classifications. Some such things just have me in hysterics ... like the laughable Dutch-German split English wiki implies to have come from the Frankish period. All languages at peasant level constantly change, so it follows that Galician began developing from the time Latin was first spoken there ... or spoken there en masse. As always in lingustic continua, there are periods of spasmodic or sustained divergence AND convergence (!), but we can never know when or what impact these had on peasant speech. 2) England "letting" Scotland get an "Empire" (i.e. a few colonies or possessions) would have depended on the relationship between the two; it may not have been the case that it would have been antagonistic. Moreover, 19th century and to some extent 18th cent. Scotland was a much wealthier, technologically advanced and (if my memory serves me well) a more populous place than Belgium or Denmark, and in a much better geographical position. Scotland already experimented with colonies in the 17th cent., and my guess is that if Scotland had remained independent, those would prolly have been precursors to more successful missions. But it's just hypothesis, as Scotland was annexed by England in 1707 and never regained independence. 3) Comparing High German with Dutch is about as fair as comparing Galician with Occitan or Ligurian; Dutch and High German are at very distant ends of a dialect continuum much larger than the English one; if standard German were based on the speech of Saxony it would be much more difficult to think of the two as separate. Anyways, Dutch is pretty comprehensible to German speakers when they know a few rules (and German even more comprehensible to Dutch speakers). Hey, I know only a little German and my ability to read Dutch isn't much worse than my ability to read German. Dutch developed a large advanced vocabulary distinct from High German, a product of the independence of that land in a period very similar to the period where Scots English dominated the Scottish court + hypothetical additional period which would have been gained by continued Scottish independence. Two side notes; firstly, Scots English would have been vulnerable to convergence with the English of England even if it had retained independence; the English English variety was never at any stage incomprehensible to Scots English speakers, whose poets avidly aped English poets of their own age, while English English would have retained/gained the prestige of a more advanced vernacular independent of Scotland's political status because of England's comparative cultural, economic and demographic power. Secondly, if there had been no British rule and no British Empire emigration, population trends in 18th and 19th century Scotland would have seen the Gaelic speaking area catch up and perhaps overtake the Lowland Scots population, which could have changed Scottish society immensely and perhaps demographically peripheralized Scots English speakers and made them feel more English (hence willing to be more like their "brethren"); this is what happened to German speakers in many areas of eastern Europe. Until the 18th cent., Scots English - while regarded as natural in the Scottish Lowlands - constantly had to deal with the accusation that it was a foreign implantation; this was reversed in the 18th cent., but if the latter trends made themselves felt this may have accentuated and damaged the integrity of Scots English society. In either case, a continued differentiation of Scots English from English English would be far from guaranteed even if the Kingdom of Scotland and its court had never disappeared. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Deacon. Bet you're glad to see me back ;-) (Can I just say that I love your use of the term 'prolly' ... which is not quite probably ... so ... not quite probable ... was that the intention?) Anyway ... to business. The bottom line in this discussion is that Scots was a language distinct from English in the 16th century, as is evidenced by (for example) the Court of Queen Elizabeth of England quoting Scots as a foreign language. As for the extrapolation of 'what if Scotland was independent', I doubt that such conjecture has much place in the article. As for your essay on how Gaelic could recover its past glories, you seem to ignore the fact that Scots was the dominant language in Scotland, and had been the lingua franca within the kingdom since the Education act of 1492, the protestant reformation in the mid 16th century, and finally the Education act of 1633. Gaelic was already marginalised by this point in Scots history. The union with England (not annexation as you term it), and the final fling at the Battle of Culloden may have been the last nails in the coffin for Gaelic ... but the lid was already firmly in place well before then. If you want a turning point that may yield a 'purer' (albeit smaller) celtic Alba, you have to go back to the Treaty of York in 1237 (IMHO).

(A brief aside) My POV is that the aftermath of Culloden sees both the near extinction of Gaelic, and the demise of Scots from language to dialect. Gaelic gets banned, while Lowlanders seek to distance themselves from their rebellious cousins by wrapping themselves ever tighter in the false mantle of 'North Britons'. Linguistic coach to aspirational Scots, Thomas Sheridan starts plying his trade barely a handful of years after Culloden.

