Talk:Scots language/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Census

A 15-fold increase is not credible, so this should be reviewed before just adding it in. As far as I can tell, this is just the L2 speakers we already note. Link is here. — kwami (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

the bbc report says "About 1.5 million people reported that they regularly spoke Scots." [2]. This is also the first time the question is included so you cant compare it with previous 'estimates'. As a Scots speaker myself I find it hard to believe there are 1.5m speakers, but thats what the RS's say. VanguardScot 11:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is how many of them are native, and that isn't addressed by the census.

Funny it's never been asked before. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Being in a linguistic continuum with Standard English that would surely be moot to define, however any survey or study was conducted. In that they've learned it from birth, to whatever extent, probably the majority of Scots speakers are in that sense native, but a majority or all native also with English. If defined by which language they are best at, who knows (a small minority? 1.5M?), particularly with code-switching being a common-to-ubiquitous feature. A 15-fold increase would clearly not be credible if the same thing was being measured in the same way and at the same time. Do we know when and how the Ethnologue data were compiled and how they defined the L1 and L2 divisions? This article states 1999 but I'm not sure where that info comes from. That the census data are based on self-defined answers and more recently compiled, so possibly with significantly changed awareness of and attitudes to Scots as an entity, is as likely to explain the difference in the figures as any concrete change in language use and abilities. Surprise at the apparent increase is warranted but you could be equally surprised that well over half the population apparently believe themselves to have "no skills in Scots" whatsoever. But if these were the categories on the census form, as stated, respondents are effectively only given the option to denote a complete ability or none, for speech, reading and writing, with those with limited abilities in all these aspects more likely to elect for the "no skills" box. But that's what it says.

In regard to what we do here, as the aspect of the designations being L1 or L2 is not specifically addressed in the census, to continue to specifically state that all 1.5 million are L2 as currently worded now seems questionable, as it would be though to define them as L1. Do we leave out the distinction and give a total e.g. "with speaking, reading and/or writing abilities in Scots"? Do we wait and let Ethnologue decide?

I'm a bit puzzled as to where the figure of 30% who "speak Scots to some degree" comes from. If it's the 5,118,223 minus the 3,188,779 with no skills, rounded off it would be 37%. Or are those with reading and/or writing but not speaking abilities being removed as well? Maybe that's a conventional definition but I can't decide if it seems a bit arbitrary to exclude an element of the literate. Per above, something like "37% with some abilities..."? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If vague phrases like "speak Scots to some degree" are to be used, the figure should be 100%. After all when I say "I drank my tea", I am speaking perfectly good Scots. So every English-speaker can be said to speak Scots "to some degree". Although they might be speaking it with a strong English accent. So surveys have to be very carefully worded. If not we end up with 15-fold differences in survey results. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Until this morning the article stated "17% to 85% of the Scottish population speak it to some degree", perhaps appropriately wide for the reasons above, perhaps unhelpfully vague. Are we to ditch the cites of the studies which gave these two figures (as outdated now?) in favour of the census figures? If we do are we now to give one figure, rather than a range, derived from the census (I'm neither advocating or opposing this)? In that case, spelling out what the chosen figure represents would at least be possible (i.e. self-declared speaking, reading, writing and/or understanding abilities in Scots, in whichever combination chosen). Stating one figure, e.g. 30% as now, without such a specification of what it represents is thus deceptively precise. Or do we go back to the wide range, adding in the ref to the census figures, with its results falling somewhere between? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Our entry is for native speakers, and since the census does not address that, it's not a reference for that figure. Agreed, "to some degree" is inappropriate. "30% reported to be able to speak Scots in the 2013 census", maybe.

BTW, the figure of 30% is just the number reporting to speak it (1.54M) divided by the population surveyed (5.12M), which is 30.0%. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"In the 2013 census, 30% reported themselves as being able to speak Scots"? That's much more like it. The figure may not be exactly correct but at least our readers will know where it came from and can form their own opinions on its likely accuracy. If we add that other surveys have as few as 15% or as many as 87% reporting that they are speakers, that will add context. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that wording looks good re the census. In regard to the 85% figure, that is also self-reported speakers but appears to be a total of those who speak it rarely, occasionally, fairly often or a lot, probably explaining the much higher figure as respondents don't have to effectively give a yes/no only response. No quite aipples wi aipples, so that could be elaborated on within the text of the ref I suppose. Do we know what the 17% represents? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 09:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW 8% of Northern Ireland also speak it to some degree according to their census, don't know if you want to merge that number into the figures here? VanguardScot 10:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing the infobox heading from native speakers to just speakers, as it is impossible to define native speakers. It is also impossible to define first and second language speakers (L1 and L2). VanguardScot 10:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Having just added Derek's wording to the infobox, it occurred to me that I don't think it's quite right to say that "30% reported themselves etc.", wouldn't it be that they reported whether each individual in their household spoke(and wrote/understood etc.) Scots? Is that the way it was done? I don't think the distinction is being overly pedantic. "In the 2013 census, responses (or respondents?) indicated that 1.54 million or 30% are able to speak Scots"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The same census reports that 93% of the Scottish population only speak English at home. Do the 30% of Scots speakers only speak Scots outside the home? That would match the figure of 1.5 million L2 speakers cited by Ethnologue. What is missing from the article is how and where the 1.5 million L2 speakers learn Scots. Are the 100,000 Native speakers speakers cited by Ethnologue spending all their time teaching the 1.5 million L2 speakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.118.16 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1.5 (to 4.5) million learn in the playground, the street, shops, pubs, at the fitba, in the media to some extent...and in the home. Not sure what it's like in schools now but there was no formal language teaching whatsoever for me though we occasionally studied a Burns or Tom Leonard poem or a Gibbon story as literature. Nobody "teaches" you really. Does that make them truly L2 cos it makes them sound arguably as much like native? Perception as much as reality I guess when it come to self-reporting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The 7% who speak at home would be 100,000–115,000. Plus the 10,000 in Ireland. So the old estimate we have of 100,000 would seem to be correct. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So there are some 1.5 million L2 (the language acquired as a second one, after English) Scots speakers who use English when at home but choose to speak Scots to each other when outside the home or with the 100,000 L1 Scots speakers when they meet them. Its nice and PC of the 1.5 million L2 Scots speakers to accommodate the 7% L1 Scots speakers in such a manner. Does anyone know why the L2 Scots speakers are doing that when it is extremely likely that the 7% L1 Scots speakers will very likely have no problem understanding English anyway?

Er, no; who told you any of that? See above.

In the main, people learn both, with "Scots and Scottish English as different registers depending on social circumstances" (per the Scottish English article) and with people code-switching as a matter of course and with barely a thought. The ends of the spectrum might be highly divergent but there is really no one point where there is hard split between the tongues, hence the massively divergent stats on who speaks which and which is L1 or L2, largely down to how the survey is phrased and the respondents perceptions. It's arguable how meaninglful L1 and L2 splits are here.

Just to note, I'm a little concerned we may be drifting away from discussion of improvements to the article and into WP:NOTFORUM territory but as long as we focus on how these stats are represented in the article we should be okay. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The L1 and L2 splits are clearly nonsense. Since they seem to be from questionable Ethnologue data perhaps they should be removed and just use the census numbers with no mention of L1 or L2 and, as previously suggested, change the infobox heading from native speakers to just speakers. The census figures tally with what Ian Máté found for GRO Scotland back in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.118.16 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As a reliable source, which is what we must have here, I don't see any reason to regard Ethnologue as questionable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

They're as good as their sources, which in this case is Kaye 1999, but that's not included in the biblio, so I have no idea what it is. European languages is not their strong point. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's very hard to justify the figures for an L1/L2 split here. I have met a few English and other nationality "immigrants" to Aberdeenshire who would qualify as true L2 speakers but these are tiny numbers compared to the vast number of register-switchers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You may know that from personal observation, but we really need sources here. So far all we have is Ethnologue. If that's not adequate, then we need to find better sources. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Trouble is that this is an area where there are few or perhaps even no truly reliable sources. In that case personal observation may be all that's available. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with personal observation is that it is almost invariably coloured by POV and almost impossible to verify. That is why we need RS. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course that is why we need RS. You are stating the obvious. But it does not mean that RS exist. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No RS at all on a language spoken by over 1.5 million people? Seriously? I find that very difficult to believe. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too. But I haven't seen one on the L1/L2 split. Have you? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you are unaware of any RS is no justification for setting aside RS requirements. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While true that is rather beside the point because it is not just me who is unaware of an RS: none of us appear to be aware of one. The fact that no one is aware of any RS leads to an inability for us to comply with those RS requirements. That being so, we have to choose between leaving the article as is until some person who is aware of an RS for the information adds a citation; and removing all mention of the information. Which is it to be? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is very clear, any material with no RS can be removed at any time. I don't make the rules but that is what they are. Your point is moot so there is no point in discussing it any further. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect with L2 Ethnologue meant bilingualism or diglossia i.e. code-switchers with native-speaker competence in both Scots and English. I find it hard to believe that 1,5 million people have learnt Scots after first learning English. Furthermore, if that was the case, someone somewhere must have commented on such an unusual phenomenon, I am unaware of any such observations. 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.116.139 (talk)

The Census reports that only 1 per cent of respondents use Scots at home (Gaelic 0.5 per cent). Didn't mention if they were L1 speakers or L2 speakers just practicing. 77.75.202.23 (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet that when people report speaking language X at home, it's the language of daily use. Native bilinguals are not addressed, however, and that seems problematic. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Q18 – Languages spoken at home section here explains that many respondents thought the question was in regard to e.g. "a language like Arabic, Polish or whatever". The document also states that "All respondents, who indicated at Q16 that they speak Scots, said at Q18 that they speak English only." If the questions had been framed differently you may potentially have got a clearly ridiculous notion that only a small percent spoke English, or at the least a significantly reduced majority, if they didn't think it worth mentioning it as different to Scots. The rest of the document is helpful in further explaining the difficulties with the questioning. The second para of Language skills – Scots here states "The census data on language skills in Scots needs to be carefully qualified. The question on language skills in the census questionnaire was relatively poorly answered. For example, a significant number of respondents provided information on their skills in Scots but did not indicate any corresponding abilities in relation to English, perhaps suggesting they considered Scots and English as inter-changeable in this context. Research carried out prior to the census also suggests that people vary considerably in their interpretation of what is meant by “Scots” as a language, resulting in the potential for inconsistencies in the data collected"." Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Mutt explains the difficulty very well.

