Talk:Scots language

• /Archive1 (before January 1, 2005)
• /Archive2 (before July 17, 2005)
• /Archive3 (before January 29, 2006)

---

Scots not a separate language

"Scots English" is simply normal English written to sound as if the speaker has an excess of saliva in the throat. Boothman 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So, do you think this helpful comment should be inserted into the article? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but in a less obvious sense. Scots is simply a dialect of English. Read Viz magazine and you'll find Geordie, but it alas does not qualify to become a language. If you write in Yorskhire dialect does it become a language too? A bloody 'owp not, mate, 'relse wid owl be buggered. Boothman

Well, I don't regard Scots as a language either. But these days, "language" is such an open concept that any group of dialects tied with a strong national or regional identity will qualify as a language. That would include Geordie if it had such an identity. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well lets get some folks in the know then to write articles about the Geordie language, the Mackem language, the Yorskhire language, the Lancashire language, the Cornish language...actually, I'm being silly there, Cornish isn't a language. Get my point though? It should be classified as a dialect, and the article should be written as such. Boothman 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a little disingenuous to compare the Lowland Scots dialects with Lancashire or the dialects of any English counties, since Scotland is another country, and has only been ruled by England for under 3 centuries ... whereas Lancashire and Yorkshire have been part of England for more than a millenium, and have been lingustically English for another half-millenium. But you're correct to a certain extent. In Spain, and other parts of Europe, they have no problem giving every other local dialect the "language" status; in Britain this just isn't done ... it's just not part of the tradition. But, for instance, if Greater Northumbria got independence, they could easily restandardize their writing system based on the local dialects, and if they called it a language, they'd have little less reason to do so than those who call Macedonian or Valencian a "language", as distinct from Bulgarian or Catalan - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, given that Cornish is a Celtic language, it's possibly a bad example. --Doric Loon 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Scots:

• has a considerably different lexis from Scottish Standard English (enough to fill two volumes of a dictionary, and a supplement)
• is different in its syntax (see the article)
• has a separate poetic and literary heritage from English
• has a history of use going back 700 years
• was the language of an independent Parliament and country for 300-odd years (Nostra vulgari lingua: Scots as a European language)

Geordie, etc. have none of these things.

In any case, I think that far too much emphasis is put on the "Is it a language or is it a dialect?" argument. Linguists of course don't like the rather fuzzy (and generally political) distinction between "dialect" and "language", but I think that from looking at the facts of the matter Scots's status as a "language" is very defensible. Certainly historically it was considered a language, which makes me think that the question that should be asked is not whether Scots is a language or not, but whether as a language it's dead or not; whether what was a language has dissolved itself into English so much that it's disappeared. I suspect, but don't know, that the view that it's dead is mainly an urban/Central Belt viewpoint. A contributor above says "Scots is a language, but it's a dead one; schoolchildren speak Scottish English with a few words of Scots". Now that certainly ties in with my experience, but I grew up in the Central Belt. What do rural folk (particularly in the north-east, around about Aberdeen) think of this?

Putting in my tuppence-worth as a rampant Scottish nationalist: As I say I think the "language or dialect" argument is a bit moot. What Scots is, is an important part of the cultural heritage of Scotland. That's hou the leid shuid be uphauden, an A think that monie fowk that argies agin that haes an awfu attack o the creenge. Mendor 16:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

has a history of use going back 700 years This is a common misconception. Middle English has a written history in Scotland going back 650 years, but that doesn't means "Scots" does; the latter name was only usurped by Scottish English 500 years ago, about the same time it became distinctive from northern English. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair dos. Point is that Scots has been Scots for a long time. Mendor 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is worth taking a look at the Linguasphere statistical analysis of Germanic languages (PDF). In it Scots-Northumbrian English forms quite a distinct major grouping of English. All that is said above about the distinction between language and dialect is true. The difference between the two is more likely due to socio-political analysis rather than linguistic differences. All that can be said linguistically is that Scots is a distinct variety of the English language. Please don't misinterpret that: it does actually say that Scots is distinctive. Culturally, many Lowland Scots use code-switching between Scots language and Scottish English (SSE). --Gareth Hughes 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mendor, while I take your points on board, it's still not enough for me to consider "Scots" a language. An Londoner can no easier understand a Geordie than a Scotsman. The "seperate poetic and literary heritage" you talk of, I believe, is a moot point also. Does a few Rab Burns poems really constitute a seperate heritage, more than say the works of people like Edwin Waugh or the poets on this list? Boothman 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Scots poetry and literature goes back a lot further and has many more luminary names than Burns. See Makar, The Complaynt of Scotland, Robert Henryson, William Dunbar, David Lyndsay, Gawin Douglas, Robert Fergusson... The first four of those poets, at least, certainly didn't think they were writing in a dialect of English. If you look here you'll see that Douglas actually apologises for having recourse to some English words in his translation of the Aeneid into Scots. ("So me behuvit whilom, or than be dum,/Sum bastard Latin, French, or Inglish oiss,/Whar scant were Scottis I had nae uther choiss.")

I'm not wanting to get drawn into an argument about whether Scots is a separate language or not, because it's pointless. It's difficult to find linguistic criteria that let us draw such lines between different varieties -- I would have thought two volumes-worth of lexical difference would have sufficed, but you disagree, and that's fair enough. (There are plenty cultural and historical criteria you could use for language-hood, which is what I was trying to indicate in the rest of the points above, trying to show why Scots might have a better claim to the "language" label than, say, Geordie).

My standpoint is this. I feel that Geordie etc. are qualitatively different from Scots by dint of Scots's historical and cultural role. (I'm saying this as a Scot rather than a linguistics student. Saying this sort of thing in a linguistics essay would probably result in me being slapped down in short order, but we've already established, I hope, that "language vs. dialect" is a cultural/political question rather than a linguistic one.) Scots was widely considered a separate language for a long part of its history. I feel fairly secure in asserting this as a fact. I think that the debate now is whether that language that was Scots has disappeared and/or merged itself into (Scottish) English. Mendor 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguing over whether or not Scots is a language or dialect is pointless before the argument about how to define the difference between a language and a dialect has been completed.

Whether Scots is a language or dialect depends on the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.220.87 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-13 11:34 (UTC)

Adding Geordie into this argument is a bit misleading: as a variety it is close to Scots and the two have a clear common origin. However, culturally, Geordie has always been treated as a regional dialect of England, and its literature is nowhere as near as extensive as that of Scots. Sufficient socio-cultural conditions are met for Scots to be considered a language. --Gareth Hughes 15:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Scots has dissappeared, in the same way that Shakespearean English has dissapeared. Do we still use those old words that Shakespeare used? No. Do Scots still use those old Rab Burns words? No. For my mind, it's only the Scottish themselves that assert that Scots is a seperate language, merely because they'd rather speak "Scots" than English. A marker of seperation perhaps. The same reason why the Welsh still bother to learn Welsh and the same reason Northerner's accents get stronger as they venture further South. It's a fact that people are proud of their heritage, but Wikipedia should differentiate between an actual different language and the desire for one. I'm not anti-Scot, I'm just trying to put my point across to improve Wikipedia. --Boothman 18:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not dismiss Scots as a language at the same time as we discount English as a language: after all, they're both just dialects of Platt-Deutsch ;) ...dave souza, talk 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This "language versus dialect" argument goes on on nearly every single Talk page of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles about linguistics. Linguists themselves do not differentiate between the two: all languages are dialects and all dialects are languages. In the case of Scots Wikipedia calls it a language because that is what all the authoritative sources call it (see WP:CITE). Wikipedia cannot unilaterally decide to call it a dialect, or an extinct language, or suchlike, because that would contravene Wikipedia:No original research. As for myself, I have studied a few languages, and to me it is crystal clear that Scots is a language in its own right. It certainly varies from its closest relative, English, as much as Norwegian and Swedish vary. It has its own distinct vocabulary, grammer, word-order, verb conjugations, expressions, idioms, pronunciations, number systems etc. And it has itself many rich dialects.--Mais oui! 21:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do Scots still use those old Rab Burns words? No.

Um, yes, they do. Plenty of Scots use plenty of "Rab Burns words". Less Scots use them now than did in Burns' time, and those Scots that do use them use less of them, but they're still used. My family use quite a few all the time, and they're Central-Belt-industrial-towns types.

