Talk:History of the Scots language

Untitled

I inserted the Lord's prayer in Old Northumbrian in place of the Extract from the Dream of the Rood. I wasn't sure if that was in Old Northumbrian or not.

This is the Lord's Prayer I edited out the stuff in brackets. If you know better how to deal with it please do.

FADER USÆR ðu arð (~ bist) in heofnu (~ heofnas)
Sie gehalgad NOMA ÐIN.
Tocymeð RÍC ÐIN.
Sie WILLO ÐIN
suæ is in heofne and in eorðo.
HLAF USERNE of'wistlic sel ús todæg,
and f'gef us SCYLDA USRA,
suæ uoe f'gefon SCYLDGUM USUM.
And ne inlæd usih in costunge,
ah is in heofne and in eorðo.

This is the deleted extract from Dream of the Rood. If it is in fact Old Northumbrian it can go back.

From a 10th century version (Dream of the Rood)

Hwæt! Ic swefna cyst secgan wylle,
hwæt me gemætte to midre nihte,
syðþan reordberend reste wunedon!
þuhte me þæt ic gesawe syllicre treow
on lyft lædan, leohte bewunden,
beama beorhtost. Eall þæt beacen wæs
begoten mid golde. Gimmas stodon
fægere æt foldan sceatum, swylce þær fife wæron
uppe on þam eaxlegespanne.
Beheoldon þær engel dryhtnes ealle,
fægere þurh forðgesceaft.
Ne wæs ðær huru fracodes gealga,
ac hine þær beheoldon halige gastas,
men ofer moldan, ond eall þeos mære gesceaft.

MacNab

---

Surely some of the stuff from this (very) long page can be moved to wikisource? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Is this Lowland before every occurance of the word Scots really necessary? What are the chances of Scots being confused with Highland Scots.

Seamus P. Dantic

Is the 'Gaelic' which follows 'Scottish' really necessary? Lowland Scots is referred to as such because it was the language of the lowlands - not of Scotland as a whole and to title it simply 'Scots' suggests otherwise.

User:An Siarach

I think the comment referred to putting Lowland before Scots after the first occurance of Lowland Scots. After that it should be perfectly clear that the word Scots refers to Lowland Scots. If the Gaelic which follows 'Scottish' was removed the meaning would be pretty unclear. Not many people would figure what 'Scottish' was supposed to mean.

Ah right enough, i didnt realise this is what was meant. Apologies for the misunderstanding!

User:An Siarach

---

Modern Scots really needs to be expanded to include Scots in the C20th (e.g. the Scots revival of MacDiarmid etc.) and perhaps some even more recent history (e.g. the debate about the inclusion of a question about Scots on the 2001 census). I know this is the 'history' page for the Scots language, but as it stands it looks as if the language has disappeared, when by some estimates (Caroline Macafee in 1996) it has as many as 1.5 million speakers, or over a quarter of the population of Scotland. I don't have time to do it at the moment, so feel free, but I'll probably get round to it eventually if no one else does. Incidentally, the Dream of the Rood is in Northumbrian Old English - see Michael Alexander's 'The Earliest English Poems'. However, the Lord's Prayer from the Lindisfarne Gloss is probably a better example as it clearly shows the differences with West-Saxon varieties. User:junglehungry

Cleanup

Many of the texts included here need to be moved to Wikisource. -- Beland 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reworked the article. The intention was to create an article rather than a collection of stuff. I hope nobody objects. Perhaps some of the historical stuff in Scots language could be moved here or to either Older Scots or Middle Scots?

Nogger 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-literary Scots

According to "A History of The English Language" (Albert C. Baugh) Celts lived in the southeastern regions of Britain during the time of Roman rule. They were being attackt from the South by the Saxons as early as the fourth century and from the north by the "warlike" Pics and Scots. The Celts appealed to Rome for help but were turned down because of threats elsewhere in the Roman Empire. A Celtic leader named "Vortigern" then offered the Jutes, who also wanted their share of the cake, the Isle of Thanet in exchange for helping to ward off the Pics and Scots. This turned out to be a troublesome alliance.

The Saxons continued setteling the south of Britain in regions currently known as Sussex and Wessex. Many of the Celts were undoubledly driven into the West seeking refuge in Wales and Cornwall.

