Talk:Ulster Scots dialect/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

'dialect of English or Scots..."

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

84.135.237.6 changed this phrase to 'dialect of Scots'. But most academic sources, especially the Oxford 'Concise Ulster Dictionary' see it as being a dialect of English. There is a discussion about this (vid sup), but the vast weight of academic opinion is that US is a dialect of English. If you want to alter the text, please justify your argument that no-one considers it to be a dialect of English. Cooke (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above... I would assume (though perhaps wrongly), that anyone who views US as a dialect of English would think that Scots is just a sub-set of English. So, I would suggest that calling it a dialect of Scots would be sufficient, without any mention of whether Scots itself refers to a group of English dialects or a separate language. Scroggie (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As is made clear later in the article, opinion is divided between academics who see it as a variety of English (e.g. Hickey) and those who see it as a variety of Scots (e.g. Macafee). To give one of these views without the other in the intro would be deliberatey misleading. Cooke (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair observation. Perhaps the text in the article isn't formulated as well as it could be. I think there is general agreement that Ulster Scots is a variety of Scots. Opinion is divided as to whether Scots, including Ulster Scots, is a dialect of English or whether Scots can be considered a language in its own right. No one, except those proposing it, takes the proposition that "Ulster Scots" is a language in its own right seriously. I tweaked the text in an attempt to make that clearer. Nogger (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Scots link (DONE)

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Just noticed the new link added to Scotts, which I'm sure should be Scots ... but someone who knows what they're doing should fully specify which page (rather than the disambuigation page) it should to go. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scots disambiguation

Link has been corrected to Scots ... but need to disambiguate -- I assume it's "Scots language" of these three choices ... (but someone who knows should verify).

Scottish Gaelic language, Gàidhlig
Scots language (also known as "Lowland Scots" to distinguish it from Gàidhlig)
Scottish English

E.G.: For Scots language use [[Scots language|Scots]] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Proofreader77 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotion Discussion

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The paragraph over the arrest of the agency head for attempted paedophilia in the United States is relevant as he was on Agency business when arrested and as such it was hugely embarrassing for the agency. Ulster Scots has suffered as a result of this: attempts at promoting it went all quiet for years afterwards. Even now your attempt to remove the paragraph is a demonstration of how much damage this incident did. Therefore it is relevant.

One might possibly, just possibly, be able to advance a valid case for this to be relevant to the article on the Agency. But how this is relevant to the language is unexplained and unreferenced. No reference has been provided to demonstrate that the language has been affected in any way. A better case needs to be made, I'd suggest - and if the suggestion that the language has been affected by the case cannot be reliably sourced, I'd say the information cannot stay. Man vyi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ManVyi - what you are saying is ridiculous and shows a certain degree of "Personal Interest" on your part (I believe that is one of the criteia laid down for "NOT editing" at the top of this page). What you are effectively saying is that, if the author removes the part about "...promotion suffered a massive blow..." (because the insignificant number cannot be quantified)and instead says "...active promotion came to a halt in 2002 when the man promoting it was revealed to be a 'kiddie fiddler' in a hotel in Chicago caught in the nick of time before having his sordid way with a 14yr old girl..." then that would be ok! The relevance to the language has infact been explained since as a fledgling language it has had to put a lot of hard work in to becoming recognised and established despite it's clear status as a DIALECT of English and not a separate language in it's own right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.181.167 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Ulster Scots, the "DIALECT" (as you put it) of the Scots language. This article is not about the Ulster Scots Agency or any of its employees. Wikipedia states that all information must be verifiable so the effects of this arrest on the dialect itself is what needs to be backed up. Any information about the embarrassment caused to the Ulster Scots Agency can be discussed on that page as it is irrelevant to the description of the dialect itself. Scroggie (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Contrary to belief amoung..."

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is now the article's first line: "Contrary to belief amoung some Ulster Scots is not actually a language. It is simply a dialect spoken by a very small percentage of the population of Northern Ireland."

