Wikipedia

Talk:Scots language/Archive 8

< Talk:Scots language
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Angusmec in topic Scots origins and separate language revisited
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Scots language → Lowland Scots language I'm requesting this move - albeit with little hope of success - because the name is less confusing and, arguably, more accurate than the current one. To wikipedia's international reading audience, the title implies that Lowland Scots is the "national language" of Scots, like Ukrainian with Ukraine, Danish with Denmark, etc. Whereas in fact it does not hold, and never has held, that status; "Scots" in fact is the usual way to distinguish it from English English. No-one in Scotland would ever call it "Scottish", yet if you check the interwikis, that is how it is being translated. With this title, hence, Wikipedia is actively perpetrating a misconception of the highest order. There would be no problem with simply "Scots", but the evolution of wikipedia convention has resulted in the word "language" following on from "Scots" that sadly has resulted in this distortion. For these reasons, among others, I'm requesting a move to a less controversial and already operational title. As I do not wish to force judgment of the status of Lowland Scots as a language, I left "language" in the title. …Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, as mover. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Man vyi 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support siarach 11:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Strongly). Lowland Pete 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose See below. Septentrionalis 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose See comment below. Mendor 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This should be moved from "Scots language". If this request fails, try Lallans-derived name next. Shilkanni 09:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Bubba ditto 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Mendor.. dave souza, talk 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mendor's right: the overwhelming majority of Scots speakers call it "Scots" whether they are speaking Scots or English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See comment below. Nogger 08:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Most of the interwikied articles in other languages use a variation of Scots rather than their word for Scottish. The language is recognised by the UK government as Scots, and Ulster Scots as a "variety of Scots" (not Lowland Scots). However, if the intention were to distinguish clearly between Scots as the roof variety and Lowland Scots as the variety spoken in Scotland and Ulster Scots as the variety spoken in Ireland, then there would be some logic, but no need for a move. Simply develop existing redirect Lowland Scots language similarly to Lallans. Man vyi 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Scots language really controversial? Most of the references provided have the word Scots in the title. Many also add the qualifier language, including some of those published by university presses. None of them have Lowland in the title. That is not to deny such publications exist. The word language itself may not necessarily imply language status as is popularly understood in, for example, the French or German languages, but simply a means of communication. The Scots language being a Scottish means of communication. The first Paragraph clearly points out that it is not the only one. The second illustrates its realationship with English. It might be sensible to remove a variety of Anglic language from the first paragraph because it seems to preemt discussion of its status. If 'Scots' is simply a variety of English, perhaps this article should be merged with Scottish English which is surely less confusing and, arguably, more accurate than the misconception which is being perpetrated at the moment. 84.135.245.156 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not really something that had previously struck me as being essential ( although this article should probably have been named "Lowland Scots language" at inception ) but if the current title gives rise to any misconception, which i think it probably does and i have also come across some examples of this article being transwikied erroneously as some equivalent or other of "Scottish language", then i see no reason why it shouldnt be moved - "Lowland Scots" being at least as, if not more, common a term than simply "Scots" for this language in my experience and as previously highlighted "Lowland Scots" is also a more accurate name less prone to misinterpretation. siarach

Why change the wisdom of ages. Scots is well and truly the vernacular of the areas alluded to in the main article, why change it? It has as much legitimacy as any other, whether imported or British, as Pictish is now defunct, strongly oppose. Lowland Pete 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the distinction implied is strange {and if we are going to do this, Lallans language or some variant would be more natural). This has always been called Scots; why not leave it there?
The best way to straighten out confusion in other WP's is to write them; if necessary, some editor there should read an Anglic language.
