Talk:Scots language/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

"Disingenuous"

Surely its disengenuous to mark out Noam Chomsky (or any other academic) for having a motivation outside their academic training, which must by inference deligitamise the accuracy of their work. If its the case for him, (and the likes of Dauvit Horsbrooch), then going to Big College Oxbridge and Jeeves and Wooster School would make it disengenuous to quote Hugh Trever Roper, and growing up listening to Runrig and watching Postman Pat in Gaelic may have contributed to the "disengenuousness" of quoting some Gaelic expert as a reliable source. In fact is there an academic on the planet whos ever stood outside of the human race and thus remained quotable as an innocent observer of facts by this rule... or does it only count for the ones you dissaprove of?:}82.41.4.66 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you agree then:}82.41.4.66 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response raises a number of points. Let me try and tackle them one by one. Firstly, the 'Phantasmal' quote was basically copy/paste from the archive ... and was making the point that 300 years of Scots 'official' use is a lot less than Gaelic's 700. I suppose 'Phantasmal' depends on the degree of significance you apportion to 30%. [But can you at least see why such comments prompt some people here to accuse you of peddling a POV?]

Also, I will indeed put 2 or 3 lines together for the article on the relationship between archaic Scots dialects and Middle English ... on one condition. The condition being that you make a similar contribution on Gaelic's impact on the dialect. e.g. I had not realised that 'the noo' was an extension of a Gaelic convention. The article only has a handful of Gaelic based references, and needs more. That said, on balance, I think, based on the evidence, Scots retention of 'CH' is not a Gaelic trait. There are too many instances of Scots words using 'CH' with a direct mapping to middle english for the construct to have disappeared and then reappeared after exposure to Gaelic ... although one possible argument may be that CH was retained in Scots, unlike other English dialects, due to its proximity to (and therefore a degree of support from) Gaelic.

As for supporting any assertions on Scots, from impartial references ... I've found this to be pretty much impossible. I guess references and extrapolations from Trudgill may be feasible ... but pretty much all Scots related publications I've found are made by those with some form of vested interest.

Finally, and sadly, you've just lost 'a good deal of money'. I am not your elusive Anon(s). My contributions to WP are pretty much all on this page; and all signed. You can pick up on my linguistic 'traits' by looking for a preponderance of semi-colons[;], too many commas [,] lots of elipses [...], single ['] (as opposed to double) quotes, and (even though I do say so myself) a desire to back up everything I say with some form of logic.

PS, I would never take a non-response as validation of my 'superiority' (didn't think I had any) ... otherwise I would have already changed the article.[Although what prompted you to make such an 'out of tone' statement still puzzles me]

PPS, What's the sockpuppet metaphor? §Angusmec 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Retention of ch (gh) /x/ is more likely simply an archaism surviving in in Scotland because its loss or realisation as /f/ was an innovation introduced much further south, then spreading northwards. Certainly at least 100 years ago or so it was still being used by some older speakers in the north of England. Whether its current demise in Scotland is due to the further spread of this innovation or language shift to standard English I will leave to others to decide.

The use of forms such as the day for today began to appear in literature during the Middle Scots period at a time when Scots speakers in central Scotland would have had little or no contact with Gaelic in their day-to-day lives. It would certainly be somewhat strange for literate Scots speakers of the time to translate and then adopt something from what they considered a barbaric tongue. It is likely simply a corruption of to. The the in the now is by analogy from a corruption of even now. The year an analogous corruption of this year etc.