I think adding this at the top of the article is inappropriate: 1) It attempts to define the topic on the basis of two things it is not, before any positive definitions 2) Spelling error in "amoung". I assume there should also be a comma after "some" 3) No citations, just a definitive statement of "fact" which is an expression of one of the common POVs in the classification debate 4) Generally just seems a bit rude.

I suggest at least moving/merging it to somewhere else in the article, if not deletion. --Mcgladdery (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting the (mostly) undocumented deletions/changes of 12/23/08

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments2 people in discussion

While recent changes patrolling, it is always troubling to see chunks of text vanish without an edit summary. Initially, let us focus on the introduction -- with most of the deletions occurring in the first six (no explanation) edits of 12/23.

introduction

BEFORE (NOTE: The introduction had been in this longer form since August 2006).

Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans and Hiberno-Scots, refers to varieties of Scots spoken in parts of the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland. It is used in East Antrim, north Down, north-west Co. Londonderry, the Laggan area of Donegal, and also in the fishing villages of the Mourne coast.^[1] It is one of three Anglic dialects, apart from standard English, which are spoken in Ulster, along with Mid Ulster English (around the Lagan and Clogher valleys) and South Ulster English, which is transitional to Southern Hiberno-English. Although Mid Ulster English is everywhere influenced by Irish Gaelic, a substrate is particularly evident in Donegal, the Sperrin mountains and the Glens of Antrim, areas close to former or current Gaeltacht districts. ^[2]
Native speakers traditionally called it simply Scots, Braid (or broad) Scots or Scotch (see Scotch) - as did James Orr in The Irish Cottier's Death and Burial: "To quat braid Scotch, a task that foils their art; For while they join his converse, vain though shy, They monie a lang learn'd word misca' an' misapply".
Ullans is a portmanteau neologism merging Ulster and Lallans - the Scots for Lowlands - coined by the physician, amateur historian and politician Dr Ian Adamson^{[citation needed]}. The magazine of the Ulster-Scots Language Society is also named Ullans, ostensibly from "Ulster-Scots language in literature and native speech" but ultimately from the other contraction^{[citation needed]}. The German linguist Manfred Görlach differentiates between the term "Ulster Scots" (the historical spoken variety) and "Ullans" (the revived literary variety)^{[citation needed]}.
Hiberno-Scots, unlike "Ulster Scots", refers only to a linguistic tradition; it also mirrors "Hiberno-English"^{[citation needed]}. The novelist William Carleton refers in his author's preface to the first edition of his Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry (vol. 1, 1st series, Dublin, 1830) to "Scoto-Hibernic jargon". The linguist James Milroy used the term "Hiberno-Scots" as early as the 1980s^{[citation needed]}

AFTER (the 12 edits of 12/23 + the 1st on 12/24)

Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans and Hiberno-Scots, refers to varieties of English or Lowland Scots, spoken in parts of the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland. Ulster Scots is used in East Antrim, north Down, north-west Co. Londonderry, the Laggan area of Donegal, and also in the fishing villages of the Mourne coast.^[3] It is one of three dialects of English, apart from standard English, which are spoken in Ulster, along with Mid Ulster English (around the Lagan and Clogher valleys) and South Ulster English, which is transitional to Southern Hiberno-English. ^[4] As with all Ulster dialects, boundaries intermingle, and some Ulster Scots useages (such as the complex use of wee) have spread throughout the whole of Ulster.

NOTE: Ullans and Hiberno-Scots redirects to Ulster Scots. They were merged here (see discussion somewhere above on this page); and, it would seem, the "elaboration" of the introduction is (was, until recently) why deleting that information (especially without edit summary) is of concern.

ALSO NOTE:

(1) The word Anglic has only recently come into question, and while it was (recently) replaced in the introduction, the linked word remains in the sidebar and in the History section.
(2) The removing of the sentence containing "influenced by Irish Gaelic" that was included in a referenced section.

GENERAL COMMENT: Glancing back through the history of edits to the page, it is clear that the complex political issues of the history of the region have sometimes inspired editing of this page. (The ones reducing it to one sentence, draw the lines very clearly.) That is not to say that the recent changes here are influenced by anything other than a desire to accurately write the article -- yet, when wearing the hat of a recent changes patroller, that is one factor that must be kept in mind.