What's my point? Well ... The two sentences which sparked this debate, highlighted by Compromiso above definitely need changing. 'Often Held' ... 'by many' ... is hardly encyclopaedic. What can be stated? Well, prior to the Union of the Crowns, Scots was viewed as a foreign language ... by none other than the court of England. Since then, its separate linguistic status has been in decline for a variety of reasons (political, demographic, economic). That said, the decline has been a shallow one, since even now prominent academics in the field like Peter Trudgill (English Accents and Dialects, 2005) still recognise that Lowland Scots is 'probably the most distant (variety) of Standard English'. Angusmec 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That Queen Elizabeth source is more about showing off Elizabeth's linguistic skill ... i.e. adding as many languages as possible, much in the way a Scandinavian may try to impress an American girl by presenting their knowledge of the Scandinavian language as "3 languages". Anyways, it isn't the case that Scots English was ever regarded as separate from English in the way say Horsbroch would like. Should we forget that Mair's survey of Scotland mentions two languages spoken by people in Scotland, one half "English" and the other half "Irish". To James VI of Scotland the people of England and the Scottish Lowlands are united by English speech. If you actually look at sources from Scots' supposed glory period of separation between 1500 and 1600, it is called English just as often as Scots. Of course it was its own language, but that shouldn't misguide people into thinking that it had thrown off a relationship with English. It was always vulnerable to reconvergence, with or without Scottish independence. And of course, let's not forget that Scots varieties were just some of many distinct varieties of English spoken in Britain; politics tends to emphasise Scots, but the "English" of Cornwall & Devon, the Black Country, Nottinghamshire, etc, was at similar if not more accentuated stage of differentiation from standard English variety. The English of Kent was incomprehensible with London English in the 15th century, more perhaps than could be said for court Scots English in Scotland. I think most English speakers would know what "He wina tell thee onything" means, but I for one would not have known what "Aw bain’t gwine for tell ee nawthen" unless I was told; that is the same phrase in the extinct English dialect of Cornwall. In some ways, the decline of Scots was part of a Britain-wide recovergence of English under the influence of the modern state and media, rather than another country imposing its dialect on the Scottish Lowlands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A big point here that often gets mistaken: How many Scots would know what all this written Scots stuff means straight away, as naturally as they would with English? It often requires reading out phonetically in a variety of ways before it clicks as to just what it says.--Josquius (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again Deacon. If I paraphrase your response, we have a number of points ... some of which we agree on, others not.

1. Was Scots a separate 'language' at any point? There are a number of sources other than the Elizabethan one that would point to this being the case ... Cromwell needing Scots Interpreters in the mid 17th Century for example. That said, he probably had some Cornish Interpreters as well ... ;-)

2. Scots being called English (and therefore still being a dialect) ... well I could quote Fordun who called them both Teutonic. The old parliament certainly makes plenty of references to the Scots Leid ... backed up (although you dislike the reference) by the English Court. But you are right, Scots will always be closely related to English. I guess we are back to the old problem of Dialect/Language continua, and where one becomes the other. As I've already mentioned in previous discussions, The Goethe Institut publishes a map that does not even recognise English as a distinct language from German ... so we are not likely to resolve this one any time soon.

3. On Other English Varieties being mutually unintelligible: Your Scots example here is interesting, if only because it shows the variety of Scots that you are used to is substantially different to mine. I'd say something along the lines of 'Ahm no fur tellin ye ocht' (South Central Scots ... ocht == OE term for anything). One strong argument for treating Scots as a language is that it has such a diverse range of dialects of its own. As for your Cornish example, it's not extinct just yet ... I've a friend from Cornwall who sounds just like that (admittedly after a couple of ciders!) Finally, notice the similar construct 'For Tell' in both SC Scots and Cornish ... I'm sure the linguistic professionals here will be able to tell us why that similarity persists ... my money is on a common ME construct.

4. On English varieties re-converging in the present day. I agree. On a personal level, my niece speaks a far more moderate form of Scots than I do, even though we're from the same place. Education and the media are large factors in this shift. In England itself, particularly in the suburbs, the pseudo American culture is driving an even wierder shift.

So ... do we have a consensus yet? Would there be any objections to stating that "... in official circles in both Scotland and England during the 16th Century, Scots was deemed to be a language in its own right. Since then for a variety of reasons, its differences with Standard English have narrowed, albeit at a slower rate than some other English varieties." (Ref the Trudgill quote). Angusmec (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

this is all quite contratry to wikipedia protocoll, being all about the subject (if even that!) rather than about the article, but it´s fun and i can´t resist a rejoiner. going back to the deacon´s penultimate contribution - 1) galician will not have developed from latin, but from a romance which developed from vulgar latin, and it doesn´t seem to be known from when galician began to develop endogenously. 2) it doesn´t seem to me very convincing to bring evidence about scotland´s economic position following the union to support a conjecture about what might have happened without a union. 3) i can assure you, writing as i do in germany about an hour´s drive from the dutch border, that dutch is virtually incomprehensible to german speakers. i think this mistake comes from the supposition that platt is similar to dutch and is spoken in germany therefore ...

angusmec´s point is the most pertinent. there´s no place for counterfactuals in a wikipedia article so i´d be in favour of deleting all these what ifs (i´ll not do it myself, though). as this talk page shows, the discussion of counterfactuals gets no further than wishful thinking about glorious linguistic, economic and political futures that might have been.

angusmec uses the revealing expresssion "the demise of Scots from language to dialect", symptomatic of the nature of this discussion. why "demise"? what is wrong with a dialect? a dialect is a descritive term in linguistics, not to be confused with the needs of national pride, which seem to be prevalent on this talk page.

