Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Name of the language

Unless anyone objects I am going to do the Scots a favour and move this to Scots Gaelic. A small yet terminologically significant change IMHO. user:sjc

I agree, the language is commonly called Scots Gaelic, not Scottish Gaelic.--Sonjaaa 12:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think the convention is that all languages end in "language", so it would be Scots Gaelic language. What is the difference between "scottish" and "scots" -- in this context or in general? -- Tarquin 15:28 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Scottish is the main adjective. Scots is from older Scots Scottis and Scotch is a "corruption" of Scottish popular in Scotland and England respectively. Scots and Scottish can be swapped indiscriminately as long as they're not part of a proper noun but, owing to past usage by people casting aspersions, Scotch should not be used to refer to Scottish people as many Scots think it offensive to do so. Of course, there are items (whisky, tape, beef, etc.) where Scotch is the only adjective that should be used and no offense will be caused. -- Derek Ross

• The term "Scots Gaelic" should be avoided, as it leads to confusion with the Scots language. Kwekubo 18:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point -- Derek Ross

Umm, uncial is a style of writing letters, orthography is the manner in which a language's sounds are represented, I'm 95% sure then that there's no such thing as "uncial orthography". user:iasos

I'd agree with that. However there is such a thing as traditional Gaelic orthography and it is probably worth writing about. -- Derek Ross

I don't see any reason to move this to Scots Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic is perfectly fine. - fonzy

Scottish Gaelic is the term used in all official bodies, e.g. the Scottish Executive; within the areas where Gaelic is still established, it is very unusual to hear the term Scots (except as a reference to the group of dialects stemming originally from Northern English). As a word Scots has a connotation of unofficial, which seems inappropriate to Scotland's oldest surviving language.--Fearchar 09:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone planning to flesh this out more? I am thinking of writing something more along the lines of the Irish entry but I am not the best of writers, I can provide commentry however.:) In any case I'm writing a draft that I might or might not be pleased with and might or might nor share. I also do not know much about some interesting topics I think should be included, including neologisms, political status, how Gaelic is seen in (now) non-Gaelic speaking parts of Scotland, and modern literature in the language. This is mostly because I am a diasporan Gael, and my Gaelic is not the best (So I also can't write on grammer and structure) so I cannot communicate effectively with people who do know these things. This might seem pathetic by now but I really want there to be more information. Maybe someone will add to the article if I cannot write something I want other people reading.

And a similar thing for Manx language, too. --Kwekubo

---

I removed teilifís/teilibhisean from the list of different words between Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Irish has two words: teilifís, meaning television in general (as a technology), and teilifíseán, meaning a television set. --Kwekubo

---

The list of names would better be listed at some such page as Scottish Gael than here. -- Kwekubo 22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't agree. I think it's part of the language, as much as place names are. When properly fleshed out, this subsection would serve to illustrate the history of the language, the influence of other languages, and other interesting facts (like mac/nic) etc. Eoghan 23:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The name Fearchar is generally accepted to be of Celtic rather than Norse origin, e.g. by Black in The Surnames of Scotland.--132.185.144.120 09:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Surely there must be other interesting facts from that book which could be added here? Could you add the book as a reference? Eoghan 16:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Just want to say thanks to everyone for making such a balanced article. Often the issue of the gaelic language desecends into POV arguments but this article is informative & presents the facts well Taras 23:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Its my feeling that, in English, the language should be called:

• Scottish (as it was in Inglis, but spelt Scottis, until the late 15th century)

or

• the Gaelic of Alba or Alban Gaelic.

It lost the name Scottis during the 15th century because that name was inconvenient for a lowland-centred Inglis-speaking state which claimed itself to be Scottis. Gaelic was then given the name Erse, meaning Irish, and characterised as quite alien to Scotland. In the early 16th century the Scottis name was applied to Inglis. The Gaelic is of course no more alien than the Inglis which is now called Scots, and was established in Alba/Albion/Britain much earlier than was the Inglis-speaking state. Laurel Bush 12:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC).

I have removed the names Scottish and Alban Gaelic because I don't believe these names are in widespread use for Scottish Gaelic. Laurel Bush, if you can point to four published sources (from four different authors) that use either of these names (i.e. four apiece) I'll be convinced the names are used and they can be restored. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to promote one's own ideas. --Angr/_comhrá 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And Alban Gaelic is not a good translation of Gàidhlig na h-Albann? Laurel Bush 15:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC).

No, because the country known as Alba in Gaelic is known as Scotland in English. --Angr/_comhrá 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? Scotland looks to me like an age-old but serious mistranslation. Laurel Bush 18:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC).

