Talk:Scots language

Berwick-upon-Tweed

The people in Berwick speak a form of Broad Scots, partly due to the Border being changed. This is mentioned in The Mither Tongue. I am not referring to the "is Geordie a Scots dialect?" debate.

Stop removing this please.

No, it goes under the same catagory as other Northern English accents. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

West Germanic

Simplified diagram of the modern West-Germanic languages.

Dutch and German are West Germanic languages that are largely unfamiliar to English speakers and have to be learned by them. I have been living in Germany for many years and am fluent in German because I have learned it. Dutch is still unfamiliar to me, because I have never learned it, but I can understand some of it because of its proximity to German. 'Lowland Scots', however, is more or less entirely familiar to me, so that I do not have to learn it. I have no difficulty, for example, reading the 16th cent. letters of the Scottish Queen Mary to the English Queen Elizabeth in 'Scots'. I thing the general principle of language proximity is a useful one in trying to work out classifications of them. Pamour (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this diagram of the relationships between the West Germanic languages will help you. As it says, it is simplified so it doesn't include Scots. However if it did, Scots and English would both branch off Middle English in the same way that Dutch and Afrikaans both branch off Middle Dutch. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But what I'm asking is. Is it even an official sub-category. Forgive me I don't really know a lot about linguistics or anything but if it doesn't list Scots as an Anglic language on the German/Dutch/Danish etc. pages. Doesn't that mean the category doesn't exist. You say you understand Scots. I'm sure a native German speaker would be able to understand Dutch when reading it. Also if a German was to become fluent in English I'm sure they would have trouble understanding Scots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Official? You mean sanctioned by the British government? Or the UN? Or the University of Oxford? Or what? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said I don't know much of linguistics. Perhaps official was the wrong word to use here. However I find it confusing how no other pages use this category yet the English language wiki seems to. Why ? You've explained the chart etc. but you haven't explained why the other wiki pages don't use and anglic or even anglo-frisian category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Danish isn't listed as a sub-category of Norwegian. There are less differences between Norwegian and Danish than there are between Scots and English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Well the nearest thing to "official" would be "commonly used/recognised in the literature" I suppose. And the terms are actually reasonably common in the specialist linguistics literature. As to why it appears in the English Wiki but not the others? Well, the English Wikipedia probably has more Wikipedians who are interested in this level of detail, since it has more participants who are British or whose native language is English. I don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if the Scandinavian Wikis had more detail on their native language groups than the English wiki does and for much the same reason. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the Scandinavian language wikis. In fact it seems to be every Germanic language wiki that simply lists it as West Germanic. You should check the Swedish language wiki's Scots language page. There is a ton of information in there about the Scots language. They even have a table showing it's similarities with Swedish and other Scandinavian tongues. So it's not as if it's just some stub article. If they are common in linguistics literature then I won't argue. I just didn't want it added in there when it doesnn't need to be. Hopefully in the future a more appropriate term such as north-west Germanic languages will be used to refer to the Germanic tongues spoken in the Britsh Isles. Anglic is just so Anglophilic in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was just using the Scandinavian wikis as an example, so fair enough on what you say about the other Germanic wikis. The terms "Anglic" and "Anglo-Frisian" don't particularly bother me as they seem to bother you, so I must admit it never occurred to me that they might be anglophilic. Guess I'm just not that sensitive on the matter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't bother you were they to be removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots is an Anglic language. For references please refer to An Essay on the Scoto-English dialect by Collin (1862), The New Criterion by the Foundation for Cultural Review (2007), The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon (1900), Celtic Scotland by Skene (1886), Chartier in Europe by Cayley and Kinch (2008), the Guardian (2010), and the BBC. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why you (an Irish person) would care what sub-categories are included in the Scots language is beyond me. I'm tired of this argument. If you want to turn Scots into some dialect of English then go ahead. As I said Norwegian could be referred to as Danish. Its basically identical. Yet it's not. At the very least if Scots is listed as an Anglic language then Norwegian should be listed as a Danish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be glad that anyone from anywhere is concerned to make this article well-written and accurate. Are you confusing Anglic with English? Anglic= "of the Angles", in this case initially the language of the Northumbrian Angles in the Lothians and (what is now) south-east Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know being Irish precluded me from contributing to Wikipedia...I must look that up in the guidelines. Mr./Ms. Anon, can you please guide me to the relevant guidelines? "Anglic" is a linguistic term. "Danish" as a catch-all term for Norwegian and Danish is not. That is why Norwegian is not listed under Danish. It's as simple as that. It may be described as having been derived from Danish, but it is never categorised as such. Scots, on the other hand, is categorised as such, and rather than exclude information because certain editors find it distasteful, Wikipedia tends to include all information, as long as it is verifiable.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And just so you're not confused Mr./Ms. Anon, English is also sub-categorised under Anglic. According to strict linguistic classification, both Scots and English are sister languages under the umbrella term "Anglic Languages" in the same way that Galician, Portuguese, Castillian (Spanish), Asturian, etc. are all classified as "West Iberian languages".^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