Compromiso 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right Compromiso, decline/demise do have emotive connotations. I speak the way I speak for perfectly rational reasons. Whether someone else chooses to call it a dialect or a language is of little practical relevance. Ergo ... I've used the term 'narrowed' in my suggested change (see response to the Deacon above). Angusmec (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. If you were thinking of independent Scots empire-building when you were using the words, "wishful thinking", I totally agree. Events of the late 17th-early 18th century leave little doubt of what a dim view the English government took of that! -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics at .sco

I am merging .sco to Proposed top-level domain. There is some statistical data there which - if it is correct and relevant - should be placed at this article.

I have put it in the "Status" section. Can anyone please its correctness?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature

The following appears in this section:

"After the seventeenth century, anglicisation increased, though Scots was still spoken by the vast majority of the population[citation needed]."

I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't say the "vast majority" spoke Scots in the seventeenth century, more like about half. In any case, I don't think a statement as sweeping as that should be included if there's no citation. I propose changing it to something like:

"After the seventeenth century, anglicisation increased, though Scots was still spoken by much of the population." Malcovitch (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Last Middle Scots writing

I was thinking app. 1750 on the assumption that anyone who had been taught any form o Scots spelling would have died by then. Perhaps even that is putting it too late. I found this:" A letter by a man in 1684" [8] could that form of writing have survived another 50 or so years?

The same source has: "Throughout the manuscripts I have found a relatively stable use of the Scots spelling system. As from 1600 I notice that the Scots spelling is slowly being replaced by English or otherwise non-Scots spelling systems. The text in 1619 shows a conservative spelling, but after this text Scots is rapidly being phased out. That this is coupled with English words and pronunciations need not be coincidence: according to Görlach (Görlach 1991: 19) Scots lost prestige as a book language as from the latter half of the sixteenth century, when English was the language of spiritual reform and bookprinters." [9]

Perhaps the original 1700 was more accurate as a latest possible date. 84.134.201.209 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Trouble is we really need to be sure. I think the relevant date is probably going to be some time between 1650 and 1750 but guessing isn't really good enough. There was a loss of prestige for Scots when the monarchy moved its base to England in 1603, and then another when the parliament moved south in 1707. Nevertheless Scots did continue in use in the courts for some time after that, so the last official Scots writing is probably related to legal reporting. How spelling was affected by all this I'm not sure. Perhaps Nogger can spread a little light on why he put down 1700 as the date. If not, we need to see what the secondary sources (if there are any) are saying about the dates of all this. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Scots Map

I'm sorry but the map showing Scots speaker population in North Ulster *has* to be changed. I live there and from first hand information I can tell you that Scots simply isn't spoken in as wide an area as that. The author has literally coloured an arbitrary area in blue. Now I know you would like to popularise your dialect, but whoever put this unsourced nonsence up should realise that imaginary "facts" are not the way to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.173.146 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Language Change

By the 1840s the Scottish Education Department's language policy was that Scots had no value "...it is not the language of 'educated' people anywhere, and could not be described as a suitable medium of education or culture"

This is wrong - it was a 1946 report by His Majesty's Inspectorate for Education's Schools Advisory Council report (see NIVEN, L. (1998) 'Scots: an educational perspective'. IN NIVEN, L. & JACKSON, R. (Eds.) The Scots Language: Its Place in Education. Newton Stewart, Watergaw, p60).

However, if you just changed the date it would no longer make sense as a quote to support the point being made.

There are a number of other inaccuracies in this article (especially in this section) but I don't have time to fix them now (trying to write a chapter of my PhD on Scots in education ;) --Junglehungry (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling

In archive4, angusmec asked me:

Howz it hingin Rfsmit? Question for you. What's your issue with phonetic spelling? Before Doctor Johnson came along, it was quite common to write words as you heard them. Just because we're all now taught one form of English, does that mean we have to abandon all other forms? The point is that Scots is pronounced differently to Standard English. Why should I write LONG when I say LANG or RIGHT for RICHT or OUT for OOT? The key point is that in these (and many other) cases you'll find that it is the Scots pronunciation that remains closer to its Middle English ancestor than Standard/Modern English. So as Mendor hints at, perhaps it is the Scots spelling that is correct ... not the Standard English one ;-). As for Yorkshire, you'll not find many people here disagreeing with you about the similarities between Scots and other Northumbrian dialects ... quite the reverse actually. As for the distinction between Language and Dialect? I read a quote recently that said a language was a dialect with an army and a navy ... so for me, Scots was a language at one point, but is probably only a dialect now ... and as the wave of standardisation washes over the UK via education and the media ... it will soon be reduced to an accent. Sad ... but that's progress for you. Angusmec 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So, over a year later, but my issue with phonetic spelling is this: LONG, RIGHT and OUT are pronounced differently all over the UK. What you're doing when you replace their written forms with "LANG", "RICHT" and "OOT" is that you interpret your pronunciation in terms of standard English (which is not, btw, RP). By this logic, RP English would have "BASS" for BUS, and "BACK" for BUCK, "PAWND" for POUND, "WOUTER" for WATER, "COH" for CAR, etc. I needn't point out that RP English gets by just fine spelling things as standard English; as do Cockney, Indian English, Australian English, and (to an extent) American English. I lean toward your argument with LONG, but the words RIGHT (and LIGHT and MIGHT) and OUT (and ABOUT) contain consonant or vowel groups which are consistently pronounced a particular way in Scots. We commonly hear "AN-" for "IN-" and "EHN-" for "UN-" (where EH is schwa) in Scots, but we shouldn't spell words that way, because it elides too much. Instead of this comic portrayal of language and dialect, I would much rather see a scholarly comparison of the regional pronunciations of particular vowel and consonant clusters, and a list of exceptions and misunderstandings. That's what will preserve dialect and pronunciation; not Oor Wullie. --Rfsmit (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We should leave scholarly work to more appropriate venues. Wikipedia's remit is to provide information for the general public, not for scholars. With that limitation in mind, I note that Wikipedia already has separate articles on various Scots dialects which deal with the regional pronunciations of particular vowel and consonant clusters. See Doric dialect (Scotland), Shetlandic, etc. for examples. It is more appropriate for this article to describe the Scots equivalent of "standard English", so that readers can learn that a word like "cuit" has a standard Scots spelling despite the fact that it may be written phonetically as "KWEET" or "COOT" by those doing what you suggest above to suit their own particular Scots dialect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rfsmit, kind of agree with what Derek is saying. Using standard English as a phonetic baseline to help people understand local pronunciation differences is perfectly plausible IMHO. I guess that is why the article quotes a Scots teaching guide stating 'It is important not to be worried about spelling in this – write as you hear the sounds in your head'. This simply recognises that Scots is a largely spoken dialect, and that the only (non-academic) mechanism we have to convey how it sounds to other non-experts is by using standard English as a phonetic baseline. If that ends up looking like Oor Wullie to you, then that's your loss. I'd suggest some Hugh MacDiarmid as an antidote to those sentiments ... although going by your prior argument, Edwin Muir might be more to your liking ;-) Angusmec (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sun

Has anyone read the criticism of the Scottish language page in today's Scottish sun? Any thoughts?--Jack forbes (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope (to both). However I always think it funny the way that News Corp will say one thing about a Scottish issue in the English edition of The Sun and the complete opposite in the Scottish edition. Once you've seen that happen a couple of times, you get the impression that whole paper is just a wind-up. Is this one of those cases ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be Derek,but it happens too often in my opinion to be just a wind-up.I know of an English reporter,whose name eludes me,who criticises Scotland at every opportunity and would of course never be let near the Scottish edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

South of the border (haha) the Sun is generally regarded as a bit of a joke, i wouldn't read too much into it. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, <grin>. It's a comic for grown-ups. Perhaps this is one case where Scots and English can agree! -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you,it is just a comic,but you would be amazed (or maybe not) how many people believe the rubbish in this paper if it's repeated enough!--Jack forbes (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Created "Cromarty fisher dialect article

I have just created an article on Cromarty fisher dialect and it currently doesn't have anything linking to it. If people have ideas on the best places to link the article, that would be great. --Roisterer (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of Speakers