Such surveys are deeply problematic because they are wholly at the mercy of (a) what people believe the question means and (b) what they believe the answer should be. And worse, even if perfectly conducted with unambiguous well-designed questions they cannot provide an objective measure of use of 'the Scots language', but rather they can only ever be a measure of the subjective belief about the Scots language by the repsondents. An objective study would require, for example, taking a large random sample group and individually obliging them to engage in conversation/tests with a Scots dialect speaker who could then objectively evaluate their understanding and use of the language/dialect. For the purposes of Wikipedia the only logical way to report such subjective census/survey results would thus seem to be to report both the specific questions asked and the repsonses given - and perhaps point out that logically they can only ever be a measure of peoples' beliefs rather than being a direct objective measure of the thing being asked about. The problem is well-illustrated by a Eurobarometer survey of 2006 which asked whether or not respondents agreed that the earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Some 9% of Swedes believed this true, 28% of Britons and 42% of Turks. It is of course false: the results tell us nothing useful whatsoever about either dinosaurs or early humans. This survey was clearly measuring beliefs not facts, a danger exactly equal to, but not always as self-evident and obvious, in other surveys. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.253 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The futility of trying to make sense of the census data is emphasised by the official notes which accompany the census results. See the quote below. The last sentence says it all. Cassandra.

2011 CENSUS QUESTION TESTING – THE LANGUAGE QUESTION (2009) 2.4 Conclusion Regardless of whether Scots is included in Q16 or Q18, confusion about the meaning of the term and the range of interpretations which are applied will lead to inconsistencies in response (e.g. people who speak in very similar ways will respond differently). The number of Scots speakers will either be overestimated or underestimated, depending on which interpretation data users apply. The question will not yield any meaningful data on Scots and potential data users should be made aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.66 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In 1996 the General Register Office conducted a survey using field workers who knew what they were doing. The published report estimated that 1.6 million people speak Scots. Uncannily similar to the number of self-identified Scots speakers in the census. 79.239.127.191 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Focused broad Scots

What is "focused broad Scots"? It sounds like an oxymoron. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I removed "focused" since it just confuses things. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The alternative narrative

I'm glad we agree Mutt. Meanwhile, just for the record, and for the benefit of anyone reading our exchanges, it seems fair to point out that you are the only person who makes accusations against me of sock puppetry etc. And that it was you who used your position to prevent me from making further comments. I hardly like to mention it, but your own Wiki page uses two unflattering terms to categorise you too: one of which is 'sock puppet. I make no judgment about their truth.

But I don't want to indulge in personal attacks. Simply to see that the subject called 'The Scots Language' gets treated as a subject, and is treated objectively and in an honest and disinterested way like any other subject. And that must include information about its controversial nature. Not to do so is just advocacy for one side of an argument - something quite contrary to Wikipedia policy and philosophy. Indeed it is the argument and the controversy which make up much of the subject when it is looked at as a whole.

For those who are interested a vast amount of factual information which casts considerable doubt on much of the currently popular narrative can be found in James Murry's works.

Meanwhile here is just a short selection of quotes from various sources which are highly relevent to the subject of 'The Scots Language' and which do not, as yet, appear in the Wiki text. Cassandra.

“There is nocht tua nations vndir the firmament that ar mair contrar and different fra vthirs, nor is inglis men and scottis men, quoubeit that thai be vtht in ane ile, and nychbours, and of ane langage” - The Compleynt of Scotland 1549.

“...natura autem deum omnium rerum parentem opificemque sequuta Scotie et Anglie regna lingua moribus religionis consensu et vnitate inter se concordia infra vnius insule ambitum inclusit...” James VI to Scottish Parliament 26th April 1604 Procedure: commission; asking of instruments.

“Thairfore, since by the good providence of God bothe nations are in ane illand, speake on[e] and the same language, profess on[e] and the same religion and ar united under the same head and monarch” Instructions from the Parliament of Scotland to ‘there commissionaris’ at London 26th November 1645.

“...both nations using the one and almost the same dialect, to wit the Saxon language. And the Scots and north people of England speak more incorruptly than the south, which by reason of the Conquest and greater Commerce with foreign nations, is become more mingled and degenerate from the ancient tongue”. 1604 Henry Saville (Galloway and Leveck: 1985:213))

Joseph Justus Scaligerus 1567 “Les Escossois et Anglois parlent mesme langage Saxon, vieux Teutonique, ils se servent de mesme Bible, et ne different pas plus que le Parisien d'avec le Piccard”.

"And yet, despite these diversifying influences, which have obtained more or less for five centuries,—despite the incessant warfare, the legacy of wrongs done and suffered, and "undying hate," which were entailed from father to son, on both sides, during the first half of that period, and the remembrance of which it has taken nearly the whole of the second half entirely to efface,—the spoken tongue from York to Aberdeen is still one language, presenting indeed several well-defined sub-dialects on both sides of the Tweed, but agreeing, even in its extreme forms, much more closely than the dialect of Yorkshire does with that of Dorset. It is the old phenomenon with which ethnology has continually to deal, of a community of name concealing an actual difference, a diversity of names disguising an identity of fact". James Murray The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland 1873. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.146 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would post on your talk page if you had one as the following has relevance to you alone rather than to improving this article, it's purpose, but as you use multiple IPs and your comments imply other serious gaps in you knowledge about the mechanics of Wikipedia I don't imagine you would see it. Good heavens, userboxes are posted by the user, i.e. I noted on my user page that I have had various daft accusations slung at me, of being a Nazi, a sockpuppet (here, et seq if required), and both a quisling and nationalist (hopefully getting the balance right receiving the latter two). That you have had range blocks imposed several times shows that I'm not alone in clocking your behaviour.

The "language or dialect (or is the distinction meaningful)" issue is, as you well know, very prominently noted in the article (constituting almost the entire lede for a start). Your campaign can only lead one to believe that you wish the article to unambiguously come down on one side or the other; a position which would not be supportable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all Mutt. I don't wish to censor your views. I simply suggest that the whole of the subject be available and not just the 'pro' lobby's selective (and often historically questionable) version of the narrative. You simply seem to wish to censor the subject e.g. by yesterday deleting the following fact-based suggested correction/addition:

It was not a case of not understanding, but of not understanding well.

The original quote regarding Mary of Guise actually reads:

"At the first their talk was in the Scottish tongue, which the herald not well understanding, he was forced to speak French"

Exactly what this means is unclear. The account is third party. 'Scottish' at this time in England still commonly meant Scots Gaelic; but it seems improbable that this is what was meant. Yet the herald, William Flower, was a Yorkshireman whose ear one would expect to be attuned to a Scottish accent.

Rather than meaning he couldn't understand 'the Scots tongue' generally more probably it simply means he couldn't understand Mary of Guise's peculiar Scots-French very well, so he switched to speaking her native French. This seems more probable, not least since Flowers wasn't a simple 'herald' but rather the Chester Herald of Arms, a significant figure entrusted with this important diplomatic role by the Duke of Norfolk. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.104.235 (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I despair. This is not a content dispute, it is about disruptive behaviour.

One conspiracy is in your head, another is of your making. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's a 'content dispute' Mutt. The 'quote' is in fact a misquote, which as a consequence helps give a false impression of its significance. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.219 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the very top of this page. This forum stream ought to be removed really, however:

The quote is plain and uncomplicated, as are the representations in the two articles which mention the matter, History of the Scots language and William Flower (officer of arms), that Guise and Flower talked or spoke "in the "Scottish tongue" but because (Flower) could not understand...". No interpretation introduced, the omission of the word "well" only being indicative of the level not the meaning, and if there’s any element of misquote involved, the quote makes it more evident than the wording in the articles that it was specifically the Scottish tongue that he didn't understand well (“their talk was in the Scottish tongue, which the herald not well understanding…”), rather than some other element of the meeting. Your theory is entirely speculative, not evident from the quote nor advanced by a source, reliable or otherwise, so apparently yours alone. You are the one misrepresenting the quote. As you've been told countless times before, this is the wrong place for OR.

The pro-what lobby exactly? This may come as a surprise but I, for one, don't actually know what on earth would make you happy in regard to the articles on whose talk pages you post. This article, for instance, discusses a linguistic entity (language, dialect, whatever). It is unclear if you deny this entity exists at all; if you think the article should thus not exist at all and any mention of its subject; if you think it should discuss what type of linguistic entity it is - but that can't be it because it does already, prominently and at length regarding the lack of unity on a conclusion; if you wish the article to say, that there is unity on such a conclusion, and that this is aligned with your conclusion, whatever that may be but reliable sources do not show such unity as to a view or indeed to how significant the matter is; if you dislike the article title alone. If you just want to make ill-defined complaints but have no constructive and concrete suggestion for improvement of the article(s), that is not proper use of the talk pages and you should desist. Read the very top of this page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said above Mutt, I'm simply pointing out that the quote is incorrect - whilst adding helpfull information - to which I shall add here the addtional observation that the 'original' is from an 1898 transcription of an Elizabethan document, so that we can't even be sure what language the original was written in, (Latin?) let alone whether or not it is an accurate transcription. The full meaning is therefore doubly obscure.

Meanwhile, since you ask, the Scots Language is a perfectly proper subject for Wikipedia's pages. And I'm more than happy to go along with the Scots Language Centre's definition of it: "The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language".

What I object to - and so should any serious enquirer - is the often fanciful 'history' of the Scots language sold to a Scottish readership by Hugh MacDiermid and his accolytes in the 20th century to buttress the status of Scottish dialects in support of Scottish nationalism. To give but one example of that style of deceptive presentation: a statement such as 'Scotsmen called their language Inglis' is simply historical nonsense. They actually called the language English. 'Inglis' was just a common spelling of 'English' in both Scotland and England. There are many such examples. What's needed is serious history, not MacDiermidite pseudo-history. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.10 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The latter post is a perfect example of why what you do on talk pages is inappropriate. You come here to generally "object" (and as far as I can tell, possibly not even in regard to the content of this or any other wiki article) but you make not the vaguest suggestion at actual concrete improvement to articles. That's not what talk pages are for. You may know what the implication of your complaints would be for those articles but you leave us none the wiser in which case please stop doing this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is a third hand gloss, on a second hand transcript, of an original account. Thus it needs wording with particular care, with regard to both the wording of the referenced 19th century Calendar transcript, and the difficulty of knowing exactly what was written at first hand. Having carefully re-checked the Calendar of State Papers I suggest a substitution with:

"When an English diplomat spoke to Mary of Guise and her councillors in 1560, he is reported as speaking with her first in the 'Scottyshe toung', but then he, 'not well understanding', was obliged to continue in Mary's native French"

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.104.91 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Making no material difference whatsoever to the way the articles currently phrase it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. The present gloss is factually misleading. "When an English herald spoke to Mary of Guise and her councillors in 1560, at first they spoke in the "Scottish tongue" but because he could not understand, they continued in her native French". (i) This uses the word 'herald' in its generic sense, rather than as the formal title of the particular diplomat. (ii) it is not clear from the 19th century transcript whether 'they' refers to the Herald plus Mary and her councillors, or to the Herald and Mary alone. (iii) there is a significant, and potentially vast difference, between the meaning of 'he could not understand' and 'not well understanding'. I therefore suggest changing the wording as indicated above, or similar. Then perhaps we can move on to address one or two far more important matters of historical fact. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.102.203 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking just isn't the word for it. I'm genuinely at a complete loss to understand what your difficulty is with an understanding of the text and why you think it is of any significance to this article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you genuinely cannot understand the significance Mutt then I'm as baffled as you are. So what I will therefore simply do in a few minutes time is to amend the relevent sentence in the main text - as suggested above - so that it factually mirrors what is actually said in the 19th century transcipt to which it refers. No one can argue with that. Thereafter I suggest we delete this whole section as 'closed' and move on to some items with more meat on them. I think you will find them more interesting - and significant. Cassandra.

