Talk:Scots language/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Scots is a dialect of English

Here is an entry from dictionary.com whose source is the American Heritage Dictionary.

Fri·sian (frzhn, frzhn) also Frie·sian (frzhn)

n.

A native or inhabitant of the Frisian Islands or Friesland. The West Germanic language of the Frisians. It is the language most closely related to English.

---

[From Latin Frsi, the Frisians, of Germanic origin.]

---

Frisian adj.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It says Frisian is the most similar language to English. Here is another entry of the same source.

Scots (skts)

adj.

Scottish. See Usage Note at Scottish.

n.

The dialect of English used in the Lowlands of Scotland.

---

[Middle English scottis, variant of scottisc, Scottish, from Scotte, sing. of Scottes, Scotsmen. See Scot.]

It does say Scots is a dialect of English. This dictionary even has entries for Scots words. Here are some examples. for lang (fourth entry) for hoot (first) for auld (first) for syne (first) for loch (second) for lallans (first) for ain (first) for stane (Webster's dictionary)

I have seen that Wikipedia has a Scots edition to make it easier for readers of the Scots dialect but that also does not make it a different language. This article should have a different name. Tim Q. Wells 20:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Have you read the section "Scots not a separate language" above? This is an extremely hotly contested issue (as is almost every case where the division "language vs dialect" is debated), and to be honest I don't think what the American Heritage Dictionary says will hold much sway with many people on either side of the argument. Having said that, I think the sensible title for the article (given that its languagehood is a debated issue) would just be Scots (which is its most common name within Scotland anyway) -- but that would probably go against the Manual of Style, and conflict with the page Scots as well. I can say though that moving it to Scots dialect (which is at the moment a redirect to this page) would be just as POV as the current name is. Cheers, Mendor 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They could rename it Scots tongue, which doesn't make the same distinction, but that would dismiss the so-called literary heritage (ie Burns). -- Boothman 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that name would dismiss the literary heritage, and it is quite commonly called "the Scots tongue" as well, but it seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Maybe move it to Scots (language) over the redirect? Although that's maybe a bit of an ugly fix... Mendor 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thae comments by Tim Q. Wells gars us speir gin Scots is a dialect o' the English an wiki policy is tae use the language conventions o' the variety o English that's aught the airt the article is aboot, wad it be a'right tae write like this?

I howp a' thae words is in yer American Heritage® Dictionary.

Murdoch Soulis 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

<Grin>, good point, Murdoch. Of course, going farther down that road, we could just as well argue that English is a dialect of Scots and complain when folk use words like "ask" instead of "speir'! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary is mainly for American English so of course it would not have all those words. Also Webster's dictionary has an entry for speir Tim Q. Wells 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Scots is not a dialect of Modern English anymore than Modern English is a dialect of Modern Scots. They share a common ancestor and historically were, at one point, dialects of Middle English. The fact that language X is related to language Y and both are descended from historical language Z does not make X a dialect of Y or vice versa. An Siarach

I have looked at the Scots version of Wikipedia and I could read it easily. It even had an idiom saying "ye can gie wikipedia an haund bi...." The American Heritage Dictionary is not the only dictionary that says Scots is a dialect of English. The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary say the same. In the discussion page in the Scots version writers of American English or British English could easily communicate with writers of Scots Engish. Tim Q. Wells 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility is not actually a very useful criterion for determining whether two varieties are languages or dialects. It usually just means that two languages are closely related. For example, I can read Spanish, so I can also understand Catalan; I can read French, so I can also understand Norman; and for the true geeks among us, I can read Esperanto, so I can also understand Ido. I don't doubt the situation is the same between Danish and Norwegian, though I don't have any personal experience of those languages. No-one would think of calling Catalan just a dialect of Spanish, or Norweigian just a dialect of Danish though -- well, not any more, although they have in the past. Mendor 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously incredibly arguable whether Scots is a language or a dialect, because the whole distinction relates to what the difference is between a "language" and a "dialect." But there's no other place to put this article. (BTW, is the Scots wikipedia really there "to make it easier for readers of the Scots dialect?" That seems absurd on its face. Are there really Scottish internet users who are not conversant with written English? My understanding of the Scots wikipedia was that it was a playground for Scots enthusiasts to write articles in Scots, rather than that it's actually useful for anyone. Ethnologue says Scots speakers have 97% literacy in English. I'd imagine that those who are not literate in English are simply not literate. YMMV.) john k 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Scots wikipedia is useful to Scots enthusiasts who want to read articles in Scots? BTW Ethnologue says, for Gaelic spekers, the literacy rate in Gaelic is 50% (1971 census), since most Gaels are literate in English I assume the Gaelic Wikipedia is perhaps a playground for Gaelic enthusiasts rather than that it's actually being useful for anyone?