According to the article, there are "over 1.5 million" speakers of Scots in Scotland, and there is mention of The General Register Office for Scotland, but it is not clear where the reference came from. According to The Scotland Online Gateway a 'recent' (before 2002) survey 'estimated' that 1.6 million speakers spoke Scots. But which Scots? I have lived in Scotland all my life yet find the quote at the top of the Online Gateway page virtually unintelligible, nor can I think of anyone I have ever heard using such a collection of terms (although I have heard isolated uses of individual words). How on earth can I have managed not to encounter or overhear a single individual using all these words amongst the alleged one and a half million speakers? 'Smeddum', for example, is a word in the Doric dialect, and as such in use by a fairly small geographical area in north-east Scotland. Speakers from other parts of Scotland, unless they were perhaps familiar with the writings of Lewis Grassic Gibbon would be unlikely to have even heard of the word, let alone use it. This is but one example of many. My concerns are that it is unclear how the 1.5/1.6 million figure is arrived at, and where these speakers (over a fifth of the population, no less) are actually located? It all seems very nebulous and woolly, and suggests to me more than ever that the only speakers of 'Scots' as used in officially are highly mannered ones, with few (if any) actually speaking what is being passed off as 'Scots' here. Perhaps this article needs to be renamed Theoretical Scots.--Stevouk (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I could'nt agree with you more, as you say I have heard some of these words in isolation, but then, I don't believe it's a language on it's own! It's quite obvious (to me anyway!) that it's an English dialect!--Jack forbes (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a minor edit- English dialectS. A group of similar dialects of English that are often grouped together as Scots much as how north eastern dialects are often all called geordie, southern dialects all called posh, etc...--Him and a dog 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If the figure can be attributed to a reliable reference, then it meets the criteria for inclusion per WP:V. If you have other sources, please provide them. Personal experiences are subjective and cannot be used to substantiate information in articles. — Zerida ☥ 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Southern Extent of Scots

The Article included this spurious claim: ...but arguably upto 2.5 million speakers throughout Northumberland, County Durham and Tyne and Wear. I have added a referenced bit about the southern extent of Scots to the section Dialects. If anyone can find equally reputable sources for the claim above feel free to reinstate it. I eagerly look forward to the references;-) Nogger (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Nogger! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/durhamdialect/sunderlandc19-1.htm 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are still in use now. 81.97.8.242 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Status and NPOV phrasing

The status of Scots as a language in the sense one treats Swedish and Danish as languages can be justifyably questioned. See Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache. Just because the British government now recognises Scots as a regional language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not automatically make it a language according to all paradigms. It is a political decision. If the Government declared the moon to be made of cheese it would not necessarily make it true. Governments across the world are known to create facts that fit their agendas.

Thus using Scots is an Anglic language descended from early northern Middle English... in the introduction pre-empts the discussion of its status in the next paragraph and in the section Status. The article should present and describe the (sourced) reasons why some linguists treat Scots as dialects of English and others as a separate language, why activists consider it a language and on what basis the British government decided to recognise it as one. This should be done neutrally leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented. Yes, Scots language may be the title of the article. On one hand that has to do with Wikipedia naming policy, on the other we can simply accept this use of language to mean A set of characters, phonemes, conventions, and rules used for conveying information. The aspects of a language are pragmatics, semantics, syntax, phonology, and morphology. No doubt that is the intention in Anglic language, though ;-) we all know that Anglic is a euphemism for English, Nogger (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

some linguists treat Scots as dialects of English and others as a separate language What reliable source can you present for the claim that "some linguists" treat Scots as "dialects of English"? I'd be surprised to see an academic linguist making such a categorical claim. I am assuming you're the same person behind the IP that left me a message on my talk page. You have not presented a valid argument for us to disregard Wikipedia's naming conventions and guidelines and accept yours. Also, did you mean that we should simply disregard the fact that the UK recognizes Scots as a language? The debate itself is not sufficient reason to disregard the guideline nor its recognized status--after all every language is essentially a dialect and vice versa. Dialects are typically recognized as languages when a significant portion of their speakers recognize them as such. Please also note that you should secure consensus on the talk page before making changes that have been challenged on more than one occasion. — Zerida ☥ 04:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Below are some (no doubt there are more) reliable sources showing that "some linguists" treat Scots as "dialects of English".

In his The English Language of Scotland: An Introduction to Scots Jones (2002) writes (p.vii) "This book sets out to describe the grammar (in the widest sense) of the English language as it is spoken in Scotland today." Further on p.2 he writes "Although there are obvious differences between pronunciation and (to a less extent) the syntax of the dialects spoken in the English and Scottish Border counties, they are in general terms still very close to each other at almost every level of their linguistic form. In such a case it would not be appropriate to talk about different languages." He continues illustrating why he considers Scots to be dialects of English.

When describing negation in Scots dialects in their English Accents and Dialects (p.14) Hughes and Trudgill (1979) use the term "Scottish English".

In The Languages of Britain Price (1984) writes "I devote a separate chapter to Scots not because I necessarily accept that it is a 'language' rather than a 'dialect' but because it has proved more convenient to handle it thus than include some treatment of it in the chapter on English."