As usual for your forum postings there is no meat whatsoever on this and you are introducing what is best an anachronism and at worst yest another misrepresentation. Flower was a herald, why are you changing from that wording to state he was diplomat? Heralds may have been, to one degree or another, precursors of modern diplomats but it is considerably more accurate to use the term for what he actually was. Also you have made several typos. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I must disagree Mutt. The correct 21st century English word to use is diplomat. 'Herald' in this context was Flowers' title not his profession. However it's a minor point, so I won't argue it further. The relevent sentence has been changed to correctly reflect what the original transcript says and I'm content with that. My apologies for any typos. If you also are content to leave the sentence as it now is may I invite you to delete this whole section and I'll then bowl you a harder ball to catch. Merry Christmas. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.29 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good gracious - if you are calling for the above to be deleted on the basis of its utter inappropriateness as forum chat and OR, fantastic, but why did you even start in the first place? But as you have expressed an intention to continue with your forum campaign you clearly haven't grasped it and can I reiterate that you should stop now - no more of your balls please. The edit history would still be there so if you're trying to cover your tracks, that won't work. This isn't a game, you don't know what my opinion is on anything, you can't thus presume to know something I will disagree with on a factual basis, only on the basis that your musings are consistently unsupported and misrepresentative on whatever matter you land upon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

...and regarding that I left the alteration from "Scottish tongue" to "Scottyshe toung"; the modern orthography of the paraphrase is perfectly adequate, but as the orthography of the quote is the latter, either will do. There is however not a jot of difference in the substance of the facts, just the orthography. So your insistence on the supposedly crucial importance of such a correct but superfluous change, towards the verbatim, is hardly consistent with asserting that what is referred to in the quote as a herald be altered to refer to him as something it does not say, a diplomat; a change from the verbatim and of substance. To reiterate, I'm not arguing against your point on the matter of this quote because I've not the foggiest what the point actually is, but the changes you are advocating, for whatever reason, are, as usual, not sound. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Alphabet

The alphabet is missing, also the names of the letters (e. g. a, bee, cee, dee etc.)!--31.17.153.69 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

They would perhaps be better included in Modern Scots and can be found here. 86.139.131.236 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what the blue bit on the map is? Labels! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.178.145 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Areas where the Scots language was spoken in the 20th century". This.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not; they've never been Scots-speaking areas. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we may be looking at different maps, which for some reason both use blue to represent the complete opposite things.

Although with the other map it can be assumed that the "blue bit" is areas which Scots didn't spread significantly.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Adam Smith's accent

I wanted to mention that reading this article, I got the impression that Adam Smith was very much against anything but standard English. But Smith was in fact "a member of the Select Club where he cooperated in preserving the Scottish language against English inroads and in increasing native literary production; as an editor of the Edinburgh Review, he glorified traditions peculiar to Scotland; as a founder of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he dedicated himself to Scottish nationalism." This quote is from page 343 on the following link:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1053043?uid=3738032&uid=363698621&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=60&sid=21103759346773

Given this, I think the impression given of Smith by mentioning him in the context of feeling almost ashamed of his accent is potentially misleading.

Daniel Matthews-Ferrero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.211.66 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to view the quote in question with that link but it's also here. That does seem to contradict the ref at Scuilwab, both reliable sources. Both discuss language rather than accent though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is scuilwab really reliable? "Picts frae the Pentland hills to the Pentland Firth" is contradicted by Manaw Gododdin, weel ayont the Pentlands. Equating Smith's support for Scottish cultural identity with Scottish nationalism seems questionable, and a glance at his better known writings suggests he avoided Scotticisms in his more technical writings. The popularity in Edinburgh at that time of elocution lessons in English suggests there was some feeling that [to Smith] spoken Scots was at best old-fashioned, but we'd really need something better on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the Edinburgh Review glorifying the traditions peculiar to Scotland, his 1755 letter shows no evidence of Scots terms. Perhaps a later example can be found? . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As Scuilwab seems to be produced by Scottish Language Dictionaries it certainly ought to be a WP:RS, though they seem to be using a bit of poetic licence in the instance you site above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the subject of Adam Smith’s accent is a minefield of potential misunderstandings. For Hume, Smith et al. there were sound self-promotional and commercial reasons for expunging Scotticisms from their works. As Kurt Wittig explained in 'The Scottish Tradition in Literature', "English was now the dominant language in a United Britain, and since they made it their object to capture, in London and on the Continent, a market for Scottish books, it was obligatory for them to write English, as best they could". (Wittig could have made things even clearer if he had written "southern educated English".) According to James Buchan ('Capital of the Mind', 2003), the intention "was not to sacrifice Scottish national culture to southern politics, but by making it general, cosmopolitan, classical, businesslike, polite and loyal, to promote it. These were energetic and ambitious Scots who wanted to act on the British and colonial stage; and for that they thought they must themselves adopt the speech of the metropolis".

The Cunningham Wood statements have to treated with great caution, as he does not define what he means by "Scottish nationalism" in the context of Smith's time. I suspect he means that Smith dedicated himself to promoting national identity (to be fair he does state "national tradition" at the start of the passage), but this should not be confused with any other aspects of the later 19th-century ideology labelled "nationalism".

I agree with Dave questioning the reliability of the Scuilwab material. This is one of those attempts, like Scots Wikipedia, to create an artificial language on a par with Esperanto and pass it off as "Scots". One isn’t quite sure if it’s a hoax by someone enjoying a good p***-take. As a Scot, my first instinct is to laugh at it, but then I feel like crying when I realise the desperation it represents.

The Scuilwab article is in fact in standard written English (it lacks the flavour of someone thinking in idiomatic Scots) interpolated with Scottish speech rendered in written form.

There are many terms that would never be encountered in an older text in Scots because they are relatively modern coinings. Scots equivalents either don’t exist or have been eschewed: authorities / ventured / mercenaries / generation / dominance / incursions / establishment / extensively / feudal system / government / numerically / immigration / encouraged / refugees / occasionally / typesetters / commercial / insidiously / intensified / elocutionists / energetically / pronunciation / vocabulary / grammatical. (We must be careful, however, not to identify these as loan-words from English, rather than shared by both Scottish and southern English.)

There are terms that seem acquired through exposure to a modern higher education: the language situation in Scotland / social situation / upper echelons of society / tradin(g) environment / state occasions / reflection on the inadequacy of (why not "o" here?) / formulaic introduction / [language] registers / economically, socially and politically / upward social mobility / attributes of a standard language / significant contribution / influenced by the historical influences / proscribed language / social handicap / university level /research

There are normal English words rendered phonetically merely as they would sound when pronounced by some Scots: intermairryin / coonty/ presteegious (ridiculously juxtaposed with authoritative) / yiss.

And there are ludicrous archaisms such as "no sae lang syne".

There are also missed opportunities for using Scots: prosperous (why not "weel-to-do"?) / yaised, yisses (why not the Scots forms "uised, uises") / pairliament (why not "pairlament"?) / school (why not "schuil"?) / similar comments (why not "like sayins"?) / remained (why not "stayed"?)

It would never have occurred to Hume. Smith et al. to write as they spoke. They came from a tradition in which educated discourse had moved from being conducted in Latin to being conducted in English, i.e. their own English, not a southern variety of it and certainly not a Robert Burns-style rural dialect. They would have believed they were writing in English, not in Scots. With growing discourse with the South in a united Britain, it would however have become clear that some terms with which they were comfortably familiar in their variety of English would not be understood in the south, and that is probably what is meant by "Scotticisms" in the context of their writings. Take for example a term common in Scots law like "anent" (referring to, regarding). That is the kind of word Hume, Smith et al. would have expunged from their writings if it were pointed out to them. Their desire to remove Scotticisms from their publications tells us nothing about their everyday speech within their own company and with their fellow countrymen. In the absence of a contemporary description, we simply cannot know what their normal speech was like from our distance in time.

I recently read a work by a St. Andrews University professor in which he used "anent" quite naturally and appropriately throughout his text. This would strike some readers as an odd archaism, yet his writing is a more honest way of keeping Scots alive than the pastiche produced by Scuilwab and others like him. If it is true that the Scottish Language Dictionaries team is behind such efforts, they should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting this drivel on the world. Kim Traynor | Talk 11:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily disgree with much of what you say about the style of Scots Scuilwab employs but the issue here is its reliability as a source, on the subject of Adam Smith's use or avoidance of Scots. That it expresses it linguistically in a way that may be open to criticism isn't pertinent in respect of the factual content. I'm neither supporting or questioning its reliability but, unless its claim to be a product of SLD is spurious, that link ought to make it in Wiki terms a WP:RS, or someone at SLD needs a talking to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Matt, I understood that Dave was raising the question of how reliable the article is in terms of what it is asserting on a particular point. In respect of Adam Smith's English, all that source does is repeat stock knowledge that Hume and Smith were keen to remove Scotticisms from their published works, as you would expect them to do. The fact that they did so does not tell us to what degree this influenced their attitude to spoken Scots and their own speech. I agree with Daniel above that it would be wrong to imply that Smith was in any way ashamed of the way he spoke, even though it was an age of self-improvement in many fields, not least language usage. Kim Traynor | Talk 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

With you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There must be better sources than this Phd thesis from 1952, but if it has some validity then pp. 75–76 and 166–170 give support to Kim's view. The enlightenment writers took up what we could call standard English as a way of getting their work valued and recognised across a broad market, with instances of such success that Johnson conceded that "the Scotch write English wonderfully well". Speaking in the Scottish vernacular resulted in difficulties, as in the anecdote of a gentleman's daughter being unaware that Love for Love was smutty as 'it was high English, and I did not understand it", and Kames recounting how when three of the Lords of Justiciary spoke to the House of Lords, one was hardly intelligible, the second was not elegant but his meaning well comprehended, and of the third, who had claimed to have made the English language his particular study, "Deil ae word, from beginning to end, did the English understand of his speech." Lest we focus too much on Scottish, Sheridan's publicity pointed to the difficulty which "natives of different kingdoms and counties, that speak a corrupt dialect of English, find in the attainment of the right pronunciation of that tongue." Geordie, Somerset Irish or Welsh dialects were also "corrupt" in this view.

