Talk:Scots language

The Sun

Has anyone read the criticism of the Scottish language page in today's Scottish sun? Any thoughts?--Jack forbes (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope (to both). However I always think it funny the way that News Corp will say one thing about a Scottish issue in the English edition of The Sun and the complete opposite in the Scottish edition. Once you've seen that happen a couple of times, you get the impression that whole paper is just a wind-up. Is this one of those cases ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be Derek,but it happens too often in my opinion to be just a wind-up.I know of an English reporter,whose name eludes me,who criticises Scotland at every opportunity and would of course never be let near the Scottish edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

South of the border (haha) the Sun is generally regarded as a bit of a joke, i wouldn't read too much into it. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, <grin>. It's a comic for grown-ups. Perhaps this is one case where Scots and English can agree! -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you,it is just a comic,but you would be amazed (or maybe not) how many people believe the rubbish in this paper if it's repeated enough!--Jack forbes (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Created "Cromarty fisher dialect article

I have just created an article on Cromarty fisher dialect and it currently doesn't have anything linking to it. If people have ideas on the best places to link the article, that would be great. --Roisterer (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of Speakers

According to the article, there are "over 1.5 million" speakers of Scots in Scotland, and there is mention of The General Register Office for Scotland, but it is not clear where the reference came from. According to The Scotland Online Gateway a 'recent' (before 2002) survey 'estimated' that 1.6 million speakers spoke Scots. But which Scots? I have lived in Scotland all my life yet find the quote at the top of the Online Gateway page virtually unintelligible, nor can I think of anyone I have ever heard using such a collection of terms (although I have heard isolated uses of individual words). How on earth can I have managed not to encounter or overhear a single individual using all these words amongst the alleged one and a half million speakers? 'Smeddum', for example, is a word in the Doric dialect, and as such in use by a fairly small geographical area in north-east Scotland. Speakers from other parts of Scotland, unless they were perhaps familiar with the writings of Lewis Grassic Gibbon would be unlikely to have even heard of the word, let alone use it. This is but one example of many. My concerns are that it is unclear how the 1.5/1.6 million figure is arrived at, and where these speakers (over a fifth of the population, no less) are actually located? It all seems very nebulous and woolly, and suggests to me more than ever that the only speakers of 'Scots' as used in officially are highly mannered ones, with few (if any) actually speaking what is being passed off as 'Scots' here. Perhaps this article needs to be renamed Theoretical Scots.--Stevouk (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I could'nt agree with you more, as you say I have heard some of these words in isolation, but then, I don't believe it's a language on it's own! It's quite obvious (to me anyway!) that it's an English dialect!--Jack forbes (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a minor edit- English dialectS. A group of similar dialects of English that are often grouped together as Scots much as how north eastern dialects are often all called geordie, southern dialects all called posh, etc...--Him and a dog 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

These "English dialects" are collectively known as Scottish English. Scots is their forefather. Scots is significantly more diverse from English than the dialects in modern Scottish use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the figure can be attributed to a reliable reference, then it meets the criteria for inclusion per WP:V. If you have other sources, please provide them. Personal experiences are subjective and cannot be used to substantiate information in articles. — Zerida ☥ 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The figure relates to what would appear to be a deliberate misreading of the reliable reference. It has been obtained by taking the census figures for the response to the question "can you speak the Scots language" from 1996. However, the census also asked the less ambiguous question "can you speak Scots", and got half the response. If we're going to use either figure we should use the lower one; personally, that the survey was evidently flawed says to me that it isn't verifiable at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern Extent of Scots

The Article included this spurious claim: ...but arguably upto 2.5 million speakers throughout Northumberland, County Durham and Tyne and Wear. I have added a referenced bit about the southern extent of Scots to the section Dialects. If anyone can find equally reputable sources for the claim above feel free to reinstate it. I eagerly look forward to the references;-) Nogger (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Nogger! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/durhamdialect/sunderlandc19-1.htm 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are still in use now. 81.97.8.242 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No comments? You've got the F.E.A.R. 92.40.14.50 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Status and NPOV phrasing

The status of Scots as a language in the sense one treats Swedish and Danish as languages can be justifyably questioned. See Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache. Just because the British government now recognises Scots as a regional language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not automatically make it a language according to all paradigms. It is a political decision. If the Government declared the moon to be made of cheese it would not necessarily make it true. Governments across the world are known to create facts that fit their agendas.