I'm not wanting to be confrontational here, Boothman, but: Your user page says you're from Lancashire. Have you spent any time in Scotland, particularly rural Scotland, particularly the north-east, and have you listened to the language that's used, especially by the older generations? Mendor 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already said my piece on previous occasions on this page, so I won't repeat myself. If anyone wants to know what I think they can read the old discussions. My only new comment is to back up what Mendor says: my family is from the Northeast and we do still speak Scots as do many others in this area. Scots has been under severe pressure from English since the advent of TV (and before to a lesser extent), but reports of its death are still a little premature. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mendor, I have not spent this time in Scotland, no, but I sincerely doubt you've spent the time maybe where I come from and heard the speech that is spoken here (by old fowk). Boothman 10:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the linguists here are in favour of Scots being described as a language. Linguists only use the terms language and dialect loosely, often variety is preferred. We often use statistical analysis of mutual intelligibility to determine the closeness of any two varieties. I posted a link to Linguasphere's analysis of Germanic languages above. As no one has commented on it, I must assume that we all take it as a given that Scots-Northumbrian is statistically distinct from Standard English. In that list, you will also find other varieties of English. Northern English varieties (apart from Northumbrian) are statistically distinct from Standard English, but at a level less distinct than Scots. Your Old Fowk speak a variety not very different from Nottingham Old Fowk. The fact that both of these groups and Scots speakers can communicate fully in Standard English as well is known as code-switching. Such code switching does not imply that the non-standard variety is subsumed within the standard variety, which is what you seem to be implying. However, if you have a scientific argument against the distinctive of Scots, let's hear it. --Gareth Hughes 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said Gareth. But one of the things that bothers me, is who actually talks Scots as I often see it presented on websites. The so-called Scots Wikipedia has a lot of unfamiliar lexis that often would be to me as a Glaswegian totally unintelligible if isolated from context. Which begs the question if overgeneralisation of certain varieties is happening or that some effort is being made to lend the impression that defunct historical forms are still widely in use? For example, I had never in my entire life come across the word 'leid' or 'shaipt'. Is this Ulster Scots??? -- Richard

If this bothers you, think about this. When reading and writing English, you make use of a much larger vocabulary than when speaking English. You also adopt a different style to that used for conversation. You don't expect Wikipedia, for instance, to use a chatty, colloquial style, nor for your friends to sound as if they've swallowed a dictionary. It doesn't bother you that written English uses a much larger vocabulary than spoken English and why is that ? Because you've been speaking English since you were two and reading it since you were five, and you've built up the vocabulary needed for written English to the point that you scarcely notice the difference between the two styles and rarely come across English words that you don't know. In fact you happily use a word like "lexis" which many native speakers of English will never in their entire life have come across and which only a tiny minority will have used in spoken conversation.

Now contrast that with Scots where you may well have been hearing and speaking it from the age of two but where you've had very little experience of written Scots apart from some ballads and Burns poetry that you may have been exposed to for a year at school. It's not too surprising that you haven't built up the larger written vocabulary or learned the written style: after all you've never needed to. Is it any surprise that you keep on coming across words, even relatively commonplace words, that you've never met before when you start reading Scots in earnest ? I know that that was my experience when I first started really reading Scots poets. At one point I read Lorimer's excellent New Testament in Scots. My dictionary was well used at the time, I can tell you, for I was trying to build up a vocabulary over a two week period that it had taken me ten-twenty years to acquire in English!

So, apart from the fact that much of the content of the Scots Wikipedia is written by people whose first language is not actually Scots and may well need improvement for that reason, I can say that, no, it's not Ulster Scots (which is basically just another Scots dialect anyway). Neither is it the sort of Scots that people speak (any more than the last two paragraphs are the sort of English that you or I speak). It's written Scots and should be thought of as such. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Scots that I've read, as well as what little Scots I've heard, gives me the impression that Scots is a separate language from my own AmE. But it's a really close call, especially in writing where you can go back and try to figure out what's being said. Linguofreak 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll not deny that it is a close call. There is a dialect continuum from the North to the South of Britain which is why some people say that Scots is a Northern dialect of English. Of course this argument can be turned on its head, although those that would argue that English is in fact a Southern dialect of Scots are rather fewer in number, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, Derek, basically what you are saying is that I am correct in suspecting that the language being presented is dead/not in usage. I doubt, like Shakespeare to the English, anyone who hasn't made an effort to learn the vocab would be able to understand a lot of Burns. It's a dead variety.

This bothers me from a linguistics point of view inasmuch that there is a wasted opportunity to accurately describe the very much living varieties that are flourishing today. The positive outcome of such a study could be a step towards a standardised Scots and the "official language" recognition it deserves. Language/dialect status being acknowledged as a purely politically loaded notion.

I find myself also being suspicious that there is a tendency for some of people "describing" "Scots" to make a(n un)concious effort to de-anglicise as much as possible by ressurecting forms that have long fallen out of usage. Again, it wouldn't bother me so much if there were open and honest admission of attempting to revive a language that was lost under dubious circumstances. The reader would then be in a position evualate the information fairly.

I do wonder what purpose the excercise of presenting a false picture of a language serves. It infers many reasons from very good to very bad. But again, I feel more importantly there is a sadly wasted opportunity here. -- Richard

<Sigh>, it's only "dead" in the sense that written English is "dead". No one speaks written English (unless they want other people to think that they're strange) but that doesn't mean that no one uses it. And a language which is used is hardly dead. If you want an example of a dead language, look at Etruscan, a language which, while literature still exists for it, cannot be understood by anyone alive today. Now that's dead! Even Latin is livelier than that and Scots is in positively bouncing health by comparison with Latin. You've already acknowledged the Scots websites that exist, even if you don't like the style and vocabulary that they use, so you can't reasonably deny that written Scots is in use by a few people at least, whatever the motives you may ascribe to them.

And the fact is that written Scots tends to vary depending on the dialect of the writer and on their familiarity with other dialects. If the writer doesn't belong to your dialect group, then there's a good chance that you will come across vocabulary that you aren't comfortable with. I remember once being accused of using an archaic word because I wrote "shite" instead of "shit" in the course of some Wikipedia discussion. Well it may be archaic in some parts of the English-speaking world but it's alive and well in Scotland. Likewise use of the word "outwith", common in Scotland, seems to cause discomfort elsewhere. My point is just that archaic is a matter of opinion and personal experience and what may be archaic in Glasgow may well be commonplace in Aberdeenshire.

As for steps towards a standardised Scots, there has been plenty of work done by others on describing the different dialects still extant. That's not Wikipedia's mission though. Neither is reviving lost languages nor "standardising" them. Our mission is to write encyclopaedias and that's what we should stick to. If we have to use some words, uncommon in spoken Scots to write an article on a topic, that's just life. So I'm not sure what the wasted opportunity that you refer to might be. We have the opportunity to write an encyclopaedia in Scots and we're taking it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but to claim the language of Robert Burns is living is just plain silly. No-one converses in that language as a mother tongue anymore. It is no longer passed on from generation to generation. No-one understands it anymore without translation. Is isn't pining for the Fjords. It has been left behind and evolved out of currency.

That many of the forms cited here are 100% unintelligible to people in the most populous part of the linguistic area itself doesn't bode well for your selection criteria. So, even if your data is biased towards a regional living variation you aren't so much writing about Scots, but Banffshire Scots or whatever.

My strong suspicion is that we have pseudolinguistics excusing the invention of some fanciful proto-language and that has more to do with emotion than any serious effort to observe, record and evaluate.

Good luck and goodbye!

-- Richard

Ummm... hear hear?! -- Boothman 18:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But hold on a minute. There has been a continuous unbroken tradition of written Scots from the time of the Makars to the present. Surely any serious attempt to write in Scots has to take that tradition as its starting point. I don't think writers in Scots need apologise for using Rabbie Burns language. Why discard the tradition we have?

I don't see writing in Scots as a revivalist project as such, because of that unbroken tradition. Written Scots hasn't been used in an expository fashion for a long time now though (I presume the last real expository use of Written Scots, as opposed to literary use, was in Acts of the old Scottish Parliament up until Union, but I'm not sure about that), so using it for that purpose will require a lot of recourse to, yes, I suppose you could call it dictionary-raking. I don't see a problem with that; I would imagine that development of an expository register is a step that any non-standardised language would have to take. And, as I say, I at least feel we should base that on the existing tradition.

This doesn't mean it can't reflect the way people speak. I'm interested about how one would falsify your claim that the language of Robert Burns is dead. Words like sleekit, feart, tattie are still in common use all over the place; my relatives (Fifers all) would quite happily use words like howk, laith, lowse and the past tense -it (e.g. stappit, as in stappit fou). Scots lawyers still happily use words like thereanent, depone, demit, and the Latinate passive These clauses are delete (not deleted). I have no experience of Aberdeenshire but I suppose the penetration of Scots there is even higher. My question is: how much "Rabbie Burns language" do we have to demonstrate is still in use, before people accept that it still exists? I suspect that however much evidence we turn up, the bar for what counts as real "Rabbie Burns language" would always be raised a bit higher.

I do not deny that all this is, for me at least, bound up at least in part with nationalism; the Scots language should hold its head high and all that. The language is a very important part of Scots culture and history, and I feel Scots culture can only benefit from building up Scots on its existing foundations, and having it in general taken seriously, not just for the odd poem but for all sorts of uses. On its existing foundations means, for writing, the existing literary tradition, which does use the occasional word that's unfamiliar in speech, like leid. I don't feel I should have to apologise for that, or thereby have it claimed that I'm doing away with "any serious effort to observe, record and evaluate".

However having written all those screeds and screeds (another guid Scots word) -- we're now well off the point of Talk pages, which is to discuss the article, not the subject. So I heartily apologise for taking up space with this rant.

Mendor 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) — admin on the Scots Wikipædia, filthy nationalist, and semi-native speaker of a "depleted urban" variety of Scots ;-)

PS Whit war ye daein talkin aboot shite onieroad Derek?! A thocht ye war an awfu weel-spoken kin o chiel. A'm black affrontit, sae A am.