84.135.252.78 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Scots was recognised as the Germanic language of the country at least 100 years earlier than that http://www.scots-online.org/airticles/eurlang.htm. I havent mentioned opposites, merely defended the parity of their value in Scottish history:} PS you havent explained to me yet why the French shouldnt speak Franconian German as their name would suggest rather than a Romance language?:} 82.41.4.66 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that rant says sums your prejudice on the subject. Ps what does "all but proven "actually mean when you write it!?:}82.41.4.66 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the name is Goidelic or Gaelic, the term referred to the seme written language which had developped in Ireland, not Scotland. The point still stands that if the modern term for "Ynglis" has to be used to avoid your allegation of spuriosity/spuriousness, whereas the opposite is the case (apparently) with regards to "Middle Irish" (a spurious modern name so therfore less valid than Middle English as a definition!?). Id like you to explain precisely how this demonstrates objectivity:82.41.4.66 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your fantasy Calgacus again. I can only speak for myself, not someone you made up. I use the terms Old English, Middle English, Old Irish, Old Gaelic, Middle Irish, Middle Gaelic, medieval Gaelic, etc, terms in actual modern usage; I've never made use of either Ynglis or Goidelach. Oh, which language developed in Ireland, I'm curious to know? BTW, Edinburgh anon, you should keep it nice. I see from your talk page you have a history of nastiness. I should point out that being nasty rarely does anyone any good when the threat of physical violence is totally absent. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You seriously claim to be unaware that Gaelic was as Irisih as the |Irish word "Scot" that didnt exist in Scotland's original native languages lol:} lol sorry but Im not swallowing that line. I think we both know which language devlopped in Ireland and remained the written form of Scottish Gaelic into the 18th century, and I cant beliebve youre honestly unaware of the seperate written standard of Scots from English that went back centuries before the Scottish Gaelic written standard had even separated from Irish Gaelic. I can only draw the conclusion that you choose which parts of the complex story to highlight, and which to leave out:}82.41.4.66 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to follow all your responses; BTW "Gaelic was as Irisih as the |Irish word "Scot" that didnt exist in Scotland's original native languages ... I can only draw the conclusion that you choose which parts of the complex story to highlight" seems like the ironic comment of the century. You ain't going to get me sucking into a "this language is more important for our identity" argument. Move to eastern Europe and you'll have a great time. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have I mentioned that? I dont consider language nor ethnic identity to be a primary concern and havent cleimed that Scotland or Britain has ever been Mono-ethnic in origine. I do however support the equal legitamacy of Scots as a language varity to Scottish Gaelic on historical grounds, as it was also a state language.:}82.41.4.66 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Just noticed your quip "Threat of physical violence totally absent....!?!?" what on earth is that supposed to infer. That seems typically disingenuous with the fantasy figure ive noticed here commenting on things being "all but proven" (isnt that not proven?!) where in the name of Goidelic do you get the Gaul (or is that Gael:}} to somehow suggest through the language of a politicians spin master general, that i have used language appropriate in response to physical threats of violence!? Please enlighten us all where Iveresponded in a way that justifies such weasely moralising. cheers (and be nice:} count to ten before typing back)82.41.4.66 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) PS, tell us what street in Edinburgh.} then Id actually be impressed82.41.4.66 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By "history of nastiness" you mean what others might define as allowing free comment from others on my talk page. Point out my "nastiness" (Im curious to be enlightened as to what you constitute as nastiness...somebody answering you back perhaps?:}}82.41.4.66 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets see your evidence for this accusation! Or is it another cheap shot! The 18th century was the age of the "North Briton's birth and the "Anglification" (a term you doubtless object to but an accurate description nonetheless) of Scots (or whatever YOU would have it be called despite that being its name then as now) The Scots language revival only really emerges in the twentieth century after decades of indoctrination (particularly with the start of state school inspections in the 1840s. Pinkerton has as much to do with the birth of Britain and the early Romanticist age that also gave birth to the Ossian nonsense as the "Scots language Movement" so unless you can offer further evidence for this POV i can take it as a demonstration of Celtic chauvinism from you:}82.41.4.66 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Has there ever been a Scots-language movement of any significance never mind with any kind of historical continuity? I would be surprised if any present day Scots language enthusiasts entertain 18th century Gothism and Pinkertonism. Claiming that such influences persist even to the present day may well simply be a slight against Scots language enthusiasts.