Nevertheless it's what the country is currently called in English. And what the language is currently called in English is Scottish Gaelic, or Scots Gaelic, or Gaelic for short. --Angr/_comhrá 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, regardless of what anyone might wish the language were called by English speakers, "Scottish" is not the name of the language in English. I do have some sympathy with the earlier poster, who is in good company with as Thomas O'Rahilly who uses the term 'Scottish' in his outstanding book "Irish Dialects Past and Present". But that doesn't affect the reality of spoken English. -- CecilWard

Start with Gaelic overview rather than Irish comparison

Would anyone object if I moved the section on differences with Irish to later in the article? I think the article should begin with more of a discussion of Gaelic in its own right rather than a comparison with another language. Eoghan 16:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I moved and rearranged it, but this section really needs some editing. Just what exactly are the two tables of word lists supposed to illustrate? Maybe one should be moved to Goidelic languages. Eoghan 19:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The de-emphasis of the comparison is definitely a Good Thing. In fact I'd like to say that it's been a while since I looked at this article and it's improved a lot since I last read it. My congratulations and thanks to everyone who contributed to its improvement. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:38, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Overview of Gaelic as a whole, or just Scottish Gaelic?

Irish, Manx etc

Some comments should also be made about Manx which shares numerous features with the Scottish language. Also the comparison between Scottish and Irish Gaelic also omits the present tense... Scottish Gaelic, with the exception of a handful of verbs, only has the continous form. Irish has two present tenses.

Literature

I've been fleshing out British literature, but we're comparatively very low on info on the history of literature in Scottish Gaelic. Any takers? Scottish literature is also significantly undernourished, if anyone has any slight expertise in the area. Man vyi 07:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IPA

Apparently this article must be converted to IPA (not India Pale Ale). While this is useful for linguists, IPA looks like gibberish to most mere mortals and is a challenge in itself to learn. How appropriate is it then to have IPA alone?

I've converted it. Although I am a linguist and therefore perhaps biased, I deny that the IPA is a challenge to learn. Anyone capable of learning such montrosities as Gaelic and English orthography can learn something as easy and straightforward as the IPA. Take the half hour you need to learn it, and you'll be able to read the transcriptions without any difficulty.

I've also removed the following paragraph because it's just inaccurate. The epenthesis of Gaelic and Irish can be called svarabhakti, but it has no relationship (either structural or etymological) to Sanskrit svarabhakti.

• • Interestingly, this feature, which is common to the Celtic languages, also appears in Indian languages, from which it gets its name, svarabhakti. Since it only appears now in the westernmost and easternmost Indoeuropean languages (the extremities of the Indoeuropean sprachbund), this suggests that it occurred in Proto Indoeuropean but was lost in the centre where the languages have changed most.

--Angr 17:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace the rather impressionistic and non-linguistic terms broad/slender with something more self-explanatory. Something like palatal/velar, which seems to be the case here. At least this is the phonetic element present in Irish where the same terminology is used.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It should be "palatalized" and "velarized", not "palatal" and "velar". But so long as the page makes it clear that "slender" means "palatalized" and "broad" means "velarized", there's no reason not to use the same terms people are familiar with from textbooks and language classes. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alphabet

Can someone add something about the history of when the Roman alphabet was adopted, which alphabets (if any) were used previously?

Speakerage

I checked the Ethnologue, according to it there are 94,000 speakers, so I edited it. Is this correct? South African Wikipedian

• No, that's not right. If you wish to quote official figures you have to go to the source, not a site like Ethnologue. Official 2001 Census figures are 58652 speakers, and 92396 only if you include people with some professed ability (to understand, read, or write) in the language. That higher figure will include people who, as Prof. MacKinnon says, live in a Gaelic-speaking environment and are used to hearing it in their daily lives but are not necessarily native speakers, and, of course, learners, who, of course, are not the people who can carry the language forward.Eilthireach 20:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, the Ethnologue is too unreliable, especially as regards numbers. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 18:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linky-linky

If anyone has the time to go through and link to articles explaining all the linguistic jargon, that would be a huge help for us non-linguists. Thanks!

