Talk:Middle Scots

Early Scots vs. Middle Scots
While the original introduction made sense, edit, already at the beginning of the article history, turned the beginning sentences into an illogical mess:
 * Middle Scots was the Anglic language of Lowland Scotland in the period from 1450 to 1700. By the end of the 13th century its phonology, orthography, accidence, syntax and vocabulary had diverged markedly from Early Scots, which was virtually indistinguishable from early Northumbrian Middle English. Subsequently its orthography differed from that of the emerging Early Modern English standard.

"By the end of the 13th century" there was no "Middle Scots" yet. The language of the 14th century, according to this and other articles, is called Early Scots (and contemporary with Middle English, while Middle Scots was contemporary with Early Modern English). According to this phrasing, Early and Middle Scots existed side-by-side in the 14th century – I don't think that is the intended meaning. I'll try to repair that. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is semantic. The terms Early Scots and Middle Scots (and Modern Scots) are categories coined by James Murray in the 19th century to refer more to convenient periods of time when studying written material from Scotland rather than for defining language per se. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.241.17 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking out our "Erse"
The previous, deleted, IP sock post was transparently an attempt to make show of discussing one change while slipping in another. What's more, the simplest of checks would show that the supposed contention discussed in that post, the questionability of the use of the term "Erse" in Scots, is baseless, see e.g. | Chambers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots_Language?fbclid=IwAR1-fzC2HQa8mz5Zak2l8O7ue6Wm9GvXBYq2PRY5ksUOc7uPMRmLHqisRsU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:186D:E2C0:2DEB:25FC:F05F:45D3 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Act of 1616?
Not sure where "This was followed in 1616 by an act establishing parish schools in the Highlands with the aim of extirpating the Gaelic language. " comes from.

The only two Acts I can find are as follows:

23 July 1644 Act declareing vacand stipendes should be imployed upon pious uses trayning wp of youthes that have the Irishe tongue in schooles and colledges

12th July 1695 Scottish parliament ...bishoprics of Argyll and the Isles, which now his majesty has been graciously pleased to bestow upon erecting of English schools for rooting out of the Irish language, and other pious uses ...

Perhaps 1695 was meant? If so it should read "This was followed in 1695 by an act establishing parish schools in the Highlands with the aim of 'rooting out' the Gaelic language and replacing it with English". Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.202 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * School Establishment Act 1616. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mutt. Took a little time to track down the original text. The text includes as it aims : "...that the vulgar English tongue ('Inglish toung' orig.) be universally planted... and that the Irish language may be removed and abolished". Whether 'extirpated' is the correct word to use given the very pious reasoning also contained in the Act I leave to others. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.202 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As you are aware "Inglis" and "Scottis" (or variants thereof) were then used synonymously for the tongue in question (from the same document "the vulgar toung in Inglis or Scottis"). By the same token, the celtic language being referred to in the Act is not referred to as Irish today but distinguished as Scottish Gaelic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes because Scottis meant Scottish in reference to English, ie Scottish English.

Ah. You confused me briefly there by referring to 'the same document'. You mean the same source book, not the same Act. The 1616 Act makes no refence to Scottis. 'Inglis' and 'Scottis' were of course used synonymously in the period. But in the earlier period on those rare ocassions the words appear together (e.g. Scots Parliament 12 March 1543), this seems to be 'Scottis' being used in its original sense of meaning Gaelic. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.102.160 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid the general forum discussion and stick to the point regarding this article, which is that the "vulgar Inglish toung" and "Irische language" being referred to in this document are, in modern parlance, Scots and Scottish Gaelic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

or Scots English and Scots Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:186D:E2C0:2DEB:25FC:F05F:45D3 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle Scots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218084028/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/Stella/packs/oldscot.htm to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/Stella/packs/oldscot.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Intelligibility with English
Was this language mutually intelligible with the spoken English languages of the time? 86.184.52.111 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The answer is both yes and no.

The official position at the time was that both countries spoke the same language - English:

“Thairfore, since by the good providence of God bothe nations are in ane illand, speake on[e] and the same language, profess on[e] and the same religion and ar united under the same head and monarch” - Instructions from the Parliament of Scotland to ‘there commissionaris’ at London 26th November 1645.

Similar statements can be found in numerous 16th and 17th century documents and records in Scotland.

But 'Standard English' was only beginning to emerge in this period (and a Standard Scots never emerged at all).

The 'English language' was then (and still is) a collection of dialects. 'Scots' is really part of the northernmost collection of English language dialects. That 'Northumbrian' dialect group extending as far south in England as the River Humber.

English speakers from anywhere in Britain (in Scotland or in England) before the development of Standard English in the 18th century often reported having trouble communicating with people even from adjoining counties.

Because of differing accents the spoken language would have been more problematic that writing. Csssandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle Scots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426065755/http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/content/ to http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/content/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311083257/http://www.englit.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergrd/scottish_lit_1/Handouts/robinson_language.htm to http://www.englit.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergrd/scottish_lit_1/Handouts/robinson_language.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

History section needs citations
No citations in the first few paragraphs. Seems like it may have been copied from elsewhere or be original research? Seems to put a lot of emphasis on royal action, where other sources don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.17.38 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

þ indistinguishable from y?
From the article:.

Indistinguishable by sound? Or only looked very similar on paper? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)