Talk:Scots language/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Scots language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

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)

"Since the Union, perceptional and language change (see below) have resulted in Scots being regarded by the English, and in particular by detractors of Scots as a language, as a group of English dialects or at best a group of dialects closely related to English." What makes the English particularly prone to regard Scots as a group of English dialects? Most Scots are quite happy to do so as well. Such a stance does not necessarily mean those sharing it are detractors of Scots as such, but, for jusifiable reasons, don't regard it a "fully fledged" language. Is that not just POV? 172.201.52.203 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I can't be bothered with this language/dialect nonsense. To put it in perspective, The Goethe Institut (Organisation that teaches German all over the planet), don't even view English as a language ... to them, it's merely a low german dialect ... as is Scots. Ergo ... this is a pointless debate. Language/Dialect ? Who cares ! In reality, Scots is a dialect of Middle English origin; but for a number of historical reasons, it is a dialect that retains closer links to its Anglo Saxon past than its more modern cousin. Some may view that as a source of pride; others as a source of annoyance. Either way, I believe that the way Scots is written and spoken should be treasured by both Scots and English alike; since (like Scots Gaelic), it is preserving links to, and an understanding of, our shared multi-cultural heritage. --Angusmec 00:29, 15 July 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

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? —Wh o uk (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)