QUESTION: Is there consensus on the recent change of the introduction? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

YES It seems to me that these edits greatly improve the introduction to the article. An introduction should give someone who is not acquainted with the subject an overview. Any detailed argument does not belong in an intro, although it may well find a place later on. (I may have been responsible for some of the edits). Cooke (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Someone other than the one who changed it, please.)

NOTE: The (long existing) elaboration in the introduction was a product of the redirections of Ullans and Hiberno-Scots (which used to have there own brief articles) here to Ulster Scots. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Proofreader.

I removed those sentences (If it was I - if not, yay to whoever did) from the intro, not because I disagreed with them, but because I thought they were confusing and didn't belong in an intro. If someone wants to weave them into an appropriate place in the article that's fine by me.

This article is bl++dy awful, and a disgrace to WP.

I don't have the time to rewrite it from start to finish, but if you know a lot about the subject (and from your cumbersome, badly written entry, complete with unnecessary split infinitive, I assume that you don't) then rewrite it, but please try to make your rewrite better than what was there before.

All I'm trying to do is patch up blatant faults in an old mess of an article, as I'd try to caulk the leaks in an old boat.

Do you really think that any of the following belong in an introduction to people who don't know anything about the notion of Ulster Scots? If so, please defend your argument. Cooke (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Native speakers traditionally called it simply Scots, Braid (or broad) Scots or Scotch (see Scotch) - as did James Orr in The Irish Cottier's Death and Burial: "To quat braid Scotch, a task that foils their art; For while they join his converse, vain though shy, They monie a lang learn'd word misca' an' misapply".

Ullans is a portmanteau neologism merging Ulster and Lallans - the Scots for Lowlands - coined by the physician, amateur historian and politician Dr Ian Adamson[citation needed]. The magazine of the Ulster-Scots Language Society is also named Ullans, ostensibly from "Ulster-Scots language in literature and native speech" but ultimately from the other contraction[citation needed]. The German linguist Manfred Görlach differentiates between the term "Ulster Scots" (the historical spoken variety) and "Ullans" (the revived literary variety)[citation needed].

Hiberno-Scots, unlike "Ulster Scots", refers only to a linguistic tradition; it also mirrors "Hiberno-English"[citation needed]. The novelist William Carleton refers in his author's preface to the first edition of his Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry (vol. 1, 1st series, Dublin, 1830) to "Scoto-Hibernic jargon". The linguist James Milroy used the term "Hiberno-Scots" as early as the 1980s[citation needed]

response to Cooke

The information quoted above (and deleted on the 23rd, without edit summary 1, 2, 3) has been in the article since 2006.

Let it be noted (again), that Ullans and Hiberno-Scots were (long ago) (a) merged with this page (b) redirected to this page and (c) included in bold on the first line of the introduction -- implying that perhaps the information about them should be kept, rather than deleted (especially without explanation and consensus ... amidst a holiday season ... by someone who declines to acknowledge that they did it.:)

Rewriting, fine. Erasing, not so fine... Edit summary, good. No edit summary, bad...
- ASIDE: Misleading edit summary, egregious (e.g. diff, "reverted to 'dialects of English' rather than 'Anglice' as in discussion." -- i.e., a change described as a reversion is misleading).

Uncivil attacks on innocent split infinitives, unnecessary.