MacTire is a valued contributor to Wikipedia. I am happy to see him comment on any article because he always has something sensible to say. In particular I agree with his summary in the previous two paragraphs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise MacTire. I was angry. Hopefully one day the classification will change but until then I understand it is right to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See that's my problem. West Iberian is such a neutral phrase like West Germanic. Anglic is not. While it might mean in this case Anglo-Saxons it is also used in the modern day to describe things from England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be busting to be offended. I don't think I've seen Anglic used to mean English, ever. It's not the same thing as English. Anglo- may be used as a prefix meaning English but that is different. Germanic looks a bit like German (doesn't it) but, similarly, isn't. Why do you see that as ok but Anglic, referring to Angles (one of the cultures/ethnicities that made up what is now Scotland), as somehow offensive? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't see any other neutral phrase. Anglic is used as it refers to the name of one of the original languages spoken in England from which English arose - those languages are Kentish (originally Jutish), Anglic (or Anglisc, from which we acquired the terms Ænglisc and finally English) and Saxon. The English language is basically a mixture of these three languages with later heavy influence from Latin, French, Gaelic and Brythonic. Scots is a direct descendant of the Anglic of Northumbria combined with later influence from Saxon and later Middle English. It is therefore in the same language family as English, linguistically speaking, as it shares a common ancestry (less the initial influence of Kentish, although this was later incorporated into the language via Middle English). To call these languages Jutic would be ambiguous as there is already a modern term Jutish (remember we tend to name languages with an -ish ending, and their families with an -ic ending, although both endings are cognates) which is itself a dialect of modern Danish. Saxon is also out as it could lead to confusion with the modern territory of Saxony in which the modern language spoken there does not fall into the same subfamily as English. To use a term such as North-western Germanic is also misleading as technically Icelandic, Faroese, Norn and many dialects of Dutch are also situated in the geographic North-western end of the Germanic language zone. This, combined with the fact that the majority of speakers of the Anglic group speak English, leads linguists to label the group as the Anglic group of languages. The immediate group or level above Anglic is Anglo-Frisian which also includes the Frisian languages which stretches in an arc from across the IJselmeer in the Netherlands along the coast into Germany before finally terminating just inside the Danish border. This entire area is the area of origin for the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Frisian was based on the language of the Angles and Saxons, just like English, and until c. 1500, it is said that the differences between English and Frisian were such that fishermen along the south eastern shores of England could converse, with only slight difficulty, with fellow fishermen from Frisia. These languages share a common ancestry, but are today quite removed regarding mutual intelligibility, with differing vocabulary and grammatical structures. The differences are, however, less than say the differences between Frisian and Dutch. This is why English, Yola (spoken until quite recently in Wexford, Ireland), Fingalian (spoken until quite recently in Fingal, Dublin, Ireland), Scots and Frisian are combined into the one grouping. We should always strive not to take offence at a label such as this. It is not denigrating in the slightest. If it were, then you would imagine the Dutch would be offended at us using the term "Dutch" to refer to their language - it is, after all, only a different rendering of the word "Deutsch", the German word for the German language, and as we all know, or at least those of us interested in politics in sport, the Dutch and the Germans are fierce rivals (especially when you consider the Netherlands was invaded twice by Germany in less than 40 years). ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points. And the fact is that even if we were to replace "Anglic" and "Anglo-Frisian" with new terms like "Britannic" and "Britanno-Frisian" we would still be violating the Wikipedia guideline which tells us to use the common names of things. It's a pity that the IP objects to the terms but they existed long before Wikipedia did and Wikipedia cannot be used to change them. Wikipedia is not supposed to be in the business of coining new terms. Likewise if we changed to "West Germanic", we'd be losing a level of detail. In principle it would be no better than changing "Germanic" to "Indo-European", because someone objected to the term "Germanic" as being germanophilic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Derek. For us here in Wikipedia it all boils down to whether or not something is verifiable, and as such we can not recreate terms or coin new ones - to do so would constitute Original Research. Perhaps the IP should check the guidelines to see why WP is not the place for considering new terms - it is a collection of established and verifiable information (although minority points are considered as long as they are notable, and even then they still require verifiability.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to coin new terms. I simply questioned wether it was relevant to add in that Scots was an anglic/anglo-frisian language when all the other Germanic language wikis simply listed it as West Germanic. You've explained your point however I still disagree with adding in the anglic/anglo-frisian sub categories. I hope one day it will be removed however I understand that won't actually happen unless those in linguistic circles actually stop referring to it as Anglic. I'm still quite new to wiki and sometimes I still get carried away with my own agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, Anon. I didn't mean to suggest that you had asked us to coin new terms. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was just trying to say that it wasn't an option. In any case I am glad to know that you care about Wikipedia enough to want to improve it and even more glad to note that you chose to discuss the matter on the talk page rather than just changing it willy-nilly. Keep that up and you will make a good Wikipedia editor. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Scots speakers were the ones who originally referred to their language as Inglis and to Gaelic as Scottis. At that time they had no problem doing so and thats where the idea of Anglic derives from. Low German is categorised as a seperate language from German but still uses the term "Deutsch" in its name (Plattdüütsch) and all the Gaelic languages use a variant of the word Gaelic so I don't see how the word Anglic could be seen as innacurate. Seamusalba (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