84.135.217.155 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But then again, Ethnologue's a pile of crap. And no, Murdoch, your point is not valid. Is the page on Jamaica written in Jamaican English? No, it's not. I'd argue that's it's impossible to know Scots without knowing English. -- Boothman 16:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the Gaelic Wikipedia is also a playground for Gaelic enthusiasts and is not actually particularly useful as an encyclopedia - I'm sure lots of old people in the Western Isles have internet access and enjoy using the (minuscule?) Gaelic wikipedia to look up information. But Scots is even sillier, because it's mutually comprehensible with English, unlike Gaelic, and has no standard written form. john k 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How silly is the Norwegian wikipedia? Why don't they just use the Danish one? Well at least they have two written standards. One silly and one based on Danish. 84.135.239.176 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anent American dictionary definitions, Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1994 has the more nuanced

Scots — adj., said especially of law and language

Scottish. — noun any of the dialects related to English used in (especially Lowland) Scotland.

[from Scots Scottis, Scottish]

Perhaps Scots dialect, rather than just being a redirect, should point out the various dialects of Scots language, while acknowledging that some people regard Scots as a dialect of English :) ..dave souza, talk 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume Boothman is referring to literacy and not language acquisition.

84.135.217.155 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I agree Scots is a separate language, remember that Wikipedia's policy is to follow local conventions, and describe not prescribe. Ergo, if the Scots claim it's a separate language, it should primarily be defined as such, especially given that the UK has, under the ECRML, designated it a R/M language. Note that Galician, while being almost entirely mutually intelligible with Spanish and Portuguese and by relation to some extent with Catalonian and perhaps even Italian or French, is still considered a separate language. However, the designation is mentioned later in the article, but not in the headliner. I can understand Galician and Asturian etc, completely even though I've never studied them, but I recognise their difference as languages, they have different customs for conjugations slightly different tenses, etc. (Also, to whomever above mentioned that Scots/English is like Catalonian/Valencian, they should know that Catalonian and Valencian are the same, just different names). Besides, if mutual intelligibility nullified distinction, then arguably all of the Romance 'languages' are simply still dialects, since Portuguese is understood by Galician is understood by Castilian is understood by Catalonian is understood by Occitan by French by ... you get the idea; ditto for the Nordic languages, as Icelandic can be understood by Faroese by Danish by Norwegian by Swedish. Another misconception noted above, just because idioms are the same between two close languages doesn't mean they aren't different. There are plenty of idioms that exist within multiple (and very diverse) languages. Scots has a sufficiently different pronunciation (can you tell me an English dialect that uses uvular fricatives and alveolar trills?) and lexicon (in many ways a pidgin of Scottish Gaelic and English) and grammar (although in many ways it mirrors many now-archaic or dying features of my native dialect of English, SAE) for me to consider it separate. I do think creating a standard orthography would help Scots out a lot, I see both A and Ah for I (though when I practice writing my horrible beginners wanna-be Scots I stick with Ah, since that's what we use in dialect writing for SAE), but a lack of one shouldn't be used as an argument against it, as many languages have lacked standard orthographies or had very varying orthographies until recently, but no one claimed them not to be a separate language. Guifa 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree respectfully on many points, but then I'm a Yorkshire curmudgeon. "I" pronounced "Ah" is not a phenomenon reserved for speakers north of the border. Secondly, the Northumbrian dialect has many dialect words, has a full set of substitute vowelic sounds (monophthongs for diphthongs and vice versa), plus it uses a voiced alveolar trill for "R": is that a separate language also? Third, if Scots is a distinct language, then it should be able to survive without the phonetic transcriptions using letter values from Modern English. Let's see a Scots text without these formulaic re-spellings, grabbed at random from t'internet: "The Scots Leid Associe wis foondit in 1972 an ettles tae fordle Scots in leeteratur, drama, the media, eddication an in ilka day uiss. Akis Scots wis ance the state langage o Scotland, it's a vailid pairt o wir heirskip an the associe taks tent tae the fact that it shoud can tak its steid as a langage o Scotland, alang wi Gaelic an Inglis." After demungification, this becomes "The Scots Leid Association was founded in 1972 and ettles to further Scots in literature, drama, the media, education and in ilka day use. Akis Scots was once the state language of Scotland, it's a valid part of our heirskip and the association takes tent to the fact that it should can take its stead as a language of Scotland, along with Gaelic and Inglis." Aside from the odd archaic words of Scandinavian origin and unique dialectal usage, the rest is just the way anyone north of Brum would say it. I was going to suggest using "Scots leid" for the article name but then I found that "leid" is an Old English word. Ahem... --Rfsmit 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll be up to your oxters in glaur wading into this stramash ;) As someone a little conversant with a couple of dialects of Scots, may I say that your respect is much appreciated, and I've similar respect for Yorkshire: cultural homogenisation and the spread of estuary English has made it easier for everyone to understand each other in these islands, but is a loss to all our heritages. I've a fond childhood memory as a laddie visiting Whitby of finding a boy of the same age almost incomprehensible: modern Yorkshirians might well have equal difficulty with broad Yorkshire of the early '60s. Roll on the revival of the Yorkshire language! .. dave souza, talk 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Scots is descended from Old Northumbrian, itself descended from Old English, so it's not surprising it shares many of its features with modern-day Northumbrian.