MEANWHILE:

I agree that what has been there for a couple of years makes for a "messy" introduction.
Understanding the "subtle political implications" (e.g., diff) of the history of the editing of the Wikipedia Ulster Scots article, may, or may not, be worth the socio-rhetoro-analytical mastery I might gain from such an adventure... but it has its fascinations. :)
Time for a drink... and reveries of disappearing texts, and other garments ... of identity. ;)

Questions? Comments? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should have put an edit summary but it was late, possibly christmas, and I was doing something that should have been done long ago. I apologize for the lack of summary, but for nothing else. Cooke (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTES/REFS: (re "Hiberno-Scots" and "Ullans")

These characterizations redirect to Ulster Scots, and should be "illuminated" ... but the article was missing citations. So, let us find some. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiberno-Scots

NOTE: "Hibernia" - what the Romans called the island of Ireland. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Hiberno English "Hiberno-English – also known as Anglo-Irish and Irish English – is English as spoken in Ireland, partly the result of the interaction of the English and Irish languages." Proofreader77 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Hiberno-Scots appears to be ~~primarily~~ more frequently used (in scholarly work) as a people/geography identifier (rather than a language). (It is never used as a reference to Scots taking a long winter's nap.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- (EXCEPTION) "Materials for the study of the Hiberno-Scots dialect of Glinsk, 1997, Evans and Emery) SEE A Source Book for Irish English By Raymond Hickey pp 63-64
  "This article contains a one page introduction and a collection of a few hundred words. ... The phonetic transcriptions reveal many features associated with conservative Ulster Scots such as the lowering of short vowels, the use of a palatal after velars, ... differetial realisation of the diphthong /ai/ along lines known from the Scottish Vowel Length Rule ..."
- (EXCEPTION) BOOK: Ulster Scots Speech: a Socioliguistic Study (1995, by Rona K. Kingsmore, Michael Montgomery) [1] (ref added by Proofreader77 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
  "This book examines phonological variation of the inhabitants of Coleraine, a small town in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to identify some of the mechanisms involved in language change by focusing on one variety of Hiberno-English Ulster Scots - in a small urban community. Kingsmore concentrates in particular on the social and family networks of this urban working-class community and their influence on the status and stigma of competing nonstandard pronunciations. The author identifies some of the innovators of phonological change and some social and linguistic barriers to change. This quantitative study focuses on the effect of gender on language variation and change. In addition, Kingsmore describes conflicting pressures between urban and rural varieties and examines the extent of influence of a larger urban center on a smaller urban center. Her sociolinguistic methodology is innovative and insightful."

NOTE: Hiberno-English Ulster Scots (see above)

BOOK: Global Convulsions: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism at the End of the Twentieth Century (1997, editor: Winston A. Van Horn, pp. 161-162)[2]
"This does not deny the fact, however, that even in the seventeenth century, one was already deemed English/Scots or Irish according to one's religion. Not until the very end of the eighteenth century did some Irish Protestants call themselves Irish. Until then, to be Protestant in Ireland was to be English. This, of course, was not a term readily adopted by the Ulster Presbyterians, who used terms such as Scots, Hiberno-Scots, and, on occasions when a common Protestant identity was assumed in the face of a Catholic threat (for example, the 1690s, 1820s-40s, and during the Troubles), British.⁵⁷ It was this reluctance by Ulster Presbyterians to think of themselves as Irish which prompted Wolfe Tone's famous "common name of Irishman" plea, though even he never lost the instinctive Protestant dislike of Catholicism as a system."

BOOK: Accents of English (1986, John C. Wells, p 449) [3] (ref added by Proofreader77 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
Thus the Ulster Anglo-Irish forms very largely coincide with the local-accent non-dialect variants of the Hiberno-Scots area. Indeed, as Gregg says (1972; 113), the Scotch-Irish speakers know that the Ulster Anglo-Irish speech of their neighbours generally approximates much more closely with Standard ENglish than their own Scottish type of dialect. Nevertheless there are certain Anglo-Irish dialect forms incidentally distinct from local-accent Standard forms ..."

BOOK: The New British History: Founding the Modern State 16030-1715 (1999, edited by Glenn Burgess,p 206) [4] (ref added by Proofreader77 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
"How the rival claims of these affiliations were balanced and how individuals experimented with a sequence of identities, including Anglo-Irish and Hiberno-Scots as well as Irish, English and British, have not long detained British historians."

BOOK: British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 (2004, Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts, p 316) [5] (ref added by Proofreader77 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
"Caroline Robbins placed him, along with Molesworth and Andrew Fletcher, on the Hiberno-Scots wing of radical whiggery."