In short, rather than attempting to rid themselves of their Scots in a bid to establish standard English as the official language of the newly formed union, they actively promoted a standard English as the official language of the union, removing their Scotticisms both in writing and speech so that they were fully understood by the educated classes who spoke an emerging standard English rather than a regional dialect. Perhaps that nuance isn't supported by better sources, but it makes more sense. Worth reviewing, I think.

There was a partial revival in the early 19th century with Scott popularising vernacular dialogue in a standard English setting. I'm currently reading John Galt whose 1820s books, written in character, are in standard English incorporating Scotticisms such as "ayont". Many of these words had me reaching for the dictionary, others such as "stramash" seem surprisingly modern. Galt was clearly writing at a time when standard English was normal in prose, but local character could be readily evoked with vernacular dialogue. . . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

IP edits by "TY" the "orig. auth."

The IP identifying as "TY" asserts that longstanding apparently sourced material in the article is POV pushing and removes it. That they include the actual removal of a source in their edits (regarding material they don't like?) would cast suspicion on this assertion. There is no one "orig. auth." to the article but countless ones and as this editor edits under different IPs, if they are referring to an earlier edit or edits by them, in which they introduced a different and supposedly accurate reflection of the sources, it is thus not possible to spot this. As far as I can tell the IP is not referring to recent substantial changes, so if they feel the sources are not reflected accurately, it is incumbent on them to lay out what the sources do actually say and/or where the edits are which have compromised them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think "TY" means Thank You? They have their IP, at least.

I guess they meant they wrote that part? I don't know, but they would pay attention to it. I think it lays with them what to do, and how could they show the source?

So, I don't see anything needing to be done. You should talk to THEM, instead of just pushing your own views and continuing pointless edit wars because you don't believe someone when they claim to be the author or that part. Remember - assume good faith!185.37.86.148 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok.

Indeed I guess they do mean they wrote it, which is why I ask them above to identify the edit or edits in question in which they claim to have introduced the material.

Removal of sourced material and citations without explanation (and the expectation that this will be repeated, which it was, whether these IPs are the same editor or not) is clearly something "needing to be done". This is nothing to do with my views but with the removal of material apparently based on reliable sources. The views of reliable sources count, not yours or mine.

I am talking to "THEM" above. As the matter regards this article, this is the appropriate place to discuss it but even if it was something for them as an individual, as they edit from different IPs, they don't have a user talk page to address.

Assuming good faith about a problematic edit clearly does not necessitate allowing it to remain and compromise the integrity of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the Introduction

The second paragraph of the Summary strikes me as unsound. It states that "Because there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots" - yet the source it gives is dated 1992. Since then, there has been, from what I can tell, a significant increase in its recognition as a language -- does it strike no one else as tenuous to source something over twenty years old, especially with Scotland having been so politically lively for these past 15 years?

It also says, "Broad Scots is at one end of a bipolar linguistic continuum, with Scottish Standard English at the other", going on to say "Consequently, Scots is generally regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English, yet it has its own distinct dialects". The linguistic continuum is merely the degree of dilution of Scots with English, or vice versa, isn't it? Whereas the article takes this as implying Scots falls within English - which would be POV-pushing. For example - the Norn language underwent centuries of dilution with Scots, until its extinction - this does not preclude Norn's status as a language. Not to mention that the source for Scots being "generally regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English" is the same one of 1992 origin discussed above...

Finally, the survey cited, in which it is claimed 64% of respondents "don't really think of Scots as a language" seems quite slanted for agreement, does it not? Anyone amending or adding to this article would, presumably, be aware of Scots' status as a language questionably existing, let alone being widely reflected in pragmatic terms of use and education in real-life. Had the survey asked "don't think of Scots as a language" then there would be no issue, but asking "don't really think of Scots as a language" gives this humming-and-hawwing vibe of "Well, I guess, not really". Given its pitiful formal recognition and institutional establishment, this is a potent amplification to thoughts of dismissal, and, because of this, strikes me as a flimsy source. However, if there are no other (reputable) surveys to be found, it is preferable to having none.

What do you think?

178.191.31.129 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The twenty year old source is a high quality and reliable one (though it would be interesting to know the exact wording if anyone has it). To go any way to contradicting it a source of similar quality which specifically states that there is no longer any such disagreement would be required, or to a much lesser extent at the very least, and even then, that there was such disagreement until recently would be worth keeping in the article, cited with the 1992 source. Unless and until there is such a new source, the wording should stay. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we continue, are you going to respond to the rest? 62.46.249.15 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My post from yesterday largely adresses your first paragraph. Regarding your second paragraph, I can see how you arrive at your impression that this passage of the article "imply(s) Scots falls within English" but think rather its intent is that, being closely associated with a much higher profile tongue (on a linguistic continuum with it), it is treated (regarded) as a variety thereof, without taking sides as to whether it is or not. That said, I think the text could be clearer about this but without knowing the wording of the "bipolar linguistic continuum" sentence's citation (Stuart-Smith) or the one for the following "ancient varieties of English" sentence (Aitken), it is a little difficult to comment on how the text of the article represents them.

This passage, or something very similar, is longstanding in the lede but was unreferenced until this edit in June 2009. It would be interesting to know exactly what aspects of the pre-existing text are supported by the citations and I wonder if some unintentional synthesis crept in. Stuart-Smith apparently simply states that Scots and English are on a continuum. However it is unclear whether the Aitken source states that he himself, as an expert in the field of Scots lexicography, regards Scots as a variety of English or if he is noting that some regard it so (interestingly, the wording of the article added at the same time as the citation in June 2009 says "often regarded" and not "generally", per the current wording). It is also unclear that Aitken links it being so-regarded to it being on a continuum, in which case the word "consequently" (existent in the text from before the addition of citations, so no doubt unintentionally) synthesises such a link that is not stated in either source and thus should be removed. As the subsequent sentence regarding an entirely variant view of Scots (per Norwegian and Danish) is also from Aitken, it would thus seem he is commenting on the lack of agreement in views on the matter, not his own view. The wording of the citations would be immensely helpful in this regard, if anyone has access.

(Incidentally, that there is the dilution you refer to may well be the case but, to my understanding, that is not really what a linguistic continuum is about.)

Regarding your third paragraph on the text in the lede regarding public attitudes, whatever one thinks of the methodology of the study, this is what it reported and as a government study it can't simply be dismissed. If there are other reliable sources on public attitudes, or criticisng the methodology of this study, they could be included in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you haven't actually responded to my first paragraph, in which I attacked the source's unsuitable age. You responded by saying it's reliable? The presence of other sources is irrelevant, if the source in question is unsuitable - though is perhaps relevant in the context of its lack of recognition in past.

As for sources on it now being universally recognized as a language by all relevant authorities, http://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/facts-about-scotland/, a tourism-site operated by the Scottish government, lists it as an independent language.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCultureSport/arts/Scots. The official website /of the Scottish government/ recognizes it as a language.

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/knowledgeoflanguage/scots/introducingscots/index.asp - "Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish and UK Governments and by the European Union.".

Scots is recognized by multiple entities of the Scottish government, the UK government, and the European Union, as a minority language of Europe. Yet none of these sources, bar the EU's recognition with the UK's consent, is mentioned within the article.

I am hard-pressed to find any sources disputing its status as a language other than "Scholars disagree whether Scots is a genuine dialect or a language" - a claim unsourced in itself and part of a condescending, unreliable article for the Daily Mail. It, itself, claims the "Scots dialect" to be "little used", despite 30% of Scots claiming knowledge, I believe.

Do you not think, therefore, that this article is ridiculously distant from reality? No doubt, there are a multitude of grey-haired scholars who grumble over the Scottish, UK and EU governments acknowledging Scots as a language as it was historically - but reading this article, with these extremely pertinent recognitions in the thick of the article and given as far-from-definitive and not presented in the introduction, one would infer that its status is doubted /far/ more than it actually is. There is some work to be done on the presentation of Scots' status and recognition in the real world.

I can see now what the Author may have been trying to say, though there is still unaddressed the issue of its relevance with regard to age.

In response to the end of your second paragraph, yeah, it would be handy were there some access to the source online, but Google returns nothing.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wQucr4-cllwC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+English+Language+aitken&source=bl&ots=9w9tmc2FJT&sig=P5bdyjH1yhntgOgtt07CJt8cEHk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=78SNVNCZMZHY7AbZt4HABw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=aitken&f=false - If you click on Page 150 in this link, there are multiple sources regarding Scots, and Aitkens is shown to think Scots a 'semi-language' - clearly, he does not think it a mere dialect, so your thoughts on him regarding it as being recognized as such by others and the lack of agreement, as of 1992, is likely.

"(Incidentally, that there is the dilution you refer to may well be the case but, to my understanding, that is not really what a linguistic continuum is about.)". Two entities, one to varying degrees mixed with the other. Does that not sum up a linguistic continuum pretty well?

The problem with is indeed what is reported - that, regardless of its commission by the government, we, as independent observers, can recognize fault, in its flimsy presentation and bias, as I discussed and stands unrefuted. Another relevant study - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/most-scots-want-the-mither-tung-taught-in-schools-1.998834. This seems like it would belong in the article - as it highlights Scots' importance to the people, as well as 85% using it at least on occasion. Regardless, though, it is as I stated better left included, in the lack of more reliable studies. Google returns no formal criticism of the phrasing. 193.81.44.248 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a source, particularly one from such an authorative scholar on the subject as A. J. Aitken, as being of an "unsuitable age" at only 22 years is not a sound line. The view as to whether a tongue is a dialect or language is at the very least strongly influenced by politics (as you recognise), so reflecting any change in the last 22 years is at least in great part down to political changes rather than anything linguistic or scholarly. It hasn't suddenly become a language (or become a dialect) when it wasn't one before. There is still not universal agreement on the matter so it is appropriate that the article say so. There may well be room for expanding on this in the article but that there is a diversity of opinion should be reflected. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

...Forgot: your understanding of a linguistic continuum is not mine. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The pertinence of the source has not been doubted in regard to who produced it, but rather, when it was produced, and you, yourself, I would expect to concur with me wholeheartedly in thinking 22 years a long time in Scottish abstraction in this 21st century, especially politics and cultural awareness/change. Were one to view such a timeframe on a cosmic scale, then it is, indeed, a non-relevance; but, with the advent of these numerous distinctions by authoritative bodies not present twenty-two years ago and its increasingly prominent role in the curriculum, I struggle to see how you could claim it's not been a fair wee while, relatively, since Aitken put to paper his musings and knowledge on the subject.

