Talk:Scots language
|
|
- /Archive1 (before January 1, 2005)
| Contents |
History
From LaurelBush 16:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- I believe that until the late 15th century it is the Gaelic of Highlanders & Islanders that was called Scots (or Scottis) while the language of Lowlanders (basically a remnant of the Anglian of the kingdom of Northumbria) was called Ynglis. And the Gaelic as 'Scots' is consistent with history which has the first Scots people in Britain as Gaelic-speaking people from Ireland.
- In the late 15th century Erse (meaning Irish) came into common use as a name for Gaelic. In the early 16th century Scots became (inappropriately, in my opinion) a name for Ynglis.
- The use of Scots as a name for the Lowland language clouds our view of the past. It obscures both the reason that Scotland is so called and the role that an Anglian language played in Scotland's history.
- I blame Pope Leo X, myself. What was he thinking ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:03, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
The situation is inherently confusing (the Scots are really the Irish and the Anglian speakers are actually the Picts so Scotland should really be called Pentland) but we're not going to make it less confusing by making up our own nomenclature for everything.
The situation that you describe is a direct result of the actions of Pope Leo X in deciding that Scotia should be the name of the land formerly known as Caledonia rather than the name of the land now known as Ireland which had been the case until the early 16th century. In the 15th century Scots meant "belonging to Ireland". In the 16th century, the Pope's decision meant that the same word now meant "belonging to Scotland" and thus explains why Scots began to be used to refer to Ynglis rather than to Erse. No doubt if the Pictish language had not been eradicated by the combined efforts of the Scots, Norse and Anglian invaders, Pictish would today be known as Scots, however confusing and inappropriate that might be from a historical perspective. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:54, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
From LaurelBush 17:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- Thanks for the note about Pope Leo X, but if the Scots had not invaded then I guess he wouldnt have transfered the name.
- Why not just call the language Lallans?
I suppose he wouldn't have but it's a bit late to say "Scots, go back to Ireland! You're confusing everyone." We're talking ancient history here -- 500AD was a long time ago.
As for calling the language Lallans, you might as well ask "why not call it Doric ?". Lallans and Doric are names for dialects of Scots as far as I'm concerned, not the name for the language itself -- and I know that there are others who disagree but most of them seem to come from Central Scotland where Lallans was spoken. Coincidence ? I think not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
first sentence
I hope you're all ok with me changing the first sentence - otherwise rewrite it yourselves. The point is, if the section on "status" below leaves it a moot point whether Scots is a separate language or an English dialect, it's daft for the opening sentence to pre-empt that. Actually, this opening sentence is a remnant of the very bad original article, which has otherwise been completely rewritten. --Doric Loon 01:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Understood but rewrite is definitely better than delete. The point is that, even if Scots is a dialect, it's a dialect belonging to the Germanic family, not to the Celtic family. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:55, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- Fair point - but I thought that was obvious from the table. --Doric Loon 11:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, that's why I've left your changes as they were. The table is a relatively new addition though. It wasn't there when we originally wrote the article, so at that time it was necessary to mention the language family within the article. As you point out, it's not so necessary now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
But now the article doesn't define what Scots is - the first sentence only says there is Scots and where you can find it, but not what is Scots. -- Anon
- Anon, feel free to improve the definition if you don't like it as it is now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
outwith
I don't see how to cleanly fit it in the article, but I think that the term outwith (as th opposite of within) could be mentioned. This useful word seems to be slowly appearing in English English, but is definiteley of Scots origin -- Chris Q 13:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's mentioned in the article on "Scottish English", and I think that's where it belongs. It's rather an intellectual word, part of the written style of Scottish academia, and I don't think I've ever heard it in a dialect context. -- Doric Loon
- What's an "intellectual word"? Sure, it gets used in formal contexts, but it gets used outwith them too. :-) -- Anon
Anon is right it's not that "intellectual" a word but as Doric Loon says, its not a Scots word either. The Scottish English article is definitely the right place for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
The ancient Scottish tongue
"Derek Ross (Gaelic was introduced to Caledonia about the same time as English. Pictish is the ancient Caledonian tongue displaced by Gaelic in the west and English in the east.)"