Ullans

NOTE: "In the early 1990s, Ulster-Scots was relaunched as Ullans..." (verify source / I think it requires purchase) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION LIST QUOTE: Gavin Falconer (14 Oct 2003) [6] (added by Proofreader77 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
"I know that many of us on the list use "Ullans" as a term of abuse when discussing politicised respelt Scots in Northern Ireland. Manfred Görlach (2000) says "I will use the term "Ulster Scots" for the historical spoken variety, reserving "Ullans" to the emerging written standard." However, that form could never become a standard, since it is inherently illogical, and the sooner those in charge of funding realise that, the less money they will have to spend later undoing all the damage caused. I suspect that even the term's advocates have stopped using it, since native speakers call their language "Braid Scotch", and changing the name only draws attention to the fact that much of contemporary writing posing as the allegedly independent language Ulster Scots owes little to the traditional idiom."

intro. / "English" vs "Scots" (diff )

It appears (to summarize roughly):

(a) Cooke considers Ulster Scots is more accurately categorized as a variety of English, whereas ...
(b) 84.135.231.93 maintains that it is a variety of Scots.

Is that (roughly) a correct interpretation of the positions at issue? (NOTE: I'm thinking that the phase "Hiberno-English Ulster Scots" may be close to the balance, but maybe not.:)Proofreader77 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(big picture note) The contention of "Ulster Scots"

Language and Tradition in Northern Ireland, by Maria Tymoczko, Colin A. Ireland, American Conference for Irish Studies, 2003, p 163) [7] Proofreader77 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In many respects Ulster-Scots has become a political bargaining chip. In view of the much-vaunted goal to secure "parity of esteem" between the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland, it should come as no surprise that such terminology has spread to the language movements.

Language, Identity and Conflict: A Comparative Study of Language in Ethnic Conflict in Europe and Eurasia (by Diarmait Mac Giolla Chriost,Routledge, 2003, p 86) [8] (See much more following this quotation) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the contemporary complexities with regard to language planning in NI is the revival of interest in Ulster-Scots (or Ullans), a dialect of the Scots language in Scotland which has been recognized by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages as an official autochthonous lesser-used or regional language in NI.

Plural Identities--singular Narratives: The Case of Northern Ireland (Máiréad Nic Craith, Berghahn Books, 2002, p 108) [9] (But also see page 107) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The actual status and integrity of Ulster-Scots is controversial, as many linguists believe that its syntax and vocabulary are no longer sufficiently distinctive to justify conferring the status of a language on its current usage (Nic Craith 2001). Reaction from nationalist groups to Ulster-Scots is particularly vigorous with some commentators arguing that it is hardly a language at all. They insist that it is merely a dialect of Ulster English and is being promoted purely for political, even separatist purposes.

State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom Since 1707 (Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp 142-143)[10] Proofreader77 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is where language comes in. Ulster-Scots ('Ullans') has equal status with English and Irish by the terms of the Belfast Agreement ('Good Friday Agreement') 1998. The Ulster Scots took a leaf out of the book of Arthur Grifith and Eamon De Valera, for whom the Irish language became a defining symbol of Sinn Fein in the early twentieth century. Ullans would be a wonderful language if it took hold ... ... but it winnae happen. Ulster-Scots is no more a viable national language than is Irish in the Republic. ...

Wars of Words: The Politics of Language in Ireland 1537-2004 (Tony Crowley, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp 211-212 -- "Wars of Words is the first comprehensive survey of the politics of language in Ireland during the colonial and post-colonial periods. ...The final chapter analyses the way in which contemporary poets have used Gaelic, Hiberno-English, Ulster-English, and Ulster-Scots, as vehicles for the various voices that demand to be heard in the new societies on both sides of the border.") Proofreader77 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If as the ghost of Joyce claims, the English language now belongs to the Irish in the form of Hiberno-English, then what these brief selections from the work of contemporary writers demonstrates is that Gaelic, Ulster-English, and Ulster-Scots also belong to the island of Ireland as viable vehicles for the differing voices which need to be heard. ... ... But that is literature, and in the social realm the problems and answers are always harder. ... But a good place to start in tackling the problems is the simple but radical acknowledgment which massive majorities in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland made by voting for The Belfast agreement:? that the languages of the island of Ireland form part of its cultural wealth. All forms of wealth can be a source of division or common good; it's a choice.

