Talk:Scots language

Language or dialect, again

As the talk archives will attest, there have periodically been POV-warriors visiting this article who would wish it to depict that there is a unanimity of authoritative opinion that Scots is definitively a dialect, wishing to erase any counter view of it as language, as there have been those who would wish to depict that there is a unanimity of authoritative opinion that Scots is definitively a dialect, wishing to erase any counter view of it as language. There is, verifiably and cited here, a diversity of opinion on this and it is not necessarily polarised to one or other end of the spectrum. It is incumbent upon us to reflect this diversity of opinion here and not to sabotage cited text to favour a personal point of view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in the Lede, and covered in the "Status" section in detail. I think we have made every reasonable effort to ensure neutrality. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

My point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User Mutt Lunker is aiding Cultural Genocide by vandalising truthful, referenced edits to articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbscotland (talk • contribs)

I thank @Drchriswilliams: for his removal of the intemperate, unsigned comment above but I am restoring it so it can be seen in context, particularly as it is from the editor discussed immediately above and regards related edits. In this and other articles, this editor has a history of removing or altering content they do not like, adding unreferenced material, adding refs that do not support their edits, warring over this when the deficiencies of their edits are addressed and slinging out such ludicrously extreme insults and accusations as above. My patience has long since thinned regarding this behaviour so I actively expect to see a repeat of it whenever they edit. In regard to their edits earlier today, both as a user and as an IP, amongst some which are similarly questionable and some which I questioned on the basis of the structure of the article, I have noticed on reappraisal that one source, of which I questioned the use, does overall support the claim to which it is attached. I will not thus contest it further but may edit and re-situate it. I will however revert the repeated changing of the word "sometimes" to "often" in cited text unless and until this can be justified by a quote from that text. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: Scots is certainly a language (Scots Leid in Scots) it is unique from English, exactly what defines a language is a messy subject, however the time Scots started developing was around the 1200s, it borrows alot of its words for Scottish Gaelic. A Portuguese speaker has an easier time understanding a Spanish speaker, yet no one claims they are one language. Scots is mutual understandable to English speakers, but if we looks at other languages like Syriac and Arabic were people can understand 80-90% of their words the around 60% of mutual intelligibility of English speakers it looks weak by comparison. This is ridiculous Scots is its own language, its extremely clear, Scots has devolved from Hundreds of years away from English and from an any standpoint very clearly is its own language. They both come from Old English but Scottish comes Old Irish and no one argues Scottish isn't a language. In fact certain Celtic languages have more mutual intelligibility then Scots and English, languages like Cornish and Cumbric as an example yet no one argues they are one language. If you think Scots isn't language you have to deny 800 years of history, and the objections seem to come from a biased POV. Vallee01 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there is a diversity of authoritative opinion on the matter and the article should reflect that. Whatever any editor's personal viewpoint, they should not be removing cited material reflecting alternative viewpoints. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Scots is only "certainly" unique from English if you take 17th century Scots, written phonetically, and compare it to modern standard English. If you compare 17th century Scots to English as spoken in 17th century Yorkshire, again written phonetically, you will see far more of a continuum. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts

"Recognised as an indigenous language" seems evidently more accurate and less awkward than "a recognised indigenous language", and if the article is going to introduce a German term in linguistics, recognizing the linguist as German seems to soften the blow for the reader. I have seen no reasoning why either change would not be an improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Others may be more receptive to your views if you respect WP:BRD, air the views here then have patience and attain consensus on the matter rather than persisting with WP:WARring before any debate has even been had. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Per BRD it is the one reverting who is to initiate discussion. Also, we are not to revert unless the article is made demonstrably less by the change. So perhaps some class house stone throwing prudence is in order here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at the guideline again, your understanding of it is not correct. Per the lede, "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution.", i.e the promoter of the change (you) to engage with the editor who reverted it (me), without "restor(ing) your changes or engag(ing) in back-and-forth reverting". You did not discuss and you did restore the disputed edit. If you didn't know or understand that, that's fine, but please take note and comply. You are aware from my edit summaries my belief that "the article is made demonstrably less by the change" or, per the policy, that "it is not an improvement"; don't dismiss the other's view, persuade them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strong and weak plurals

The article refers to strong and weak plurals. From context, weak plurals use the -s or -es endings, where all other pluralizing methods (no change, as in sheep; -en as in oxen) are considered strong. The linked plural article doesn't explain the terms. I did a quick web search and found only a random article on a language-learning site about Irish Gaelic.

Wiktionary has nothing on this particular phrase either.

Am I missing something? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wikipedia Controversy August 2020

Shouldn't this article have a section discussing the issues surrounding the illegitimacy of the current Scots Wiki as of August 2020? It needs to be totally rewritten and it brings up the issue of how important it is for people to be checking knowledge formation for validity.

Related Reddit Post

Lrny.lru (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

All the "Scots Wikipedia Controversy" did was show that the Scots Language community were not particularly interested in having a Scots Wikipedia. They were perfectly content using this one in the standard written form of their language. Is that unsurprising discovery really notable enough for a inclusion in the article? Nogger (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"using this one in the standard written form of their language"... think you made an unintentional error there. Scots and English are distinct languages. I guess you were trying to say that indigenous Scots speakers overwhelming will also be fluent in English, aka they are bilingual, and were "perfectly content" at using English Wikipedia as the dominant written language. 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:6880:7194:D2D4:6079 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Scots is not Gaelic

I've edited this twice now. The very first sentence implies that Scots is a Gaelic language, and links to Scottis Gaelic. We all know it is not. The problem seems to be in the template that generates the parenthetical, '{lang-gd|Albainis/Lallainnis/Béarla Gallda}'. This is the template for tagging Scottish Gaelic text, and it seems to be out of place here to tag "Scots" as Scottish Gaelic text! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ETA: I think I understand what that tagged wording is _trying_ to say, but it results in a thoroughly confusing opening sentence that appears to say that Scots is the same thing as Scottish Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort. It is a perfectly standard and correct opening to a Wikipedia article, opening with the term for the subject in English then, in brackets, giving the terms for the subject in the other pertinent languages, in this case Scottish Gaelic and Scots itself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be obvious to an experienced Wikipedian, but to an ordinary reader it is baffling. It might be less confusing if the name in Scots itself came first, and the Scottish Gaelic came second. I am a light editor so I have no opinion on standard and correct openings, but as an ordinary reader it seems to me that the Wikipedia convention becomes confusing when the subject being presented in other languages is itself the name of a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly restricted to Wikipedia. You'll find this commonly in entries in reference books. Here is another online example, from Britannica, perfectly clear even though, unlike Wikipedia, the terms aren't bracketed: [1] Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)