Language infobox

It is a good idea to use the Template:Language infobox, as in other major languages. I've found a problem, because one field is not the same as in the infobox: Is "Recognised language in:" the same as "Official language of:"? --surueña 09:24, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Could you post a list of which terms you would like explained? CecilWard

Scots as a name for Scottish Gaelic

"In Ireland it [Scottish Gaelic] is sometimes erroneously called Scots": is erroneously really approriate here? Is it not old usage of Scots? The language was called Scots (or Scottis) in Scotland until the late 15th century. The 'language related to English' did not acquire the name until the late 16th century. Laurel Bush 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Valid point. Rather than being 'erroneous' usage this is actually historically correct. Scottish Gaelic was referred to as 'Scottis' and as the originaly language of the Scottish people and nation and would still be referred to as such but for historical revisionism by lowland anglo-scots who usurped the title/status of 'Scottish' language for their own tongue which had formerly been known as 'Inglis' and proceeded to denigrate the original scottish language and those who still spoke it as 'Erse' or 'Irish'.

User:An Siarach

Syntax section urgently needs further work

The syntax section of this article needs major work. The Scottish Gaelic verb (with the exception of 'bi') has no future 'tense' (see MacAulay, 1992, "The Celtic Languages"). The use of the term "passive" is over-simplistic (see MacAulay 1992), and the use of the traditional grammar term "subjunctive" is undefined and inappropriate. These traditional grammar terms are used in pedagogic grammars of Irish, and their indiscriminate use serves to create the impression that the tense-aspect systems of Scottish Gaelic and Irish are quite similar in respect of syntax or verbal morphology, which is not the case. -- Cecil Ward

Scottish name

The opening lines imply wiki is covering all of the words used for the language. Scottish is simply one of those words, unsurprisingly since "Scot" originally meant Gael and still did into the early modern period. "Scottish" is still quite sensibly used in this way, as I can testify to as an experienced speaker of the English language; examples off hand (which took me 30 seconds to find) for anyone who doubts this being the case, are language pages hosted by Rutgers and Iowa State Universities in the United States. "Irish" is used in this way too. So what's the problem then?

With respect, I don't think "an experienced speaker of the English language" makes anyone an expert on the names of Celtic languages, and those two webpages are not exactly written by language experts either -- one of them leaves out two out of the six Celtic languages and makes no dictinction between P and Q Celtic: "Use it, therefore, with caution" as the author says. The other one (if we're talking about the tree picture) contains, if read literally, what would be a gross error in showing Scots and Irish Gaelic as descendents of Gaulish with Manx as a separate branch of Celtic! Perhaps they meant "Goidelic" instead of "Gaulish". How about a reference to something more authoritative, such as a linguistics textbook or a dictionary? The Collins and Chambers dictionaries (both compiled in Scotland) as well as the OED itself, confirm this. Parlett's Short Dictionary of Languages makes the point explicit: "SCOTTISH: As dictinct from the Celtic Scots Gaelic, with which it should in no way be confused, Scottish denotes a dialect of English, exemplified in the works of Robert Burns." An important distinction. Flapdragon 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect to you, the websites show that the word "Scottish" is used for Gaelic, and the fact that neither language tree is perfect is entirely besides the point. You just gave me a quite unnecessary regurgitation of your understanding of Celtic languages, but you still haven't said what your objection is. The fact is that Scottish is used to mean Gaelic, and therefore it is appropriate to list it alongside such superfluities as "Scottish Gaelic" and "Scots Gaelic." Whether it ought to be or not is an entirely different matter, and the fact that "Scots" was usurped to be used as a word for a dialect of English is also not relevant. Calgacus 17:00, 10 August 2005

On that logic, we should add that one meaning of the word "England" is "Britain", since it is widely used with that meaning by people all over the world who don't understand the difference. At least that usage is genuinely widespread, and therefore might be worth worth mentioning. I repeat that if the term "Scottish" were widely used, even erroneously or undesirably, to refer to Scottish Gaelic, then it would be possible to demonstrate that with reference to reputable sources. Dictionaries nowadays make a policy of including dubious uses when they are in general use, and are guided by usage not questions of "correctness". There will be an amateur webpage out there somewhere to "prove" that the moon is made of green cheese, but that's not really the point. There is still no evidence for your claim.

Incidentally I see this debate has been had in the past, further up the page, and presumably settled then.

Flapdragon 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to be sure what argument to use in what appears to me an effort to cover up the fact that Scottish is often used for Gaelic; but you do seem to misunderstand language. It is neither true nor false that Scottish ought not to be used for Gaelic; that is unlike the moon being made of green cheese, which is false. But you made the comparison. Why? On the other hand, I could go on for ever listing sources that show "Scottish" used in this way, but that obviously means nothing to you. You're more inclined to use the wiki article prescriptively than descriptively. If you want to stop hiding your real objections, I will happily have that discussion too. And incidentally, for what it's worth, most dictionaries you'll come across will assign to the word "Scottish" something along the lines of "of or relating to Scotland, its people, culture, language, etc."