Thus using Scots is an Anglic language descended from early northern Middle English... in the introduction pre-empts the discussion of its status in the next paragraph and in the section Status. The article should present and describe the (sourced) reasons why some linguists treat Scots as dialects of English and others as a separate language, why activists consider it a language and on what basis the British government decided to recognise it as one. This should be done neutrally leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented. Yes, Scots language may be the title of the article. On one hand that has to do with Wikipedia naming policy, on the other we can simply accept this use of language to mean A set of characters, phonemes, conventions, and rules used for conveying information. The aspects of a language are pragmatics, semantics, syntax, phonology, and morphology. No doubt that is the intention in Anglic language, though ;-) we all know that Anglic is a euphemism for English, Nogger (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

some linguists treat Scots as dialects of English and others as a separate language What reliable source can you present for the claim that "some linguists" treat Scots as "dialects of English"? I'd be surprised to see an academic linguist making such a categorical claim. I am assuming you're the same person behind the IP that left me a message on my talk page. You have not presented a valid argument for us to disregard Wikipedia's naming conventions and guidelines and accept yours. Also, did you mean that we should simply disregard the fact that the UK recognizes Scots as a language? The debate itself is not sufficient reason to disregard the guideline nor its recognized status--after all every language is essentially a dialect and vice versa. Dialects are typically recognized as languages when a significant portion of their speakers recognize them as such. Please also note that you should secure consensus on the talk page before making changes that have been challenged on more than one occasion. — Zerida ☥ 04:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Below are some (no doubt there are more) reliable sources showing that "some linguists" treat Scots as "dialects of English".

In his The English Language of Scotland: An Introduction to Scots Jones (2002) writes (p.vii) "This book sets out to describe the grammar (in the widest sense) of the English language as it is spoken in Scotland today." Further on p.2 he writes "Although there are obvious differences between pronunciation and (to a less extent) the syntax of the dialects spoken in the English and Scottish Border counties, they are in general terms still very close to each other at almost every level of their linguistic form. In such a case it would not be appropriate to talk about different languages." He continues illustrating why he considers Scots to be dialects of English.

When describing negation in Scots dialects in their English Accents and Dialects (p.14) Hughes and Trudgill (1979) use the term "Scottish English".

In The Languages of Britain Price (1984) writes "I devote a separate chapter to Scots not because I necessarily accept that it is a 'language' rather than a 'dialect' but because it has proved more convenient to handle it thus than include some treatment of it in the chapter on English."

Aitken in McArthur (1992) summarizes the situation as follows: "Scholars and other interested persons have difficulty agreeing on the linguistic historical, and social status of Scots. Generally it is seen as one of the ancient dialects of English, yet it has distinct and ancient dialects of its own […] it has been called a Germanic language in its own right, considered as distinct from its sister in England in the same way that Swedish is distinct from Danish."

Hughes, Arthur & Peter Trudgill (1979). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of British English. London: Edward Arnold.

Jones, Charles (2002) The English language in Scotland: An Introduction to Scots. Tuckwell, East Linton

McArthur, Tom (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. Various articles by A. J. Aitken. Abridged edition, 1996.

I left no message on your talk page. As to securing consensus on the talk page before making changes, may I point out that having gone through the edit history I noticed wording similar to what I used seems to have been the concensus nearly two years ago before someone else decided to change it ingnoring that apparent consensus. There was plenty of debate, though no talk of concensus as such but the more neutral wording did remain unchallenged for almost two years.

I'm not suggesting we disregard Wikipedia's naming conventions and guidelines as to the title of the article. Neither am I suggesting that we disregard the fact that the UK recognizes Scots as a language. I am simply saying that the different views, and the reasons for them, should be described neutrally leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented.

