Talk:Scottish Borders

Scotland Unassessed

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Borders received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

It also should be noted that even though there is a Gaelic name for the region, it has never been spoken in the area, and the traditional language of the area is Scots and its dialects.

Perhaps, but isn't, uh, English, the language spoken there now? My understanding was that genuine Scots is now only spoken in a few remote rural areas, and that most Scottish people speak a kind of Scots inflected form of standard English. john k 17:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article status

Is anyone able to help me get this to featured article status?? There are several reasons why this should be a featured article:

It has been the setting for several battles between England and Scotland.
It has many notable places of interest
It has a fairly epic history.

Does anyone agree with my suggestions for this, and if so, how can we make this into a featured article?? This talk page is under-used for now. --SunStar Net 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on economic / industrial activity would be helpful.The Boy that time forgot 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the history was more than "fairly epic" --retro_junkies 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 languages

"Since Roman times, there has been evidence of three/four main languages in the area: Brythonic, Anglo-Saxon, English and Lowland Scots."

In other words 2 languages as Anglo-Saxon, Lowland Scots and English (as in English English) are all one and the same in this context - it makes no sense to regard the different historical stages of a single language as seperate when discussing the number of lanugages spoken in an area. Certainly Anglo-Saxon, as the direct ancestor to both Lowland Scots and English, should not be counted seperately. siarach 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Languages again...

Since Roman times, there has been evidence of two main languages in the area: Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon,the latter of which developed into its modern forms of English and Lowland Scots. The local varieties of the latter displays some similarities with the dialects of Northumberland and Tyneside, although they preserved more older words and grammar better than their neighbours to the south.

I'm not questioning the content, but rather the grammar.

Using 'the latter' twice in sucession seems over the top to me, and the second sentence is pretty ropey to be honest. I don't want to do a direct edit becuase I'm not even clear on the exact meaning to be conveyed, but I would be inclined to go with something like:

Since Roman times, there has been evidence of two main languages in the area: Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon,the latter of which developed into its modern forms of English and Lowland Scots. The local varieties of Lowland Scots display some similarities with the dialects of Northumberland and Tyneside, but have preserved older words and grammar better than their neighbours to the south.

I left in 'neighbours to the south', although I'm not sure it's necessary. --Worm 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]