You go on to discuss how the nature of a speech is, in theory, set as Language or Dialect not by politics but by sovereign linguistic merit. But then, what do you say to the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian tongues? How do you refer to the Croatian and Serbian speeches? Are Ukrainian and Belorussian listed in your mental factbook as perversions of Russian? Q.E.D., politics /does/ play a relevant role in the distinction of languages among dialects. Were the Kalmar Union in tact to this day, there would doubtless be ~20 million speakers of "Scandinavian" (in fact, "Scandinavian" is taught to pupils in Iceland as a general form of the Danish language, I believe). Had the pair got on, they'd all speak Serbo-Croat (in fact, it is only partially recognised as a language to this day, and in hushed tones among the world's embassies), etc. You see now that we do not live in a world where Norwegians speak Danish, or Scandinavian - but Norwegian, and should you navigate to Norwegian's entry, you will not see its status as a language doubted in the introduction, nor, I should think, in the entire article, other than flat remarks about its close intelligibility with Swedish and Danish.

Therefore, it can safely be concluded that politics is relevant, and with an ever-growing proportion of Scots identifying as Scottish or Scottish only, as well as the swelling matter of nationality and nationhood - I feel no need to source this - the importance of Scots to the Scots as a matter of national pride, distinguishing them from a motley ~60,000 Gaelic speakers and other members of the Union, is salient, regardless of recognition. It would thus seem justification for its classification as a language has grown. This, I offer as a mere example of how we /must/ consider the political dimension to classification of tongue, and, in doing so, hope to illustrate to you why this dimension is pertinent - perhaps more so, in this instance - than scholarly consideration or linguistic divergence.

Scots, in its nascent stage of growth from Northern English, was referred to by natives as "Inglis", among various other spellings, until after further continuing its development, had diverged from the other Anglic speeches of Great Britain that it was recognised - widely regarded, as the article states - as a sister tongue to English. With the union's creation, it was cast aside as naughty dialect and left to rot, and, in this unparalleled age of scholarly pursuit, I think few would deny its increasing re-recognition as its own entity. Does this not convince you further of, well, not only the importance of the scholarly angle in our discussion regarding the introduction's presentation of the situation, but politics, too, showing, as the article itself tells, how key it is to perception of peoples and their languages?

I acknowledge there is a lack of consent, but, I will reiterate, I believe the article poorly reflects the current status of the entity in a very one-sided portrayal of its situation. We seem to be in agreement that its contentious nature be explained, and possibly of one mind that there is poor clarity and inaccurate implication presented to the reader.

Lastly, I thought the definition of a linguistic continuum to be fairly obvious, and in response to your initial comment on my reference to it, sought a definitive one, and was satisfied with what I found. Please explain yourself as opposed to merely voicing disagreement - we can't resolve a misunderstanding if we don't know what it is! 62.178.45.55 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for once I'm pleased to broadly agree with Mutt Lunker.

But if a more recent 'critical' academic paper need by cited may I refer the user to:

James Costa., Language history as charter myth? Scots and the (re)invention of Scotland. Scottish Language, 28 (2009), 1-25 http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/63/24/32/PDF/Costa_chartermyth_final.pdf

Publication dates however have little bearing on the validity of the facts they report. Thus the 1870s foundation stone of Scots language studies James Murray's 'Dialects' turns out, when checked against original historical sources, to be significantly more accurate and objective than more recent works.

James Murray. The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland. http://archive.org/details/cu31924026538938 Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassandra, do you not see the extreme irony in your above statement that you agree with me re WP:NOTFORUM in the above thread? Largely as an IP-hopper, that is essentially all you ever do. The above thread is largely, particularly latterly, inappropriate forum postings (the IP laying out their interpretations of facts rather than what a WP:RS says about them); your postings are just the very same (whether on this or other topics). That the POV you are pushing is arguably the opposite to above is absolutely neither here nor there: the issue is that POVs must not be pushed. As you have had two or three years difficulty grasping this, reflect on the above - maybe this will be your epiphany.

You have posted re Costa's paper in the past and at the most charitable you utterly misunderstood it, your misrepresentations laid out here, where, per @Blackmane's comments in this admin's noticeboard thread from two years ago you "(affirm that you) deliberately (misrepresent) the source". Related articles were semi-protected and you were blocked.

I am engaging with you here rather than simply removing your post in the hope that you may at last grasp why your posts, and forum posts by other users, are wrong. Continue to forum post and I will resume the removing of them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the penny hasn't finally dropped then: the answer is in your persistence to WP:COATRACK your POVs on this topic on any other article's talk page you feel you can shoehorn it into, either under your occasional user name or as an IP-sock. WP:FORUM posting is bad in others, if you disagree with it, but ok for you then? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

Craicagusbanter (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

no request Cannolis (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Films

Is it worth adding a few films as examples of the Scots language? I'd say that The Happy Lands and Loach's Sweet Sixteen are in Scots, although some people might argue that it's just a very strong Scottish accent of English. Epa101 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Accented English words

There seems to be a tendency in this article to take English words and write them in a semi-approximation of a Scottish accent (e.g. "braid" for "broad", "lawlands" for "lowlands") then present them as part of a distinct vocabulary. As someone who (allegedly) speaks Scots, I just find this quite odd, particularly as essentially everyone I know simply says "broad" unless they happen to be putting on a comedy "Willie from the Simpsons" voice. A lot of these accented English words seem to be sourced from a site that no longer exists - when you click on the reference it just gives you a "not found" page.

Is there a better source for these being "words" rather than simply English in an accent? It's quite contentious so I think we need to find something that gives a clear rundown of what actually constitutes a "Scots word" and what is just a feature of the Scottish accent. Lewdswap (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For words that are cognate between Scots and modern Standard English as often as not it is the latter that has adapted and the Scots retains a more conservative form. Your examples of the Scots "braid" and "law-" in "lawlands" are both closer to the Old English and Middle English origin than modern English "broad" and "low". The Dictionary of the Scots Language online give copious dated examples of usage and the rest of the list of external links at the foot of this article should also be of interest to you.

I think some of the refs may have succumbed to link rot. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

An example of a difference between an Scottish accent and Scots is the word 'broad', pronounced /brɔd/ but /bred/ in Scots. Also, if it was just an accent, you could replace all words with /ɔ/ by /e/ but you can't. Munci (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictish influence

Is it possible that the Pictish victory against the Northumbrians at Dun Nechtain and reclamation of lands could have lead to a significant Pictish influence on the Scots language? It stands to reason that if Scots is ultimately derived from Northumbrian Old English introduced by Northumbrian conquests in southern Scotland, then surely Pictish reconquest could have had a similarly influential effect on it's development and go some way towards explaining the divergence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.39.86 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of Gaelic loanwords in Scots. But I'm not aware of any Pictish ones. So I'd have to say, "It might be possible, but there's no evidence of it, so I'm pretty sure it didn't happen". Pictish did have an influence on Scottish Gaelic so I suppose that you could say that Pictish had an indirect influence on Scots through Gaelic's influence on Scots but it is very unlikely to have had a direct influence. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is also possible there was semantic or discourse structure influence on Scots or Gaelic but, as we know very little about Pictish itself, it is very difficult to trace. Munci (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

True. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scots language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006192200/http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/5to14/htmlunrevisedguidelines/Pages/englang/main/elng1003.htm to http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/5to14/htmlunrevisedguidelines/Pages/englang/main/elng1003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

this sentence makes no sense

"Scots is often regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English, yet it has its own distinct dialects" ....Why is that yet? Why is that relevant?

I mean...there are different dialects of geordie, particularly historically but today also (Cheryll Cole is famous for speaking in a very broad Walker way).... doesn't devalue geordie as a dialect. Likewise I'm sure somewhere in the world you can find a language that doesn't have dialects (something spoken only in one village somewhere I gues) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.214.54 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case there would only be one dialect -- the one spoken in the village. But a language without any dialects would be a language that no one has ever spoken or written. A language is a set of one or more dialects: in the case of Scots, the set of all Germanic dialects spoken north of the Border. -- Derek Ross | Talk 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The publicly-funded Scots Language Centre offers: ‘Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language’.

It does not explain dialects of what.

The definition offered by Scots Language Centre does however make sense if two words are added ‘Taken altogether, Scottish dialects [of English] are known collectively as the Scots language.’ Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You really do seem to have difficulty reading complete articles and in this case following on to the very next sentence, which says "Scots is one of three native languages spoken in Scotland today, the other two being English and Scottish Gaelic". Whether they are correct or not, your interpretation of the SLC's intent is clearly false. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the SLC's intent is. I'm not interpreting it. I'm just pointing out that its definition of the 'Scots language' leaves a key question unanswered. One must however suspect that it's an intentional omission in order to avoid recognising the hard historical facts. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Must one? You continually twist sources to advance a clearly false position that there is no variance of opinion as to whether Scots is a language or a dialect (or indeed as to whether the question is particularly meaningful). It is abundantly clear that you adopt one position but your sustained campaign, in various guises and at numerous articles, to deny any mention of the very existence of positions other than your own is bizarre. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No Mutt. You misrepresent me. My position has always been quite clear – there are TWO views about the Scots language and these Wikipedia pages are deficient because they represent only one – the currently fashionable view. In order to be NPOV and consistent with Wikipedia policy both schools of academic thought should be fully represented. The problem is however not simply that one school of thought is being omitted. Crucially when checked against the actual historical record it is the now-ignored unfashionable view which is the version consistent with verifiable history. Thus these pages not only have a POV problem but also an ethical one, since they selectively give precedence to poorly-evidenced myth over demonstrable fact.

A root and branch re-write of these pages is the obvious solution to the problem.

As you already know, a brief summary of the results of my own four-year-long investigation into the facts can be read on my Wikipedia page. Cassandra. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(Again) lede, second para. Hardly unequivocal in support for any particular view on the matter and it could hardly be more prominent in the article. You continually claim the omission of one view or the sole advance of another whereas various are covered but not dwelt upon. The article, appropriately, just gets on with discussing the entity rather than dwelling on how to label it. Is though the outrage not at the very notion that the entity exists: "the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth"?

Repeated touting of a personal WP:OR POV essay covets unreasonable indulgence and it is rather a vain wish to expect one to assign time to it. Talk pages are not forums and making the forum post elsewhere and directing us to it amounts to the same. You are not a reliable source and although you may very well make mention of some in your "brief" work, it can be assumed it contains your usual level of diligence in the accurate representation of them and the usual attention to avoidance of synthesis and interpretation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet Mutt one cannot escape the 'tyranny of the facts' no matter how unwelcome they may be.

