Talk:Alexander Selkirk/Correct use of Scots

"Dinnae" ~~can~~ is sometimes also be used for "didn't". Therefore, should probably assume quote is accurate until someone can double-check the original and finds otherwise. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's an error at Wiktionary. Thanks for pointing it out; I've reverted to the last good edit prior to Jan 2012 to what was then a mature article compiled, at least in part, by Scots speakers. This was followed by the introduced error by an IP editor, not spotted (then some plain vandalism which was reverted). "Dinnae", or "dinna", is present tense, so either incorrectly quoted or a grammatically incorrect attempt at dialogue by non-Scots, in which case "(sic)" should be placed after the word. See The Dictionary of the Scots Language entries for the verb "dae" (do) and the negated variants thereof (dinna/dinnae/dinny etc.). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a good Tea Room debate going on that point, which is where it needs to happen. Also helpful would be anyone who has access to The Wolf Worlds text. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the discussion and I just rechecked and noticed the Wiktionary entry was incorrect for the first two years until Thrissel's intervention in 2009. I'll give you another citation in addition to DSL to back it but this is absolutely elementary to any Scots speaker, with even the most basic of aptitudes; "dinnae" never equates to "didnae" as "dae" never equates to "did": see the Concise Scots Dictionary entry for "dae1", p132 in the 1985 edition. It is present, not past. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...but agreed, access to the text of the novel would clinch if this article has a misquote or if the attempt at writing authentic Scots dialogue is duff. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Searched Google books with the search terms "the wolf worlds" "alex selkirk", the quote being, apart from some punctuation, as given. The rest of this character's dialogue in nearby passages is similarly woefully inauthentic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although "didnae" is gramatically correct and "dinnae" wrong, surely the sentence should be quoted as written, in its authentic crap representation of Scots? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My own preference would have been to preserve "dinnae", as a common (even if erroneous) usage. Think the error is more grating to those familiar with the brogue. Manual of Style suggests trivial errors in quotes should "simply be corrected without comment", and this pulp science fiction is surely in need of it. Template:sic is not very helpful (and, for such unintentional errors, a little pedantic!), except to the small subset of readers like yourself who know what's up. Furthermore, correcting the spelling makes the quote intuitively more meaningful, even to me. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Dinnae" for "didnae" is not just not common but simply never, ever used (in native speech at least, which this example certainly isn't but attempts to be; even non native speakers in Scotland (and N. Ireland) who've been there for more than a fortnight would notice it as a glaring misuse) and it is utterly erroneous; as much as "don't" is never used for "didn't" in English. Would you regard it as pedantic if the quote was in English and said 'I don't know I'd ever be Alex Selkirk"? If MOS suggests correction of errors, I'm fine with that, though possibly an appended note leading to the exact quote at the bottom would make it watertight. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, the partial deletion of the thread above was made in error. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's my answer: it seems I can not assume this. It's beyond belief that the above caution not to inappropriately delete talk page content, but to archive it if necessary, should itself be blanked. Will you not do this or you will start to stretch the assumption of good faith by what appears to be manipulation of threads and comments you don't like? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]