Dialects well may be typically recognized as languages when a significant portion of their speakers recognize them as such. Have you a relaible source for that in regards to Scots not being considered a variety of English by a significant portion of its speakers? What is a significant portion? Nogger (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet the striking similarity between what your wrote above "using Scots is an Anglic language descended from early northern Middle English... in the introduction pre-empts the discussion of its status in the next paragraph", and what the anonymous editor wrote on my talk page "using Scots is an Anglic language descended... in the first sentence pre-empts the second paragraph and is arguably POV"[1] is difficult to miss. In any event, I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was simply making reference to the previous discussion for context. Turning to the references, as I had suspected none of them is written by an academic linguist. One is a professor of English, another French, and the third is not an academic. Your quotation talks about "the dialects spoken in the English and Scottish Border counties," which as I mentioned in an edit summary, would not be unexpected (e.g., Lower German vs. Dutch Low Saxon).

Perhaps not impossible, but I maintain that a categorical pronouncement by an academic linguist that Scots is a dialect not a language would raise a few eyebrows. Please note that asking me if I have a relaible source "in regards to Scots not being considered a variety of English by a significant portion of its speakers?" is a negative proof fallacy. I was also not aware of a previous consensus--I looked through the archives and aside from the occasional "is it a language or a dialect?" discussions, I could not find clear consensus that the article should not make any references to Scots being a language. If it's that important to you (or other editors?), I suggest making a proposal to change the title of the article from Scots language to just Scots (we have Latin and Hindi for example). — Zerida ☥ 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I picked up using 'language' or 'dialect' here preempts the next paragraph in the edit history. The suggestion seemed to imply explicitly avoiding defining Scots as either a dialect or a language by using the less contentious term 'variety' or for that matter any other suitable alternative which may be considered neutral.

Charles Jones is an honorary fellow at the Edinburgh University Department of Linguistics and English Language. He clearly thinks Scots is a variety of the English language, or is he teaching nonsense at Edinburgh University?

Glanville Price is, as you say, a Professor of French, though arguably that brings substancial linguistic knowledge with it.

The late Jack Aitken was a lexicographer and philologist, and arguably supportive of the idea of Scots being an 'independent language' though he was cautious enough to describe the differing views on the matter and not claim one or the other to be 'correct' in his contribution to The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Why is Scots, a 'different language', covered in so much detail in a book about English?

Peter Trudgill is a Professor of sociolinguistics.

It would be interesting to have some quotes from academic linguists stating that Scots is an independent language not a variety of English. You seem to be certain of their existence. Please provide some. I agree that a categorical pronouncement by an academic linguist that Scots is a dialect not a language would raise a few eyebrows because linguists talk about varieties, all speech is equally valid language to them. Would one categorically state that Scots is not part of the English linguistic system (i.e.not a variety of English) but an independent language in the sense that German and Dutch are?

As to negative proof. If the claim is being made that Scots is considered a language other than English by a significant portion of its speakers, surely it is acceptable, in an encyclopedia to require some proof for such a claim e.g. attitude surveys etc.

Once again I am not proposing to change the title of the article from Scots language to just Scots. I am simply saying that the different views (whether Scots is a 'language' or a variety of English), and the reasons for them, should be described neutrally within the article leaving the reader to make their own decision based on the information presented. That is the third attempt at conveing that concern. It has not been addressed. Is Scots an 'Independent' Anglic language or a variety of English? Nogger (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I just don't see the sense in having the article titled "Scots language" if we are careful to avoid making references to Scots as a language in the body of the article. Even though I am not an expert on Scots, I certainly would not regard Scots simply as a dialect of English. In this discussion, it's not always clear to me when "Scots" is used to refer to either the Lowland variety or to Scottish English (one I generally do not understand; one I generally do); e.g. Jones talks about Scots as a "kind" of English, yet he also talks about "Scots" and "English" as two separate entities (he also does come across as a professor of English primarily, not theoretical linguistics). Incidentally, he has an article published in a volume titled The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. I am not totally swayed by Jones' argument, but he is reliable enough to be included in the article if he's not already.

