Talk:Scots language/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hebrew

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

The plot thickens, tell us more...

84.135.252.78 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then theres this:

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish and Irish

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

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

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

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

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

Subordinate clauses

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

I have.

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

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

Frisian

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

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

'Frisian on the other hand is closer to English then to Dutch'. A common misrepresentation, if you're referring to Modern Frisian. An important part of its grammar and vocabulary (morphology aside) is aligned with Dutch, due to century upon century of Dutch Dachsprache influence. Frisian is most closely related to Low Saxon as spoken in the Netherlands, then to standard Dutch and Low German in general, and is much further removed from post-Norman, gallicized English. Frisian, like Afrikaans, can be understood to a considerable extent by language-sensitive Dutch speakers, even without formal training. A native English speaker will make next to nothing of Frisian. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

84.135.228.87 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry Josquius, but talking about "harshest" dialects shows you as an ignorant linguistic bigot. If you knew anything about English you would know that the Cockney spoken in London is very far from "The Queen's English" as you so quaintly call it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.27.116 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

One could paraphrase:

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

An acceptable basis for a sociolinguistic comparison?

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

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

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

Nogger 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The article has

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

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

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

84.135.238.243 09:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Citation required?

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

Wikibook

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

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

I started the book at [1] , but I'd like help from someone that knows the language. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the Scots language

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

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

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