L2 speakers

A second language (L2) is any language learned after the first language or mother tongue. Does that mean 1.5 million Scots learned (Standard) English as a mother tongue and have then learnt how to speak Scots later? Surely they are diglossic? 91.5.52.161 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly dubious in reality, but I could have believed some study came up with such a designation, and if cited so, difficult to argue for its removal. However, for one thing the citation is vague and doesn't give enough detail to track down the figures. More importantly the designation of this long-cited figure as being for second language speakers appears to have been added recently apparently without basis (unless the editor in question has tracked down such a wording in the cited doc, in which case it would be helpful if they provide more detail). Have removed it again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The linked Ethnologue source does seem to double count the number of speakers in both Scotland and Ulster, so the total number of Scots-speakers would seem to be 100,000. The distinction between Lallans and Doric is also ambiguous since Lallans (when not being used to describe the difficult to pin down literary variety) generally refers to the ‘Lowland’ Scots language as a whole, which would include Doric. The Ethnologue source does mention that 1,500,000 speak Scots as L2. Why did those people bother to learn to speak Scots after their first language, which I assume is (Standard) English? What would be interesting is how and where did they do so? The Ethnologue source also informs us that the literacy rate in English of those L2 speakers is 97%. Did the 3% of L1 (Standard) English speakers in Scotland who are illiterate in English, prefer to make the effort to learn to speak Scots rather than gain literacy in their habitual (Standard) English? The figures from that source just don’t make any sense. Do those figures mean 100,000 monoglots and 1,500,000 ‘learners’, giving us a total of 1,600,000 people who can speak Scots? 91.5.49.163 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the "t" in "often" pronounced in Scots?

The language desk is currently discussing the pronunciation of the "t" in "often". I have heard "often" pronounced with a "t" in the Scottish borders as well as Yorkshire and Northumbria in England. Is this pronunciation typical of Scots or does it vary from place to place (or between generations)? Disclaimer - I am English and visit Scotland a couple of times a year only so my observations are limited! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Think it varies, a common pronunciation is "aye" depending on context. Will try to review this, . dave souza, talk 12:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I´d have thought silent "t" was more common and at the very least that a pronounced "t" wasn´t more typical. ("Often" implies "sometimes not", so "aye" doesn´t equate.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammar - different language