Calgacus 17:58, 10 August 2005

Outside of historical discussion/debate i have never heard any language referred to by 'Scottish' ; the languages of Scotland being referred to as either Scots/Scottish Gaelic, Gaelic, Lowland Scots, Scots or Lallans. Yes 'Scottish'would ,with historical hindsight, be totally appropriate and accurate a term for Scots Gaelic and if i may quote another:

"One of the strange things about the history and cultural of the Scottish Gael, is that unlike the Welsh and Irish, the language has in almost every world language a name not associated with a modern or historical state. The extreme irony is that unlike the Irish Gael or the Welsh Briton, the Scottish Gael actually created a historical state"

The Scots have had the 'name' or status of their original language usurped by a medieval variant of old English but this does not (historical injustice regardless) change the fact that almost noone would refer to the language as 'Scottish'.

User:An Siarach

Actually, having lived in America I know fine well Scottish is used to mean Gaelic, both by common people and non-specialist academics who aren't aware of "Scots" or any other reason why they'd be compelled to go full-blown with "Scottish Gaelic" but not with "Irish." This usage extends into other European languages. Now the sort of person who's been having a good bit of his/her say here might say "that's just wrong." But etymologically, one of the usual sources of word-legitimacy used at all levels for prescibing word usage, it's perfectly correct; and so one can't say it's "wrong". Nor can one say that the normal usage amongst a negligible fraction of the English speaking world (the Scots) overrides those who use "Scottish." Calgacus 01:04, 15 August 2005

Nothing would delight me more than for Scottish Gaelic to (rightfully) be referred to as 'Scottish' but it quite simply is not the case. And the word usage isnt a 'negligable faction' of the English speaking world but pretty much its entirity - Mores the pity, but that is the case.

User:An Siarach

A campagn or movement to reclaim Scottish might become noteworthy as an article in Wikipedia, with side-effects on the content of other articles. Meanwhile I guess we have to accept established usage, however perverse. How is Scottish now represented in Scottish Gaelic (and other Goidelic languages)? What spellings, meanings etc, does it have? Laurel Bush 14:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

The gaelic for 'Scottish' is Albannach but this has no linguistic connotations . The gaelic for gaelic is gàidhlig and the gaelic for Lowland 'Scots' or 'Inglis' is a'Bheurla Ghallda (literally the English of the Lowlands) as opposed to Beurla which is standard english. As ive pointed out there is no language which is currently referred to as 'Scottish' - gaelic being referred to either as that alone or 'Scottish/Scots Gaelic' alongside 'Lowland Scots' or 'Scots'. If you were to talk to someone about talking 'Scottish' they may assume you meant one or the other but wouldnt be sure. In the other goidelic languages Scottish Gaelic is referred to as 'the gaelic of scotland' in the same way that Irish is referred to in scottish as 'the gaelic of ireland'. Im unsure of whether or not gaelic is referred to by nomenclature which reflects its nationality in the brittonic languages but considering these peoples/languages were in contact well before the founding of Scotland it is unlikely.

User:An Siarach

You're admitting that it is used in this way, An Siarach, which is all I was saying. I accept your point that this isn't done in Scotland much any more, except in discussions about medieval history perhaps. Nevertheless, non-Scots often do use the word in this way, and there's little basis for telling them they're wrong. In fact, as you and Laurel Bush suggest, some might say they ought to be encouraged, in the same as the Irish have come to insist that Gaeilge is called Irish, and not Irish Gaelic. But that ain't gonna happen any time soon, because of the relationship Scots have between language and national identity, and because of the skewed history they get taught. It's possible that American usage would eventually get imposed on them, but frankly the matter isn't topical enough for that to happen. So I'm afraid wikipedia will just act as a means of consolidating the strength of the Scottish for English usage. Eventually, Gaelic will die, the Scots will be another happy Anglo-Saxon regional anachronism and no-one will care. :) User:Calgacus

As ive said i would prefer it to be referred to as 'Scottish' and if this is the case outwith the UK i am delighted but it simply isnt in my experience. Agreed with regards your other statements and i would say that the Scots are already to an almost total extent (gaelic having passed the point of no return over a century ago)'another happy anglo-saxon regional anachronism' albeit people do still care and will continue to do so no matter how identical the 'Scots' and English become - the delusion of difference long outliving actual difference.