The northeast already had populations of Celts before experiencing troubles with invaders. In the southeast of Kent the Jutes drove the Celts out. (See C.F. Hawkes "The Jutes of Kent"). The "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" reported that in 547 the Angels established an Anglican kingdom north of the Humber. Saxons began settling regions north of the Thames known today with their Saxon names as Essex, Middlesex. It wasn't until the end of the fifth century that the Angels began to settle East Anglia.

R.Price pf2203@gmail.com Cakeandicecream 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true

Hey, i'm Scandinavian, Swedish actually, and what 81.155.32.195 (User:Orkadian) is putting is factually correct. Since i'm descended from Vikings here made me research the whole history and such. It would be nice if Mais oui! didn't just delete everything that Orkadian puts anywhere, stating its a sock. Kinda rude really.Silver seren 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article not written from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV)

This article makes no reference to Irish Gaelic as the mother language of Scots Gaelic. Nor does it mention that Scotus (pl. Scotti) is the Latin word meaning resident of Ireland or that the word Scotland literately translates as land of the Irish.

This article is based on nationalist propaganda and seeks to rewrite history to promote a particular agenda.

No article on the Scots language can be considered accurate unless it takes into account the influence of the Dal Riada Kings on Scottish history. In particular, an independent point of view would explore the reasons for the demise of the Pictish language and the role of a Dal Riada King - Kenneth MacAlpine in its demise.

Scots Gaelic does not come from Irish Gaelic but from Old Gaelic which is only known as Irish in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.1.248 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Morna 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to username Mais Oui! ==

If this article is about a West Germanic language, it is so badly written that readers may be left with the impression that the article is actually about the Scots language. I surmise that it was written by someone with a political agenda and therefore others should be invited to discuss this opinion. If it is found that I am wrong then I will withdraw these remarks. However, in the meantime in order to facilitate such discussions, do not remove the tag flagging the neutrality of this article. If one is looking for an article on the Scots language then the article here..Scots language has been reviewed by Wikipedia and has been found to be a good article under the good article criteria.

Morna 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out specific paragraphs or sentences which violate the Neutral Point of View and explaining why you think that they do. This would be helpful in sorting out the problem which you have identified or at least in understanding why you think that there is a problem. For instance, reading your comment above gives me the impression that you are unaware that there are two Scottish languages, one of which (Scots Gaelic, commonly called "Gaelic" in Scotland) is similar to Irish and one of which (Lowland Scots, commonly called "Scots" in Scotland) is similar to English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Morna, you are thinking of Scottish Gaelic. There was a shift in naming of the who (from Scottish -> Scottish Gaelic; "Inglis" -> Scots) sometime in the 17th/18th (or later?) century. There should however be a disambiguation link on top of the page to clarify this to readers. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a good idea. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does this idea come from that lowlanders speak a language called Scots? Do people from Tyneside have their own language? What about yorkshire,Devon,sussex,they all have their own words for the same meaning.If you want to speak scots go and learn Gaelic.--Sandbagger 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm a Lowlander and I speak Scots/Lallans or Braid Scots/Lowland Scots or whatever you want to call it. It's definately not Standard English and hasn't been close for about 500 years. Scots has a tradition going back as far as pre-literary Scots (before 1375) when it was called Inglis. So I am guessing the "idea" has been around for a very long time. Yes, I imagine the people of Tyneside (and Northumberland) do have their own language, again it's definately not standard English and to my ear sounds much closer to Scots. Certainly there is a definate claim for Yorkshire (or Tyke) as a separate language. The name of a language can get nationalists so upset. I am quite happy to call Gaelic "Scottish". It is after all one of our Scottish languages and part of our heritage and culture and I for one intend to learn it. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before the Americans dump the name "English" and just call it American. Don't get so upset!--81.155.34.9 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Middle Scots work "The Flyting of Dumbar and Kennedie" (circa 1500) describes the two languages of 15th century Scotland. Ershry, which Kennedy describes as the language of all true Scotsmen. (Irish being the later name describing native Gaelic speakers in Scotland). Dunbar in turn praises the use of Inglis as a more polish language. Here in 15th century Scotland we have the watershed where Scots was formerly held to be Gaelic and has become the new popular language of English (a name which Scots referred to their own modern language as, i.e. Inglis).Muireagain (talk)