Aitken in McArthur (1992) summarizes the situation as follows: "Scholars and other interested persons have difficulty agreeing on the linguistic historical, and social status of Scots. Generally it is seen as one of the ancient dialects of English, yet it has distinct and ancient dialects of its own […] it has been called a Germanic language in its own right, considered as distinct from its sister in England in the same way that Swedish is distinct from Danish."

Hughes, Arthur & Peter Trudgill (1979). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.

Jones, Charles (2002) The English language in Scotland: An Introduction to Scots. Tuckwell, East Linton

McArthur, Tom (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. Various articles by A. J. Aitken. Abridged edition, 1996.

I left no message on your talk page. As to securing consensus on the talk page before making changes, may I point out that having gone through the edit history I noticed wording similar to what I used seems to have been the concensus nearly two years ago before someone else decided to change it ingnoring that apparent consensus. There was plenty of debate, though no talk of concensus as such but the more neutral wording did remain unchallenged for almost two years.

I'm not suggesting we disregard Wikipedia's naming conventions and guidelines as to the title of the article. Neither am I suggesting that we disregard the fact that the UK recognizes Scots as a language. I am simply saying that the different views, and the reasons for them, should be described neutrally leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented.

Dialects well may be typically recognized as languages when a significant portion of their speakers recognize them as such. Have you a relaible source for that in regards to Scots not being considered a variety of English by a significant portion of its speakers? What is a significant portion? Nogger (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet the striking similarity between what your wrote above "using Scots is an Anglic language descended from early northern Middle English... in the introduction pre-empts the discussion of its status in the next paragraph", and what the anonymous editor wrote on my talk page "using Scots is an Anglic language descended... in the first sentence pre-empts the second paragraph and is arguably POV"[10] is difficult to miss. In any event, I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was simply making reference to the previous discussion for context. Turning to the references, as I had suspected none of them is written by an academic linguist. One is a professor of English, another French, and the third is not an academic. Your quotation talks about "the dialects spoken in the English and Scottish Border counties," which as I mentioned in an edit summary, would not be unexpected (e.g., Lower German vs. Dutch Low Saxon).

Perhaps not impossible, but I maintain that a categorical pronouncement by an academic linguist that Scots is a dialect not a language would raise a few eyebrows. Please note that asking me if I have a relaible source "in regards to Scots not being considered a variety of English by a significant portion of its speakers?" is a negative proof fallacy. I was also not aware of a previous consensus--I looked through the archives and aside from the occasional "is it a language or a dialect?" discussions, I could not find clear consensus that the article should not make any references to Scots being a language. If it's that important to you (or other editors?), I suggest making a proposal to change the title of the article from Scots language to just Scots (we have Latin and Hindi for example). — Zerida ☥ 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I picked up using 'language' or 'dialect' here preempts the next paragraph in the edit history. The suggestion seemed to imply explicitly avoiding defining Scots as either a dialect or a language by using the less contentious term 'variety' or for that matter any other suitable alternative which may be considered neutral.

Charles Jones is an honorary fellow at the Edinburgh University Department of Linguistics and English Language. He clearly thinks Scots is a variety of the English language, or is he teaching nonsense at Edinburgh University?

Glanville Price is, as you say, a Professor of French, though arguably that brings substancial linguistic knowledge with it.

The late Jack Aitken was a lexicographer and philologist, and arguably supportive of the idea of Scots being an 'independent language' though he was cautious enough to describe the differing views on the matter and not claim one or the other to be 'correct' in his contribution to The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Why is Scots, a 'different language', covered in so much detail in a book about English?

Peter Trudgill is a Professor of sociolinguistics.

It would be interesting to have some quotes from academic linguists stating that Scots is an independent language not a variety of English. You seem to be certain of their existence. Please provide some. I agree that a categorical pronouncement by an academic linguist that Scots is a dialect not a language would raise a few eyebrows because linguists talk about varieties, all speech is equally valid language to them. Would one categorically state that Scots is not part of the English linguistic system (i.e.not a variety of English) but an independent language in the sense that German and Dutch are?

As to negative proof. If the claim is being made that Scots is considered a language other than English by a significant portion of its speakers, surely it is acceptable, in an encyclopedia to require some proof for such a claim e.g. attitude surveys etc.

Once again I am not proposing to change the title of the article from Scots language to just Scots. I am simply saying that the different views (whether Scots is a 'language' or a variety of English), and the reasons for them, should be described neutrally within the article leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented. That is the third attempt at conveing that concern. It has not been addressed. Is Scots an 'Independent' Anglic language or a variety of English? Nogger (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I just don't see the sense in having the article titled "Scots language" if we are careful to avoid making references to Scots as a language in the body of the article. Even though I am not an expert on Scots, I certainly would not regard Scots simply as a dialect of English. In this discussion, it's not always clear to me when "Scots" is used to refer to either the Lowland variety or to Scottish English (one I generally do not understand; one I generally do); e.g. Jones talks about Scots as a "kind" of English, yet he also talks about "Scots" and "English" as two separate entities (he also does come across as a professor of English primarily, not theoretical linguistics). Incidentally, he has an article published in a volume titled The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. I am not totally swayed by Jones' argument, but he is reliable enough to be included in the article if he's not already.