BOOK/REF: A Concise Ulster Dictionary (1996)

It seems there is exactly one copy of this book for sale ... in the world ... for $188.12 (+ shipping) -- which is slightly above what my "random research budget" allows. Does anyone have access to a copy? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I own one, Proofreader. I'll bring it along when you buy me that drink....Cooke (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you sell your copy to buy us all a round :), perhaps you can give it a skim and see if it gives a more scholarly definition than the one I just saw scribbled over the urinal: "a pastiche of Scots and English cultivated in a tavern in Ulster after the Gaelic-lovers lost a bar fight". Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

|}}

References

^ Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi-xii.
^ Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi.
^ Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi-xii.
^ Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi.

(saving "31." for later, post-holidays, etc)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A complex and fascinating adventure into the socio-political issues of this article for a recent changes patroller (me). Will revisit the delicate balance in due time (bearing in mind that politics sometimes is best served by vagueness and muddle rather than perfect clarity:). And yes, you can have a pint on my tab. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstand and Ausbau

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Using the criteria on Ausbau languages developed by the German linguist Heinz Kloss, Ulster Scots could qualify only as a Spielart or 'national dialect' of Scots (cf. British and American English), since it does not have the Mindestabstand, or 'minimum divergence' necessary to achieve language status through standardisation and codification.

Sounds like nonsense to me. The whole point of the Ausbau vs Abstand distinction is that a language can be an Ausbausprache without being an Abstandsprache. You can't disqualify or ban "standardisation and codification", i.e. Ausbau, on the basis of insufficient divergence (Abstand). Note that I'm not saying that Ulster Scots is presently a separate language in either the Ausbau or the Abstand sense rather than a variety of Scots, I'm just saying the A-A-D framework seems to be used incorrectly here. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there any Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants (native speakers) in Ireland or Northern Ireland (UK)? --- 80.109.224.73 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.35.214 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Literature

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I notice that we have contradictory statements (hardly surprisingly) from different references. One source is cited for the statement that "By the early part of the 20th century the literary tradition was almost extinct." On the other hand, I've been adding some reffed info on literature of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Would anyone else care to have a stab at reconciling our conflicting sources into something helpful to the average reader? Man vyi (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to "By the early part of the 20th century the literary tradition was almost extinct."^[1] in the section "Language planning" and "The tradition of vernacular poetry survived into the 20th centry in the work of poets such as Adam Lynn, author of the 1911 collection Random Rhymes frae Cullybackey, John Stevenson (died 1932), writing as "Pat M'Carty", and John Clifford (1900-1983) from East Antrim."^[2] in the section "Literature". Were they all writing in Scots or were they just Ulster-Scots people writing?

Almost extinct would seem to imply not very much going on. It is possible to assume that because only three authors are mentioned for late 19th/early 20th centuries, it shows that not very much was going on. Why not more authors?

Nevertheless, you are right, the way those sources are presented needs to be reconciled.

Do you have the page numbers for the Ferguson 2008 references?

Is the Robinson, in "The Languages of Ireland", ed. Cronin and Ó Cuilleanáin, the same Robinson mentioned at the beginning of the section "Status"? The gentleman is known for making tenuous claims about the nature of Ulster Scots. See here too. Do you also have the page numbers for those references?