The article does give a pretty good description of the shift of naming Gaelic as Scottis to using Scots to refer to the Scottish language which had formerly been called Inglis. The origins of Scottish Gaelic belong in that article, not this one, and it should be appreciated that Inglis or scots in modern terms generally replaced Cumbric language, not Gaelic. The term "Scots" itself derives from the Latin term Scoti, though it has apparently been argued that term in turn might have had Gaelic (or Brittonic?) roots. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Was the language really ever formerly called Inglis? Or has it just been spelled that unfamiliar way and been repeated today for false contrast? Historically there were lots of ways that the word 'English' was spelled in both Scotland and England. I'd guess this common language of Great Britain was in fact always called 'English' everywhere, even though it was sometimes spelled Inglis, Inglish, Anglish, Anglis, Ynglis and any other variant you can think of. The Scots, or rather the inhabitants of todays geographical Scotland have been speaking it exactly as long as the inhabitants of England. Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.66 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to reduction of the final is to s in the Middle Scots period, Older Scots Inglis /ˈɪŋlɪs/ became Modern Scots Ingles /ˈɪŋlz/. Similarly Older Scots Scottis Scottis /ˈskotɪs/ become Modern Scots /ˈskots/. The Older Scots spelling survives in place names such as Fowlis /fʌulz/, Glamis /ɡlɑːmz/ and Wemyss /wimz/. However, the Modern Scots Ingles is now rare, having been replaced by English /ˈɪŋlɪʃ/. Nevertheless, Ingles can be found in personal and place names though not all occurances are necessarily from the meaning 'English'.

As to languageness. When did Irish become Scottish Gaelic? Classical Irish was used as a Literary language in Scotland until the 18th century. Scottish Gaelic was long referred to as Erse or Irish. However, both contemoporary Irish and Scottish Gaelic have standardised orthographies that are systematically taught in schools. Since that is how many people in literate western societies differentiate between languages, Irish and Scottish Gaelic are regarded as separate languages. Although Scots has a substantial literary history, the fairly standardised written form of the 15th-16th century (referred to as Scottis) was subsequently replaced contemporary Standard English as that was the standard variety of the new British State after political union with England in 1707. Scots-speakers did continue to produce literature in Scots but developed modern prestigious othographic conventions in the 18th century, using a mixture of older Scots conventions and contemporary Standard English ones. Those prestigious othographic conventions are not systematically taught in schools so knowledge of them amongst most Scots-speakers is scant. Consequently much written Scots is phonetic in nature, based on the writer's perceived sound to letter correspondences of Standard English. That is a characteristic of dialect writing and the socio-linguistic situation indicates that Standard English is viewed as the Dachsprache by Scots-speakers. Scots is now essentially a spoken (and written) variety of English not an autonomous but closely related language. 84.134.171.48 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Inglis and English - It's all rather silly