Why Berwick, and not Northumberland? Does it stop at the Tweed? Septentrionalis 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's a label that's sometimes applied, but in my experience it is only rarely called Lowland Scots. See, for example,

None of those sources (all academic or governmental) refer to it as Lowland Scots, but just as Scots. What I have heard speakers themselves call it ranges in between Scots, the Scots language, Lallans, Doric, the Scots tongue, oor ain leid, the language of Burns, Scots dialect, dialect, braid Scots and thon awfu uncouth wey o speakin, but never (in my experience) Lowland Scots. Moving the article there would do Wikipedia more of a disservice than keeping it here. The issues of whether Scots is a language, and whether it's "the" national language, should be dealt with within the article itself; IMO Scots language is the only reasonable title for the article. (I would rather it were just at Scots, neatly sidestepping the whole "language" issue and giving it its most common name, but sadly that conflicts with an existing disambiguation page.) Mendor 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • When I first heard of this language (I don't recall where) it was called Lowland Scotts (Hiland Scots being, of course, Scots Gaelic). I prefer that title because it seems a useful way of distinguishing it from what might also be considered a Scots language (in the general sense of Language spoken in Scotland), but am happy to defer to the judgement and preferences of Scottish editors. Eluchil404 06:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been aptly illustrated by other contributors the subject in question is generally referred to as Scots. Since Scots is a disambiguation page, Scots language appears to be the next obvious choice (unless one renames Scots to Scots (disambiguation), especially since the subject in question is also often referred to as the Scots language. If wikipedia's international reading audience is confused by the title, one can only assume that is before they have read the article. One would further assume the idea of wikepedia is to clear such confusion in the article and not to change the title in order to accomodate any confusion or misunderstanding a reader may have previous to reading the article. At present the introduction is "Scots [...] where it is sometimes called Lowland Scots [...]". If the title were changed the introduction would perhaps be "Lowland Scots [...] usually just Scots [...]", which would seem strange, having the article title other than the more usual designation. Nogger 08:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"which would seem strange, having the article title other than the more usual designation." I appreciate that but the emphasis is on accurate titles which do not mislead rather than titling everything by whatever it is the most commonly known as ; for example Scottish Gaelic language should be titled as simply "Gàidhlig" or "Gaelic" as it is referred to almost entirely by those names and "Scottish Gaelic" is used even more rarely in day to day speech as a name for the language than "Lowland Scots" is in reference to this language. siarach 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
A fair point. All the same "Gàidhlig" is the Gaelic name for the language so one would not expect it as a title in the English wikipedia. Gaelic is the English name and I assume Scottish Gaelic came about in order to distinguish it from Irish Gaelic which itself has the title Irish language, which according to the article itself, is the designation preferred by Irish speakers in English. I can only assume there is some worry that Scots language may be mistaken for, or marginalise, Gaelic. The first sentence in the article clears that possible misunderstanding. Nogger 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An Siarach is right. "Gaelic" is almost invariably what the Gaelic of Scotland is called. Personally I'd be happy to move its article to "Gaelic language" especially since the Gaelics of Ireland and Man are generally called "Irish" and "Manx", thus avoiding confusion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that by highlighting the situation with Scottish Gaelic i was in no way advocating a move to "Gaelic language" - a title which is totally innapropriate given that it technically refers to any of the modern Gaelic languages or a common ancestor. The point i was making is that a common name for a language or thing or whatever should not necessarily take precedence over a more accurate, if less commonly used, name for it on wikipedia. Hence 'Scottish Gaelic language' should remain and by the same thinking 'Scots language' should be moved to 'Lowland Scots language'. However, as i initially stated, i really dont think that this is an overly important issue. siarach 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with siarach here. Would see problems with "Scottish Gaelic" being called "The Gaelic Language". Is not the word Gaelic an Anglicized generic word for things Gael?, so no-one really owns its exclusivity. In my book "Gaelic Language" includes "Scottish Gaelic", "Manx Gaelic" and "Irish Gaelic". I think this is a non-runner, convention is safer here and Wikipedia should reflect convention. Lowland Pete 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was just a thought. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scots origins and separate language revisited

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Some interesting points have emerged from the long discussion fizzling along at the top. It seems that the south east as far as the Forth remained largely Northumbrian (Anglo-Saxon) speaking during the period of Gaelic rule. This article and related articles tended to give the impression that this English language had been (absent and) reintroduced with the burghs in the 12th century: this point needs clarified, presumably on the lines that the rise of the burghs and influx of Northumbrians/English gave the language increasing importance in what had previously been a peripheral area. As a start I've tried a modification to the History section.