It would be interesting to have some quotes from academic linguists stating that Scots is an independent language not a variety of English. Actually this is not exactly what I said--linguists typically don't make categorical claims either way in such situations, treating dialect and language as mutually exclusive; but if a variety is recognized by speakers or governments as a language, then it's often described as such. In reality there are no universally objective criteria distinguishing languages from dialects; even purely linguistic ones like structure, functions and mutual intelligibility can vary. But sociolinguists in particular will factor in how people feel, official recognition, the existence of a literary tradition, among others. I don't always buy into these factors myself, but for Wikipedia I think we need some criteria to work with.

Would one categorically state that Scots is not part of the English linguistic system (i.e.not a variety of English) but an independent language in the sense that German and Dutch are? No exactly, because that's tantamount to saying that English and Dutch are not Germanic (or conversely that English and Dutch are German). No one would dispute that Scots is *derived* from English (or northern Middle English more specifically); it's not clear however whether this is enough to regard it as "a dialect of English" given the social, and for that matter linguistic, implications in that description. At least, it's more neutral and I think more descriptive to refer to Scots as an Anglic variety rather than an English one. — Zerida ☥ 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally concur with what you have written above. As you say: At least, it's more neutral and I think more descriptive to refer to Scots as an Anglic variety rather than an English one. So why not express it so in the introduction?

Scots refers to the Anglic varieties derived from early northern Middle English spoken in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Nogger (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does indeed lean way too much to Scots being a language. Its status should be a pretty major subject of discussion by the article.--Him and a dog 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So why not express it so in the introduction? Because of the title as I said. In any event, why not give it a couple of days to see if other editors agree with that? If you don't hear any objections, then "silence implies consent" per the consensus policy. — Zerida ☥ 06:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey we're now back to where we started before Zerida ☥ changed what had been there for almost two years. It gets reverted and Zerida ☥ takes a wobbly and keeps reverting it back to Zerida ☥'s version then after some back and forward discussion Zerida ☥ tell us how it should be done more neutral more descriptive exacly how it was before Zerida ☥ started forcing his new version on the article after nearly two years, while trying to save face with some mumbling about the title. Welcome to the wacky world of Wikipedia. 84.134.230.60 (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

it should be done more neutral more descriptive exacly how it was before That's incorrect, I still don't think it should be changed. Here I was merely saying that Anglic is more neutral than English when asked if Scots was not an "English dialect". Whether dialect or language is used is another story, but a reliable source was provided which sheds light on the situation from a different angle. I'm not the only editor who has reverted to this version. Also, learn to be civil in your comments. Your edits were challenged primarily because you repeatedly vandalized the article to remove any references to Scots' linguistic classification and its official status in the UK. — Zerida ☥ 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The repeated vandalism seems to consist of the one edit mentioned above which was followed by an edit clearly correcting inadvertently botched wikicode with the comment oops!. Keep digging. 84.134.224.231 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect again. You clearly vandalized the information regarding Scots' status in the infobox and did not restore it in your second "fix" edit (nice try though). It was also not the first time. — Zerida ☥ 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in so far as you consider a botched effort at restoring a botched effort vandalism. Here a failure to vandalize the information regarding Scots' status in the infobox occured. Someone mangaged to do some real vandalism here. With practice things improved. Then were improved even better here and here by Nogger followed by other acts of 'vandalism' giving us what we have now 84.134.245.54 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history to see what the original wording was, and found that the current version was initially changed by the same IP range in June 2006. I also looked at Archive 4 and found no evidence of discussion or consensus for this change. I now realize that what I actually did was revert it back to what it had always been, and what I think is a more sensible lead that corresponds with the inescapable facts: that the title already acknowledges its "languageness" to borrow your expression, and that its speakers do so, at least on an official level (not to mention the vast majority of linguists). I don't intend on changing it again, but some of the strong reactions here seem to me like an attempt to bury one's head in the sand. It's not like refusing to acknowledge Scots' independent existence is going to stop it from developing in its own right, or from its being recognized as a regional language. I suppose such things take time. BTW, I did find one suggestion in the archives to merge this page with Scottish English, which I find utterly absurd on linguistic grounds. Talk about POV. — Zerida ☥ 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Scots