84.135.197.245 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perth and Kinross Council are at last helping promote the language in primary schools http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Scots_training_for_Perth_teachers.html/translate/english

}82.41.4.66 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a Finnish academic's opinion on Scots http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Scots_language_to_feature_in_Finnish_lecture_series.html

}82.41.4.66 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And heres some more on the same subject http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/renvall/eka/news/birevents06-07/birevents_nihtinen06.html

}82.41.4.66 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And this you say after just posting a campaign piece for removing Gaelic names for Scottish rulers. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced. :p Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That must have been some other bloke using this IP. I find nothing wrong with providing the Gaelic names for Scottish rulers in brackets behind the usual English forms. Its a piece of interesting and informative information which could be made more interesting by providing an explanation of what the names mean, like Malcolm Canmore is a baldy pal of Columba with a big head;-)

84.135.197.245 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, German anon. As far as I can see, and I wrote none of those royal articles, many of the names are given explanation; I should point out that, as in Scottish usage Cenn often means chief, Cenn Mór very likely means "great chief" rather than "Big Head". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first to be misled by my using T-Mobile to access the internet. I blame the airport lounges myself.

Cenn Mór would of course likely mean great chief, much like English head of department etc.

Your mentioning Mr. Pinkerton's Gothism brought Charles Mackay's 1877 work The Gaelic etymology of the languages of western Europe: and more especially of the English and Lowland Scotch and of their slang, cant, and colloquial dialects to mind. The title certainly leaves no doubt where he is coming from. A year later he published A Dictionary of Lowland Scotch whose Gaelic etymologies for everyday English words remain unsurpassed to this day.

One must admit that Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Mackay certainly give the impression that Lowland Scotch had an uncanny propensity for attracting nutters, which going by this talk page, continues even to the present day. None of which answers the question whether there has ever been a Scots-language movement of any significance never mind with any kind of historical continuity? Who? When? Where? and What? come to mind. Material which would certainly make an interesting addition to this article.

84.135.245.85 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this then:} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance 82.41.4.66 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy was part of a Scots language literary revival (despite the imposition of English at school level) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_MacDiarmid 82.41.4.66 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres a copy of the 2006 Census test for the real one in 2011 (and note the inclusion this time, unlike in the 2001 Census, of a question on Scots as well as Gaelic and English:} http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/2006-census-test-form.pdf 82.41.4.66 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of marginal poets who wouldn't even make the D-list having a blether in the Oxford or Abbotsford Bars hardly constitute a movement, the Salvation Army or Siol nan Gaidheal are movements, they fire the public imagination, they are the talk of the town. Ask your average Scottish bod in the street about Hugh MacDiarmid and the Scots-language movement and you will encounter blank stares. The Scots-language movement is like the Loch Ness Monster: many have heard of it, some claim to have seen it, but no one has produced any tangible evidence of its existence. I was hoping Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) could point us in the direction of sources for its existence. If such a creature exists, it deserves a paragraph or two in the article.

84.135.250.145 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres an article on Hugh Mcdiarmid for all you Andrew Motion fans to compare and contrast on whose an A and whose a D:} http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=108725200682.41.4.66 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah well you mean "marginalised" (Id rate the dire laureate Andrew Morion as an E at best:} check this literary advance out as its a contemporary one http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressoffice/contact/2002/October/scotslanguage.html

http://www.itchy-coo.com/abootus.html

http://www.itchy-coo.com/iccultsubdoc.pdf

http://www.spl.org.uk/ed_meet/fitt.html

}82.41.4.66 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a BBC radio interview with Mathew Fitt http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/6962

