Talk:Scots language

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

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

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

Accented English words

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

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

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

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

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

Films

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

Pictish influence

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

this sentence makes no sense

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

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

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

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

It does not explain dialects of what.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To reiterate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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