It would be interesting to have some quotes from academic linguists stating that Scots is an independent language not a variety of English. Actually this is not exactly what I said--linguists typically don't make categorical claims either way in such situations, treating dialect and language as mutually exclusive; but if a variety is recognized by speakers or governments as a language, then it's often described as such. In reality there are no universally objective criteria distinguishing languages from dialects; even purely linguistic ones like structure, functions and mutual intelligibility can vary. But sociolinguists in particular will factor in how people feel, official recognition, the existence of a literary tradition, among others. I don't always buy into these factors myself, but for Wikipedia I think we need some criteria to work with.

Would one categorically state that Scots is not part of the English linguistic system (i.e.not a variety of English) but an independent language in the sense that German and Dutch are? No exactly, because that's tantamount to saying that English and Dutch are not Germanic (or conversely that English and Dutch are German). No one would dispute that Scots is *derived* from English (or northern Middle English more specifically); it's not clear however whether this is enough to regard it as "a dialect of English" given the social, and for that matter linguistic, implications in that description. At least, it's more neutral and I think more descriptive to refer to Scots as an Anglic variety rather than an English one. — Zerida ☥ 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally concur with what you have written above. As you say: At least, it's more neutral and I think more descriptive to refer to Scots as an Anglic variety rather than an English one. So why not express it so in the introduction?

Scots refers to the Anglic varieties derived from early northern Middle English spoken in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Nogger (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does indeed lean way too much to Scots being a language. Its status should be a pretty major subject of discussion by the article.--Him and a dog 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So why not express it so in the introduction? Because of the title as I said. In any event, why not give it a couple of days to see if other editors agree with that? If you don't hear any objections, then "silence implies consent" per the consensus policy. — Zerida ☥ 06:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey we're now back to where we started before Zerida ☥ changed what had been there for almost two years. It gets reverted and Zerida ☥ takes a wobbly and keeps reverting it back to Zerida ☥'s version then after some back and forward discussion Zerida ☥ tell us how it should be done more neutral more descriptive exacly how it was before Zerida ☥ started forcing his new version on the article after nearly two years, while trying to save face with some mumbling about the title. Welcome to the wacky world of Wikipedia. 84.134.230.60 (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

it should be done more neutral more descriptive exacly how it was before That's incorrect, I still don't think it should be changed. Here I was merely saying that Anglic is more neutral than English when asked if Scots was not an "English dialect". Whether dialect or language is used is another story, but a reliable source was provided which sheds light on the situation from a different angle. I'm not the only editor who has reverted to this version. Also, learn to be civil in your comments. Your edits were challenged primarily because you repeatedly vandalized the article to remove any references to Scots' linguistic classification and its official status in the UK. — Zerida ☥ 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The repeated vandalism seems to consist of the one edit mentioned above which was followed by an edit clearly correcting inadvertently botched wikicode with the comment oops!. Keep digging. 84.134.224.231 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect again. You clearly vandalized the information regarding Scots' status in the infobox and did not restore it in your second "fix" edit (nice try though). It was also not the first time. — Zerida ☥ 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in so far as you consider a botched effort at restoring a botched effort vandalism. Here a failure to vandalize the information regarding Scots' status in the infobox occured. Someone mangaged to do some real vandalism here. With practice things improved. Then were improved even better here and here by Nogger followed by other acts of 'vandalism' giving us what we have now 84.134.245.54 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history to see what the original wording was, and found that the current version was initially changed by the same IP range in June 2006. I also looked at Archive 4 and found no evidence of discussion or consensus for this change. I now realize that what I actually did was revert it back to what it had always been, and what I think is a more sensible lead that corresponds with the inescapable facts: that the title already acknowledges its "languageness" to borrow your expression, and that its speakers do so, at least on an official level (not to mention the vast majority of linguists). I don't intend on changing it again, but some of the strong reactions here seem to me like an attempt to bury one's head in the sand. It's not like refusing to acknowledge Scots' independent existence is going to stop it from developing in its own right, or from its being recognized as a regional language. I suppose such things take time. BTW, I did find one suggestion in the archives to merge this page with Scottish English, which I find utterly absurd on linguistic grounds. Talk about POV. — Zerida ☥ 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Scots