...Okay, I suppose if I wasn't wanting to sound like Paw Broon, that wasn't the way to go about it. Mendor 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A canna weel mind nou. It wis lang syne. Bit A'm siccar A wis talkin about shite rather nor talkin shite. Weel, siccar eneuch, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"In a' the numerous human dools, Ill hairsts, daft bargains, cutty stools, Or worthy frien's rak'd i' the mools, - Sad sight to see! The tricks o' knaves, or fash o'fools, Thou bear'st the gree! "

Total gibberish to me, and I can even get on okay with Govanese. And I dare you to randomly ask native Scots (who haven't studied Burns) how much they get. To say this language is still alive just because it is in print is a gross misrepresentation as what qualifies as a living langauge. There are plenty of dead languages still in print and even still spoken a little (Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit etc) but there are no L1 (mother tongue) speakers.

I have nothing against attempts to revive defunct Scots (there is a global slaughter of languages very rapidly happening as "English" expands) or at least promote an interest in it. But to give the impression anyone converses in such language anymore is misleading or just plain batty.

Ah hink ers maer'n nuff ae be dean wae waeoo' gaein aw i' rat psih, naw? Un, um no gonnae ergue wae sum glaekit tolie fae England boot whit is ur isnae "a language" cuz aht's jis weeguy linguistics.

Noo is sumbdae i'lees gaunae dae sumhin oan Scots' negations?

See yeez --- Richard

It seems any sensible, logical argument is swept aside by these Scottish nationalists by simply writing something that sounds as if it's Scottish. Hoots mon and all that shite. I do agree with everything Richard's said. I'd suggest that Scottish is more of a ceremonial language with no mother tongue speakers, but with sizable influence on today's Scottish English. -- Boothman 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But we're not getting any "sensible, logical argument", all we're getting are bald assertions that "Rabbie Burns language" isn't used. Question for Richard: you say that the Burns poem is total gibberish. Does the sentence "Nane o ma friens cuid be fashed rakin throu a' that" make sense to you? If it does, then how can you assert that the poem is total gibberish to you? It uses those words. The poem uses them in a literary fashion of course, but it's still the same vocabulary. If it doesn't, then, well, I don't know how to convince you of this, but that is a sentence that would come completely naturally to my lips. Same with the little dialogue I had with Derek above (one difference is that, it being more of an Aberdeenshire word, I wouldn't use "chiel" in speech -- but I bet Derek would). I wouldn't be "pittin it oan". And I couldn't use that sort of language un-self-consciously if I didn't come from a speech community that used it. And I don't even consider myself a very good speaker of Scots!

The status of Scots (not Scottish) in formal speeches or newspaper columns or whatever is indeed one of a "ceremonial language", used maybe for the occasional quote of the "Here's tae us, wha's like us? Gey few an' they're a' deid" variety. But in speech it's very much alive -- in some places at least.

I do not understand the comment "sounds as if it's Scottish". It IS Scottish. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't -- if we use language that's closer to Scottish English on the continuum, then we're told that Scots isn't distinct from English. If we use language that's closer to the Braid Scots end of the continuum, then we're criticised for writing "shite" that "sounds as if it's Scottish" -- the implication being that we're making it up, "pittin it oan", which as I've said isn't true. Mendor 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think Boothman misunderstands me. I am not denying the existence of Scots (and I think, as a linguist, arguments about "language status" are irrelvent to anyone but governments and their policies) I am just disputing that there is an honest account of Scots happening here.

The Bard: I'll make this easy. I'll uppercase everything I don't understand"

"In a' the numerous human DOOLS, Ill HAIRSTS, daft bargains [not even sure about this noun phrase!], CUTTY STOOLS, Or worthy frien's RAK'D i' the MOOLS, - Sad sight to see! The tricks o' knaves, or FASH o'fools, Thou bear'st the GREE! "

I understand ONE single line. Thus the meaning of the whole stanza is lost on me. And that happens to be free of any Scots. I have never heard the word "fash" used in my life. If it exists still it isn't used in/around Glasgow with any great frequency.--- Richard

"In a' the numerous human dools, Ill hairsts, daft bargains, cutty stools, Or worthy frien's rak'd i' the mools, - Sad sight to see! The tricks o' knaves, or fash o'fools, Thou bear'st the gree! "

Dools is the plural of dool meaning grief or sorrow, hairst is harvest a cutty stool is a short stool, mools is like plowed soil, fash is bother and bear the gree means like coming first or winning, apart from the old fashioned knaves and thou all are words I hear fairly regular. Of course much of it isn't pronounced anything like its written which doesn't help.

84.135.196.170 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anon. To expand on that, "fash" is fairly commonly used in the phrase, "Dinna fash yersel" meaning "Don't worry" or "Don't trouble yourself" which most Scots know (I would have thought, wrongly it appears). "Hairsts" are "harvests" and are important events in the country whereas they aren't in cities, so I suppose that's why an urban Scot wouldn't know the word. The English for "dool" is "dolour" which is almost as uncommon a word for English speakers as "dool" is for Scots speakers. A "cutty stool" is an old form of punishment in the church -- a small stool too short to sit on comfortably. You'd need to know some Kirk history to understand that whether you were a Scots speaker or not. "Rake" has the same meaning in English (or at least Scottish English) as it does in Scots. "Mool" is "mould" in the sense of "earth" and "gree" is short for "degree" (but the phrase "bearest the gree" is an idiom whose equivalent in English would be "takes the cake").

I would have thought that the only words which folk might have difficulty with would be "dool", "cutty stools", "mools" and "bearest the gree". "Hairst", "fash" and "rake" seem fairly commonplace to a small town dweller like me but then everyone's experience is different. And it is poetry which isn't always the easiest type of writing to understand. By the way, for anyone who isn't familar with the poem, Burns is talking about toothache. -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a good chat with my friend today, who also agrees that Scots isn't a seperate language, or at least a language that is dead. Try writing these Burns poems with words that aren't just misspellings of English words, and also don't use words that are "written how they are said". "Hairsts" are indeed harvests, but that is just a corruption of the English word. Imagine if we all written how we talked - it would be quite hard to understand. Your "Scots" is just harder to people like me to understand than say Geordie because I don't ever hear any Scots speakers (on television, radio etc). Why not? There aren't any!!! -- Boothman 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah! The words of the wise enlighten us all. Definitely the stuff o high quality Wikipedia articles. I suggest you re-edit the article and share your knowledge with the world. Apparently there is a long tradition of misspelling English words in Scotland. Those doing it call it writing Scots, but of course that may simply be a cunning ploy to disguise their illiteracy. I suppose the German word Herbst is a corruption of the English as well. Another bunch of illiterates - though they do seem to manage to get Hand, Arm and Dame right. How would one go about writing how one talks? I've never heard an Urdu speaker (on television, radio etc.) Why not? There aren't any!!!

84.135.196.170 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, misspellings is an unfortunate choice of word. Probably alternate spelling is better. Still, I stand by the points I make. -- Boothman 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Boothman, I suggest you and your learned friend enrol in an "Introduction to Historical Linguistics" course. There are NO seperate langauges on planet Earth and the notion of "spelling corruption" is so out of date you'll have Environmental Health knocking on your door for trying to pass it on to others. And don't come back with wild claims of credentials as it'll only be embarressing as anyone who has read any linguistics published in the last 50 years will know the claims are daft.

Your arguments here strike as some sort of childish sniping borne of some prejudice than any attempt at reasoned debate. That is all the time you are getting from me.--- Richard

I already said spelling corruption was an unfortunate term. I am indeed new to this linguistics stuff so my arguments may well seem daft or misinformed in some way. I'm only trying to offer up some debate on the subject and my own personal view on it. Obviously you are much more experienced than me in this area, so you can give advice on it and direct newbies like myself towards more coherent arguments. -- Boothman 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FAO: Boothman. A quick start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics though this page does use the unhelpfully vague dialect/language distinction (I assume they mean in a sense of mutual intelligibility/grammar rather than ethnic identity...) it will give you an insight as to how linguists perceive the origins/evolution of language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics will give you an overview of language from a sociology perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning will give you some insights into political nautre of the notion of "sepereate languages".

For a far better standard of information, I'd recommend David Crystal's Encyclopedia, Peter Trudgill's Varieties and any number of of Linguistics introductional readers (browse the shelves of any big booshop that has a university nearby!). You can usually find 2nd-hand copies on ABE Books dirt cheap. Wikipedia is as this thread demonsrates wide open to information being highly coloured by an agenda.

Linguistics is a fascinating subject that is like a Big Bang of information, schools, data. Even the lowly subject of proscriptive grammar could fill a thousand libraries.

I guess to understand the nature of this particular argument and my stance being aware of the concepts of the interrelationship and common ancestory of varieies (Proto-Indo-European is another good topic to read) is a good starting point. Then move on to the sociolinguistic view of status & varieties and then consider the issues of language planning. To simplify: where do varieties arise from? who detremines status, and why, and how does that affect the variety.

Of course all ideas are coloured by attitudes and orientations, so I hope you find something useful to your own perspective.