This is all rather silly. Historically Caledonia was inhabited by Picts who spoke Pictish. In the 7th century Gaelic-speaking Scots from Ireland settled in the west, whilst at the same time Anglic-speaking Anglo-Saxons settled in the south and east. The Scots established their Kingdom of the Scots in the wast. The Angles established their Kingdom of Bernicia, later the northern part of the wholly English Kingdon of Northumbria in the east. Both eventually pushed out or assimilated the Picts. Bede (a Nortumbrian) reports that in his time (8th C.) there were five languages used in Britain. English, Gaelic. British (ie Welsh) and Pictish. The fifth was Latin. Gaelic was also known as Scots. Since those times English became the increasingly common language of what would eventually became today's Scotland. The idea that Scots (AKA 'Inglis') is another language rather than one of a whole multitude of British vernacular variants of what is now 'Standard English' is just wishful thinking by Scots nationalists unduly proud of their northern heritage. I'm sorry, but 'Inglis' is nothing more than a variant spelling of 'English' taken from a time when no one anywhere spelled any word with any consistency. May I recommend a very comprehensive and detailed book I picked up in Scotland: The Tribes of Britain by David Miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.220 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The very first mention in the article states that the subject of the article was "known to its speakers as "English" (Inglis)" making it abundantly clear the connection between the two variants/spellings, then carries on referring to it as "Inglis" now that we are apprised that that was the term for it in Scotland. No need for conspiracy theories. Whatever Scots is it clearly exists as distinct from Standard English (Scots is not a variant of Standard English (if anything Scots is more conservative/close to the origins) or vice versa, they are both derivations from a common root), so whether you regard them as two dialects or two languages (the distinction being largely political rather than linguistic) they are both worthy and distinct topics for articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dictionary of the Scots language http://www.dsl.ac.uk/ records the following variants from the modern spelling of word 'English' being historically used in Scotland: Inglis, Inglis(c)h, a. and n.1 Also: inglise, inglys, -es, -ese, -eis, ingillis, ynglis, -ys; ingli(s)che, -eisch(e, -ishe, -eshe, ynglish. [North ME. inglis (a 1300), ME. (14th c.) and (rare) e.m.E. inglish, ynglysh. The regular Sc. form: cf. ENGLIS, ENGLIS(C)H. Thus it is illogical to use the word 'Inglis' in the text of this article with its misleading implication that it was, or ever meant, something different from the word 'English'. Similar historical spelling variants can be found throughout England too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.213 (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is made abundantly clear in the article that Inglis is cognate with English, per the dictionary entry above which even states the former is the regular form, hence its use in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is that careless statements such as "By the early 16th century what was then called Inglis had become the language of government" appear to be factually untrue. The language was factually called English, a word which back then was often (or sometimes) spelled 'Inglis'. (Even today, all over the world, all of us pronounce the word 'English' as 'Inglish'). I really think this modern myth of 'Inglis' needs eradicating from all related Wiki pages. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.22.230 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The on-line Middle English Dictionary records the modern word 'English ' in England being spelled: Engles, ænglish, Anglish, Inglish, Inglis, Inglysshe, and quotes other spellings too. No one of course is foolish enough to assert that a language called 'Inglis' was once used in the English court. Nor, for exactly the same reasons, should they ever assert that a language called 'Inglis' rather than English was ever used in Scotland.

As I said, and per the very dictionary entry you provided, the language spoken in Scotland was then called "Inglis" in its regular form, hence the use of that term in the article, only one of the many other forms being "English". That two linguistic strands coming from the same common ancestry continued to be called the same or similar names at early stages in their divergence can hardly come as a surprise. This new postulation of yours is nothing but a transparent further OR continuation in your bizarre agenda that Scots (language, dialect or whatever) does not exist. Please, as you have been told innumerable times, stop using Wikipedia as a forum for your theories. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally do you continue to edit from a variety of IPs to avoid the censure you may attract as a named editor for your disruptive editing, and the consequences thereof? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No Matt you miss my point: I'm simply pointing out that logically one cannot simply assume that because any words were spelled differently in the past that the writers meant different things. At a time when there were no spelling norms it must be at least as logical to assume that the words 'English' and 'Inglis' were synonyms as that they were not. The dictionary evidence however suggests that the balance is in favour of them being synonymous. It is true that I have concluded that a Scots language has ever existed as a seperate linguistic entitity from English - but that view is I hope one based on an objective evaluation of the evidence - and its lack. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.141 (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Not wishing to be unhelpful it occurs to me that good evidence for 'Inglis' NOT simply being a synoym for, or an alternate spelling of, 'English', would be an early text, or better still texts, in which in same document the writer uses the word 'Inglis' for the language spoken in Scotland but another spelling of the word when referring to the language spoken south of the border. If such a text can be shown to exist I'd be very happy to revise my opinion. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.141 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you continuously miss my point, neatly encapsulated in your own words "I have concluded that... based on an objective evaluation of the evidence". How many times do you need to be told article talk pages are not a forum for your personal conclusions? Why do you have such difficulty grasping this? This thread really ought to be removed, and to avoid cluttering it further with matters which pertain solely to you, and as you don't have one of your own, I have addreesed you at mine. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

...and I'm puzzled anyway as to why you think it is being claimed that different spellings were used in Scotland for the tongue north and south of the border anyway. The regular form in Scotland was "Inglis" and differentiated terms were not yet employed. So what? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

About your Third Opinion request: The following request was made at the Third Opinion project:

Subject: the Scots Language. Disputants Mutt Lunker and myself, Cassandra. M Lunker is clearly a very, very keen supporter of the 'Scots language'. I take the view, evidence-based, that it is a modern myth, an idea mainly concocted probably in the 1970s. There is certainly clear factual evidence that many of the claims made by supporters of the Scots language theory are overstated, and are sometimes grossly misleading, and even false. There is also academic work supporting the view that the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth. M Lunker however, zealously deletes any critique or criticism on the 'Scots language' pages, allowing no room for discussion and/or inclusion of these important factual issues which might help create a properly balanced article. On behalf of all rationalists, help! Cassandra

I've looked at the discussion above and this deleted post at Talk:Scots language and at this point cannot find the "clear factual evidence that many of the claims made by supporters of the Scots language theory are overstated" which Cassandra posits. Because of the deleted posts on the talk pages (and I express no opinion regarding whether those posts were or were not properly deleted) and the various IP addresses from which posts have been made, it is entirely possible that there has been some evidence posted somewhere which I have missed. It would help very much if Cassandra would create an account and sign in, as that would at least cause a record of all his/her edits to be kept in a single place even if they are deleted. The best advice I can give is that because of the way Wikipedia works, it is really incumbent upon the person advancing a position to martial support from reliable sources for their position. No amount of discussion on talk pages is going to substitute for that. See also the advice that I gave to John2o2o2o in this discussion on this same topic. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't leave Cassandra's mis-representation unchallenged (though I'd rather do so on their talk page if they had one than further clutter this page). Don't make impertinent assumptions about my views (on language or, by implication, nationalism/unionism) on the basis that I have on several occasions removed posts which contain yours. It's not the "views" aspect I am addressing, it is the "yours" aspect (as you very well know and as I've said to the point of fatigue). If a "clearly... very, very keen supporter" of a viewpoint you regarded as in opposition to yours posted their personal postulations on the same talk pages, the very same action ought to be taken to remove it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK then Mutt; how about you just add the following as a final section to the main page? Cassandra.

An Alternative View - Scots Language as Charter Myth?

In a paper published in 2009 European linguist Professor James Costa explored an aternative viewpoint - that the Scots Language is neither an historical nor liguistic fact but rather it is instead the concept or idea or a language. In this view the Scots Language is a relatively recent notion filling a need - political or psychological - amongst some Scots for a Foundation Myth of a national language. Costa traces published references to the idea that Scots is a seperate language from English back no further than the 1970s. He expresses concern that militancy and academia are not always easy to distinguish in published works. Historical references to Scots and English being the same language are noticeably omitted from texts; he identifies a number of false or misleading assumptions, not least the misapplication of centuries-later notions of nationhood and language to times when such concepts did not exist in the same way as today. Costa also notes that the 'evidence' of historic written references to 'Scots', the 'Scots Tongue' and the 'Scots Language' can be taken to mean nothing more than 'the language spoken in Scotland'.

James Costa: Language history as charter myth? Scots and the (re)invention of Scotland.

Scottish Language 28 (2009) 1-25

http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/63/24/32/PDF/Costa_chartermyth_final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.185 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking me to add it rather than adding it yourself. Making no comment on its notability or pertinence, approval or otherwise, or of your summary of it (I haven't read the paper and am unsure that I'll have time to this side of the weekend at least), if you were to use this source, the Status section of the Scots language article appears more relevant to this sphere than this particular article. The individual assertions in your summary ought to be referenced to the specific section and page number in the paper, to show that these are stated therein rather than your interpretation thereof (particularly as you have tended to synthesise material in the past to forward a personal conclusion that is not stated).

An observation regarding continued editing without an account: you do realise that anyone can masquerade as "Cassandra" while you edit from a variety of IPs? There's no way of knowing whether the various posts are from the same person and you lay yourself open to being misrepresented. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I read the conclusion of the paper and noted how little resemblance it had to your posited text above. Unexpectedly I did find the time to read the full paper today (which is very interesting and stimulating) and the most charitable conclusion I can come to is that you have fundamentally misunderstood the paper, though it appears from your posited text above that you have cherry-picked a few isolated statements, isolating them from their context and reworded them, then expanded them with ideas which are purely your own to advance your position. You are putting words in Costa's mouth that bear no relation to what is actually said:

"the Scots Language is neither an historical nor liguistic fact but rather it is instead the concept or idea or a language" - nothing remotely like this appears in the paper.

"In this view the Scots Language is a relatively recent notion filling a need - political or psychological..." - this is not stated and at best this is synthesis and interpretation (so inadmissable on Wikipedia).