}82.41.4.66 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Im just off out to the street to ask an average bod about "Siol nan Gaidheal", and Im awaiting their immediate recognition of this "fire-inspiring phrase":}82.41.4.66 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the Scottish Parliament (despite the prejudices of Scots who were indoctrinated by UK educational policy to regard it as slang thanks to state language planning policy pushing English) are now due to public pressure having to take the language seriously for the first time since the Act of Union http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cpg-scots.htm  :}

and tak a kiek at this tae http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm  :}82.41.4.66 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lallans.co.uk/collogue.html Id say this might "fire the imagination" to quote someone else on this page:} (were it not for the marginalisation that renders Scots language poets like Hugh Mcdiarmid unknown to the "bods" on any particular street:}82.41.4.66 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that with Siol nan Gaidheal. I meant the Celtic League and inspirational characters such as Alan Heusaff. There are Cross Party Groups [1] for all number of things, none of them necessarily part of any wider movement but simply enthusiastic bods from the chattering classes indulging their egos. Whoever wrote that Walcome til the Scottish Pairlament wabsite [2] should perhaps get in touch with the Cross Party Group for Dyslexia [3]. I checked out the Scots books for adults and kids available at Amazon, noticing the publisher Itchy Coo [4]. Is what's presented there really another language or simply fun dialect writing not dissimlar in nature to the African American Vernacular employed by Joel Chandler Harris in his tales of Uncle Remus or Simon Wheeler's narrative in Mark Twain's "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" ? The change in attitude is simply a more egalitarian acceptance of other peoples accents and dialects. Why shouldn't kids have fun with dialect? There's always standard English for formal use. I'm afraid none of that is conclusive evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement, though it would seem officialdom is prepared to pander a few enthusiasts, while apparently, not actually doing anything serious in the way of establishing Scots as a language.

84.135.250.145 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its notable how African American speech is subject to the same policy of ridicule and ghettoisation as Scots (for which children were under British state policy physically punished at schools up until the nineteenseventies. The main difference being only the official status of Scots as the language of Scotland with a seperate orthography from English (as was the case with Low German and the equally "ridiculous" Afrikaans:} In theory an African American official language would be a move I would find no difficulty with (check out the history of so called "patois" (ie languages of African slaves and other non white colonial subject:)82.41.4.66 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you would have to presume that Frissian is an "egalitarian accented Dutch" as it faces the same absorption by a similair language that Scots has faced by eduacational policy and media bias against it as a language as well http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:gyA2Z0gITlkJ:www.mercator-education.org/research-projects/endangered-languages/Article%2520EOLSS.doc+frisian+language+destruction&hl=de&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=5 (:82.41.4.66 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a better article on the phenomenon http://members.chello.nl/e.hoekstra8/108Stannert.pdf  :}82.41.4.66 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

and heres a speaker's personal experience of language prejudice http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=609102006

}82.41.4.66 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

have a read of this "fun dialect" article from the same English newspaper:} http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1391&id=364912006

}82.41.4.66 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frissian (sic) is not an "egalitarian accented Dutch" but clearly a language because Frisian is used in many domains including education, legislation, and administration. Primary education is bilingual. A standardised variety exists and it is used as a teaching medium and is a required subject. None of the above applies to Scots. The Itchy Coo document [[5]] which you linked to proves my point. Why isn't their submission to the Cultural Comission in the language they apparently think so highly of? Because kids may have fun with dialect. Standard English is for the serious stuff. None of the links you keep producing provide any evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement. I suppose if you continue long enough, the infinite monkey theorem may prove itself and evidence yet be produced.

84.135.250.145 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

by the by, sorry but Im not used to spelling it in English as Im trying to learn de Fryske sprake, and am more used to seeing it written in other languages. Heres a good beginner's course Im using http://www.allezhop.de/frysk/ tank!:}82.41.4.66 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All that demonstrates is the different attitudes towards linguistic policy in the UK and the Netherlands and what is actualy possible for the Scots language despite the policy of driving it from society and ghettoising it into a "patois". In a sense the reason there are no( to use your words "concrete examples") (ok maybe "concrete phrase wasnt your phrase sorry:}82.41.4.66 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) is precisely because there has been such a deliberate erosion of the value of Scots, through such policies as standardising the teaching of English but offering no Scots language lessons, and the physical punishment at schools of children for using the language, to drive home the state's opinion that it is just "bad English". The unwillingness to include it as a question on the census is an indicator to the cringe that Scots feel (undoubtedly in many instances at least acquired at school while being assaulted for speaking it) at even acknowledging its existence. These attitudes wont change overnight. It will take a generation or two, but the point about books for children is precisely the same one the British State has realised for the opposite motivation... to "get them while there young":82.41.4.66 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres a report on the first ever use of Scots in parliament since the Act of Union http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4920268.stm