User:An Siarach

Wondering what name or names there might be in Goidelic languages for the language now called Scots in English. Laurel Bush 09:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC).

In Irish it's called Albainis. Béarla na hAlban is sometimes found too, though that should probably be reserved for Scottish English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots is called Albanais Uladh (lit. Scots language of Ulster), or Ultais (from Ultach, an adjective meaning 'of Ulster'). --Kwekubo 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Albais" or "Albanais" is a particularly awful neologism which some idiot (in fact i think i recall being told it was derek thompson, who is far from a fool) who introduced it instead of the original, and far more accurate, "a'Bheurla Ghallda" or "the English of the Lowlands". It is bad enough that in english inglis usurped the (correct ) status of gaelic as 'Scottish' but for gaelic to legitimise this seems utterly grotesque imo. With reference to Irish i would assume that the situation is similiar and that Bearla na hAlban was the original term but that they have followed the lead of Scots gaelic and assumed this silly 'Albais' nonsense.

User:An Siarach

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That scots is correctly called a' Bheurla Ghallda has nothing to do with opinion. I thought the 'Albanais' being used in Irish seemed a bit dubious and Beurla na hAlban is the translation provided by the Irish dictionary for Scots. Of course this is not to say that 'Albais' or any similiar neologism is no used but the older nomenclature is correct.

User:An Siarach

What's your opinion is that Albainis is "particularly awful" and was introduced by "some idiot" and is "silly nonsense". What's also your opinion is the implicit belief in your statement that Irish and Scots Gaelic should not be allowed to distinguish between Scottish English and Scots the way English does. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Those subjective comments are of course matters of opinion. That the correct term is a bheurla ghallda is not. I have said nothing which could in any way be interpreted as stating that scots gaelic should not be allowed to distinguish between scots english and scots because you can, and people do, distinguish between them as anyone who speaks the language or has a reasonable knowledge of it can tell you . A bheurla ghallda is lowland scots, while scottish english would be beurla albannach. How the Irish deal with it is up to them but it would be more correct to refer to lowland scots and scottish english under a collective term than to term the former 'albais' and thus incorrectly suggest that it is the language of scotland - which it has never been, having been restricted to the lowlands.

Rather than there being any proof of my supposed "implicit" belief that the gaelic languages should not be allowed to differentiate between the two forms of english which are modern scottish and the older lowland scots it seems to be the case that you are of the opinion that gaelic should be subordinate to english and adopt straight translations of english nomenclature rather than maintain the older, more specific and indeed correct words/terms used in the language originally. "a'Bheurla Ghallda" translates as the english of the lowlands. "Albais" translates as scottish. The former is a far more accurate description of 'Scots' than the latter. Even if this was not the case and the older nomenclature in the gaelic languages did not differentiate effectively between lowland scots and scottish english the fact that these are distinguished in English itself is no reason for the gaelic languages to adopt different names for the languages/dialects.

Anyway to get back to the initial question Lowland Scots is " a'Bheurla Ghallda" in Scottish gaelic and " Bèarla na hAlban" in Irish. Albais is, as previously stated, a neologism and whether you think it appropriate or, like me, think it to be total nonsense it remains a neologism and ,bearing history in mind, a misleading one.

User:An Siarach

I see that Scots Gaelic can make the distinction Beurla Gallda "Scots"/Beurla Albannach "Scottish English", but given that Irish has traditionally used Béarla na hAlban to mean "Scots", I don't see what Irish could otherwise use to mean "Scottish English". If Irish is to distinguish between them, then either a neologism needs to be created to mean "Scottish English" (and I can't imagine what it could be--Béarla Albanach would sound too similar to Béarla na hAlban to be accepted as the name for a different language), or the existing term Béarla na hAlban needs to be re-applied to Scottish English, and a neologism found for Scots. What should that neologism be? Albainis meaning basically "Scotlandese" is a fair calque on the English name, but as you say, not strictly accurate. Béarla Gallda is a fair calque on the Gaelic name, but basically means "foreigner's English" or "English people's English" or (with the older meaning of Béarla) "foreigner's language" or "English people's language", which no longer has anything relating to Scotland in the name and would be extremely confusing at best. I am not at all of the opinion that Gaelic or Irish should be subordinate to English, but I am of the opinion that Irish should be able to distinguish between the two languages, and that Irish lexicographers and grammarians have settled on Albainis as the name for Scots, and if it's good enough for Irish lexicographers and grammarians, it's good enough for me. Like it or not, Irish needs neologisms if it's going to be a viable language of the 21st century. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your feeling with regards to the irish term for the language and the possibility for confusion but if a word or term does not exist it does not exist. Now albanais is a very poor term which should never have been invented and regardless of whether or not the officials in charge of the language have decided it is valid or not has no bearing on its use - we similiarly have lots of changes made to the system of scots gaelic spelling by various boffins which near everyone who uses the languages ignores completely.I notice you taking a stand similiar to mine on this issue in a previous discussion on this page:

"I have removed the names Scottish and Alban Gaelic because I don't believe these names are in widespread use for Scottish Gaelic."