What would you call other Scots spoken around the country? E.g. Glaswegian, which is in no way Scottish English. would you call this a language or an English dialect. If you consider it a language then it is as much a Scots language as the one on this article meaning it should be included. If you think its an English dialect could you explain why like lallans there are words formed only in Glasgow(or west coast) or changed so much as to render it incomprehensible to those with no ear for it! Hey, we could have multiple languages in Scotland, great eh! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We do have multiple languages in Scotland: Gaelic and English; or Gaelic, Scots and English, dependng on whether you count English and Scots as two separate languages or not. Each of these has dialects which differ from one part of Scotland to another. Some of those dialects, such as Doric and Orcadian have Wikipedia articles of their own stating how they differ from the "standard" form of the language; others such as "Lewis Gaelic", do not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my problem Derek, I don't consider English and Scots being two different languages. I know it is officially considered a seperate language but making something official does'nt make it so! My real problem is that it get's away from the fact that Gaelic is actually the Scottish language (I don't speak it). Gaelic is actually a dying language which get's little or no help from authorities. I actually have some old maps in the house with the Gaelic names for towns, hills, islands and fishing ports etc, which over time the names on the newer maps have been anglicised. Now I may have a suspiciuos mind but it is my opinion that this was done intentionally in an attempt to eradicate the Gaelic tongue! Things hav'nt really changed over years, its like taking the eldest son of a clan chief and educating him in England!

I may have gone off track there but I hope you understand what I mean. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, you raise some interesting points. Firstly, Scots is actually an umbrella term for a variety of dialects that are found within the geographical boundaries of Scotland. When you talk about Glaswegian Scots, it actually falls under the umbrella of the Scots Language as a variety of Central Scots.

[That said, the I have some issues with the article in that parts of it it talk as though there is a standard version of Scots ... when no such thing exists. The Dictionary of the Scots Language and the Scottish Govt. website plunder the various dialects within Scotland to come up with a form of plastic/artificial Scots. In reality, Glaswegian/Central Scots is one of many Scots dialects. They all share a common heritage; but equally have some fundamentally different characteristics, and as such, it makes no sense to mix them.]

Secondly, you say you don't consider Scots to be a different language ... I know a number of people who agree with you ... myself included ... but the bottom line is that if the EU and their respective governments say it is; then it's hard to contradict. IMHO it WAS a language in its own right in the 15th/16th centuries, but due to a variety of reasons has moved back closer to standard English.

Thirdly, I think too many people try to set Scots Gaelic and Lowland Scots in opposition to eachother. Anglic and Gaelic speakers have been unambiguously part of the same country since the middle of the 13th century. Changes in spellings on historic maps is (IMHO) more likely to be a reflection of people using Scots/English as the basis for phonetic spelling. PoV here; but this is probably because of the fact that Scots/English was widely taught in schools; whereas Gaelic was not. If there is a conspiracy to be found (and I doubt that there is), it is the promotion of Scots/English in schools that lies at the heart of it. Even then, the cause of this shift is still a Scottish one; since this process started in the late 15th century, over a hundred years before the union of the crowns.Angusmec (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not of course promote the idea that this article should be deleted. As you say, It's difficult to argue for that when the EU and the government say it is a language(whether I agree with it or not). What has bothered me over the years is that it is not just the Gaelic that was not taught at school, it was also Scottish history that was not taught! I may be showing my age here, but I left secondary school knowing more English history than Scottish. It is no wonder Scotland over the years bacame more anglicised. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way anti-England, I don't lay the faults of Scotland at Englands door, I lay it quite firmly at the door of those Scots in authority who let the Scottish culture take a back seat. Also, as I'm sure you know, it was not the Scottish people that agreed to the union of parliaments, it was the Scottish leaders! --Jack forbes (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again Jack. Trying to keep this from wandering too far off topic ... fun tho' it is ;-). I think it's clear from many of the contributions to the article and talk pages that most people share a common blind spot when it comes to our own history. Most do not realise how far back the split between Scots and English actually goes. Many see it as being a relatively recent 'corruption' of Modern English. Like you, my secondary education in Scots history was shockingly barren ... apart from (bizarrely) a very detailed knowledge of the farming techniques of the middle ages. I can understand why some aspects of Scots history are avoided by schools; due to the religious divisions that exist(ed) in Scotland ... but quite why we were never taught the significance of Fortriu, Alt Clut, Dal Riata and Bernicia to the modern makeup of Scotland is beyond me. It is of course, the inclusion of the latter into what we now view as modern Scotland that (arguably) gave rise to the Scots 'variety' in the first place (phew ... managed to get back on topic ... ;-)) Angusmec (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)