This also bears on the claims to language status and the related point that Scots has often been miscast as a corruption of English: this was explored in the TV programme Scots - The language of the gutter which gave a useful historical overview. I've kept a recording of it, but failed to watch the other two in the 3 part documentary. This could do with developing and I'll try to get onto it some time: it's fascinating how the odd word like faither is an old pronunciation rather than a naughty vulgar corruption. ..dave souza, talk 08:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, you are correct. One of the problems is that before the 18th century, Scots believed that all of Scotland was Gaelic speaking at one stage. The reason for this is probably that later medieval English-speaking Scots needed to believe this to feel Scottish (rather than, as their language suggested, English). There is an interesting early 16th century poem by William Dunbar called the Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy, in which Dunbar, a Lothian anglophone, and Walter Kennedy, a Carrick Gael, engage in a cultural conflict. Dunbar ridicules Kennedy's Heland accent and Erische language, whilst Kennedy defends it, saying calling it "all trew Scottismennis leid" and telling Dunbar "in Ingland sowld be thy habitation". Kennedy also states that English grew in Scotland because Earl Cospatrick of Dunbar betrayed it. Goodness knows where that comes from, but the poem in general indicates the ideological context which produced modern popular understanding. This is why MacPherson's Ossian, when believed, was thought of as Scottish, not Highland. Anyways, historical research has shown since that English was pretty much always the language of the south-east, and that Scotland was rather more composite in origin that the medieval myths of the wandering Gaels made out. Nevertheless, I'd venture to say that most Scots probably still believe that all of Scotland was originally Gaelic-speaking. In that, they are not far wrong; all Scots were once Gaelic-speakers, but that was when a Scot was a Gael by definition, and Lothianers hence were not Scots. The latter point should be remember before back-dating "Scots" to the 12th century! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dave. I suppose there are 3 things that I think we need to cover.
1. Is the assertion that archetypal Scots linguistic traits are actually middle english traits correct ? I guess a few well placed cross references between Scots and ME words should suffice as evidence. I've already got a few living examples (ie, words still in common usage today). I think that's an important point, since it would be easy to find long dead words to back up this stance. Finally, if we decide on an amendment, then it needn't strike an academic tone; but merely point out the irony of the situation. e.g. "It's a braw bricht moonlicht nicht the nicht" isn't quaint 'Scotch' (ahem). It's derived from proper (middle) English.
2. We are agreed that the start point for the progression of what we now call Scots is effectively Lothian & Borders ... but do we know what drove its progression North and West ? Also, do we know why it became estranged from other versions of English ? There seems a bit of a paradox here. If the English (people) were driving their language into Scotland, then Scots (as a language) would not exist at all, since there would be no divergence in the dialects. So if this drift did not originate in England, then why did Gaelic not become the dominant language (given that it must have had the larger population) ?
3. Given that the source of what we now call Scots was an area where old english was originally spoken, is it not more accurate to say that (what we now call) Scots is a dialect of old rather than middle english ? Is there a clear point of divergence when the 'English in the Kingdom of the Scots' developed their own linguistic traits; separate from the rest of Northumbria ?
--Angusmec 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
2) Gaelic was the dominant language for centuries. In terms of population of speakers, it probably had a majority for the most if not all of the 8 centuries between 700AD and 1500AD. And let's not be anachronistic, Lothian was conquered by the King of Scots (Gaels), but was never unambiguously part of "Scotland" until after the 13th century. Moreover, the English inhabitants of Scotland called Gaelic Scottis (Scottish) until the 15th century (and after). What drove its population north and west was simple, more simple than most people imagine: TOWNS, ie burghs. English failed to progress in areas outside burgh establishment. And English was established everywhere burghs were established. Incoming burgesses came almost totally from Germanic speaking regions of Europe, mostly England and Flanders. Aristocratic incomers were French-speaking, were small in number, and thus unlike burgesses, could not form ethnic communities distinct from their surroundings; they were quickly Gaelicized anywhere they settled outside Lothian and adjacent regions. The idea of the emerging "Highland Line" is a myth; the latter was a feature of the 18th century. Gaelic survived everywhere in Scotland where burghs were not established, for instance, it survived in large regions between Wigtown, Kirkcudbright and Ayr (regions outwith the highland line), but not in Inverness or coastal Moray (regions within the Highland line).
3) The source of Scottish English is not necessarily Lothian. The immigrants who brought English to Galloway and Scotland north of the Forth came from England and Flanders (Flemish was quite similar to English back then, and the transition would not have been difficult), not Lothian. Ultimately, though, the number of actual immigrants was small. Language changed in most of the late medieval Scottish lowlands by acculturation, not population movement. If Lothian did anything, it was to provide the largest single base of Scottish ruled English-speakers, a factor which may have been important if you remember that until the beginning of the Early Modern period, virtually all English-speakers outside this region bordered on, when they were not surrounded by, a larger Gaelic population. Anyways, Barbour's Brus is standard Middle English, with a higher French content than Chaucer; the only "Scottish" thing about Brus is the story and the saturation of badly-spelled Gaelic proper-names. There is no Germanic language called "Scots" until the end of the 15th century; even the Middle English period is over by then. As a point of relevance, Scots shares all the post-Norman, post-Viking features of English, e.g. decline in case-system, French language influx, etc; Scots is definitely a spin-off of Middle English, not Old English; if it came from Old English, it would probably be more similar to Icelandic, Low German or Dutch than English. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Re #2, I agree that Gaelic was THE dominant language in Scotland for hundreds of years; what I genuinely don't understand is why things turned around so (relatively) rapidly. Both you and the article mention the introduction of the burgh system, which does carry some credence; but unless that included education and religion as well, it's hard to see how that alone could cause such a shift. And again, I think it's fair to assume that whatever shift took place occurred within 'Scottish' boundaries, since the form of (what we now call) Scots was significantly different from its English counterpart.