Now as ive said it may well be that someone has deemed albanais/albais to be a legitimate irish word (although given the fact ive yet to find an irish dictionary which provides it alongside, let alone instead of, the more accurate bèarla na hAlban i would question this) but the fact quite simply is that it is not in widespread use amongst speakers of the language and is thus effectively redundant - and even if this was not the case it would be less misleading, as previously stated, to use Bèarla na hAlban as a collective term for the english languages in Scotland rather than Albanais, with all the inappropriate connotations this carries, for one of them. They are both, after all, forms of English (thus the legitimacy of Bèarla na hAlban)while neither qualifies as the Scottish language (thus the illegitimacy of Albanais).

User:An Siarach

You say, "If a word or term does not exist it does not exist". And after looking around in my dictionaries and Google, I concede that the existence of Albainis is fairly tenuous (most Google hits for Albainis are for Albainis Uladh) and the Béarla na hAlban has more history as the Irish for "Scots". But nonspecialists rarely need to carefully distinguish Scots from Scottish English (I wonder how many nonlinguists outside Scotland are even aware there's a difference), so for "everday use" Béarla na hAlban can do double duty for both languages without anyone caring that it's ambiguous. But if I were to write a linguistics article in Irish in which I discuss both Scots and Scottish English, what else would you expect me to call them than Albainis and Béarla na hAlban respectively? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you wanted to be properly accurate you would refer to both as bèarla na h-Alban with perhaps Scots as 'sean Bèarla na hAlban' and modern scottish english as 'bèarla na hAlban nuadh' (ive used scottish terms but presumably the Irish is equivalent). What distinguishes Scottish English from Standard English is the influence of the Scots language in the same way that Standard English is drawn from Middle English - yet do not see people scrambling to invent a completely new, and while were at it innacurate, term to cope with this? Both are forms of english just as Scots and Scottish english are forms of english. In all honesty Scottish English is so rarely referred to (never would not be too far off mark) that it does not require a specific gaelic term in Scottish gaelic (let alone Irish) than would Cockney English, Scouse English, Yorkshire English, Welsh English etc etc. Scots and Scottish english are both quite accurately covered by Bèarla na hAlban while Albanais is quite misleading. If you wish to differentiate between Scots and Scottish English refer to the former as 'old' and the latter as 'modern'.

It would be incorrect to use 'Bèarla na hAlban' with reference to Scottish English because in Irish it refers to Lowland Scots. It would be incorrect to use Albanais in reference to Lowland Scots as this translates as Scottish and Lowland Scots is not the Scottish language.

User:An Siarach

Lenited slender l

The pronunciation of lenited slender l is given as /k/. I assume this is a typo for /l/ (or at least some kind of lateral)? 4pq1injbok 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I've fixed it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Scotland's Gaelic

I'm gonnae take a leaf out of the SNP's oil campaign and say "It's Scotland's Gaelic". Calling it just "Gaelic" all the time makes no sense, and is offensive to Manx and Irish folk. What is it about folk not wanting to link Scotland with "Gaelic", are they that brainwashed by years of being told not to?

Inaccurate map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

• Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
• Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
• Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
• Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
• Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing Introductory Paragraph to History Section

The current text, before I begin my edit, is this:

Scottish Gaelic, originally the language of the Scoti settlers from Ireland to Scotland, became the language of the majority of Scotland after it replaced Cumbric, Pictish, Old Norse, and in considerable places, Old English.[7] There is no definitive date indicating how long Scottish Gaelic has been spoken in today's Scotland, though it has been proposed that it was spoken in Argyll before the Roman period,[8] although no consensus has been reached on this question. However, the consolidation of the kingdom of Dál Riata around the 4th century, linking the ancient province of Ulster in the north of Ireland and western Scotland, accelerated the expansion of the language, as did the success of the Gaelic-speaking church establishment, started by St Columba, and place-name evidence shows that Gaelic was spoken in the Rhinns of Galloway by the 5th or 6th century.[citation needed]

And now a quotation from Old Irish

"Old Irish is the name given to the oldest form of the Goidelic languages for which extensive written texts are possessed. It was used from the 6th to the 10th centuries, when it gave way to Middle Irish."