You are quite right in stating that Pictish is the ancient Caledonian tongue although this is irrelevant as regards the statement i inserted stating that Gaelic was the Ancient Scottish tongue which, as the original language of Scots and the language of Scotlands foundation, it certainly is .
yours,
My point was that Gaelic, north of the Border, is no older than English, north of the Border. Depending on what you mean by Scottish, Gaelic is either "the Ancient Scottish tongue", or "an Ancient Scottish tongue". I'll not deny that Gaelic is the tongue of the Ancient Scots (nowadays known as the Irish) and I'll not deny that it's the tongue that they imposed on our ancestors when they invaded Caledonia (nowadays known as Scotland) and founded their kingdom there. I'll just say that the statement that you inserted is confusing to those who don't know the difference between the ancient meaning of the word Scottish referring to the inhabitants of Hibernia (and their overseas colony) and the modern meaning of the word referring to the inhabitants of Caledonia alone. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish despite the common knowledge that the Scots were an Irish tribe. I have never come across anyone else who would confuse the term "Scots" with the ancient Irish either. As we know the nation of Scotland was founded by the Scots, whos language was Gaelic and in all honesty i do not see any opportunity for confusion which may arise from the pretty succinct, and clear statement that Gaelic is the ancient scottish language. Gaelic is older north of the border than English, or rather Inglis as it was known then but this again is beside the point as Inglis was not the language of the Scottish people nor of the Scottish nation until a number of centuries later as anglicised culture gained the ascendancy. For example (it does not fit completely but i think it serves) Should Spanish gain the ascendancy over English in the USA at some point this will not change the fact that the dominant, and thus you could say (although it is not so clear cut in this example) 'ancient' and original language of the nation, was English although it may no longer be at this hypothetical point in the future.
yours,
I find your comparison with the USA quite apt. If we equate Pictish with the languages of the First Nations, American English with Gaelic and American Spanish with Scots, we can see that, although things haven't gone quite so far in the USA yet as they have in Scotland, there is a clear parallel: settlers from overseas come in and steamroller the existing linguistic and political structures replacing them with their own. And just as we can conclude that the ancient and original languages of the people living in the area now occupied by the USA were those of the First Nations, we can similarly conclude that the ancient and original language of people living in the area now occupied by Scotland was Pictish. However that is a side issue. Let's return to the main points.
Since you have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish, it would probably be a good idea for you to read the section titled "History" above to understand why the inhabitants of Ulster alone were known as Scots up to the 6th century, why the inhabitants both of Hibernia and of Caledonia were known as Scots from the 10th century up to the end of the 15th century and why from the 16th century onwards all Caledonians and only Caledonians were known as Scots despite the fact that only some of those in the west were truly of Scottish ancestry, the rest being of Pictish, British, Norse or English ancestry. If the Scots had not triumphed over the Picts as the result of a Viking victory over the Picts in 839 and MacAlpin's Treason, our native land would probably now be known as Pentland rather than Scotland.
As for the relative age of English and Gaelic, north of the Border, Gaelic would first have been spoken in the area occupied by modern Scotland about 500AD with the establishment of Dalriada by the Scots in the area now known as Argyll. English would also first have been spoken in the area occupied by modern Scotland about 630AD by the Northumbrian Angles who took over Lothian which was all modern Scotland in the east between the Forth and the modern English border. So there's only about 130 years in it. In both cases the invaders replaced Pictish with their own languages over the next couple of hundred years. The only real difference is that we managed to send the Angles back to England and the Vikings back to Norway but we never managed to send the Scots back to Ireland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
"And just as we can conclude that the ancient and original languages of the people living in the area now occupied by the USA were those of the First Nations, we can similarly conclude that the ancient and original language of people living in the area now occupied by Scotland was Pictish."
As i initially said this is perfectly true but irrelevant. The fact that Pictish was the dominant language in the area which was to become Scotland has nothing to do with the fact that Gaelic was the language of Scots and Scotland - which quite simply is enough to define it as the original, and ancient scottish tongue. Incidently the scottish language/culture was not 'imposed' upon our pictish ancestors but gradually became dominant - much as happened with Scots Lallans and Gaelic some centuries later - through intermarriage of Scot and Pict. Indeed it is now thought that rather than unifying Caledonia by conquest to create Scotland Kenneth Mac Alpin gained supremacy through marriage. The pictish tradition being matrilineal inheritence and this tradition survived, along with other Pictish traditions and noble/royal lines to form an integral part of Scotlands electoral monarchy and its sub-monarchies before the nation became anglicised in the South.
Another comparison of nations which is fairly relevant is that of the Roman Empire and its gradual change from an entity dominated by latin language and culture to (in its later Byzantine form) an entity dominated by Greek language and Culture. It does not matter that the Romans of the later era could no longer speak Latin, they referred to themselves as Romans (or Romaioi) nonetheless and the fact that they had switched to greek as the lingua franca had no bearing on the status of Latin as the ancient language of the Romans. Similiarly the fact that most Scots are monolingually English does not change the fact that the language of their ancestors and of the nation was initially gaelic.
"Since you have never previously heard the Ancient Scots referred to simply as the Irish, it would probably be a good idea for you to read the section titled "History""
You misunderstand me. I am well aware of the history relevant to this topic and my statement was meant to signify my bewilderment at your own comment that there was possibility for confusion between Scots and Irish; something i do not consider as a realistic possibilty either regarding the layman or the budding scholar.