It's politics that defines whether something's a "separate language", not linguistics, so the question of whether Northumbrian is therefore a separate language doesn't really have much bearing. What is true is that Scots was indisputably considered a separate (state) language from English when Scotland was an independent nation. To some extent the current debate takes that as its starting point; Northumbrian (AFAIK) was never considered a separate language so the issue never arises, although you could certainly make the case for Northumbrian being far more related to Scots than to Southern English.

Not quite sure what your "demungification" example shows. To me it seems that there are many systemic differences in phonology and morphology and rather more restricted differences in lexicon. That doesn't say anything about the respective status of Scots and English. I'm sure you could do a similar thing respelling Catalan as Spanish, or indeed doing the same with most pairs of Romance languages, and get a similar result -- in fact you probably wouldn't get the lexical difference in that case. Cheers, Mendor 12:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS If I was to go the other way and respell English as Scots, using the same phonetic/morphological/syntactic correspondences that you've used, would I have proven that English was a dialect of Scots? ;-) Mendor

Howz it hingin Rfsmit? Question for you. What's your issue with phonetic spelling? Before Doctor Johnson came along, it was quite common to write words as you heard them. Just because we're all now taught one form of English, does that mean we have to abandon all other forms? The point is that Scots is pronounced differently to Standard English. Why should I write LONG when I say LANG or RIGHT for RICHT or OUT for OOT? The key point is that in these (and many other) cases you'll find that it is the Scots pronunciation that remains closer to its Middle English ancestor than Standard/Modern English. So as Mendor hints at, perhaps it is the Scots spelling that is correct ... not the Standard English one ;-). As for Yorkshire, you'll not find many people here disagreeing with you about the similarities between Scots and other Northumbrian dialects ... quite the reverse actually. As for the distinction between Language and Dialect? I read a quote recently that said a language was a dialect with an army and a navy ... so for me, Scots was a language at one point, but is probably only a dialect now ... and as the wave of standardisation washes over the UK via education and the media ... it will soon be reduced to an accent. Sad ... but that's progress for you. Angusmec 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

English as a dialect of Scots

To my horror I find that there's a bit of a stushie about the latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary - what does it portend? ....dave souza, talk 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Never knew Numpty was from Scottish English. Does anyone one know the etymology of this word? -- Boothman.

Perhaps an extension of numb?

84.135.220.103 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Ethnologue

I restored the link to Ethnologue report. Ethnologue is an important languages database, which shouldn't be ignored. Besides, the report is short and it does say that "Some population estimates are much higher", so it doesn't contradict this article too much.

It's nevertheless nice to hear that Wikipedia is superior to Ethnologue. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue's a bag of shite. Sorry, but that's the only way I can describe it. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Well ... it may not be too precise and up-to-date, but it is big and it comes up high on Google. And it's Christian, too.