What would you call other Scots spoken around the country? E.g. Glaswegian, which is in no way Scottish English. would you call this a language or an English dialect. If you consider it a language then it is as much a Scots language as the one on this article meaning it should be included. If you think its an English dialect could you explain why like lallans there are words formed only in Glasgow(or west coast) or changed so much as to render it incomprehensible to those with no ear for it! Hey, we could have multiple languages in Scotland, great eh! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We do have multiple languages in Scotland: Gaelic and English; or Gaelic, Scots and English, dependng on whether you count English and Scots as two separate languages or not. Each of these has dialects which differ from one part of Scotland to another. Some of those dialects, such as Doric and Orcadian have Wikipedia articles of their own stating how they differ from the "standard" form of the language; others such as "Lewis Gaelic", do not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my problem Derek, I don't consider English and Scots being two different languages. I know it is officially considered a seperate language but making something official does'nt make it so! My real problem is that it get's away from the fact that Gaelic is actually the Scottish language (I don't speak it). Gaelic is actually a dying language which get's little or no help from authorities. I actually have some old maps in the house with the Gaelic names for towns, hills, islands and fishing ports etc, which over time the names on the newer maps have been anglicised. Now I may have a suspiciuos mind but it is my opinion that this was done intentionally in an attempt to eradicate the Gaelic tongue! Things hav'nt really changed over years, its like taking the eldest son of a clan chief and educating him in England!

I may have gone off track there but I hope you understand what I mean. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, you raise some interesting points. Firstly, Scots is actually an umbrella term for a variety of dialects that are found within the geographical boundaries of Scotland. When you talk about Glaswegian Scots, it actually falls under the umbrella of the Scots Language as a variety of Central Scots.

[That said, the I have some issues with the article in that parts of it it talk as though there is a standard version of Scots ... when no such thing exists. The Dictionary of the Scots Language and the Scottish Govt. website plunder the various dialects within Scotland to come up with a form of plastic/artificial Scots. In reality, Glaswegian/Central Scots is one of many Scots dialects. They all share a common heritage; but equally have some fundamentally different characteristics, and as such, it makes no sense to mix them.]

Secondly, you say you don't consider Scots to be a different language ... I know a number of people who agree with you ... myself included ... but the bottom line is that if the EU and their respective governments say it is; then it's hard to contradict. IMHO it WAS a language in its own right in the 15th/16th centuries, but due to a variety of reasons has moved back closer to standard English.

Thirdly, I think too many people try to set Scots Gaelic and Lowland Scots in opposition to eachother. Anglic and Gaelic speakers have been unambiguously part of the same country since the middle of the 13th century. Changes in spellings on historic maps is (IMHO) more likely to be a reflection of people using Scots/English as the basis for phonetic spelling. PoV here; but this is probably because of the fact that Scots/English was widely taught in schools; whereas Gaelic was not. If there is a conspiracy to be found (and I doubt that there is), it is the promotion of Scots/English in schools that lies at the heart of it. Even then, the cause of this shift is still a Scottish one; since this process started in the late 15th century, over a hundred years before the union of the crowns.Angusmec (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not of course promote the idea that this article should be deleted. As you say, It's difficult to argue for that when the EU and the government say it is a language(whether I agree with it or not). What has bothered me over the years is that it is not just the Gaelic that was not taught at school, it was also Scottish history that was not taught! I may be showing my age here, but I left secondary school knowing more English history than Scottish. It is no wonder Scotland over the years bacame more anglicised. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way anti-England, I don't lay the faults of Scotland at Englands door, I lay it quite firmly at the door of those Scots in authority who let the Scottish culture take a back seat. Also, as I'm sure you know, it was not the Scottish people that agreed to the union of parliaments, it was the Scottish leaders! --Jack forbes (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again Jack. Trying to keep this from wandering too far off topic ... fun tho' it is ;-). I think it's clear from many of the contributions to the article and talk pages that most people share a common blind spot when it comes to our own history. Most do not realise how far back the split between Scots and English actually goes. Many see it as being a relatively recent 'corruption' of Modern English. Like you, my secondary education in Scots history was shockingly barren ... apart from (bizarrely) a very detailed knowledge of the farming techniques of the middle ages. I can understand why some aspects of Scots history are avoided by schools; due to the religious divisions that exist(ed) in Scotland ... but quite why we were never taught the significance of Fortriu, Alt Clut, Dal Riata and Bernicia to the modern makeup of Scotland is beyond me. It is of course, the inclusion of the latter into what we now view as modern Scotland that (arguably) gave rise to the Scots 'variety' in the first place (phew ... managed to get back on topic ... ;-)) Angusmec (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of the lack of Scottish history in your education, gentlemen, but I don't know if it's general. My 1970s secondary education certainly included early Scotland, the wars of independence, Jacobite rebellions, etc. Granted it was a bit sparse on Scotland post 1750 but I didn't get much British history from that period either. As I remember post-1750 we looked at the French Revolution and WWI but I don't see anything wrong with that. Those were seminal events and it would be silly to concentrate on Scotland to the exclusion of everything else. Perhaps things have changed since I was at school -- or perhaps it's just a difference in curriculum between schools. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were more fortunate than I was in your secondary education. I also had my secondary education in the 70's and was taught nothing of the wars of independence or Jacobite rebellions. Talking to others of my age I find they have a similar experience. Could it be something that was more common in Glasgow? Jack forbes (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scots in England (revisited)