}82.41.4.66 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And how about the status of Yiddish then? It was never taucht at school level or used for official purposes. (in fact many Germans sadly unsurprisingly at the time!) regarded it as "bad German", but it has its own body of literature and is clearly grammatically different (and written in Hebrew Script). Is it any less a language seperate from German than Afrikaans is one seperate from Dutch due to the lack of its beauracratic status?:}82.41.4.66 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has produced any evidence for the existence of a Scots-language movement, now or in the past, one can only assume that for Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), it is part of an entirely fictional, Pinkerton inspired, Teutonist, anti-Gaelic conspiracy. A construct which functions to increase group solidarity and favour for a particular view. User 82.41.4.66 also seems to be deluded into thinking such a creature exists but for other reasons. Perhaps he wishes to be leader, in order to increase group solidarity and favour for a particular view.

84.135.250.183 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you might try rereading some of the links on this page, and rethinking how objectively you judge the merit of evidence not fitting your own prejudices :}. After all, many white Britons saw little "evidence" of "negro intelligence" in the days before the Mau Mau made them reconsider British colonial policies (doubtless they were discouraged from looking for it in the first place:})82.41.4.66 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change. A fairly objective definitition, if I may say. How well does the evidence fit? Where are the protesters, demonstrations, widespread demands for change, media coverage? A few links to a few enthusiasts does not make a movement. Do trainspotters form a movement? What "Negro intelligence" has to do with the existence of a Scots-language movement will no doubt remain a mystery.

84.135.254.162 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both threatened the status quo of the British Empire, hence its equivelant lack of enquiery into either.} Also, its no wonder theres no movement wide enough to fit your sturdy requirements when Scots speakers are indoctrinated through state education to think of the language as slang, and then have this reinforced by its only ever being borrowed from on tv to show the lack of intelligence of the speaker (in this it shares a history of social demarcation on tv and films with ebonics in shows such as Amos and Andy, both being mocking forms to reinforce the dominant group's position in the minds of their speakers and listeners:}}82.41.4.66 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a movement which is apparently not wide enough to fit the sturdy requirements previously quoted, could be a threat to the status quo of the British Empire? The British Empire surely felt safe enough to be able to ignore a few enthusiasts? Are you aware of what you are actually writing?

84.135.254.162 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you might say "Sturdyness" is in the eye of its beholder:}, and the "sturdy" British Empire vanished pretty swiftly despite its "feeling so safe". As for size, a ruthless Imperial mindset could regard even the smallest "threat" as quite "sturdy"! (otherwise why reinforce the annihilation of difference through state policy?):} check this out as an introduction to how the world gets defined by the rulers fears and obsessions:}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_%28book%29#Chapter_1:__The_Scope_of_Orientalism 82.41.4.66 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are competing with Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) for the best paranoid, fictional conspiracy. This anti-Scots one orchestrated by the British Empire and later the British state. Perhaps what we are observing is the Scots victim mentality resulting from some kind of perceived ethnic persecution involving not just torture and abuse but also systematic brainwashing. The point of dispute perhaps being, who is the biggest victim?

If Gaels and Scots (sic) really wanted to continue speaking Gaelic and Scots no amount of coercion or persecution would have stopped them. They chose to, probably for base utilitarian and economic reasons. Despite the indescribable suffering the Jews had to endure. They still managed to get Hebrew going. Get real.

84.135.244.221 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)