Re #3, I think I'm convinced that it's of ME Origin; but we should also ensure that other pages (e.g. The English Language) are consistent, since it currently claims Scots as a derivation from Old English.
Re #1, for some key vowel sounds, I found a published reference (Trudgill, 1990) "The Dialects of England". I've only read quotes from the book, and those I've read indicate that it's more focussed on a strict geographical interpretation of English (ie, not including Scots); but I think it is useful to help move this point along. Abbridged, he goes on to say ... long, wrong, are pronounced with a short <a> instead of an <o>, (i.e. Lang, wrang) and that find, blind are realized with a short (finnd, blinnd)and that house, out and cow become hoose, oot and coo. Such pronunciations, he says, link back to the original Anglo-Saxon realizations. To me, saying things like finn (for find), hoose (for house) and lang (for long) are traits of a Scots accent. (I agree that they are also traits of Northern English accents as well; but this is a page on Scots.) As for the CH sound, there are too many to mention; but I found words like nicht, richt, dochter and ocht all quoted as being middle english in origin in the Online Dictionary of the Scots Language. So much for the phonetics. As for the vocabulary, the list is endless. Suffice to say that the vast majority of peculiar (quaint ?) Scots words that are in the online Dictionary of the Scots Language turn out to be of Middle English origin. That said, I was gutted (!) to find out that my personal favourite (boak) is credited to Ulster.
--Angusmec 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Older Scots bolk became Middle Scots [bo:k] through l-vocalisation, the vowel /o:/ was later diphthongised to /ʌu/ resulting in bowk [bʌuk] , either this diphthong later vocalised to /o/ before /k/ in some dialects, or the original /o/ survived, giving, among others, the 'Ulster' boak [bok]. Cf. Middle English bolke, Old English bealcan.
Anon ! Yours is truly the superior intellect. Most Impressed. --Angusmec 00:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Certianly the language of immigrants from England, who were mainly from the North and Midlands, would have differed little from that of those whom they encountered in Scotland. Standard Middle English of course didn't exist but northern and southern orthographic conventions did. Some of The Brus and other examples of written Early Scots can be found here. These may be compared to Chaucer's English. If there was a standard it was a very loose one. Calling Scots a spin-off of Middle English is a bit misleading since it was during the Middle English period that significant divergence (both phonological and orthographic) occurred. Scholars of Scots refer to the variety spoken in Scotland at the time as Older Scots. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), the sting of the trump when it comes to scholarship, objects to this as retrospective renaming. Here of course, Scots should be understood as a term for the varieties of English spoken in Scotland. Such retrospective renaming is almost unavoidable when tracing the linguistic history of Modern Scots. The article Middle English deals with the history of what became Standard English and is of little help for a reader interested in how Modren Scots came about. The differences between Modern English and Modern Scots pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar are the result of the likes of the Great Vowel Shift, L-vocalisation, retention or loss of consonant clusters and traits inherent to northern and southern varieties. Further information pertaining to the history of Scots would be better placed in the article History of the Scots language and/or Older Scots and Middle Scots. This article deals primarily with Modern Scots and is cluttered enough as it is.
172.202.70.41 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
So Dave, Given that the fizzling debate has fizzled out over the last few days, can we get some agreement on adding a sentence or two on the fact that modern Scots, far from being a corruption of modern english, is actually a descendant of middle english, and as such retains closer links to its past (in terms of its vocabulary and pronunciation) than its more modern cousin ? --Angusmec 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The article does state "Modern Scots thus grew out of the early northern form of Middle English". The supposed closer links to its past are probably no less or no more than that of the standard form of Modern English. The article Middle Scots shows the development of Scots vowels, and very few remained much the same over time. Further changes ocurred into the modern period (Cf. Phonological history of the English language and Phonological history of the Scots language). Scots certainly retained consonants such as /x/, /ʍ/ and /r/ after vowels (Rhotic and non-rhotic accents), but even those are hardly a basis on which to claim closer links to its past. Much of the supposedly distinctive Scots vocabulary is shared with many Northern English dialects, albeit often with differing pronunciations [1].