"- amongst some Scots for a Foundation Myth of a national language." - per (e.g.) p9 it is the "national myth" which is in discussion, that of "Scotland as a nation" and the part of the "Scots (language) movement" therein, and anyway here the term myth is employed not in the sense of a fiction but a set of beliefs employed to validate e.g. an institution or practice. I may be mis-reading the implication of your wording but to me it says that the paper discusses origins of a fictional language. This is untrue.

"Costa traces published references to the idea that Scots is a seperate language from English back no further than the 1970s." - nothing remotely like this appears in the paper.

"He expresses concern that militancy and academia are not always easy to distinguish in published works." - in fact he simply states on p4 "the divisions between linguists and militants are not as clear cut as usually believed"; the concern is your own introduction.

"Historical references to Scots and English being the same language are noticeably omitted from texts;" - if this is stated, I couldn't find it.

"he identifies a number of false or misleading assumptions, not least the misapplication of centuries-later notions of nationhood and language to times when such concepts did not exist in the same way as today." - and per p15 applies this equally to the cases of English, French and German now being the national languages of their respective countries.

"Costa also notes that the 'evidence' of historic written references to 'Scots', the 'Scots Tongue' and the 'Scots Language' can be taken to mean nothing more than 'the language spoken in Scotland'." - I can find no such statement; a simple search on the phrase "the language spoken in Scotland" shows it at the very least does not appear.

This fits in with your previous pattern of edits on talk pages, though in this instance you've provided the full text to illuminate that your supposed summary is either an example of POV-pushing mendacity or marked incompetence.

I thank you for introducing me to an interesting paper but am becoming annoyed at your blatant attempts to twist anything you can lay your hands on to your personal theory. If you are going to use a source, say what the source says don't mutilate it to your own ends - that, as you have been told on countless occasions is WP:OR. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to issue an addition opinion in this case, but I am afraid that my 3O Standards do not allow me do do so. Let me say that this does seem to be the beginning of a substantial discussion about sources, what they say, and whether, how, and where they are to be used, unlike what has happened in the past. If you will refrain from talking about one another or one another's motives, and only talk about the edits and material, then the discussion will likely be far more productive. If that discussion becomes stuck, then you can file another request for a Third Opinion or, perhaps better, go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the response. I would agree that aspects of the discussion above are ideally dealt with away from article talk pages (and have said so above and elsewhere), would prefer to deal with the issues on the editor's talk page, but they edit from IPs only and have not taken up the invitation to engage alternatively on my talk page as requested. It is, I'm afraid, very much not the beginning of a discussion on the matters of sources, as this pattern of OR or misusing sources has been evident (largely on the talk page of Scots Language but elsewhere too) since early July at the latest, possibly earlier from IP edits not informally identifying as "Cassandra". Although I (and others) have tried to engage on many occasions, removed material per WP:NOTFORUM on others, the persistence after all this time can not now but make me view the edits as incompetent or vexatious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Costa's is an interesting paper. It tells us lot about the ideology of 'language activism' and nothing about whether or not Scots is or is not a 'language'.

"It is in fact likely that the term Scots probably simply described, whenever necessary, the speech spoken north of the Scottish border, but this did not necessarily mean that it was perceived as another language (or as the same language for that matter)."

John Jamieson published the Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language in 1808. BTW, Scots is the Scots for Standard English 'Scottish'. That would indicate that the modern myth Cassandra is referring to may have been concocted probably in the 1770s. However, the the modern myth that Costa is referring to is the narrative of contemporary 'language activism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogger (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found the paper interesting Mutt. My reason for inviting you to insert the reference yourself is that anything I write you automatically delete. I've suggested a summary, but I'm quite happy for you to rewrite it - with only one proviso, that its primary purpose here is simply to illustrate the fact that academic criticism of the historical evidence for Scots as a distinct language does actually exist. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.146 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you not read any of the above?! Please read the above. Your "suggested summary" is a shameless and blatant misrepresentation and this is plain for anyone to see, both texts being visible to us all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Mutt. And therefore anyone who reads the full text will no doubt draw their own conclusions. Meanwhile you may find the link to this quote interesting too.