Come to think of it, none of it has anything to do with encyclopedic integrity, so you're probably right :) --Amir E. Aharoni 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Being Christian is partly the reason why it's so utterly crap. NPOV and all that shizzle. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Let's go through it:

100,000 in United Kingdom (1999 Billy Kay). Some population estimates are much higher. Population total all countries: 200,000. There is no way that there are as many speakers using Scots as a community language in Ireland as in Scotland. The total is arrived at by not comparing like with like. The only official estimates are those of the General Register Office for Scotland in 1996 (c. 1.5 million for Scotland) and the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey in 1999 (c. 30.000 for NI). Given dialectalisation and different ideas about how one defines Scots, 100,000 may be a good estimate for Scotland, with perhaps 10,000 in Northern Ireland, but the 50:1 ratio suggested by the official surveys is just as possible. All of Scotland except highlands (historically true, but no longer, according to the GRO Scotland survey): lowlands: Aberdeenshire to Wigtownshire (look at the map). Northern Ireland. Also spoken in Republic of Ireland (Northern Ireland is also on the island of Ireland). Insular, Northern, Southern, Ulster. This misses out Central Scots, which accounts for two thirds of speakers and is also a dialect. Difficult intelligibility among dialects (this really applies only to Insular Scots and to some extent Northern Scots vis-à-vis the rest). Insular Scots on the Scottish Islands is considered by some to be a different language (Shetlandic and Orcadian) (the writer has confused Northern Scots with Insular Scots). Lallans is the main literary dialect. Ulster Scots has its own development group. Scots is closest to English and Frisian. Indo-European, Germanic, West, English (Scots linguists often prefer “Anglic” to “English”, leaving open the question of languageness). 1,500,000 speak it as second language. This is arrived at by confusing the GRO estimate with the headline one used above. Used with family and friends. All ages. English is considered to be the language of education and religion. Literacy rate in second language: 97% English. Poetry. Magazines. Dictionary. NT: 1901–1984. This suggests that a single New Testament was worked on from 1901 to 1984, but the dates refer to two separate versions by William Wye Smith and William Laughton Lorimer. 100,000 in Ireland (1999 Billy Kay). I very much doubt whether this estimate stems from Billy Kay. Some Ulster activists have said that there may be 100,000, but that was based on a fairly arbitrary downward revision of Robert Gregg’s 1960s estimate. The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 1999 suggested c. 30,000 for NI. Population includes 60,000 in Lallans, 30,000 in Doric, 10,000 in Ulster. This is self-contradictory, since the above total of 100,000 in Ireland would mean 90,000 in the Irish Republic (in any case, “Ulster” and “Northern Ireland” are not the same thing, since the former covers nine counties instead of six). The information regarding speakers of the various dialects is not specific to Ireland and suggests contemporary Scottish immigration. “Lallans” is a literary dialect, and the writer obviously meant Central Scots. County Donegal. This is the only county in the Irish Republic where Scots is used as a community language, but there are also Counties Down, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry in Northern Ireland.

Yes, I think the Ethnologue article is about as bad as it is possible to get. (usigned by User:62.77.181.11)

Status

"i.e. both Scots and English evolved somewhat concurrently beside each other hence one is not necessarily a sub-group of the other"