All the best--- Richard

Ta -- Boothman 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression that "Scots" is a collection of dialects which are called Scots only because they occur north of the Anglo-Scottish border. If they represent a separate language then what links them together is their common roots in the Ynglis (or Inglis) of Northumbria, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom which has been divided by the modern border, and of which most is south of that border. If the dialects represent a language then Northumbrian is a more appropriate name for it. Laurel Bush 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Laurel. Northumbrian would be totallly in appropriate because Northumbria is an extinct ethnicity- thereby wholly irrelevant to the living language community. By your argument we should all be speaking Indo-European. You think Nederlands/Flemish/Afrikaans should be renamed Plattduetsch? Language is a continuum. Language status/identity is socio-political. Get over it!--- Richard

Yes. Northumbrian is dead. And Scots is Erse. Laurel Bush 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

An' Erse is on a life-support system, Northumbria long ago ceased to have separate state institutions, ethnicity is irrelevant. Whiles, ower mony of yese is cryin Scots deid and quo Burns' words that only fermers use nowadays, no reckoning that Scots is a living language, changing and developing. Gonnae no dae that? ....dave souza, talk 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would Calling Scots Northumbrian not be a wee bit like calling Gaelic Irish? If it represents a separate language then what links them together is their common roots in Middle Irish of Ireland. The Celtic Kingdom of Dal Riada now divided by modern States.

84.135.238.84 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave Souza, could you please stop using pseudo-Scots on these talk pages. Are you trying to fool us, or just trying to be clever? -- Boothman 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

"ethnicity is irrelevant" just about sums up your ignorant ramblings well enough thanks--- Richard

People, none of this is doing anything to improve the article -- or even to change it. Entertaining and informative as much of this discussion has been, it does not belong on Wikipedia for that reason. And since it's now descending to the personal comments level, I want everyone to know that I will remove any more such comments as suggested in the Be civil policy since they violate that policy which I strongly recommend that you all read. Stick to the point. If you want to suggest a change to the article, go ahead. That's what we should be discussing on this page. If you want to discuss whether Scots is or is not a language, keep it polite. If you want to flame your opponents, take it to alt.wikipedia or soc.culture.scottish on UseNet because it is not acceptable to flame people on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If Scots is a separate language, how come I studied Robert Burns in my GCSE ENGLISH Literature course? It was clearly pointed out in the course material that we were studying dialects of English, including Bajan, Jamaican, Indian, etc. -- ~~ (Boothman)

I would think that you'd be best to ask the people who set your GCSE ENGLISH Literature course that. I could guess but there's no way I, or anyone else here, would know for sure. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Boothman babe. You have commented all through this thread and now you suddenly remember you studied Robert Burns in your GCSE English. IMHO that's a fair point. Why didn't you produce it at the outset? Or has somebody recently told you they studied Robert Burns in their GCSE English?

89.50.16.242 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Only really thought about that in relation to this the other day. And my EngLit GCSE is set by the government I presume, via AQA. In fact, Burns was my chosen poet on my paper; I did a nice big essay about "To a Mouse". Cowerin' Beasties an' all that. Maybe the whole exam needs shaking up, who knows? -- Boothman 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this so please bear with me. I feel strongly enough to find out how to contribute to this. Firstly I see the placement of Scots as a Germanic language as plainly silly. Scots and Gaelic are linked culturally. What you appear to be attempting on this page is to somehow say that the Scots are not Gaelic by using the use of English language as a reason for including them in some pan Nordic, Germanic, English world. It appears more that agenda's are at work. It is also apparent that some of the content of the discussions is very patronising by mis-spelling words to make them appear to suit the dialects. Would you also do this to the other dialects of English spoken around the world and add them to an erudite contribution? Say Australian, Indian speakers of English, Americans, Maori etc. Or is it just ok to insult English speaking Scots? Many years ago I read an Encyclopaedia called the Junior British Empire Encyclopaedia. It cited that King Arthur was king of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, unfortunately a whole generation of children were exposed to that sort of propoganda and believed it. I see that, that type of propoganda appears to still be at work. Whether it is being propagated by someone who calls themselves a Scots Englishman or an English Scotsman. The same thing occurred in the 1700,s and since then a lot of Scots believe in wearing Kilts as part of culture, when it was originally a fashion statement created by an Englishman. I find this page culturally insensitive and will be doing what i can to have it moved. I guess if this one is allowed to be included as Germanic, then the next group will be the Welsh then the Irish and so on. So come on guys take your insults hiding behind some intellectual pretentions and put them somewhere else. mcwhat!Mcwhat 01:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As a reference to language Scots did mean, originally, Gaelic or Goidelic language. But for some centuries now most people who consider themselves Scots have used the term to refer to language with origins in Middle English, language previously called Ynglis or Inglis. The renaming of this language involved pejorative use of Erse in reference to Goidelic language, so freeing the Scots name for use in reference to the Inglis language. Laurel Bush 09:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

'Scots' is free? Is it because you put it in a past tense? Is this supposed to mean that anyone can now choose to alter its meaning? Lets free "Latin" and maybe ancient "Greek". I know what we can do now; lets call the Roman alphabet the English alphabet. Scots and Gaelic are cultural references not just language. Keeping it in this vein as a Germanic item is clearly trying to rewrite history. If i move to India call myself a Hindi, perhaps have some grandchildren, and continue to speak English does this mean I (or my grandchildren) now have the right to say the local people are part of Germanic culture? Who renames this as a language? Definately some agenda at play. Keeping this page here just lowers the plausibility of Wikipaedia as a serious knowledge base. Open to abuse by propogandists, culturally insensitive people, and ill informed.Mcwhat 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wonder if this much effort is spent on discussions about other English language dialects?Mcwhat 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... this is about the one thing about Scots over which there isn't any debate. Scots is definitely Germanic -- as are English, German, Dutch, the Scandinavian languages and a raft of others. It's a linguistic term, and all it means is that all these languages/dialects/varieties are linguistically and historically related -- a common ancestor, similar wordstock/syntax, etc. It doesn't make any claim to Scotland's culture being "Germanic" or not.

This is as opposed to Gaelic, which is a Celtic language. Mendor 14:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous; What do you mean no debate? Scots is definately not a seperate language. The Scots speak a version of English. So do many other people around the world. Some Scots are able to speak the Scots lauguage "Gaelic". A study on liguistics of the various English dialects spoken around the world does not belong on the page of Ancient Germanic History. It could be added to a section which deals with English dialects. I am Scots and I understand the English spoken by other Scots. It most certainly is not the Scots language. I repeat myself in saying plausibility is being erroded in this section. Using the same reasoning can I say the majority of the worlds English speakers are actually speaking American?Mcwhat 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood you. Claiming that Scots is not a separate language is certainly justifiable, though -- as you can see from above -- it's debated. I thought you were claiming that Scots (whether it's a language or a dialect of English or whatever) is not Germanic. It is, as are English and all English dialects (although English-based creoles might complicate things somewhat). Cheers, Mendor 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Mendor. English and all its dialects is an enormous subject matter, even with the creoles, it is continually changing. I just don't understand why Scot's English is, singled out and placed among Ancient Germanic languages. Or for that matter why it is regarded as another language. Scots and Scots Gaelic are one and the same. Likewise Maori and Maori language, Irish and Gaelic, Welsh and Cymric, Fijians etc. Yet the majority of these are English speakers. No one person or elite group can arbitrarily alter this, nor should they be given credence for trying to. Scots is not a seperate English based language. Just like Welsh is not a seperate English based language. Just ethnic groups speaking local dialects. regardsMcwhat 06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic not a separate language?

Middle Irish = Gaelic
Middle English ≠ Scots. [1] User:84.135.230.40 ( left unsigned by)

Could you elaborate? Going on the topic heading alone youre talking nonsense. An Siarach

True. Mediaeval Gaelic had just as many varieties as (or even more than) Modern Gaelic does. And modern Gaelic is at least as different from modern Irish as modern Scots is from modern English. Equating Gaelic with Irish surely only makes any kind of sense during the time period when Gaelic was restricted to Ireland.-- Derek Ross | Talk 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A brief look at the edit history of this anon user provides quite an interesting pattern. I'd hestitate to use the word 'agenda' normally but what the hell. Agenda. An Siarach

"At its height, Middle Irish was spoken throughout Ireland and Scotland; from Munster to the North Sea island of Inchcolm."(See Middle Irish language)

"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. (See Middle Irish language)"

The Book of Deer 10th century

"The language of the entries is particularly important in showing the sporadic influence of spoken Scottish Gaelic on Middle Irish written in Scotland." [2]

"The manuscript belongs to the category of 'Irish pocket Gospel Books', produced for private use rather than for church services. While the manuscripts to which the Book of Deer is closest in character are all Irish, scholars have tended to argue for a Scottish origin." [3]

Book of the Dean of Lismore (1512) transliterated into an orthography based essentially on that of Lowland Scots. [4]

"It is a fact, however, that as late as the early part of the 18th century, the Scottish Highlanders still referred to their native language as "Irish", as witnessed by a letter dated 21 July 1713 from a young Campbell, John, Lord Glenorchy at Christ Church, Oxford, to his grandfather, John, Earl of Breadalbane at Taymouth: "I still take care about my Irish and some times meet with Sir Donald Macdonald's son, who is here, and another gentleman, when we talk nothing but Irish." -- quoted in "A Bit of Breadalbane", by Alastair Duncan Millar, The Pentland Press Ltd, 1995." (see Irish language)

Irish and Gaelic seem to be interchangeable terms.