And now a quotation from Middle Irish

"Middle Irish is the name given by historical philologists to the Goidelic language used from the 10th to 12th centuries; it is therefore a contemporary of late Old English and early Middle English.[1][2] The modern Goidelic languages, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx, are all descendants of Middle Irish.

At its height, Middle Irish was spoken throughout Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man; from Munster to the North Sea island of Inchcolm. Its geographical range made it the most widespread of all Insular languages before the late 12th century, when Middle English began to make inroads into Ireland, and many of the Celtic regions of northern and western Britain."

The Time Line here, as it relates both to the other articles and the information in the citations below is completely out of sync. This is the reason for my edit. Just wanted to let everyone know.Ollie Garkey (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we're confusing the issue of name and truth. For example, we commonly say that Christopher Columbus thought he'd sailed to India, whereas Columbus thought he'd sailed to the Indies, which is something else entirely.

The theoretical start date for Middle Irish is after Argyll became an independent kingdom, so that's where dialect diversion would have gained paced (if we assume the Gaels arrived in the 4th century, which is far from proven).

The line about Middle Irish being "spoken" across Goidelic Britain is wrong-headed. What we can say for sure is that written Middle Irish was in use across Goidelic Britain. The fact that Latin was the main language of written discourse throughout Italy until Dante popularised vernacular writing doesn't say that Latin was "spoken" across Italy.

The lack of a written Middle Scottish Gaelic vernacular would similarly not be evidence of a lack of spoken Middle Scottish Gaelic vernacular. The rapid change in the written mode in the Modern era can only have been caused by normalisation to a long-established spoken mode.

But just as Italy had the occasional piece of written vernacular predating Dante (by about 400 years), Scottish Gaelic has the 12th century Book of Deer, which contains distinctly different margin notes in Old Irish and Scottish Gaelic.

Furthermore, the influence of Norse within Scottish Gaelic helps us date the emergence of the language: the Hebrides (and the Isle of Mann) were invaded by Vikings before the theoretical start of the Middle Irish period, and the vikings left before the end of the period.

This leaves the only justification for talking about "Middle Irish" as one of "that's what everyone else calls it", but this argument only serves to obscure the details. The same thing happens in English vs Scots. Scotland got hold of Lothian before the invasion of the Normans, and it is commonly stated as fact that Scots is descended from Middle English, but as Middle English was the result of the Norman invasion, this is a clear falsehood. Yet here on Wikipedia, blatantly obviously logical non sequiturs are accepted as long as they are taken from a book or journal.... :-(

Prof Wrong (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That last one is actually valid Prof. The Normans had a big influence on Scotland as well as England. They may not have 'conquered' it as they did England, but Norman lords were planted in the Scottish Lowlands to implement Feudalism. Famous families like the Bruces were Norman in origin. Anyway, it is likely that Scottish Gaelic began to differentiate from Middle Irish shortly after it's spread throughout Scotland. The Italian analogy is apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.71.145 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but it was slower, later and mixed in with immigration from Dutch and other North Sea traders. One ingredient does not make the meal! Prof Wrong (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's messy and needs sorting. I think (broadly) one (linguistically) could describe Gaelic as an off-shoot of a Northern branch of w/e Irish and explain the confusion regarding names into a separate section. It's an old confusion though, Gaelic was known as Erse in Scotland for many years and we need to bear in mind that Gaels themselves did not really distinguish the two, it was simply "Goidelic" to speakers in both countries for many centuries. Not dissimilar to the sentiment in China that Cantonese and Mandarin are "dialects" of the same language when linguistically they're not. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lowland edit

Stuff about Carrick already in the bit at the top about history - this page is far too messy - I have deleted the duplication Sologoal (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, ok, that makes sense now, cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dal Riáta and the Lordship of the Isles

I thought this was a bit of a spurious claim so I deleted it straight off rather than just hitting "Citation needed":

The language was maintained by the trade empire of the Lordship of the Isles the geographic and cultural descendant of Dál Riata, which continued to control parts of Ulster until the 1500s'

That said, if there is any serious academic who suggests that the Lordship of the Isles grew out of the Kingdom of Dalriada, and that the Kingdom of Scotland was something else entirely I would be very interested to hear it, as it paints a very different picture of the arrival of Gaelic in Scotland... Prof Wrong (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Phrases

I'd like to pose a question regarding the Phrases section. I believe that overall, people are discouraged from turning pages into dictionaries or phrasebooks unless there are very good reasons (e.g. a language that is not well documented even in the literature). There also seems to be some toing and froing with dialectal variation.