"If the Scots had not triumphed over the Picts as the result of a Viking victory over the Picts in 839 and MacAlpin's Treason, our native land would probably now be known as Pentland rather than Scotland. " Perhaps so but, while certainly interesting, i do not see how this bears any relevance to the fact that our nation is Scotland, was founded by the Scots whos language and culture were gaelic.
In reference to your statement regarding the comparitive ages of english (or its predecessor) and gaelic in Scotland again i must point out that this, while again interesting, is irrelevant as english was not the language of Scots nor of Scotland. I find it very interesting that you seem to consider yourself more Pict than Scot in terms of ancestry. Considering that what remnants of Pictish culture,tradition and language we have were blended during Scotlands birth (and the inter-celtic strife which preceded it) with the gaelic culture we inherit(along with many Norse customs due to later viking dominance).
Anyway it is a pretty minor point really and ive enjoyed the discussion.
yours An Siarach
Well, it is minor, no doubt about that, but as you say, it's still enjoyable to discuss. It's ancient history and we're all called Scots nowadays whatever our forebears might have been called and I'm quite happy about that. But the fact is that unless the Picts were all killed by invaders (which they weren't) the majority of our ancestors will have been Pictish rather than Norse or Scots, so I don't think it unreasonable to consider myself (and yourself actually) as Pictish in origin. That's why I don't see Pictish as irrelevant to the topic of "the ancient tongue of the original inhabitants of Scotland" even though it is irrelevant to subject of "the ancient tongue of the original Scots". -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ah the Celtic mist and the dewy eyed dream of an ancient Celtic pedigree. What about the Gododdin and their Brythonic language? The ancient celtic language of Scotland? An ancient Celtic language of Scotland? P Celts Vs Q celts to determine who the true inheritors of the Celtic mist are. Best not mention the Norse.
Seamus P. Dantic
Why not ? What have you got against our Norse ancestors ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
They were in the Western Isles before the Gaels and left a lot of influence in Place names an Gaelic vocabulary. It waters down the Celtic purity causing the Celtic mist to fade and that could lead to the horrible idea that Scotland is as much Germanic as it is Celtic culturally.
Seamus P. Dantic
- Enough of your near racist guff, Mr P. Dantic. Be P. Lite and pick on another minority.
"Anglicised"
Lowland Scots is Anglo-Saxon based, so how can it become "anglicised"? I changed it to "englished".
- Yes but "english" is an adjective not a verb and when you start to use it as a verb it's not clear that you really mean "anglicised". So in the interests of clarity for our readers, I have changed it back. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yi nychtbour
Might it be possible that the "yi" of the Knox quotation is in fact a thorn followed by a vowel? If "yi" is a contraction of "your", it would be more likely to have been rendered "yr", with the second element perhaps even superscript. With the present translation, some people may be getting the impression that Scots is a non-rhotic variety, perhaps even similar to what is spoken in the north of England. Would it then be better to translate the quotation as "Love God above all and thy neighbour as thyself"? Of course, "your" is the Modern English for "thy", so the present rendering is technically correct. I'll leave it to the rest of you.
Chris Guthrie
- You know, I think that you're right, Chris. Thanks for sharing that.-- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Status
Writing "as you hear the sounds in your head" is not the result of the lack of an institutionalised standard literary form but the result of a disregard for, or lack of knowledge of the existing literary tradition. Scots spelling may not be standardised in the way English is. Variation does exist but is more than writing "as you hear the sounds in your head". Unwillingness to teach the pupils this so that they are in a position to make informed choices reveals the institutionalised disregard for the idea of treating Scots as a language on par with English. Children are taught how English is (usually) written and not told to "write as you hear the sounds in your head". With Scots children aren't tought how Scots is usually written but told to 'make it up as you go along' i.e. "write as you hear the sounds in your head". This implies the educational establishment doesn't take Scots seriously and consequently don't afford it the same respect as English.
[1] (http://www.scotsgate.com/spellin.html) provides links to resources Dictionaries and descriptions of orthograhic conventions exist an example is [2] (http://www.sldl.org.uk/ScotsSpellingGrammar.htm)
Murdoch Soulis
- Again, I agree with this, in general. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Language Suicide
Language suicide is a far better term because it describes how Scots speakers have, over generations, been borrowing so much lexis, pronunciation and syntax from English so that some varieties of 'Scots' have becomes virtually indistinguishable from English and can be considered to have become the same language. This is particularly true in urban centres and the central belt.
Language interference is the effects of a language learner’s first language on their production of the language they are learning. This would mean features of Scots affecting people's English not the other way about. See Scottish English.
- I don't agree with what looks like an attempt at redefining a general notion. It is clear enough that language interference can be much more than what it is said to mean above. The above narrow definition of 'language interference' is not a widely used one. The term 'language suicide' is even more rare. But let's keep this discussion at Talk:Language suicide. — mark ✎ 22:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
language attrition seems less ambiguous.