Nogger (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I added some examples from "Ulster-Scots Writing" (it's a very thick volume) rather than list all the anthologised writers writing in Ulster-Scots. More could be added, I suppose. I wonder whether "the literary tradition was almost extinct" was intended to refer to poetry? Ferguson claims in "Ulster-Scots Writing" that the 19th century prose tradition is "neglected" and "under-explored" (p.20). Philip Robinson in "Languages of Ireland" is listed as former Head of Collections Division, Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. Man vyi (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip Robinson would seem to be the person mention in the article. The reference to the literary tradition being almost extinct by the early part of the 20th century from Montgomery, Michael and Robert Gregg in Jones (ed.) 1997 seems to be from p. 585 not p. 572 as cited. "... lasting well into the victorian period (and to some degree into the twentieth century) for both poetry and prose." In the introduction to Ferguson 2008, p. 21, it states "... it can be argued that 'dialect' verse and prose remained well into the twentieth century, and examples from a number of poets and writers are included." On p. 376 is "... the tradition of writing poetry in the local vernacular survived long into the twentieth century, and Hewitt's model that stated the practice disappeared requires some revision." Hewitt's, 1974 Rhyming Weavers was until recently the only corpus of written Scots from Ulster that was readily available. From Ferguson it appears that some verse was certainly written into the twentieth century. But unfortunately there is no mention of how widespread participation in the tradition and consumption of it was. Perhaps the formulation is a matter of semantics. Using an endangered species like the Mountain Gorilla as a Metaphor, which is correct? 'By the early part of the 21tst century the Mountain Gorilla was almost extinct', or 'the Mountain Gorilla survived into the 21st century (to some degree), and if it survives another 20-30 years 'well into the 21st century? I will make an attempt to reconcile that in the article. Nogger (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

References

^ Montgomery, Michael and Robert Gregg 1997. ‘The Scots language in Ulster’, in Jones (ed.), p. 572
^ Ulster-Scots Writing, ed. Ferguson, Dublin 2008 ISBN 9781856820748 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

Ulster-Scotch

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

In the recent edit summary, it was said: only the Ulster-Scots Agency use this spelling; other modern Ulster-Scots writings use the spelling "Ulster-Scots".[11]

It is normal to call the language Scotch: for example the term is frequently used by contributors to A Kist o Wurds, and it is very common in older writings from both sides of the North Channel.[12][13] I believe the Ulster-Scots Language Society encourages the diacritic in Ulstèr,[www.amazon.co.uk/Blad-Ulster-Scotch-Frae-Ullans-Literature/dp/0953035085?tag=duckduckgo-d-20] and I agree that it is rare, but there is no harm in a brief unqualified mention in parenthesis.

I don't think it is helpful to confuse readers into putting all the blame for Scotch on the agency or other revivalists, nor to claim it is modern: orthography and pronunciation are not fixed in the English language, and certainly not in Scots.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that Scotch isn't a recent invention, but Ulstèr-Scotch is. Grave acsents and umlauts wer never used in historic Ulster-Scots writings. If we hav Ulstèr-Scotch in the lede by itself, we'r implying that this is the standard spelling and that this is the standard orthografy. That's why I suggest we explain things to the readers by writing:

Ulster Scots (spelt Ulstèr-Scotch in some modern orthographies)...

~Asarlaí 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely if that's the spelling sanctioned by the Ulster-Scots Agency—i.e. the official body of the language/dialect—then it has become the standard orthography. All language's spellings are standardised by someone at some point, including Irish. JonChapple ^Talk 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The role of the Ulster-Scots Agency is simply to promote Ulster-Scots language and culture, not to decide on a standard orthografy. The orthografy created by the Agency isn't a "standardized" one. Standardizing a written language means evening-out differences between dialects. The Agency, however, has created an entirely new one that bears very little resemblance to traditional Ulster-Scots writings.

Hav a read thru these reports and see how drastically the spellings change. For example, the 2006 report uses the Agency's orthografy while the 2007–2010 reports use a more traditional one. ~Asarlaí 18:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the diacritic is so rare that there is no reason to include it in the lede. Is that all we disagree about? In which case, could we have this lede?

Ulster Scots (Ulster-Scotch) generally refers to ...

We could nicely defer footnotes and parenthetic clauses to later in the article.