To reiterate:

There are two sets of claims about the 'Scots language', one which asserts that it was once an historical language regarded as independent of English, and the second which asserts that it was not. The latter view is amply represented by numerous 'reliable sources' not least the works of James Murray the 'founder of Scots language studies'.

These 'Scots Language' Wikipedia pages however reference only the former school of thought, and are thus by any definition blatantly 'POV'.

In addition to works on the subject published over the last two centuries one may also reasonably refer to the primary historical record - the works of Scottish writers in say the 16th century, and to other records such as those of the Scottish Parliament. Those records confirm, that 'Scots' was NEVER regarded as a language distinct from English - they simply confirm that Lowland Scots always considered their language to be English.

Most modern writers on this subject share an extraordinary characteristic in that in their enthusiasm they almost universally omit to mention the overwhelming historical evidence which so completely contradicts their primary claim.

But Wikipedia need not, indeed should not, simply go along with this faux, romantic, version of history so effectively promoted by Hugh MacDermiot, and by his latter day followers during the late 20th century and early 21st. Any anger you feel Mutt should be directed at them, not me.

The appropriate Wikipedia approach would be to write about the subject neutrally, to report and compare both schools of thought, and then to contrast these with the primary historical record. No personal comment is wanted or needed - the facts can speak for themselves.

Wikipedia is about collective, collaborative information sharing. And I am more than willing to help.

But the real question Mutt remains: how are you going to help improve these Wikipedia pages? Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm. The second paragraph addresses the variety of English Vs distinct language issue. The rest of the article describes Scots leaving the reader to decide for themselves whether they see it as a variety of English or a distinct language. Finally there's a sample Scots texts. I'm pretty sure any reasonable person reading the article will conclude Scots is a variety of English rather than a distinct autonomous language. Some may still want to believe that Scots is a distinct language. However, no amount of tinkering with the article will change that. Nogger (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Germanic/English

Seumas Mactalla It seems to me that it's pretty clear from the citations in the article and the sources cited that the change you're making to the lead isn't right. Do you have sources to the contrary? If so, let's discuss them here. agtx 22:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I direct Seumas to the second paragraph of the lede, regarding the variance on views on the relationship between Scots and English. That is why the first paragraph is so-worded; introducing the subject with a universally accepted classification, to be followed by that second paragraph with the less clear or accepted aspect of how the subject may or not be further classified. Your edits imply universal acceptance of your classification, which is not the case, or indeed that there is universal acceptance that the distinction is of importance. Please stop. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two concepts there Mutt. 'Germanic language variety' is indeed a 'universally accepted classification' but it isn't a universally accepted classification of the Scots language. The best one can hope for instead is something like 'the collective term for Scottish dialects' - similar to the definition used by the Scots language Society. Beyond that and one is getting into choppy water. If one really wants to place Scots within a language 'variety' then that variety is not German but the 'Northumbrian' or Northern English variety the dialect continuum well known to extend from the Humber to the Firth of Forth. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

-ic. All of the lects you mention, extending well past the Forth, are Germanic and I'd be impressed if you can produce sources which even hint at the possibility otherwise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm not suggesting that Scots doesn't at a higher level fall under the wider umbrella of the Germanic or Teutonic classification, but only that you've got a couple of other language levels to leap-frog before getting there, so it's a bit of a long stretch to define Scots as a Germanic language variety, or to imply that this is the universally recognised primary categorisation of Scots. And it's even more problematic in the article itself which further down goes on to say : "Scots is often regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English" which seems to contradict or at least call into question, the earlier definition. I'd be more cautious and less controversial and just adopt the Scots Language Centre's simpler definition. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

In the introduction we need concision and accuracy so specifying a classification that is universally accepted is the aim, particularly if to narrow the classification arbitrarily favours one of a diversity of views... and that diversity of views is handily discussed immediately after, so it's covered too! I guess you could say West Germanic or Anglo-Frisian if you wanted to go to a lower classification that is universally accepted but for this first sentence these are somewhat technical and less familiar in comparison to the widely know "Germanic". Being "often regarded as (a variety) of English", a Germanic tongue, is not only not contradictory but actively consonant with that initial definition of Scots, "the Germanic language variety...". And yes, your novel interpretation of the SLC site, above - steered well clear of controversy there, didn't you? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the choice is somewhat subjective. But since it can (and often has been)reasonably argued that Scots is neither a language nor a self-contained variety of a language then the Scots Language Centre's ‘Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language’ does have the advantage over other possible definitions by being a self-evidently true statement. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

But this then leads to the very question you posed yourself above: "dialects of what", which leads us back to indicating an accepted classification above this level, i.e. Germanic (or West Germanic or Anglo-Frisian). There is also the necessity to avoid introducing confusion with those other Scottish dialects, those of Gaelic.

On reflection, if refining the classification to an accepted one which is as low a level is desirable, West Germanic is probably fine and it clarifies that it isn't a Norse-derived form that is being discussed, such as Norn. I still have doubts regarding Anglo-Frisian as too obscure or technical for the very start of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well the reference in the main text is to an EU treaty; I've not been able to find the particular bit being referred to, but maybe that will provide a useful, and better, definition. The fundamental problem however remains that Scots dialects are unquestionably first and foremost relicts of the historic variety of the English language known as 'Northern' or 'Northumbrian' English and today are thus 'dialects of the English Language encountered in Scotland'. Given a free hand I'd put something like that in the first line - but since I'm sure that would cause feathers to fly I come back to the simpler definition offered by the Scots Language Centre. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the reason this is tricky has to do with the ambiguity inherent in the word "English." I don't think there can be any dispute that Scots is descended from Old English, just like modern English is. But if we say that Scots is a variety or dialect of "English," most people would understand that to mean that Scots is a variation of modern English, which is historically inaccurate. I like the way the issue is addressed in Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of this article (which we should cite to instead of the primary source that we have in there now). I think that makes it clear that Scots is descended from the same ancestors as modern English, but is a distinct language. Since the lede of the English language article uses the term "West Germanic," we should say that here too. agtx 17:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well put and and this source's balanced treatment of the topic is spot-on and worthy material for incorporation here. The DSL is a a rigorous academic source. So, rather than promoting what we personally would post if we had a free hand, let's focus on whether a refinement from Germanic to West Germanic is an uncontentious and positive move for clarifying the topic in the initial sentence. I would be in favour. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The DSL is interesting. As a definition of Scots Language it offers:

"The term 'Scottish Language' includes (1) Older Scots, represented in its two main literary phases by Barbour and the “Makars”; (2) the modern literary dialect, emerging about the beginning of the 18th cent.; (3) the modern Scottish regional dialects."

Elsewhere it tells us that:

It [Scots] is descended from the Old Northumbrian (ONhb) dialect of Old English (OE). ONhb is itself a sub-dialect of Anglian.

The accompanying 'family tree' diagram then shows that Anglian is descended from Old English, itself from West Germanic, then Germanic and finally Indo-European.

Each successive language could be fairly described as a variant of its predecessor.

Thus it would make more sense to describe Scots as a variety of Northumbrian (AKA Northern) English, Anglian or simply Old English rather than Germanic. Even West Germanic seems needlessly remote.

But I'd avoid the problem altogether by using the SLC or DSL definition rather than trying to compose one yourself (or myself). Indeed isn't that the Wiki idea - to quote existing sources? Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes to quote sources, not to interpret, cherry-pick, synthesise or misrepresent them. For your proposed use of the SLC, see above. Regarding the DSL, it says " It is descended from (my emphasis) the Old Northumbrian (ONhb) dialect of Old English (OE)." By the same token and from the same diagram would you have the English language article state in its first sentence that Standard English is Mercian rather than, as it notes in the body of the text, that it developed mainly from it? It is pertinent to note the origins of the subject but not to falsely purport that there has been no development or divergence in the intervening centuries. You are solely determined to directly and exclusivly equate Scots with modern standard English, despite there being sources which are more nuanced or actively counter this, and are unreceptive to whatever flaws are pointed out in your propositions. You may not like what the sources say or how they say them but that is tough. Also, to note, you coatrack this POV at other less appropriate article talk pages, presumably because you don't like the reaction to your campaign here. Stop tediously pushing this POV: WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cassandrathesceptic: I don't understand why we would say that Scots is a variety of Old English. We would never say that modern English is a "variety" of Old English or that French is a "variety" of Latin. When we say that Scots (or modern English) is a "Germanic" or "West Germanic" language, that means that it's part of a certain language family. The portion of the DSL you cite is not only outdated (that particular article is 85 years old), but it does not say anything about the relationship between Scots and English. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this discussion is going nowhere. You haven't addressed the main concern—that there's no support for your contention that Scots is a "variety" or "dialect" of English. Do you have a reliable, modern source for that point that we can talk about? If not, then I think we're done here. agtx 20:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we are muddling up two issues. One is whatever you or I might think, and the second is what the sources say. Wikipedia is about quoting only sources in the main text (although it's OK to express a POV here on a discussion page). Since there doesn't seem to be any source for the statement ' the Scots language is a variety of West Germanic' or similar, then one has to find a quote for the definition. I've pointed to a couple of possibilities for the opening sentence (see above). I've no doubt there are others out there too. But the idea of Wikipedia is to use one of them rather than compose ones own definition. [Meanwhile if you'd to like to know about the evidence in a little more detail you'll find my detailed analysis on my Wikipedia page - and plenty of comments from Mutt Lunker on the discussion page behind it! If nothing else I'm sure you will find the result of my enquiries thought-provoking and a springboard for further investigation]. Just click on this link Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify an impression that may be given in the post above, my comments on CTSs talk page do not concern their "detailed analysis", the contents of which I am ignorant. They regard CTSs behaviour. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, per your change from "Germanic" to "English language" in the lead sentence, with edit summary "no consensus on talk page for this being a "germanic" variety, as opposed to a variety of Englsh; these edits are essentially ethnic edit warring and need to stop", would you care to highlight the consensus that it is instead your preferred definition of "a variety of English" and why all the comments noting the diversity of opinions of reliable sources on the matter and the potential grounds for confusion arising from this designation do not detract from your purported consensus? The term "Germanic" has been employed in this first sentence for years (setting aside the recent intervention of a banned sockpuppet) and the only question about its employment here is not regarding its correctness but whether a more specific term could be employed. Per WP:BRD, you have been bold but the discussion on this matter is already under way above and you appear not to be conversant with it if you feel it reaches a consensus for your change, so I would request you to take the middle step yourself, self-reverting, and engage in the discussion here, if you feel you have something to bring to it, pending a forthcoming consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If I'm wrong in evaluating the discussion, then there is no consensus, and in a situation where there is no consensus to make a change, the article remains in the status quo, and the status quo is that Scots is a variety of English. Get a consensus if you want to make a change. In the meantime, do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

After further investigation, I reverse my opinion. "Germanic" is the status quo, not English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check out the situation and act accordingly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Scots video

Hey, I just came across this video of a guy speaking Scots; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENbkHS3mnY across YouTube, is it possible if anyone can transcribe this or at least find a transcription, as an Australian who can understand 75~80% of it? Thank you — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 10:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Strong and weak nouns

The article seems confused about these terms. A weak noun is one that forms a plural in -n; originating from the Old English "weak" declension plurals in -an. A strong noun is one that has any other form of the plural. So "een/eyen" and "shuin" are weak plurals (the first was weak in Old English although the latter was strong; in some dialects strong nouns could become weak in Middle English as well as vice versa); however the other Scots examples are strong plurals. "Oxen" and "Children" are weak, the article implies they are strong (again "child" was strong in OE). Note that this is somewhat the reverse of verbs (the source of the confusion?)· as "strong" verbs often have past participles ending in -n. Walshie79 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Walshie79: This is good information. Do you have any sources we can cite to? agtx 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Court Language in the 13th Century

I've just made a minor change to the main text replacing Gaelic with Norman French as the court language in the 13th century.