"It is notable, however, that the poets who wrote in Lallans did not regard it as distinct from English. In The Goldyn Targe, an early 16th century work, William Dunbar “acclaims Chaucer simultaneously as the finest of British authors and as one of the Makars – the contemporary Scottish poets first given this name by Dunbar” . Most significantly in this regard, though, is his assumption that they share the same language." http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/sep2012/scotland.html

True? Don't ask me. But I use it to again point out that other published views exist and that it seems odd, even perverse, to omit to mention dissenting views from an encyclopedia article on any subject even if one doesn't agree with them. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.136 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You really aren't grasping the nub of it, are you? The overriding issue with your edits is nothing to do with any view being taken, supposedly "dissenting" or otherwise, agreeing with it or otherwise. The expression of views which are those of the editor alone, unsupported, are WP:OR and not admissable. If an editor purports a view to be supported by sources which do absolutely nothing of the sort, firstly that is also OR, but it is also deceit or incompetence.

Are you talking about "draw(ing) conclusions" about your competency or intentions from your barefaced misrepresentations of the Costa source, or about "draw(ing) conclusions" from the source itself? If the latter, sources specifically must not be used to supposedly "draw conclusions" that are not stated in them: they must "directly support the material being presented" which, to put it very mildly, your "summary" does not.

As for the above quote, the wider aspect it relates to is hardly omitted, being covered, e.g., in the very second paragraph of the lede of the main Scots language article.

I am heartily sick of repeating these matters to you after all these months and am reluctant to continue you indulging you, particularly as it clutters up article talk pages with matters that are not really relevant to them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree Mutt. We're getting nowhere. So I'll simply close by reiterating my main point again: that this article (and the Scots Language page) is incomplete as it only presents the case for Scots being regarded as a seperate language from English. To be a complete and rounded article it needs also to equally include the case for the opposite point of view. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.241 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is about Scots, whatever Scots is: language, dialect or whatever. It is not about whether it is "regarded as a separate language from English", that is your hang up. The main article could not just be called "Scots" as that is a disambiguation page, hence it is called "Scots language" to clarify. An article not only does not need to include a case for a point of view if there are no reliable sources to support it, it must not include that case. Over the now months of your one-track campaign you have only either presented your unsupported personal opinion, which, whether correct or not, holds no sway on Wikipedia or you have purported to cite sources but, at the most charitable, you have completely misunderstood them, or alternatively, blatantly misrepresented them to a breathtaking degree, plain for all to see. Reiterate all you like, you will continue to get nowhere unless and until you aprreciate the above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Orthography?

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but if the word 'orthography' means 'standard spelling' and Middle Scots is noteable for having no standard spelling, then is not one of its defining features the very absence of an orthography? Thus the following sentence from the article is misleading "By the standards of the time it had a 'standardised' orthography"

(come to think of is not 'standardised' implicit in the very word orthography anyway?)

The following (disconnected) paragraphs are taken from the DOSL - Scots to 1700 - Orthography section.

And though, in the course of the 17th century, the native spelling system largely gave way to a much less variable anglicised system,

The general trend was plainly towards the accumulation of a larger and larger number of variants

the habit of tolerating this sort of variation perhaps provided a suitable condition for the ready acceptance, in the later 16th century and 17th century, of a massive number of additional variants of English derivation

Variants of this type are of course not unknown in other dialects and languages (including ME and EModE). MSc, however, seems to have been quite exceptional in possessing an extremely large number for which, at present, no regional or other specialisation of distribution is apparent - which co-existed as free variants over extensive regions

PerhapsItalic text the narrowest limits of variation in this way will prove to be those adhered to in some of the printed prose and verse of the later 16th century, as if the Scottish printers were moving, like their English opposite numbers, towards a fixed spelling; this movement, if it existed, came to an end when, early in the 17th century, the Scottish printers abandoned the native spelling tradition altogether for an imported English one. Among the 16th century manuscript sources, however, the great national registers (of Parliament, Privy Council, and the Great and Privy Seals) and almost all the existing copies of the major literary texts in prose and verse, also conform to relatively narrow limits of variation.

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.107 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DSL on Middle Scots

The recent edit which stated "whilst confusing (sic) the Dictionary of the Scots Language reports exactly the opposite", in regard to "the uniformity of Middle Scots", is contradicted by the statement "It is nevertheless true that all writers of Middle Scots seem also to display some greater or lesser degree of consistency in some at least of their spelling habits." (DSL online in the "History of Scots to 1700" info pages, 5.2.2), partially quoted immediately beforehand in the article.