If i was to say;

Ahm nee gawn rund me maws oose nee mare

Would that constitute to a form of Scots or not? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It constitutes a form of Northern English. 84.135.252.184 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So that would not be Scots then? It looks alot like some Scots i've read in the past. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Most likely Northern English. The Scots equivalent would be something more like "A'm nae gaun roon tae ma maw's hoose ony mair".

There's quite a lot of pseudo-Scots speech written in novels. How closely it resembles the real thing depends on how well the author has researched (or just plain knows) Scots. Sometimes it's good; sometimes it's not. If you want to see good examples look at Irvine Welsh's novels for modern urban Scots, or David Toulmin's stories for rural 1930s Scots. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so then what about Scots 'dialects' are they not used in written forms at all? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just given you examples of two writers who use different Scots dialects in their writing, one urban, one rural, so I am not sure that I understand what you're asking for. After all it is impossible to write anything in any language without using one dialect or another. For instance we are currently communicating using Standard English, a written dialect which would cause people to think we were "talking like a book" if we used it in spoken conversation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

This article isn't very clear... Do Scottish people actualy "speak Scottish" or English with their own accent. (As in majority not as in a few communitys.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.133.145 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what the current figures are. A couple of hundred years ago, it would have been the vast majority. Right now it's anyone's guess. I doubt that it's a majority. it may be a significant minority. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends how it's defined, obviously. I wouldn't say that a "significant minority" speak anything resembling Scots in the Lowlands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define Lowlands too. I'd agree with you if you just mean Fife and the Central Belt. But not if you include the North-east. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Living in Scotland from the early 60s to early 80s, I found most Scots spoke English with one of a variety of accents and with some dialect words and distinct grammatical constructions. Those who think Scots is a separate language should study some of the English dialects - they are in some ways as different from standard English in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar as Scots is. Then look at the various dialects of French (eg Occitan), German and Italian (eg Neapolitan). A cliche perhaps but true enough - a language is a dialect with an army and navy.

Scots was - probably - a language in the 17th century. Now? I think not.

Exile (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic Hittite was a language in 1200 BC, but not now. If Scots was probably a language in the 17th century, then it's probably a language now. It may be a dying language or even an extinct language but that's a different matter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Exile, if I read you correctly, you state that the language spoken in late 20th century Scotland is not Scots but simply a regional variety of English. I think you are probably right there.

But, as Derek Ross points out, there is still a (endangered or even moribund) language that is not simply a broad accent of English but very different from English. For cultural and historical reasons, it is usually regarded as a language of its own: Scots.