Walter of Coventry (fl. 1290) wrote “The modern kings of Scotia count themselves as Frenchmen, in race, manners, language and culture; they keep only Frenchmen in their household and following, and have reduced the Scots [=Gaels north of the Forth] to utter servitude”.

Use of the Norman French language at court had presumably been the case ever since 1124 when King David invaded and permanently occupied Scotland with his army of Norman French followers. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see the possible ambiguity in the previous wording leading you into confusion about the points being made in that sentence. I've reverted your changes and re-ordered the previous wording to avoid its potential ambiguity. 16:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Æ and æ in Scots

Hullo

Ah jist wa'nt tæ share yon Æ n'æ is missin' fæ th'article. If it wis there ah didnæ fun it. Am affy glad o'this, ge'ez me much pleasure tæ read, now if we kin add yon, that'd be guid tæ.

Dava4444 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh mon, a hinglish we tak roun ere, nuh com ere wid yu fool-fool tak. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you are of the belief that the character is used in Scots orthography per your usage above but this seems about as conventional as some of your usage of apostrophes (some apologetic, others just baffling (wa'nt?)). Didn't "æ" barely make it into Middle English let alone much further? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested Translation for BilCat:

I just want to share that Æ and æ is missing from the article. If it was there I did not find it.

I am very glad of the article, and derive much pleasure from reading, however if it is seen fit, it's inclusion would be personally most satisfactory.

Mutt Lunker, The pronunciation for the 'english 'want' in Scots is 'wahnt' but the 'h' is so softly spoken I have use an apostrophe to imply it. Hope that helps man. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dava4444 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dava4444 (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify what pertinence you believe Æ and æ (ash or aesc) has to the article? Do you have reliable sources which discuss its notable use in Scots? I'm not aware of notable usage and certainly not in the odd fashion you have used it in your first post above.

Both the pronunciation and spelling of "want" in Scottish Standard English is exactly the same as it is in other Standard English forms and we ought to speak English on talk pages, unless there's a very good reason (per BilCat, whose reason is humorous). The word is spelt the same in Scots but retains the original pronunciation, per its spelling, i.e. rhyming with "can't". An apostrophe marks the omission of a letter, not the implication of its presence, so spelling a word with the implication that a letter which isn't there anyway is omitted is superfluous. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is "phonetic" spelling. It doesn't work for all Scots dialects. For instance in the NE Scots speakers would say "wint", not "wahnt". That's why special spelling is pointless. If you want to spell Scots exactly as you personally pronounce it, you should be using the IPA alphabet, not the Roman one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Derek, I should have specified that regarding "want" I was talking just about those dialects where "want" rhymes with "can't" (though "wint"'s appearance is commonplace enough in Doric texts that I wouldn't regard it as a particularly unconventional spelling in that context). For those dialects (but not for the pronunciations for other dialects or SSE), the insertion of a superfluous "h" makes it an eye dialect spelling, "the use of nonstandard spelling for speech to draw attention to an ironically standard pronunciation". Not needed and obscure, particularly with the apostrophe.

On the core matter though, I'm unconvinced of any relevance of the ash character here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why Mutt Lunker, kindly, it is in everyday usage throughout Scots. fæ NOT 'from'. dæ NOT 'do'. didnæ NOT 'did not'. tæ NOT 'to'. 5 mins on YT listening to Scots easily demonstrates the common usage. Popular TV shows such as 'Still Game' have demonstrated a keen knowledge of the language. and i'll point out we as yet do not have an official Scots dictionary. A St. Andrew's version would be most welcome, as an equivalent to the Oxford and Cambridge English.Please kindly note, that the first English dictionaries were done with extensive research. this is where we are with Scots, the research phase. If there are any English only speaking editors, I strongly recommend watching and listening to much Scots spoken on YT. Dava4444 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. These examples, or any other Scots words, are never, ever spelt, in my experience and to my knowledge, with an ash but with two characters, a separate "a" and an "e". If you have reliable sources which indicate the notable usage of ash in Scots, please blow our minds. Otherwise, don't bring original research here. There have long been numerous Scots dictionaries, including rigorously researched ones available online such as DSL: fae, dae, didnae, tae. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. And once again I'd point out that those pronunciations are Glasgow-specific. In Aberdeen they would be fae, dee, didna, and tee/ti/til. So only one place where the æ could be used. Still Game does a great job but if it was set in Aberdeen everybody would sound very different! -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Historically illiterate

The fundamental problem is that this page, and related pages, are historically illiterate. The quotes about the supposed history of 'Scots' are highly selective, being taken mainly from biased sources; they simply do not match the historical facts. For the benefit of anyone with an interest in serious and objective history I've summarised the key facts which are so-oddly unmentioned here on my personal wikipage under the title 'Scots Language Uncomfortable Truths'. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.168.88 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Therefore, what I speak of Poetry now, I speak of it as being come to main age and perfection, whereas then it was but in the infancy and childhood. The other cause is: That as for them that has written in it of late, there has never one of them written in our language. For albeit many has written of it in English, which is closest to our language, yet we differ from them in many rules of Poetry, as you will find by experience." - James VI and I in Rules and Cautions of Scots Poetry. If it wasn't a language why did he say "our language"? And why do you complain about bias and seem to pretend you are not when the title of the article is incredibly biased? -MingScotland

sco.wp extlink

I added an external link to Scots wikipedia, then afterwards saw that there already an interwiki icon in the EL section so was going to undo my addition, but decided to leave it there since I find those icons much easier to miss. So revert if you must, but my preference is to leave it there on purpose. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We must. It's redundant, as you've pointed out, and there are enough links already. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Are the areas of Northern Ireland coloured on the map just the areas where Ulster Scots is most common? The NI Census shows that there are some Scots speakers even in Fermanagh and Tyrone. The Linguistic Atlas of Scotland looked at the whole of Northern Ireland. I'd question if the current map and associated text is appropriate, as it seems to be saying that Ulster Scots is spoken in those areas where c.30% on the Census said that they speak it and that it's not spoken at all in areas where only c.5% said that they speak it, and that seems misleading to me. Epa101 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

"Recognised as an indigenous language" seems evidently more accurate and less awkward than "a recognised indigenous language", and if the article is going to introduce a German term in linguistics, recognizing the linguist as German seems to soften the blow for the reader. I have seen no reasoning why either change would not be an improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Others may be more receptive to your views if you respect WP:BRD, air the views here then have patience and attain consensus on the matter rather than persisting with WP:WARring before any debate has even been had. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Per BRD it is the one reverting who is to initiate discussion. Also, we are not to revert unless the article is made demonstrably less by the change. So perhaps some class house stone throwing prudence is in order here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at the guideline again, your understanding of it is not correct. Per the lede, "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution.", i.e the promoter of the change (you) to engage with the editor who reverted it (me), without "restor(ing) your changes or engag(ing) in back-and-forth reverting". You did not discuss and you did restore the disputed edit. If you didn't know or understand that, that's fine, but please take note and comply. You are aware from my edit summaries my belief that "the article is made demonstrably less by the change" or, per the policy, that "it is not an improvement"; don't dismiss the other's view, persuade them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strong and weak plurals

The article refers to strong and weak plurals. From context, weak plurals use the -s or -es endings, where all other pluralizing methods (no change, as in sheep; -en as in oxen) are considered strong. The linked plural article doesn't explain the terms. I did a quick web search and found only a random article on a language-learning site about Irish Gaelic.

Wiktionary has nothing on this particular phrase either.

Am I missing something? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Scots' text samples

Guys I don't think it's positive for the language to show biblical texts when we are talking about modern Scots. I mean, I know those are famous texts, but that doesn't really show the language spoken now. I don't know anything about Scots nor Scots texts, but I think we should add something else that came closer to the readers (that doesnt mean deleting the religious texts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinengi (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Language or dialect, again

As the talk archives will attest, there have periodically been POV-warriors visiting this article who would wish it to depict that there is a unanimity of authoritative opinion that Scots is definitively a dialect, wishing to erase any counter view of it as language, as there have been those who would wish to depict that there is a unanimity of authoritative opinion that Scots is definitively a dialect, wishing to erase any counter view of it as language. There is, verifiably and cited here, a diversity of opinion on this and it is not necessarily polarised to one or other end of the spectrum. It is incumbent upon us to reflect this diversity of opinion here and not to sabotage cited text to favour a personal point of view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in the Lede, and covered in the "Status" section in detail. I think we have made every reasonable effort to ensure neutrality. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

My point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User Mutt Lunker is aiding Cultural Genocide by vandalising truthful, referenced edits to articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbscotland (talk • contribs)