172.142.11.136 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting articles anon (or are you Calgacus in disguise ???). I do agree that Scots has very many divergences from Middle English. It would be impossible not to, given the differing historical influences. I also agree that the 'supposedly distinctive' (your words, not mine) Scots vocabulary is shared with Northern English dialects ... and why wouldn't it ? Read what I have said. I say that 'Scots retains closer links to its more modern cousin' ... by which I obviously mean modern english. I make no comment on other UK dialects ... and again, why should I ? This is, after all, a page on Scots. If the authors of pages on Northumbrian Dialects wish to make similar claims, I would most certainly support them. For the third time, my point is one of irony. 'Scots' words are viewed as quaint/peculiar/lazy/slang etc. when in fact they are no such thing; and remain firmly identifiable with middle english terms. Can I suggest that we get round this impasse by fudging the issue and saying something along the lines of 'many words and phrases that are viewed as distinctively Scottish are actually distinctively middle english' ... and then throw in a few examples ? I have neither the time, nor the inclination to go into a word counting exercise in order to prove my point ... although I know I'm right ;-).--Angusmec 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Scots words are descended from Middle English is of no consequence when it comes to their being regarded as "quaint/peculiar/lazy/slang". Such views are the result of misinformed prejudice. Modern Scots words are Modern Scots words just as Modern English words are Modern English words, even if in both varieties, they do have Middle English precedents. Scots has simply retained some words which are no longer used in (some) other varieties.
One would expect many words in both English and Scots to be descended from Middle English. 84.135.204.230 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've had look at this discussion page. Seems to have quietened down a bit. To the anon above, if you're still around ... my point is that I'd like to tackle the 'misinformed prejudice' actively ... by pointing out the strong similarities between (some versions of) Scots and its middle english roots. My point is not particularly new either. I came across the following quote recently: "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, as will easily appear to him that shall compare the two dialects with the Germane, mother of them both" ... Henry Saville[1604], presenting a case for political union between Scotland and England.
He says a number of interesting things here:
1. English and Scots are BOTH dialects [of Saxon]
2. There are strong similarities between Northern English and Scots Dialects
3. Contrary to some opinions noted above, the rate of deviation (from Middle English) of Scots was slower than that of (Standard) English, due the latter being subject to an influx of French from The [Norman] Conquest and international commerce.
4. Contrary to some opinions noted above, Mr Saville also believes that Scots shares a number of similarities with German.
Some may view my protestations on the (Middle)English-ness of Scots a little 'provocative'. It's not intended to be. The area we now call Scotland has been multi-lingual for millenia; whether that was Pictish/Welsh, Pictish/Gaelic/Welsh, Pictish/Gaelic/Welsh/Inglis/Norse or whatever. I therefore take the point that calling any one language Scots is misleading/insulting. Unfortunately, it's spilt milk ... and has been for 500 years. If (what is now called) Scots has more of a demonstrable middle english heritage than standard/modern english, then, in order to enlighten 'misinformed prejudice' the article should say so. That in no way dilutes or impunes any other Scottish (or English) dialect/language/culture ... it is simply a fact. Quoting Billy Kay 'a case can certainly be made for Scots ... as a guardian of an older form of English'. Angusmec 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


This: "Although the logic of it being a dialect of Scottish English is somewhat faulty when one considers that Scots evolved from Middle English, and Scots itself pre-dates Scottish English. However, it must be acknowledged that Scottish English has almost certainly had an effect on modern Scots. Using similar logic it could equally be argued that Scottish English is a dialect of Scots" just seems to be a long winded way of repeating what is mentioned in the introduction before "Thus Scots can be interpreted as a collective term for the dialects of English spoken, or originating, in Scotland or it can be interpreted as the name of the autochthonous language of Lowland Scotland". Since both modern English and Scots have their origin in Middle English there is no fault in the logic of defining the continuum from the vernacular dialects to Scottish Standard English as Scottish English. The recent addition seems rather pointless and should perhaps be removed. 84.135.213.178 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scots_language/Archive_8&oldid=1089788196"