For an encyclopedia, readability is everything.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that lead. "Ulster-Scotch" with no diacritic is original research; we can't just drop the è because we feel like it. JonChapple ^Talk 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely orthographies created in the past few years by language revivalists can be accurately and fairly described as revivalist? 92.3.253.202 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that "Ulstèr-Scotch" has been created in the last few years? JonChapple ^Talk 10:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not proof, but lack of evidence to the contrary. Provide examples of the widespread use of Ulstèr-Scotch with è pre the 1990s? Interestingly, it appears not to be Scots any way. 92.3.230.241 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this line — "(spelt Ulstèr-Scotch by the Ulster-Scots Agency and in most modern orthographies)" — should be moved to the "Names" section. After all, that is what the section is for. Altho it's usual to hav the nativ name in the first line of articles about languages, Ulster-Scots isn't an independent language and ther ar many nativ names. Also, it might be worth noting that the nativ names arn't shown in the first line of the Scots language article. ~Asarlaí 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason the Scots language article doesn't have it in the lead is because by far the most common name for Scots in Scots is the same as in English. In Ulster Scots, the form used by bodies associated with the language is different enough to warrant its inclusion in the intro, IMO. JonChapple ^Talk 10:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Asarlaí's proposal to explain naming later in the article. While I personally agree with Falconer's opinion on the name of the Agency, I think the lede should still briefly mention the name given by the Language Society and Agency, perhaps with a footnote referring the reader to an explanation. (Scotch isn't a spelling, but an alternative word for Scots, and I don't have any evidence that this word's use is restricted to a particular organization, so I suggest we don't try to claim such a limitation in the lede.)
I have posted my proposal and I immediately reverted it, so that you can see it's effect in the archive.[14]

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialects or dialect?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm still wondering what are these dialects of Ulster-Scots, I always assumed there was one dialect and that was Ulster-Scots itself, which is a dialect of Scottish Scots. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ulster Scots dialects. 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:

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} 06:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Enthusiasts"

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

User:Nogger I agree that my proposed edit is not the best way to word it, however I stand by my original suggestion that referring to these groups/individuals as "enthusiasts" is dismissive when they in fact appear to be somewhat mainstream and knowledgeable on the Ulster Scots linguistic variety. Any suggestions? Catrìona (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is an example of what those 'experts' consider to be 'knowledge' about Ulster Scots: http://www.ulsterscotsacademy.com/words/spelling-guide/downloads/ulster-scots-spelling-guide.pdf

Here is an evidence based critique of that: http://www.scots-online.org/articles/contents/Spelling_Consultation.pdf

Reading both side-by-side maximises the entertainment value.

Agree "enthusiasts" is patronising and dismissive. I think "modern Ulster-Scots speakers", or perhaps "Ulster-Scots revivalists", would be better. — Jon C.^ॐ 12:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's both dismissive and accurate at the same time. Proponents maybe? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see why "enthusiasts" is dismissive or degrading.★Trekker (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Class?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is surely better than Start-class! More references than you could shake a stick at!! – sam (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agreeApollo The Logician (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ulster Scots dialects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulster Scots dialects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005055129/http://www.dardni.gov.uk/dard-business-plan-2012-13-ulster-scots.pdf to http://www.dardni.gov.uk/dard-business-plan-2012-13-ulster-scots.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

'Ullans' Date of first appearance

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is worth noting that the OED lists the first recorded use of the word 'Ullans' as 2000. M. Fletcher Silver Linings (2001) ii. 29 "Debate rages about whether Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans, is a language or a dialect, but it is utterly incomprehensible to an Englishman like me". Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.78.193 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulster Scots dialects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923213050/http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/usaig_-_consultation_-_full_responses__53_-2.doc to http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/usaig_-_consultation_-_full_responses__53_-2.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi-xii.

[2] Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi.

[3] Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi-xii.

[4] Dr. C. I. Macafee (ed.), A Concise Ulster Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xi.

[5] Montgomery, Michael and Robert Gregg 1997. ‘The Scots language in Ulster’, in Jones (ed.), p. 572

[6] Ulster-Scots Writing, ed. Ferguson, Dublin 2008 ISBN 9781856820748 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]