Some of the (now virtually extinct) rural dialects recorded in the Survey of English Dialects are just as distinct from Standard English as Scots is, but those dialects are usually classified as dialects of the English language - again for cultural and historical reasons, as there is no clearly defined linguistic distinction between language and dialect. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My own dialect (as spoken by my grandfather), is derived from Northern Middle English and Old Norse, and shares many words and other features with "Scots". But I and almost all of my ancestors in the last 500 years have lived around forty miles south of the Scottish border. Surely "Scots" is just another dialect that retains much of the older English vocabulary and grammar now lost in "Queen's English" and Southern dialects, but retained in several Northern dialects to differing extents. If "Scots" is a "language", is it not just a variety of "Old Northern English"?. Dbfirs 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No more than "Old Northern English" is a variety of Scots. Linguistically, there're no sharp divisions between what constitutes a language and what a dialect. Why do you think of your own dialect as a dialect of English and not a dialect of Scots? For that matter, why not think of English and Scots as dialects of your own language? All of them have equally long pedigrees, obviously. 81.102.53.60 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This ones persistent eh? This one lays with the lucky Scots, i say lucky because the only reason Scots is debated as a language is simply because of geographic location, the Scots are fortunate that the English didn't conquer you thoroughly as they did with northern England, and whereas there was always pressure for these newer English parts to be more English the Scots relative freedom allowed them their own language and culture.

I think some of us northerners are a bit bitter, myself included, sometimes we wish the English really went up there and did yous in good and proper - or alternatively, left us to have our own language and culture aswell, because it's equally as dictinct from standard English as yours is, and it feels often that the line is drawn at the feet of nationality rather than logic.

Afterall, English small pipes and tartan are as English as the queen and tea, eh? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, the Jockbaiting never goes away I see. Well, by the yardstick of some here, English is just dialect of German, and German a dialect of Norse, and Norse a dialect of Proto-Indo-European. There are two kinds of dialect: 1. a scientific dialect= any shift in language that renders it mutually unintelligible and the political notion of the delineation of language & dialect. Ther is NO difference between a language an a dialect in science: all language is dialect.

So basically, the argument the lay people are putting forward is "I don't like the idea of Scots being put forward as a language." Which to me whiffs or latent racism, than any linguistics schism.

Scots is quite clearly mutually unintelligible to modern English speakers. I defy anyone to pick up a volume of Rabbie Burns and tell em otherwise. It is as distinct from modern English as Dutch is to modern German.

Here's the most famous piece of Scots in the world to prove my point: http://www.robertburns.org/works/236.shtml

However not, that spelling of printed Scots very offer defers to the prevailing English counterparts, when often in speech there is significant divergence.

So, basically the language non-language argument is based on race politics and not science. As far as linguistics is concerned, Scots can be considred as much a language as any other.

89.168.185.13 (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

89.168, you are right in sentiment, but a bit sketchy on the details ;) . It would be more accurate to say that most contemporary linguists do not distinguish between languages and dialects on the basis of linguistic factors (in other words the features of the variety such as vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.), but on the basis of non-linguistic factors such as politics or history. Essentially, what makes something a language is that (powerful) people call it a language. Max Weinreich is said to have defined the difference as follows: 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy'. This has important implications e.g. for the status of a variety (and for people's attitudes towards it). This is rather obvious with Scots, where politicians (even in the Scottish Parliament) have regularly claimed that Scots should not receive funding or should not be asked about on the census on the basis that it is 'just a dialect of English' and 'not a language in its own right'.

To linguists, a dialect, is not necessarily unintelligible to speakers of other dialects, but differs in some way. This difference is both linguistic (e.g. particular vocabulary used, pronunciation) and also often linked to some non-linguistic feature of the group using it, e.g. class, age, region, etc. You are quite right in (more or less) saying that 'everything is a dialect' - Standard English (e.g. as often spoken by educated speakers in formal situations) is also a dialect to linguists.