The ethno-linguistic group are generally known as Gaels (according to that article since 1810, previously referring to people from Ireland).

Nogger 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Gaelic" is just a borrowing from the Gaelic language. In their own language, Scottish Gaels always called their language "Gaelic" or "Scottish", never "Irish". Scottish Gaelic was called "Scottis(h)" in English/Lowland Scots until the 16th century, then they started calling it "Erse"; the word "Irish" today refers to the Gaelic dialects of Ireland, not Scotland; those in Scotland are called "Scottish Gaelic". If you wanna start citing English language usage in the 18th century ("Irish"), anyone else is free to cite usage in the 14th century ("Scottish"). But calling Scottish Gaelic "Irish" is just POV pushing spam, as no-one today actually calls it that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't my intention to question contemporary nomenclature. The perception that Scottish and Irish Gaelic are varieties of the same language was being illustrated. How reasonable is such a position?

Nogger 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is biased

There is no mention in the introduction of the argument that it is dialect of English. I came here after sampling the Scots Wikipedia (which I could read easily), which made it pretty plain to me that that is exactly what it is. Scranchuse 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt really make it biased anymore than the article on the Norwegian language is biased for not stating that it is a dialect of Swedish. That article does, however, highlight the very close relationship and mutual intelligibility between Norwegian and the other Scandinavian languages which is perhaps something which should be implemented in this article with regard to English. Its not really overly important though imo. An Siarach

Errr, in all due respect, it is very important. A lot of people hold the view that Scots is a dialect of English, and so should receive fair representation. -- Boothman 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Representation yes. An explicit POV statement supporting the assertion no. An Siarach

Doesn't the section Status cover all that?

Perhaps insert something like closely related to, but often considered a variety of English between is a West Germanic language and used in Scotland...?

84.135.214.11 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough to me. An Siarach

Yes, One of the important facets of Scots is that people do disagree over its status as a language/dialect. So the discussion of the pros and cons of that point which is currently in the "Status" section has formed part of the article since its early versions. As the article has expanded it has moved further from the introduction and given its own section as befits an important and controversial matter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The media

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, children all across the land learnt these very words from the wireless in beautiful BBC English (RP?), part of a homogenisation of language brought by the wireless, and later by television. However, the development of Scottish channels has done much to preserve the credibility of Scottish English, and has made various contributions to the continuation of Scots as a living language. A particular contribution has been made by pure dead brilliant comedy shows, as was set out recently in a documentary. In it, Sanjeev Kohli described how he and other writers for Chewin' the Fat were on the edgy (lookout) for words and phrases remembered from their youth, which they then incorporated into sketches. He cited as an example the ned setting out his business plan for selling socks in Argyll Street to a bank manager and saying that he'd "be on the edgy for the polis". Sanjeev also explained how they made up some words and phrases, and was surprised at how quickly they appeared as street Scots. Gaunny no dae that? is a chatchphrase from the show, now in common currency, pseudo-Scots or not. Another example from Still Game reminded me of the splendid but little heard word glaur. Sanjeev, as Navid the shopkeeper, decides to bring out the stoorie Midoori. Stoor (dirt or dust) and glaur (mud) were what my mother warned me not to come home covered in, Midoori is apparently an exotic bevvy which tends to gather dust on the shelf. In conclusion, comedy is having an effect on the continuation of the Scots language, like it or not.

There have also been serious documentary efforts to spread the word, and I'm surprised that the article makes no mention of Billy Kay as documentary maker[5] and author[6] [7]. The current dismissive mention of Scots in the media as "reserved for niches where local dialect is deemed acceptable, e.g. comedy...." etc. seems entirely inadequate, but I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to make any improvements. ...dave souza, talk 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While not wishing to dismiss the contributions of comedy shows to the continuation of Scots as a living language the article does state "The use of Scots in the media is scant and is usually reserved for niches where local dialect is deemed acceptable...", comedy being one of them. As for serious documentaries, are these not documentaries in English about Scots (obviously Scots appears in them). Do documentaries, news bulletins and serious drama in Scots occur regularly in the media?

Nogger 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the current phrasing does effectively dismiss the contribution of these programmes as "scant.. niches". Obviously none of it's as frequent as we might wish, and it'd be nice if "Whit's Oan" was there getting as much airtime as De a-nis? and Eorpa, but at the same time there is a significant effect which shouldn't be ignored. To me it's a pretty blurred line between Scots language and Scots English, and Billy Kay and Tom Weir were giving Scots introductions to a variety of Scots dialects. There's the occasional drama, The Steamie and The Thrie Estatis come to mind, but there's no doubt that they're a rarity. As a non soap fan I've no idea about River City. Beechgrove Garden was one example giving a distinctively Scottish voice, but whether it counts others must judge. There does seem to be a bit more on the wireless, but obviously all programmes are aiming to be accessible to a wide audience, so the emphasis is generally on Scottish English. So is the glass half full or half empty? ...dave souza, talk 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A question of accuracy

Here's one for ya.

In the section on modal verbs, the article states that "A micht coud come the morn" means "I may be able to come tomorrow" (that is, "tomorrow, I may be able to come"). I wonder if a more accurate 'translation' might be, "I may be able to, come tomorrow" (that is, "I can't now, but tomorrow I may be able to").

Just curious. No axe to grind. —This unsigned comment was added by Deaconse (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Deaconse,

A micht coud come the morn means "I may be able to come, tomorrow". Whether this carries an implication of "I can't now" is probably dependent on whether you stress/alter the intonation of the morn or not (A MICHT coud come the morn means that my coming tomorrow is possible but not definite; A micht coud come THE MORN means that I can't come now, or Thursday or whenever, but I could come tomorrow).

It probably would not be interpreted as "I may be able to, come tomorrow". It could conceivably mean that, but you'd need a comma in writing, and the corresponding pause/change of intonation in speech -- A MICHT coud, come the morn. HTH -- Mendor 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned about the missing? comma. Intonation as well. ("My love you are / my love I think")

And sorry for forgetting to sign last time.

Deaconse 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Gaelic perhaps introduced from Ireland or had it perhaps always been there independently from its existence in Ireland or was it perhaps introduced from the 4th century onwards or was it perhaps earlier or later?

84.135.251.67 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

MacPhersonAndy reverts

MacPherson Andy's reverts, unexplained as they were, included reinsertion of factually inaccurate material and deletion of helpful, concise material and cited quotes. I can't make MacPhersonAndy inform us of his objections, but I can note my objections to the text MacPherson reinserted, much of which is amateurish nonsense or irrelevance:

• 1) Anglo Saxon Northumbrian is not a dialect of Middle English, but Old English. Inserting this is a factual inaccuracy.
• 2) The concept of "Angles" is a controversial topic. Angles is a modern English word derived from Latin Anglus, Englishman, and meant all Germanic Britons, not just those between East Anglia and Lothian.
• 3) Old Irish is not relevant to Scots, even the Middle Irish period was over by the time Scots became a distinct language or concept. The influence was simply early modern Gaelic
• 4) Kenneth MacAilpín is not a real name, it's either Kenneth MacAlpin or Cináed mac Ailpín, who did not bear the title "king of Scots and Picts", but simply "Rex Pictorum". Details on this are beside irrelevant to this article.
• 5) Hebrides and Orkneys were not under one overlordship until the reign of Magnus Barelegs, and it wasn't a generic Scandinavian overlordship, but the Kingdom of Norway. The sentence implies the Hebrides and Orkney were one lordship. Details on this man are beside irrelevant to this article.
• 6) The kingdom of Strathclyde was not "modern southwest Scotland and northwest England", as it did not include Galloway or even possibly north-western England, it was the Clyde Valley.
• 7) There is no direct evidence that "Malcolm Canmore" was brought up in northern England, and in fact this is overtly denied by historians such as Archie Duncan and Richard Oram. The latter suggests it is more likely that Malcolm's activities after the death of his father were in the Earldom of Orkney. But the idea Malcolm spent his exile (if in fact he was exiled) becoming a good Anglo-Saxon is simply a modern myth.
• 8) Malcolm's tenure as king began no linguistic transition. Scots did not exist at this point (nor for another four centuries), there is no evidence that the court abandoned Gaelic (indeed, besides being intrinsically unlikely, is contradicted by the number of Gaelic office bearers in the reign of the Scotto-Norman king David I), and certainly no evidence that they used English (except a note by a later medieval chronicler that Malcolm could speak some English as well as Gaelic). In short, this reinserted sentence (which did not exist until inserted a few edits ago) is childish nonsense.

• • Some general points. Northumbrian Old English is Northumbrian Old English, not Scots. Scots comes from Middle English (and not actually particularly Northumbrian), which is Old English with a heavy reduction in inflexion and a vast influx of French words. Scots, whether we take this as its first appearance in the mid 14th century, or from the period when it is perceived as a distinct language in the later 15th century, shares all these features (Barbour's Brus for instance has a much higher percentage of French-derived words than Chaucer). So, whether we look at this linguistically or chronologically, Scots derives from Middle English, and it is simply misleading to say it comes directly from Old English, Northumbrian or otherwise. It is common to hear that "Scots is closer to Old English than English", which may be correct for modern standard English, but is very incorrect when comparing later medieval dialects of English in Scotland with dialects in northern England. Another point, Inglis meant "English", either the language of the English (spoken in England or eastern Scotland) or people from the Kingdom of England. Usage of the word in text I removed displays ignorance of this fact, implying that Inglis was some distinct language, when it is in fact just a form of the Middle English word for English, imported directly without translation, like calling French français. The only places in the history of the world where Inglis meant particularly the "Scots language" is in the imaginations of a few modern people and the texts or internet encyclopaedia articles they write.

- Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ for these interesting and erudite points about current scholarship. No bad for a Greek ;) It seems that Malcolm III of Scotland needs some scholarly attention. Is there now revision of the idea that Malcolm gained power with the aid of Siward, Earl of Northumbria? The hint of some possible survivals of Bernician Old English in Scots is tantalising, but evidently to remote to have much substance. Ta, ..dave souza, talk 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that article, like most of those king articles, badly needs attention. Sadly, popular articles like those may best be left alone; no matter how much scholarly work one does on them, any anon armed with the Mills & Boon Big Book of Kings can insert trash to replace it. I think the problem with the Siward thing is that, if Máel Coluim was invading from the south and defeated Macbeth in northern Scotland, how come Lulach was able to slip past him and get crowned at Scone, to the south? Oram suggests the invasion makes perfect sense if he's coming from the north. The latter also explains his Norse wife. This is in his David I book; he was believing the Siward stuff in his younger days when he wrote that he Kings and Queens of Scotland book. I'll be curious to see what he says in his forthcoming New Edinburgh History of Scotland book, which will replace Barrow's Kingship and Unity book as the main general textbook on the period. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

William Lorimer Translation

I agree that the translation of the New Testament is a phenomenal achievement, but the hyperbole with "magnificent, glorious" appears better suited to the marketing copy. I will stand to be corrected by the more scholarly proponents of this article. CMacMillan 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Scots scholar, but a mere curious observer: I think that "magnificent" is not suitable for encyclopedia. If anything, "well-received" should be written - if it was indeed, well-received. There are five star reviews on Amazon, but it's not enough.

Is it used in churches and Sunday schools? Does it sell well? Did it receive any scholarly reviews?

Anybody?--Amir E. Aharoni 08:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, "magnificent", etc. may be hyperbole. And I don't know the answers to the other questions. I do know that I have never managed to read my way through "Acts" in any English edition of the New Testament but that I found it gripping in Lorimer's Scots edition: not just because it was in Scots but also because Lorimer was a fine writer. And the newspaper reviewers certainly liked it at the time [8]. So there is some evidence that it's a better edition than most. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wir vs. Oor

Is "Wir ain leid" just a different spelling for "Oor ain leid"? Or is it something else?--Amir E. Aharoni 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an alternative. The pronunciation and spelling are different. The meaning is the same. -- Derek Ross | Talk 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Adverbs section

The Adverbs section is not very clear as it is now.

Current version:

---

Adverbs are usually of the same form as the verb root or adjective especially after verbs. Haein a real guid day (Having a really good day). She's awfu fauchelt (She's awfully tired).

Adverbs are also formed with -s, -lies, lins, gate(s)and wey(s) -wey, whiles (at times), mebbes (perhaps), brawlies (splendidly), geylies (pretty well), aiblins (perhaps), airselins (backwards), hauflins (partly), hidlins (secretly), maistlins (almost), awgates (always, everywhere), ilkagate (everywhere), onygate (anyhow), ilkawey (everywhere), onywey(s) (anyhow, anywhere), endweys (straight ahead), whit wey (how, why).

---

First of all, i don't understand the first sentence: "Adverbs are usually of the same form as the verb root or adjective especially after verbs." I understand that real and awfu are example for the adjectives, but can anyone provide an example with a verb root?

And the formatting of the second part si confusing. Here's my proposal:

---

Adverbs are also formed with:

• -s: whiles (at times), mebbes (perhaps)
• -lies: brawlies (splendidly), geylies (pretty well)
• -lins: aiblins (perhaps), airselins (backwards), hauflins (partly), hidlins (secretly), maistlins (almost)
• -gate(s): ilkagate (everywhere), onygate (anyhow), awgates (always, everywhere)
• -wey(s): ilkawey (everywhere), onywey(s) (anyhow, anywhere), endweys (straight ahead), whit wey (how, why)

---

Please note that there are also punctuation inconsistencies in the current version:

• The dash is not present at every ending (-lies vs. lins).
• Is "whit wey" spelled/spaced correctly?

Please check it - i'm not a Scots expert. Thanks!--Amir E. Aharoni 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was meant by verb root either and I wouldn't have said that whit wey was an adverb. I would have thought that it was a conjunction in some places and an interrogative in others. It is spelled and spaced right though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Subordinate clauses

More questions about grammar ...

Currently, "Subordinate clauses" section reads:

---

Verbless subordinate clauses introduced by an and expressing surprise or indignation She haed tae walk the hale lenth o the road an her sieven month pregnant, He telt me tae rin an me wi ma sair leg (and me with my sore leg).

---

Can anyone please provide a complete translation to English for these examples? I understand it as:

• She had to walk the whole length of the road, and she's seven months pregnant.
• He told me to run, and I've got a sore leg.

Is it correct?

(Please bear in mind that English is not my mother tongue either - i'm not sure that "seven months pregnant" is correct in English.)--Amir E. Aharoni 09:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A better translation would be:

• She had to walk the whole length of the road, even though she was seven months pregnant.
• He told me to run, despite the fact that I have a sore leg.

The central idea is that those people should not have had to do those things in their conditions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Can anyone please explain about the different Scots spelling systems? RRSSC, DOST, SND, etc.? Which standard is accepted in current literature, for example Matthew Fitt or William Lorimer who are mentioned in the article?

Also - are there any printed newspapers in Scots? If there are - what spelling do they use?--Amir E. Aharoni 09:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Only RRSSC is a spelling system. The DOST (Dictionary Of the Older Scottish Tongue) and the SND (Scottish National Dictionary) are dictionaries. The dictionaries record all words that have been published in a Scots document no matter how they have been spelled. They collate all published variant spellings but do not mandate any of them. Each writer is free to use their own spelling system and generally does. In particular writers in Scots dialects will often change the spelling to match local pronunciation quirks.

As far as I'm aware there aren't any newspapers published in Scots. However The Scots Magazine, the Press and Journal and the Buchan Observer (and no doubt others that I am not aware of) have occasionally published articles, essays or fiction in Scots. No standard spelling system has been used for this though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers!

As for the RRSSC - how well is it received by Scots enthusiasts? I understand that the Scots Wikipedia uses it, but are there any other proponents?

Also, does the RRSSC succeed at phonemic representation of the disparate pronunciations?

I'm asking all this not just of sheer curiosity - i'm translating this article for the Hebrew Wikipedia and want it to be more than an uneducated translation.

Thanks again!--Amir E. Aharoni 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure of all the answers to those questions, Amir, but kudos to you for translating the article for the Hebrew Wikipedia! I'll answer what I can and with luck someone will eventually answer the questions that I can't.

How well is the RRSSC received ? -- I don't really know.

Who else uses it apart from sco.wikipedia.org -- Sorry, don't know. Even sco isn't insistent on its use. It's more of an aim than a hard and fast policy.

The RRSSC takes a phonemic approach and manages to represent the mainland Scottish and Ulster dialects reasonably well provided that the readers know how to translate its letter combinations for their local pronunciation. The only dialects which it doesn't attempt to represent are those of the Northern Isles which differ in "unusual" ways from the other Scots dialects.

Hope that helps. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations - I have reviewed this article and believe that it meets the criteria of a Good Article. My one suggestion for improvement - as it confused me - is to clarify in section 1 what is meant by "the court" - is it the royal court? —Whouk (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It almost certainly means royal court. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scots is a dialect of English

Here is an entry from dictionary.com whose source is the American Heritage Dictionary.

Fri·sian (frzhn, frzhn) also Frie·sian (frzhn)

n.

A native or inhabitant of the Frisian Islands or Friesland. The West Germanic language of the Frisians. It is the language most closely related to English.

---

[From Latin Frsi, the Frisians, of Germanic origin.]

---

Frisian adj.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It says Frisian is the most similar language to English. Here is another entry of the same source.

Scots (skts)

adj.

Scottish. See Usage Note at Scottish.

n.

The dialect of English used in the Lowlands of Scotland.

---

[Middle English scottis, variant of scottisc, Scottish, from Scotte, sing. of Scottes, Scotsmen. See Scot.]