There is literally NO mentioning of grammar. There are discussion whether it is a separate language or not, but after reading the article I have not the faintest idea what grammar looks like. So I'd assume Scots is 1:1 English, just with different pronunciation. If so, that should really be mentioned. If not, that should REALLY be mentioned.Dakhart (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern Scots grammar is discussed in its respective article. This article could definitely do with a summary, though. Hayden120 (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It should not just summarise it; it should be the main place for it. If you go to English language, you get information about Modern English. The same goes for any other extant language. Why should this be any different for Scots? Munci (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, English has an article solely for its grammar. I don't think we'd want to go into that much detail here. I think we need a summary of Modern Scots grammar here with a more detailed article elsewhere. As for the various stages of the language's development, summaries should be here with links to respective articles (as done with English). And yes, obviously Modern Scots should be the primary focus of this article. Hayden120 (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this article, I gain the impression that there's no Scots language, but a great deal of wishful thinking.PiCo (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive ideas on how to improve the article, or did you just wish to voice your opinion on the subject matter? Hayden120 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's no such thing as a Scots language, as looks extremely probable (I can understand every single sentence of this supposed "language", which is something I can't do for German or Russian), then there shouldn't be an article on it. I think it should be nominated for deletion.PiCo (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For your forthcoming nomination it would be worth your while reading the talk pages above and the archives to familiarise yourself with copious previous discussion. The subject is also covered in the article itself. Your conception of the language may depend on your source material; your understanding of every sentence puts you at a distinct advantage over many of my school classmates when we studied e.g. Burns, Gibbon etc.. As, presumably, a fluent English speaker, your understanding of Scots is at an obvious advantage in comparison to German or Russian, but this would not be the case if you were e.g. a fluent Dutch or Ukrainian speaker. Also, how something is to be classified - a language, a dialect or something else - is one thing but unless your contention is that there is no significant material on the subject whatsoever (from your contention, in distinction to Standard English) outright deletion would hardly be appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My contention is that there is no significant difference between Scots and other dialects of English - Scots is no more difficult for me than is West Country English. Mutual intelligibility is the standard test for distinguishing a dialect from a language - Welsh is a language (a Scots speaker can't understand it), Scots is not (a Kentish speaker, from the far end of the island, can understand it, easily, as for that matter can a native English speaker from California or Tasmania). But, on more mature consideration, I don't think deletion is the answer to our problem. Scots is certainly a dialect of English, and the better thing would be to retitle the article as "Scots (dialect)". What do you think? PiCo (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an amusing example of liguistic obfuscation from the legenbd to one of the illustrations in the article: "Lufe God abufe al and yi nychtbour as yi self." This is supposed to be an example of Scots. In fact it's word-for-word English. Not only that, it confuses orthography with pronunciation - the letter "y" in "yi" is a thorn, an old letter replaced by modern /th/ - the word is pronounced "thy", not "yee" or whatever that's meant to look like. And the /f/ in "lufe" is pronounced /v/. Are you seriously asking me to regard this as a separate language? PiCo (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mutual intelligibility is the standard test for distinguishing a dialect from a language". Incorrect. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are mutually intelligible to a high degree, and all are considered separate languages. Compare these two paragraphs, one Norwegian, one Danish:

Norwegian Bokmål

I 1877 forlot Brandes København og bosatte seg i Berlin. Hans politiske synspunkter gjorde imidlertid at det ble ubehagelig for ham å oppholde seg i Preussen, og i 1883 vendte han tilbake til København, der han ble møtt av en helt ny gruppe forfattere og tenkere, som var ivrige etter å motta ham som sin leder. Det viktigste av hans senere arbeider er hans verk om William Shakespeare, som ble oversatt til engelsk av William Archer, og som straks ble anerkjent.

Danish¹

I 1877 forlod Brandes København og bosatte sig i Berlin. Hans politiske synspunkter gjorde imidlertid at det blev ubehageligt for ham at opholde sig i Preussen, og i 1883 vendte han tilbage til København, hvor han blev mødt af en helt ny gruppe forfattere og tænkere, som var ivrige efter at møde ham som deres leder. Det vigtigste af hans senere arbejder er hans værk om William Shakespeare, som blev oversat til engelsk af William Archer, og som straks blev anerkendt.

Why are you comparing Welsh to Scots? They are from entirely different sub-branches of the Indo-European language family. Apples and oranges. Hayden120 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My Danish is a bit shaky, likewise my Norwegian. But I do remember a Danish friend telling me that Danes and Norwegians don't actually regard their "languages" as being languages, just dialects.