That can be said of most all dialects of English (i.e. varieties descended from Old English). 84.135.236.129 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And Scots was not always so called. It has now a name applied originally to Goidelic language. I prefer myself to see Scots as a northern form of British English. Laurel Bush 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Lowland Scots has little to do with British English, but the anon is correct that the versions of Middle and Early Modern English spoken in Scotland have always developed parallel with English English. Scots supporters frequently cite historical examples where the Scots (English) has been distinguished from the English (English) language, but fail to cite the other examples where it is called English; and indeed it could even be argued that the employment of the term "Scots", rather late as everyone here knows, is merely an attempt to distinguish it from English English, and not necessarily to mark it out as a separate national language in the European context. Sadly for Scots enthusiasts, Lowland Scots has always been thought of as a branch of English, and even in the 2 centuries it was used as the language of the Scottish court, it was still being called "English" (i.e. "Inglis") , and indeed for half the period of its official use, "English" was the only word used to designate the dialects of English spoken in Scotland. In all reality Lowland Scots is and always has been a series of distinct English dialects which just happen to be spoken in no more than a third of Scotland's territory. Compared with Gaelic and English, it's claim to have any historical existence, let alone a central role in Scottish history, is phantasmal. A language? Well, that's up to the people who use the word "language" - and this is determined by political rather than linguistic considerations. I fear that politics underly this whole debate, but as such factors lead to designations such as "the Macedonian language" and the ludicrous "Ruthenian language", Scots enthusiasts are perfectly entitled to make the claim. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit like Scottish Gaelic really being Irish I suppose. - 84.135.236.120 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"A bit like Scottish Gaelic really being Irish I suppose" Not really. First of all "Irish" "Scottish Gaelic" "Manx" etc are all exonyms, no speaker of any Gaelic language referred to himself as anything other than a Gael((in this context)and his language as a Gaelic ( or whatever other versions/cognates of those words were used in older times such as 'Goidelc' ) and to class Scottish Gaelic as Irish is no different to classing French,Spanish,Portugese or Romanian as Italian languages. Secondly Lowland Scots originated in a people who were English and described themselves as such and who named their language as such. Scots comes from a language which was spoken by the English and referred to by its speakers as English. Scottish Gaelic comes from a language spoken by the Gaels which was referred to by them as Gaelic. Any references made to descent from "Irish" are as legitimate as describing Medieval French as a dialect of Italian due to its common Latin/Romance ancestry. The only reason speakers of English in Scotland renamed their language "Scots" is because, having been conquered by the Scots, they lost their English identity and assumed a Scottish identity. siarach 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past it certainly wasn't unusual for English-speakers to perceive the language, and refer to it, as Irish albeit now considered politically incorrect to do so. All the same the Irish apparently prefer the language to be called Irish in English. Scottish Gaelic is after all simply the dialects at one end of a historical dialect continuum from the south of Ireland to the North of Scotland, although there are now gaps in intermediate areas due to lack of native speakers. Apparently Radio nan Gaidheal regularly transmits joint broadcasts with RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta, in what, one would presume, is a mutually comprehensible medium otherwise the excercise would seem somewhat pointless. A form of Middle Irish, known as 'Classical Gaelic', was used as a literary language in Scotland until the 18th century and in Ireland to the 17th. Recent orthographic divergence is the result of later orthographic reforms creating a situation of polycentric standardisation similar to that of Bulgarian and Macedonian which properly form a dialect continuum, with the Bulgarian standard being based on the more eastern dialects, and the Macedonian standard being based on the more western dialects. 84.135.245.156 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was watching "Never Mind the Full Stops" on BBC Four the other day, and interestingly they classed both Ulster Scots and Shetlandic as dialects of English. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 08:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Well they would, wouldn't they. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite that quiz being a rather poor show for grumpies which hasn't lived up to its excellent adverts, I happened to see that episode while checking my watchlist. The "guess where they're from and what they're saying" section was of interest: I guessed Shetland ok, but was puzzled by the other example which clearly had Scots words but an accent which I couldn't place: it was quite unlike the Rev. I. Paisley hard tones used by the Ulster folk of my acquaintance. The teams were dismal at understanding the meaning, somewhat surprisingly in the case of the Liverpool poet (McGough IIRC). More to the point, it's rather nice that despite the homogenisation of language, we still have lots of mutually incomprehensible dialects in Britain. To pick up on the point made by Calgacus, celebration of diversity is something of a recent phenomenon, and Scots enthusiasts have a valid point in that both Scots and BBC English are parallel descendants of early and middle English. However there's still a tendency to portray dialects as corruptions of "proper English", a theme taken up earlier this year in the documentary Scots introduced by Carl MacDougall as "the story of how the language of kings became the language of the gutter" with the comment that "by the 20th century the Scottish national dictionary was describing Glaswegian speech as hopelessly corrupt, and generations of schoolchildren were shamed or belted for using their mother tongue". It's a bit like the Creationist misrepresentation of evolution as meaning that humans are descended from monkeys, when of course science really says we have common ancestors. ..dave souza, talk 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

language attrition

The link for language attrition actually points to language death. This should be corrected in time, but IMO the article on language attrition is so technical and incomprehensible to the layperson that I think we should wait until it is improved before making this correction. Ireneshusband 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Languages in the United Kingdom

Contributors may care to look at the listing of Germanic languages at Languages in the United Kingdom. A consensus on whether or not Scots is a a language to be classified alongside English would be useful. Man vyi 05:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Scots Origins

Having read the article and discussion pages, I think that there needs to be more said on the origins of the Scots language/dialect. The WP article on the English Language states that "Like English, Scots is a direct descendant of Old English"; but here, we say it is from Middle English. Both can't be right. That said, I can see this being the proverbial can of worms. It may be that due to the fact that Scots is now just a political amalgum of various dialects that the question is impossible to answer. Even if one Scots dialect were shown to owe more of its heritage to old rather than middle English, does that mean the whole 'Language' derives from there ? Probably not. Are there lingustic techniques to resolve such an issue ? --Angusmec 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)