It does say Scots is a dialect of English. This dictionary even has entries for Scots words. Here are some examples. for lang (fourth entry) for hoot (first) for auld (first) for syne (first) for loch (second) for lallans (first) for ain (first) for stane (Webster's dictionary)

I have seen that Wikipedia has a Scots edition to make it easier for readers of the Scots dialect but that also does not make it a different language. This article should have a different name. Tim Q. Wells 20:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Have you read the section "Scots not a separate language" above? This is an extremely hotly contested issue (as is almost every case where the division "language vs dialect" is debated), and to be honest I don't think what the American Heritage Dictionary says will hold much sway with many people on either side of the argument. Having said that, I think the sensible title for the article (given that its languagehood is a debated issue) would just be Scots (which is its most common name within Scotland anyway) -- but that would probably go against the Manual of Style, and conflict with the page Scots as well. I can say though that moving it to Scots dialect (which is at the moment a redirect to this page) would be just as POV as the current name is. Cheers, Mendor 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They could rename it Scots tongue, which doesn't make the same distinction, but that would dismiss the so-called literary heritage (ie Burns). -- Boothman 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that name would dismiss the literary heritage, and it is quite commonly called "the Scots tongue" as well, but it seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Maybe move it to Scots (language) over the redirect? Although that's maybe a bit of an ugly fix... Mendor 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thae comments by Tim Q. Wells gars us speir gin Scots is a dialect o' the English an wiki policy is tae use the language conventions o' the variety o English that's aught the airt the article is aboot, wad it be a'right tae write like this?

I howp a' thae words is in yer American Heritage® Dictionary.

Murdoch Soulis 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

<Grin>, good point, Murdoch. Of course, going farther down that road, we could just as well argue that English is a dialect of Scots and complain when folk use words like "ask" instead of "speir'! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary is mainly for American English so of course it would not have all those words. Also Webster's dictionary has an entry for speir Tim Q. Wells 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Scots is not a dialect of Modern English anymore than Modern English is a dialect of Modern Scots. They share a common ancestor and historically were, at one point, dialects of Middle English. The fact that language X is related to language Y and both are descended from historical language Z does not make X a dialect of Y or vice versa. An Siarach

I have looked at the Scots version of Wikipedia and I could read it easily. It even had an idiom saying "ye can gie wikipedia an haund bi...." The American Heritage Dictionary is not the only dictionary that says Scots is a dialect of English. The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary say the same. In the discussion page in the Scots version writers of American English or British English could easily communicate with writers of Scots Engish. Tim Q. Wells 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility is not actually a very useful criterion for determining whether two varieties are languages or dialects. It usually just means that two languages are closely related. For example, I can read Spanish, so I can also understand Catalan; I can read French, so I can also understand Norman; and for the true geeks among us, I can read Esperanto, so I can also understand Ido. I don't doubt the situation is the same between Danish and Norwegian, though I don't have any personal experience of those languages. No-one would think of calling Catalan just a dialect of Spanish, or Norweigian just a dialect of Danish though -- well, not any more, although they have in the past. Mendor 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously incredibly arguable whether Scots is a language or a dialect, because the whole distinction relates to what the difference is between a "language" and a "dialect." But there's no other place to put this article. (BTW, is the Scots wikipedia really there "to make it easier for readers of the Scots dialect?" That seems absurd on its face. Are there really Scottish internet users who are not conversant with written English? My understanding of the Scots wikipedia was that it was a playground for Scots enthusiasts to write articles in Scots, rather than that it's actually useful for anyone. Ethnologue says Scots speakers have 97% literacy in English. I'd imagine that those who are not literate in English are simply not literate. YMMV.) john k 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Scots wikipedia is useful to Scots enthusiasts who want to read articles in Scots? BTW Ethnologue says, for Gaelic spekers, the literacy rate in Gaelic is 50% (1971 census), since most Gaels are literate in English I assume the Gaelic Wikipedia is perhaps a playground for Gaelic enthusiasts rather than that it's actually being useful for anyone?

84.135.217.155 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But then again, Ethnologue's a pile of crap. And no, Murdoch, your point is not valid. Is the page on Jamaica written in Jamaican English? No, it's not. I'd argue that's it's impossible to know Scots without knowing English. -- Boothman 16:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the Gaelic Wikipedia is also a playground for Gaelic enthusiasts and is not actually particularly useful as an encyclopedia - I'm sure lots of old people in the Western Isles have internet access and enjoy using the (minuscule?) Gaelic wikipedia to look up information. But Scots is even sillier, because it's mutually comprehensible with English, unlike Gaelic, and has no standard written form. john k 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How silly is the Norwegian wikipedia? Why don't they just use the Danish one? Well at least they have two written standards. One silly and one based on Danish. 84.135.239.176 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anent American dictionary definitions, Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1994 has the more nuanced

Scots — adj., said especially of law and language

Scottish. — noun any of the dialects related to English used in (especially Lowland) Scotland.

[from Scots Scottis, Scottish]

Perhaps Scots dialect, rather than just being a redirect, should point out the various dialects of Scots language, while acknowledging that some people regard Scots as a dialect of English :) ..dave souza, talk 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume Boothman is referring to literacy and not language acquisition.

84.135.217.155 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I agree Scots is a separate language, remember that Wikipedia's policy is to follow local conventions, and describe not prescribe. Ergo, if the Scots claim it's a separate language, it should primarily be defined as such, especially given that the UK has, under the ECRML, designated it a R/M language. Note that Galician, while being almost entirely mutually intelligible with Spanish and Portuguese and by relation to some extent with Catalonian and perhaps even Italian or French, is still considered a separate language. However, the designation is mentioned later in the article, but not in the headliner. I can understand Galician and Asturian etc, completely even though I've never studied them, but I recognise their difference as languages, they have different customs for conjugations slightly different tenses, etc. (Also, to whomever above mentioned that Scots/English is like Catalonian/Valencian, they should know that Catalonian and Valencian are the same, just different names). Besides, if mutual intelligibility nullified distinction, then arguably all of the Romance 'languages' are simply still dialects, since Portuguese is understood by Galician is understood by Castilian is understood by Catalonian is understood by Occitan by French by ... you get the idea; ditto for the Nordic languages, as Icelandic can be understood by Faroese by Danish by Norwegian by Swedish. Another misconception noted above, just because idioms are the same between two close languages doesn't mean they aren't different. There are plenty of idioms that exist within multiple (and very diverse) languages. Scots has a sufficiently different pronunciation (can you tell me an English dialect that uses uvular fricatives and alveolar trills?) and lexicon (in many ways a pidgin of Scottish Gaelic and English) and grammar (although in many ways it mirrors many now-archaic or dying features of my native dialect of English, SAE) for me to consider it separate. I do think creating a standard orthography would help Scots out a lot, I see both A and Ah for I (though when I practice writing my horrible beginners wanna-be Scots I stick with Ah, since that's what we use in dialect writing for SAE), but a lack of one shouldn't be used as an argument against it, as many languages have lacked standard orthographies or had very varying orthographies until recently, but no one claimed them not to be a separate language. Guifa 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

English as a dialect of Scots

To my horror I find that there's a bit of a stushie about the latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary - what does it portend? ....dave souza, talk 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Never knew Numpty was from Scottish English. Does anyone one know the etymology of this word? -- Boothman.

Perhaps an extension of numb?

84.135.220.103 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Ethnologue

I restored the link to Ethnologue report. Ethnologue is an important languages database, which shouldn't be ignored. Besides, the report is short and it does say that "Some population estimates are much higher", so it doesn't contradict this article too much.

It's nevertheless nice to hear that Wikipedia is superior to Ethnologue. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue's a bag of shite. Sorry, but that's the only way I can describe it. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Well ... it may not be too precise and up-to-date, but it is big and it comes up high on Google. And it's Christian, too.

Come to think of it, none of it has anything to do with encyclopedic integrity, so you're probably right :) --Amir E. Aharoni 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Being Christian is partly the reason why it's so utterly crap. NPOV and all that shizzle. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Let's go through it:

100,000 in United Kingdom (1999 Billy Kay). Some population estimates are much higher. Population total all countries: 200,000. There is no way that there are as many speakers using Scots as a community language in Ireland as in Scotland. The total is arrived at by not comparing like with like. The only official estimates are those of the General Register Office for Scotland in 1996 (c. 1.5 million for Scotland) and the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey in 1999 (c. 30.000 for NI). Given dialectalisation and different ideas about how one defines Scots, 100,000 may be a good estimate for Scotland, with perhaps 10,000 in Northern Ireland, but the 50:1 ratio suggested by the official surveys is just as possible. All of Scotland except highlands (historically true, but no longer, according to the GRO Scotland survey): lowlands: Aberdeenshire to Wigtownshire (look at the map). Northern Ireland. Also spoken in Republic of Ireland (Northern Ireland is also on the island of Ireland). Insular, Northern, Southern, Ulster. This misses out Central Scots, which accounts for two thirds of speakers and is also a dialect. Difficult intelligibility among dialects (this really applies only to Insular Scots and to some extent Northern Scots vis-à-vis the rest). Insular Scots on the Scottish Islands is considered by some to be a different language (Shetlandic and Orcadian) (the writer has confused Northern Scots with Insular Scots). Lallans is the main literary dialect. Ulster Scots has its own development group. Scots is closest to English and Frisian. Indo-European, Germanic, West, English (Scots linguists often prefer “Anglic” to “English”, leaving open the question of languageness). 1,500,000 speak it as second language. This is arrived at by confusing the GRO estimate with the headline one used above. Used with family and friends. All ages. English is considered to be the language of education and religion. Literacy rate in second language: 97% English. Poetry. Magazines. Dictionary. NT: 1901–1984. This suggests that a single New Testament was worked on from 1901 to 1984, but the dates refer to two separate versions by William Wye Smith and William Laughton Lorimer. 100,000 in Ireland (1999 Billy Kay). I very much doubt whether this estimate stems from Billy Kay. Some Ulster activists have said that there may be 100,000, but that was based on a fairly arbitrary downward revision of Robert Gregg’s 1960s estimate. The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 1999 suggested c. 30,000 for NI. Population includes 60,000 in Lallans, 30,000 in Doric, 10,000 in Ulster. This is self-contradictory, since the above total of 100,000 in Ireland would mean 90,000 in the Irish Republic (in any case, “Ulster” and “Northern Ireland” are not the same thing, since the former covers nine counties instead of six). The information regarding speakers of the various dialects is not specific to Ireland and suggests contemporary Scottish immigration. “Lallans” is a literary dialect, and the writer obviously meant Central Scots. County Donegal. This is the only county in the Irish Republic where Scots is used as a community language, but there are also Counties Down, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry in Northern Ireland.