But this is a bit irrelevant. The real point is that Scots is a dialect of English, like Australian English - probably no more or less so than that, in fact. Do you think you could get around in Sydney? I think you could. I think I could get around in Glasgow, too. Do you think you could get around in Paris if, say, you accidentally got off at the wrong metro stop and had to ask directions? I could, because I speak French, but could you? PiCo (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So, because one friend says something, it becomes true? I have multiple Norwegian and Swedish friends who consider themselves to speak a dialect of their national language. So what? The simple fact is that Scots has been officially recognised as a language by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (link). A language is a dialect with an army and navy. Hayden120 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Scotland seems a little bit lacking in the army and navy department :) PiCo (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's possibly the main reason for this whole debate. For what it's worth, I have gotten around in both Sydney and Glasgow with Australian English. I have also gotten around with Swedish in Norway. Interesting, isn't it? Hayden120 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you've gotten around Sydney and Glasgow equally well with Australian English. So have I. I'm also sure you could get around in Sweden with Norwegian - like Australian and Scottish, they're dialects of the same language, or so I'm told. English and French, however, are not - there's no way you'll get around in Paris with English, unless of course you meet an English-speaking French person, who will probably refuse to speak to you in English because it's a barbarous language that no civilised Frenchperson should speak. (Though it was fun, standing at the counter of a shop and listening to the shopkeeper and a customer slagging off the tourists who speak no French, and then saying "Je suis un tourist..."). PiCo (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian and Swedish are not dialects. They are national languages made up of dialects. The mutual intelligibility argument could also be made for Afrikaans and Dutch. If you are confident in your Scots abilities, I recommend trying this on for size. ;) Hayden120 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty cool. I understood about half of it. If I spoke broad Strine, would you understand it? PiCo (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloody oath, I would ;). Not sure how that's relevant, though. Defining a language is a touchy subject, since a language is really just a collection of dialects within a nation's borders. Hayden120 (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on Australian English has me puzzled - I was in Melbourne recently, and the migrants in Chinatown were the only people who sounded different to the people in Sydney. I'd still say Scots is a dialect - the pronunciation is markedly different from my own, but no more so than West Country English (whatever they call it over there - Scrumpy?) The vocab has some differences, but not many, and the grammar is identical. Someday it may be a language, but not yet. PiCo (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, your opinion has been read. Feel free to take it up with the British government, since they have officially recognised Scots. This article discusses the contentiousness of its language status, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. If you're so confident in your position, nominate the article for deletion. I'd recommend reading the archive first, though. Hayden120 (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There are several official languages that share most of their features with neighbouring ones. the question could be put whether English is a single language or several. However, that would be one for another forum or an article on the English language Seamusalba (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Pico, the grammar is not identical, as detailed in the article Modern Scots. And talking about getting by Glasgow.. well that's partly because you talk to folk outside Scotland, you generally talk closer to Standard Scottish English than you normally would. Also, there is no chance this will get deleted. It's definitely a notable topic; at absolute most the name might be changed. Munci (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize the "army and navy" joke doesn't mean it has to have a literal army and navy. It means a dialect will be considered a separate language for nationalistic reasons. Compare some romance dialects, which vary more between each other than english and "scots" and they'll still be considered of the same language. On a side note, the wikipedia articles on the germanic languages and all its divisions are a confusing mess, with no distinctions between language, language supergroups, dialect, dialect continuums, etc.

Burns's/Burns' "Auld Lang Syne"

Both "Burns's "Auld Lang Syne"" or "Burns' "Auld Lang Syne"" may be regarded as acceptable depending on the authority you adhere to but to revert a change from the former to the latter on the basis that "Burns isn't plural" is clearly a misunderstanding and on the basis that the former is British English, the latter American English is incorrect (e.g. The Guardian recommends dropping of the "'s" in circumstances, the Modern Language Association of America generally doesn't). In part it's down to whether you would actually pronounce the second "'s", but that may be moot in this example, plus some guides would insist on the "'s" whether it's pronounced or not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I always assumed it was a UK vs US thing, as Americans are generally definitely more inclined to leave off the extra "s". Revert me if you like, I just think "Burns'" looks a bit strange and I wouldn't personally use it. Cheers, — JonC^ॐ 20:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagreed with the edit summaries more than the edits themselves, bringing out my inner pedant. I've been trying to decide in my own head whether I'd pronounce both "s"s and haven't fully convinced my self either way. Also, as both spellings could be valid, I don't really mind. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)