Yet another wee misunderstanding of the source you purport to be citing? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

By this time Scots had diverged significantly from its sister south of the border

"By this time Scots had diverged significantly from its sister south of the border " I wonder if anyone has every quantfied this divergance? What was the rate of change? How does one objectively quantify 'significantly'? Had the language south of the border changed faster or more slowly than that north of the border? Had they both diverged from some defined earlier point equally, or unequally - or had one changed and the other even remained static (surely not the case). The sentence as cast rather suggests that it was 'Scots' that changed rather than 'English', but 'divergance' implies bilateral change, so one ought perhaps really to write that 'By this time Scots and its sister south of the border had diverged from one another'. But unless someone has actually quantified the changes, and the rate of any changes, it's not entirely clear what happened. Has anyone done such a study? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.11 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This quote from the introduction to Caxton's 'Eneydos' published in the 1490s suggests at least part of the answer. Cassandra.

" And certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was vsed and spoken whan I was borne.For we englysshe men ben borne vnder the domynacyon of the mone, whiche is neuer stedfaste but euer wauerynge wexynge one season and waneth & dyscreaseth another season And that comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.109.92 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And in 1604 the Englishman Henry Saville wrote:

“...both nations using the one and almost the same dialect, to wit the Saxon language. And the Scots and north people of England speak more incorruptly than the south, which by reason of the Conquest and greater Commerce with foreign nations, is become more mingled and degenerate from the ancient tongue”.

This too seems to suggest that the language had been changing faster in southern England than in the rest of Britain. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.60 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

untitled

There needs to be some mention of the fact that Scots originally meant Gaelic. I have attempted to add this.

Already covered. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictish and Brythonic

The idea that these were separate languages has long since been debunked. It would be preferable to remove this unnecessary confusion. (After all, few would regard Bede, however "venerable", as a reliable historian nowadays.) [1] Fearchar (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ancient history and evidence of languages

It may seem obvious to some, but if a claim of continuity is to be made from speakers of (Northumbian) Old English in Lothian very early on, then there has to be some documentary or archaeological evidence (in a pre-literary age - not an easy hurdle to overcome!), or this is just assertion rather than verified history. My suspicion is that there is insufficient evidence to back up such a claim. Could the original poster please review this and either delete the suggestion or provide references?

On a related point, referring to all language shifts as necessarily being the result of waves of invaders seems excessively tribal and contrary to the known circumstances. Most places in the world, even yet, are multilingual, after all, and linguistic borders are fictional, if convenient, whereas in many places DNA can be traced back for millennia, regardless of language shifts.

Fearchar (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED, everyone is clearly opposed. TheJack15 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• History of the Scots language → History of Scots
• History of the Welsh language → History of Welsh
• History of the Czech language → History of Czech
• History of the Slovak language → History of Slovak
• History of the Hungarian language → History of Hungarian
• History of the Russian language → History of Russian

– WP:CONCISE and harmonization with History of French, History of German, History of Greek, History of Portuguese, etc. – Article editor (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

---

"History of the xxx language" is often clearer than "History of xxx"; "History of xxx" could be taken also to mean "History of the xxx people". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony. It may be best to start a discussion elsewhere - Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages?  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not actually. Even when "people" is removed, the respective articles would be located at "History of the Scots", "History of the Welsh", "History of the Czechs", "History of the Slovaks", "History of the Hungarians" and "History of the Russians". --Article editor (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This presence or absence of "the" is not enough clue for many. Readers should not have to go through steps of logic to work out what text means; the meaning should be apparent at first look. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"History of Scots" makes no sense. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Article editor, Anthony Appleyard, Philg88 and Lugnuts because this has been converted from a technical request to a full RM discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments already presented. There is nothing intuitive about the structure. It ain't broke. If anything, I'd say that this presents a case for arguing for changing "History of Slovak", "History of German", etc. as being flawed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Also oppose per arguments presented and concur with Iryna that it highlights the desirability of change, for clarity, of those articles that do not specify that they concern the language in question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the proposed names should all redirect to the ethnic articles, and not be about language articles -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.