Yes, I think the Ethnologue article is about as bad as it is possible to get. (usigned by User:62.77.181.11)

Status

"i.e. both Scots and English evolved somewhat concurrently beside each other hence one is not necessarily a sub-group of the other"

That can be said of most all dialects of English (i.e. varieties descended from Old English). 84.135.236.129 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And Scots was not always so called. It has now a name applied originally to Goidelic language. I prefer myself to see Scots as a northern form of British English. Laurel Bush 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Lowland Scots has little to do with British English, but the anon is correct that the versions of Middle and Early Modern English spoken in Scotland have always developed parallel with English English. Scots supporters frequently cite historical examples where the Scots (English) has been distinguished from the English (English) language, but fail to cite the other examples where it is called English; and indeed it could even be argued that the employment of the term "Scots", rather late as everyone here knows, is merely an attempt to distinguish it from English English, and not necessarily to mark it out as a separate national language in the European context. Sadly for Scots enthusiasts, Lowland Scots has always been thought of as a branch of English, and even in the 2 centuries it was used as the language of the Scottish court, it was still being called "English" (i.e. "Inglis") , and indeed for half the period of its official use, "English" was the only word used to designate the dialects of English spoken in Scotland. In all reality Lowland Scots is and always has been a series of distinct English dialects which just happen to be spoken in no more than a third of Scotland's territory. Compared with Gaelic and English, it's claim to have any historical existence, let alone a central role in Scottish history, is phantasmal. A language? Well, that's up to the people who use the word "language" - and this is determined by political rather than linguistic considerations. I fear that politics underly this whole debate, but as such factors lead to designations such as "the Macedonian language" and the ludicrous "Ruthenian language", Scots enthusiasts are perfectly entitled to make the claim. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit like Scottish Gaelic really being Irish I suppose. - 84.135.236.120 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"A bit like Scottish Gaelic really being Irish I suppose" Not really. First of all "Irish" "Scottish Gaelic" "Manx" etc are all exonyms, no speaker of any Gaelic language referred to himself as anything other than a Gael((in this context)and his language as a Gaelic ( or whatever other versions/cognates of those words were used in older times such as 'Goidelc' ) and to class Scottish Gaelic as Irish is no different to classing French,Spanish,Portugese or Romanian as Italian languages. Secondly Lowland Scots originated in a people who were English and described themselves as such and who named their language as such. Scots comes from a language which was spoken by the English and referred to by its speakers as English. Scottish Gaelic comes from a language spoken by the Gaels which was referred to by them as Gaelic. Any references made to descent from "Irish" are as legitimate as describing Medieval French as a dialect of Italian due to its common Latin/Romance ancestry. The only reason speakers of English in Scotland renamed their language "Scots" is because, having been conquered by the Scots, they lost their English identity and assumed a Scottish identity. siarach 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past it certainly wasn't unusual for English-speakers to perceive the language, and refer to it, as Irish albeit now considered politically incorrect to do so. All the same the Irish apparently prefer the language to be called Irish in English. Scottish Gaelic is after all simply the dialects at one end of a historical dialect continuum from the south of Ireland to the North of Scotland, although there are now gaps in intermediate areas due to lack of native speakers. Apparently Radio nan Gaidheal regularly transmits joint broadcasts with Raidió na Gaeltachta, in what, one would presume, is a mutually comprehensible medium otherwise the excercise would seem somewhat pointless. A form of Middle Irish, known as 'Classical Gaelic', was used as a literary language in Scotland until the 18th century and in Ireland to the 17th. Recent orthographic divergence is the result of later orthographic reforms creating a situation of polycentric standardisation similar to that of Bulgarian and Macedonian which properly form a dialect continuum, with the Bulgarian standard being based on the more eastern dialects, and the Macedonian standard being based on the more western dialects. 84.135.245.156 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was watching "Never Mind the Full Stops" on BBC Four the other day, and interestingly they classed both Ulster Scots and Shetlandic as dialects of English. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 08:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Well they would, wouldn't they. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite that quiz being a rather poor show for grumpies which hasn't lived up to its excellent adverts, I happened to see that episode while checking my watchlist. The "guess where they're from and what they're saying" section was of interest: I guessed Shetland ok, but was puzzled by the other example which clearly had Scots words but an accent which I couldn't place: it was quite unlike the Rev. I. Paisley hard tones used by the Ulster folk of my acquaintance. The teams were dismal at understanding the meaning, somewhat surprisingly in the case of the Liverpool poet (McGough IIRC). More to the point, it's rather nice that despite the homogenisation of language, we still have lots of mutually incomprehensible dialects in Britain. To pick up on the point made by Calgacus, celebration of diversity is something of a recent phenomenon, and Scots enthusiasts have a valid point in that both Scots and BBC English are parallel descendants of early and middle English. However there's still a tendency to portray dialects as corruptions of "proper English", a theme taken up earlier this year in the documentary Scots introduced by Carl MacDougall as "the story of how the language of kings became the language of the gutter" with the comment that "by the 20th century the Scottish national dictionary was describing Glaswegian speech as hopelessly corrupt, and generations of schoolchildren were shamed or belted for using their mother tongue". It's a bit like the Creationist misrepresentation of evolution as meaning that humans are descended from monkeys, when of course science really says we have common ancestors. ..dave souza, talk 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

language attrition

The link for language attrition actually points to language death. This should be corrected in time, but IMO the article on language attrition is so technical and incomprehensible to the layperson that I think we should wait until it is improved before making this correction. Ireneshusband 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Languages in the United Kingdom

Contributors may care to look at the listing of Germanic languages at Languages in the United Kingdom. A consensus on whether or not Scots is a a language to be classified alongside English would be useful. Man vyi 05:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Scots language → Lowland Scots language I'm requesting this move - albeit with little hope of success - because the name is less confusing and, arguably, more accurate than the current one. To wikipedia's international reading audience, the title implies that Lowland Scots is the "national language" of Scots, like Ukrainian with Ukraine, Danish with Denmark, etc. Whereas in fact it does not hold, and never has held, that status; "Scots" in fact is the usual way to distinguish it from English English. No-one in Scotland would ever call it "Scottish", yet if you check the interwikis, that is how it is being translated. With this title, hence, Wikipedia is actively perpetrating a misconception of the highest order. There would be no problem with simply "Scots", but the evolution of wikipedia convention has resulted in the word "language" following on from "Scots" that sadly has resulted in this distortion. For these reasons, among others, I'm requesting a move to a less controversial and already operational title. As I do not wish to force judgment of the status of Lowland Scots as a language, I left "language" in the title. …Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, as mover. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Man vyi 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support siarach 11:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Most of the interwikied articles in other languages use a variation of Scots rather than their word for Scottish. The language is recognised by the UK government as Scots, and Ulster Scots as a "variety of Scots" (not Lowland Scots). However, if the intention were to distinguish clearly between Scots as the roof variety and Lowland Scots as the variety spoken in Scotland and Ulster Scots as the variety spoken in Ireland, then there would be some logic, but no need for a move. Simply develop existing redirect Lowland Scots language similarly to Lallans. Man vyi 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Scots language really controversial? Most of the references provided have the word Scots in the title. Many also add the qualifier language, including some of those published by university presses. None of them have Lowland in the title. That is not to deny such publications exist. The word language itself may not necessarily imply language status as is popularly understood in, for example, the French or German languages, but simply a means of communication. The Scots language being a Scottish means of communication. The first Paragraph clearly points out that it is not the only one. The second illustrates its realationship with English. It might be sensible to remove a variety of Anglic language from the first paragraph because it seems to preemt discussion of its status. If 'Scots' is simply a variety of English, perhaps this article should be merged with Scottish English which is surely less confusing and, arguably, more accurate than the misconception which is being perpetrated at the moment. 84.135.245.156 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not really something that had previously struck me as being essential ( although this article should probably have been named "Lowland Scots language" at inception ) but if the current title gives rise to any misconception, which i think it probably does and i have also come across some examples of this article being transwikied erroneously as some equivalent or other of "Scottish language", then i see no reason why it shouldnt be moved - "Lowland Scots" being at least as, if not more, common a term than simply "Scots" for this language in my experience and as previously highlighted "Lowland Scots" is also a more accurate name less prone to misinterpretation. siarach

Why change the wisdom of ages. Scots is well and truly the vernacular of the areas alluded to in the main article, why change it? It has as much legitimacy as any other, whether imported or British, as Pictish is now defunct, strongly oppose. Lowland Pete 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)