I think it would be good if we decided what the purpose of this section is and edit it accordingly. The main two options afaict are:

• a small section demonstrating connected speech, demonstrating the commonalities and differences between the Gaelics
• a small section simply of commonly used phrases

In the first instance, I think we should pick examples with less inter-dialectal variation. In the second, we should decide if we're going to list dialectal differences or not. Either we include them all or none but the current version is a bit of a hotchpotch. Opinions? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As there is a section "Comparison#Common phrases" at Goidelic languages, I think it would be better if on this page Scottish Gaelic dialects were compared instead - OTOH I admit I've no idea how many of them (apart from the Lewis one) are all that distinct today. --Thrissel (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of Scotland theories

My edit of Gaoidheal's edit was based on a misreading, he never intended to imply that it had come from anywhere but Ireland. As far as the Out-of-Scotland theories, there are a few prominent Scottish historians who argue that it was exported to Ireland from Scotland. Can't think of the name off the top of my head but one of them caused quite a stir some time ago. Most, especially anyone with a linguistic background, see that as lunacy but they do exist and perhaps merit a very brief mention one I find the ref. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There are serous questions now about the received history, that Gaelic was brought to Scotland from Ireland. The evidence is reviewed in the article cited, Were the Scots Irish?, by Ewan Campbell. He makes a pretty convincing argument and he is not a fringe voice by any means, building on a case made by a number of other archaeologists and historians. He is cited in the first history paragraph, but that paragraph is a mess, and I am afraid that it will never be coherently fixed. I have been watching this article for years, and it is an interesting illustration of the ideological debates around the connection between the Scottish Gaelic language and Scottish identity. The question of when and how Gaelic came to Scotland has always been ideological. Part of Campbell's thesis is that the migration history was an attempt by early Gaels to more tightly bind themselves to Ireland, at a time when a connection to Ireland would have been seen as prestigious. But in the later medieval period, this presumed connection was ironically used to marginalize Gaelic as "Erse" and foreign to Scotland. Campbell's point is that the origin of Gaelic in Scotland is far enough back in time that we may never know how the language came to Argyll, but looking dispassionately at the archaeological and onomastic evidence, the migration history is actually quite unlikely.--Lasairdhubh (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Lasairdhubh

Ah thanks for reminding me of the name. The problem with historians is unfortunately that they rarely take historical linguistics into account or understand it. Or in other words, can you derive Scots Gaelic from Old/Middle Irish? Yes. Can you derive Irish from what little is known of Early Scots Gaelic. Hardly. Whatever movements the material culture was involved in, linguistically the movement is definitely Ireland > Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Many linguists don't read historians properly. The idea is that Gaelic developed in both Scotland and Ireland from continental origins. The idea that Gaelic comes from Ireland is based on historical rather than linguistic evidence, most of which is not thought today as reliable by historians. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming debate on the Gaelic Wikipedia

A chàirdean, We would like to invite all contributors with Gaelic (gd-4 and gd-5 in particular but gd-1 to gd-3 are welcome to contribute too), to take part in the debate to find an appropriate Gaelic form for Wikipedia that doesn't break any rules regarding phonology, intellegibility or forming good neologism. The debate is here [1] and - since it involves quite a few technical issues - in English. Chì mi ann sibh! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Referring to gaelic

This isn't actually a question about this article, more on all articles on Scottish Gaelic. Is it acceptable to just say "gaelic" if the article has already clearly established that Scottish Gaelic is the language in question? For example BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal acknowledges that it's scottish gaelic in the lead, can it then just be referred to as Gaelic for the rest of the article? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 07:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In Scotland or Ireland I believe that works. For an international audience I think it's best avoided because many articles refer to one of the other 2 Gaelics (Manx Gaelic or Irish Gaelic) and people are eternally confused about which "Gaelic" you might be talking about. So I think it's best to use Irish/Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx/Manx Gaelic consistently. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mutually understandable with Irish?

I've noticed a discussion on the Mutual intelligibility talkpage about whether or not to include Scottish Gaelic and Irish as mutually understandable in one of the lists. Any reliable source (whether for or against) apparently welcome. --Thrissel (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Media section

In my new fervour for editing about gaidhlig media, I have rewritten the section on it a bit on this page. It was a bit confused before with some repetition and bouncing from topic to topic. I've also added some references to back up the material. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)