I know I haven't given many sources in this response, but as I'm just about finished with my PhD thesis on language policy I have plenty at my fingertips - just ask :) --Junglehungry (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put, Junglehungry. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Peter Trudgill would be the obvious place to begin for people who think teher is any point in arguing dialect vs language as a linguist. AKA 89.168.185.13 88.111.43.90 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Following a footnote's link to this website, I was troubled to notice that much of its content seems to be replicated word-for-word in this article. For example, the article says:

The British government now accepts Scots as a regional language and has recognised it as such under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. ... Evidence for its existence as a separate language lies in the extensive body of Scots literature, its independent — if somewhat fluid — orthographic conventions and in its former use as the language of the original Parliament of Scotland. Since Scotland retained distinct political, legal and religious systems after the Union, many Scots terms passed into Scottish English. For instance, libel and slander, separate in English law, are bundled together as defamation in Scots law.

And the Martin Frost page says:

The British government now accepts Scots as a regional language and has recognised it as such under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Evidence for its existence as a separate language lies in the extensive body of Scots literature, in independent—if somewhat fluid—orthographic conventions and in its former use as the official language of the original Scottish Parliament. Since Scotland retained distinct political, legal, and religious systems after the Union, many Scots terms passed into Scottish English. For instance, libel and slander, separate in English law, are bundled together as defamation in Scots law.

As far as I can tell, the word-for-word content was introduced by an anonymous editor back in March 2004. Unless that editor is Martin Frost (and I don't know how we'd confirm that), a great deal of his or her contributions would constitute copyright violations. I don't have time to check the rest of the article's sources to see whether anything else is dubious, but I hope that the article's regular editors can make this search, and rewrite the article without any copyright violations.

I'm not going to add the {{copyvio}} tag yet, because that would hide all the content (not just the copyvio). However, if this isn't dealt with in the next few days I'll have to submit it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Take a look at earlier versions of the article. You will see that the section was assembled from sentences which were originally spread all over the article. For instance the sentence,

"Evidence for its existence as a separate language lies in the extensive body of Scots literature, in independent—if somewhat fluid—orthographic conventions and in its former use as the official language of the original Scottish Parliament.",

developed from the sentence,

"Evidence for its existence as a separate language lies in the extensive body of Scots literature; in the existence of several Scots dialects; and in its former use as the official language of the original Scottish Parliament",

which I originally wrote in late 2001 or early 2002 and which appears in the earliest version of the article which we still have from 2002. If you do a little research you will find that the other sentences which form part of your evidence for copyright violation were introduced to the article, one by one, later in 2002, two of them in a separate paragraph to the sentence that I describe above.

In short I believe that we are not guilty of copyright violation. Post 2002, it's easy to see how we developed the section that you quote, sentence by sentence, as various editors contributed the sentences that make it up. It would be interesting to hear Martin Short's explanation for why the sentences in his article so closely resemble ours though... -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. Looking back, it does look like this was the source, not the Short page. However, if that's so, then Short shouldn't be used as a citation. I'll remove the references to his site. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. I read the Short article and recognised quite a few other pieces of text which I originally wrote. Of course I wouldn't mind if he had followed the requirements of the GFDL but he hasn't. So by all means remove any links to his site. I have no doubt that we can get citations from elsewhere if necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This sort of "backwards copyvio" is getting awfully prolific... almost weekly there's discussion on the Village Pump about whether a certain article is a copyvio because it seems very similar to a mainstream source, when it turns out that the source copied WP. Glad this one was caught! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Backwards copyvio" -- that's a good way of putting it. Perhaps we should have a "backwards copyvio" template to put on the talk page of an article like this one which has been plagiarised elsewhere. That would help to prevent people drawing the wrong conclusion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just whipped one up: {{backwardscopyvio}}. Feel free to use and improve it! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What a guy, <grin>. Thanks! -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow University graduate

Not sure if it is of use in this article but in 1995 (I believe)Alasdair Allen MA(hons) graduated from Glasgow University being the first person in the universities history to have written his degree in Scots. Permission was granted by the university by having Scots considered a variety of English (Trevsy (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Interesting. Don't know if we can use it in the article but definitely interesting. Thanks for sharing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Scots makes it to Wikipedia's Main page today

A couple of bits of Scots are quoted on Wikipedia's Main Page today (7 December 2008), due to the new Golf in Scotland article appearing as the lead item in the Did you know? column. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)