I thank @Drchriswilliams: for his removal of the intemperate, unsigned comment above but I am restoring it so it can be seen in context, particularly as it is from the editor discussed immediately above and regards related edits. In this and other articles, this editor has a history of removing or altering content they do not like, adding unreferenced material, adding refs that do not support their edits, warring over this when the deficiencies of their edits are addressed and slinging out such ludicrously extreme insults and accusations as above. My patience has long since thinned regarding this behaviour so I actively expect to see a repeat of it whenever they edit. In regard to their edits earlier today, both as a user and as an IP, amongst some which are similarly questionable and some which I questioned on the basis of the structure of the article, I have noticed on reappraisal that one source, of which I questioned the use, does overall support the claim to which it is attached. I will not thus contest it further but may edit and re-situate it. I will however revert the repeated changing of the word "sometimes" to "often" in cited text unless and until this can be justified by a quote from that text. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: Scots is certainly a language (Scots Leid in Scots) it is unique from English, exactly what defines a language is a messy subject, however the time Scots started developing was around the 1200s, it borrows alot of its words for Scottish Gaelic. A Portuguese speaker has an easier time understanding a Spanish speaker, yet no one claims they are one language. Scots is mutual understandable to English speakers, but if we looks at other languages like Syriac and Arabic were people can understand 80-90% of their words the around 60% of mutual intelligibility of English speakers it looks weak by comparison. This is ridiculous Scots is its own language, its extremely clear, Scots has devolved from Hundreds of years away from English and from an any standpoint very clearly is its own language. They both come from Old English but Scottish comes Old Irish and no one argues Scottish isn't a language. In fact certain Celtic languages have more mutual intelligibility then Scots and English, languages like Cornish and Cumbric as an example yet no one argues they are one language. If you think Scots isn't language you have to deny 800 years of history, and the objections seem to come from a biased POV. Vallee01 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there is a diversity of authoritative opinion on the matter and the article should reflect that. Whatever any editor's personal viewpoint, they should not be removing cited material reflecting alternative viewpoints. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, people can share strongly held opinions towards all day but the only way forward is to present well referenced information so reader should be able to make their minds up given the totality of the evidence. If you compare it to a well-known but more extreme case where there is a difference of opinion and varying academic evidence like Climate Change, you might have overwhelming evidence on one side but that doesn't mean the article doesn't need to exclude the existence opposing argument if it clearly exists, the way it is presented (wording, amount of text, etc) should of course be proportional to the amount of evidence. As a speaker of Scots I personally use the term language for various reasons but I don't particularly care if others use the word dialect to describe it, so long as they actually understand what a dialect is and aren't just rudely dismissing how other people communicate. Monospaced (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Scots is only "certainly" unique from English if you take 17th century Scots, written phonetically, and compare it to modern standard English. If you compare 17th century Scots to English as spoken in 17th century Yorkshire, again written phonetically, you will see far more of a continuum. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've often heard from that Northern English dialects are kind of the same as Scots since they're Northumbrian dialects too.

It depend what 'kind of' means. Scots is closer to Northumbrian English than southern English and that's probably more true of the Scots dialects in the south east. This doesn't have much baring on the use of 'dialect' or 'language', both will tend to be more mutually intelligible around the areas where the majority speak them through exposure and shared history (e.g. Scandinavian languages). Monospaced (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wikipedia Controversy August 2020

Shouldn't this article have a section discussing the issues surrounding the illegitimacy of the current Scots Wiki as of August 2020? It needs to be totally rewritten and it brings up the issue of how important it is for people to be checking knowledge formation for validity.

Related Reddit Post

Lrny.lru (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

All the "Scots Wikipedia Controversy" did was show that the Scots Language community were not particularly interested in having a Scots Wikipedia. They were perfectly content using this one in the standard written form of their language. Is that unsurprising discovery really notable enough for a inclusion in the article? Nogger (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"using this one in the standard written form of their language"... think you made an unintentional error there. Scots and English are distinct languages. I guess you were trying to say that indigenous Scots speakers overwhelming will also be fluent in English, aka they are bilingual, and were "perfectly content" at using English Wikipedia as the dominant written language. 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:6880:7194:D2D4:6079 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. The Scottish National Dictionary tells us that "Scots varies in its spoken form, ranging from the ‘broad’ usage of some fishing and farming communities, through various intermediate mixtures of Scots and English, to a variety of Standard English spoken in a Scots accent (i.e. Scottish English, or SSE)". Nogger (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Scots is not Gaelic

I've edited this twice now. The very first sentence implies that Scots is a Gaelic language, and links to Scottis Gaelic. We all know it is not. The problem seems to be in the template that generates the parenthetical, '{lang-gd|Albainis/Lallainnis/Béarla Gallda}'. This is the template for tagging Scottish Gaelic text, and it seems to be out of place here to tag "Scots" as Scottish Gaelic text! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify the technical point about the template in case: it is encompassing Albais/Beurla Ghallda which are the Gaelic names for the Scots language. The template adds the language attribute in the rendered HTML (which is correct when mixing languages on a web page). The tagging is correct whether the content itself is clear or not. Monospaced (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

ETA: I think I understand what that tagged wording is _trying_ to say, but it results in a thoroughly confusing opening sentence that appears to say that Scots is the same thing as Scottish Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort. It is a perfectly standard and correct opening to a Wikipedia article, opening with the term for the subject in English then, in brackets, giving the terms for the subject in the other pertinent languages, in this case Scottish Gaelic and Scots itself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be obvious to an experienced Wikipedian, but to an ordinary reader it is baffling. It might be less confusing if the name in Scots itself came first, and the Scottish Gaelic came second. I am a light editor so I have no opinion on standard and correct openings, but as an ordinary reader it seems to me that the Wikipedia convention becomes confusing when the subject being presented in other languages is itself the name of a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the first sentence, came to the Talk page for clarification, and after rereading the sentence three more times, finally understood that it is correct as written. I understand that the format is standardized, but it is obviously confusing in the context of a discussion of a language or dialect. If the pages are meant to be informative to people who do not themselves edit Wikipedia pages, this would seem to pose something of a problem. Gregory Cherlin (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly restricted to Wikipedia. You'll find this commonly in entries in reference books. Here is another online example, from Britannica, perfectly clear even though, unlike Wikipedia, the terms aren't bracketed: [3] Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it seems that the confusion is caused by the mention of what Scots is called in the Gaelic Scottish, would it help to insert "in" in front of "Scottish Gaelic", like this: "Scots (Scots: Scots; in Scottish Gaelic..." The "in" is already implied, but perhaps making it explicit would make the meaning of that opening sentence clearer. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense at all to have the Scottish Gaelic translation there. How could it possibly be relevant to an English language Wikipedia reader reading about Scots? True, Scots and Scottish Gaelic are both spoken in Scotland. But French and Flemish are both spoken in Belgium, and we don't include the Flemish word for French in the French language article or the Belgian French one. Effectively everyone who speaks Galician or Catalan also speaks Castilian Spanish, but there's no Castilian translation there. We should just take it out. agtx 20:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The dissenters may be on to something here. Despite Wikipedia having standard conventions, it's also flexible about making exceptions when agreed upon through editor discussion. (I, by the way, also find (Scots: Scots...) to be someone mystifying for a lay reader.) Perhaps these Scots and Scottish Gaelic terms can be written out in more full and clarifying prose under the Nomenclature section. That certainly will work for anyone looking for those specifics in particular. Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at other regional minority languages, there are other examples of translations being given in languages which are linguistically distant but in close cultural proximity. The Breton language page has a translation in French, despite it being a Celtic language and French being a Romance language, Limburgish also includes a French translation alongside the closer Dutch and German translations. On the other hand the Iberian languages mentioned above are much closer to each other than Scots and Scottish Gaelic are. If there's confusion, I think the Gaelic has value but writing it out in clearer prose somewhere in the first sentences seems like a good compromise to me. Monospaced (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. In the introduction Broad Scots is mentioned. However, it's not defined until the next section (nomenclature) and this lets the reader hanging.

2. "In the fourteenth century Scotland, the growth in prestige of Early Scots and the complementary decline of French made Scots the prestige dialect of most of eastern Scotland."

Why did French get replaced by Scots?

Should Scots be defined as a dialect or a language?

3. "By the 1940s, the Scottish Education Department's language policy was that Scots had no value: "it is not the language of 'educated' people anywhere, and could not be described as a suitable medium of education or culture"."

This is equivalent to say that that declining usage of a language is useless. Considering the bold and disrespectful position on the issue it's no surprise Scots lost so much ground. It's an unfortunate situation.

4. "A Scottish Government study in 2010 found that 85% of around 1000 respondents (being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) claim to speak Scots to varying degrees."

Can such a small sample be sufficient to even come up with some useful statistical analysis?

5. "In 2020, the Scots Wikipedia received a burst of attention after a Reddit post criticized it for containing a large number of articles written in very low-quality Scots by a single prolific contributor who was not a native speaker of Scots."

What happened after that?

6. " It is argued that, because there has been no k in the word for over 700 years, representing its omission with an apostrophe is of little value."

When was it introduced?

ICE77 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

1. The lede introduces that Broad Scots is one of the terms used for the subject. There is further elaboration in the article, which is normal; you can't contain all of the material from the article in the lede.

2. "Should Scots be defined as a dialect or a language?" See the third paragraph of the lede.

5. The last time I looked, the publicity it gained has resulted in it now containing a large number of articles written in very low-quality Scots by multiple contributors who are not native speakers of Scots.

6. See Apologetic apostrophe. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

2. I understand the debate between the difference/classification of languages and dialects will never end but I don't see an explanation why French got replaced by Scots.

5. It sounds the situation only got worse.

6. Good: I see it's 18th century.

ICE77 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vowel list

There's something awry with the vowel list in the Phonology section. Vowels 1, 8b and 10 are identical. I can't access the reference material so I can't make the correction, but someone should.Ordinary Person (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Scotched English

Any thoughts on Scotched English (currently proposed for deletion)? I'm wondering if some content on this topic could be incorporated into Scots language. – Uanfala (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The page has now been turned into a redirect to Scots Wikipedia#Pseudo-Scots articles. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Section Removal

The following section:

"As there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing a language from a dialect, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots, particularly its relationship to English.[13] Although a number of paradigms for distinguishing between languages and dialects exist, they often render contradictory results. Broad Scots is at one end of a bipolar linguistic continuum, with Scottish Standard English at the other.[14] Scots is sometimes regarded as a variety of English, though it has its own distinct dialects;[13]: 894  other scholars treat Scots as a distinct Germanic language, in the way that Norwegian is closely linked to but distinct from Danish.[13]: 894 "

Should either be removed or moved into a section further down the article. Scots is quite clearly recognised as a distinct language by the Scottish Government, United Kingdom Government, United Nations and European Union as well as the International Organization for Standardization who have given it its own ISO code: SCO under List_of_ISO_639-2_codesISO 639-2". By continuing to include the above section it is insulting to Scots speakers and Scots. You wouldn't have the same sort of thing under Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, or Scottish Gaelic and Irish Languages would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.115 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the passage is factually accurate in regard to the evident diversity of views on the matter? I fail to see why noting this should be insulting and personally, as a speaker myself, your assertion doesn't hold for me. Neither would the supposed potential for insult be grounds for removing factual material anyway. FWIW, I've maintained this position with editors/socks who object to the passage because it entertains that there is a view that Scots is a language. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)