Talk:Scots language/Archive 14

Dialects and accents of English by continent
In the box and corresponding page, there's a whole manner of things listed (multiple English and American ones) yet just "Scottish". It isn't mentioned that there must be over a dozen different dialects and not a standard generic one as it appears.

However under the Scots language page, dialect is briefly mentioned. But again this info is not listed on the "Dialects and accents of English" menu box. As above, I see someone made a page for Cromarty fisher dialect so far wider than what is listed on that page. It looks too general (mashing Dundee and Fife for instance as one).

So even I am getting confused on this with two pages. Can this dialect/accent thing be tackled? --Revolt (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, these are dialects of Scots, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to add them to a page devoted to Dialects and accents of English. It would make more sense to create a page devoted to Dialects and accents of Scots and add them to that. But then English is a global language with many, many regional varieties, whereas Scots is, practically speaking, restricted to Scotland, so there's not the same rationale for a Dialects and accents of Scots as there is for English. There may well be Scots-speakers all over the world but they normally use English outside Scotland in order to be understood by non-Scots speakers. Hence the existence of Scottish English on the Dialects and accents of English page. It refers to English as spoken by Scottish people, not to Scots as spoken by Scottish people. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure it's such a clear distinction, as Scottish English "may or may not include Scots depending on the observer". My inclination would be to list the five major ones under an additional Scots language heading: they're dialects of a variety of Old English, much developed over the centuries. Alternately, a new main page listing dialects and accents of Scots would simplify a "see also" reference from the dialects of English page. Could always do it as :See also Scots language if there's not enough meat to do a summary style split of that section. Anyway, I've tweaked the English language mention of Scots, hope that's helpful. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 5 July 2009 (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)


 * There has never been a question on Scots on the census, although Scots activists and some politicians (mainly SNP) attempted to get a question included for the 2001 census. It is still not clear, as far as I know, whether there will be a question on the 2011 census - I can tell you after Feb 9th, when I'll be attending a government conference on Scots. The GROS figures are based on research done by Ian Maté, who extrapolated the figures from smaller-scale studies. Where he actually published his research is not too easy to find out, but a number of scholars obviously took the estimate of 1.5 million seriously enough to include it in their own publications (e.g. Isobel Macleod, Derrick McClure). Usually when scholars estimate the number of Scots speakers, they include people who use some Scots most of the time or lots of Scots some of the time (to put it rather simplistically). You can see Scots as existing on a continuum with Scottish standard English - speakers will use a variety at a given point on the continuum (closer to Scottish Standard English, which speakers of other varieties of English will understand, or closer to 'broad Scots' which speakers of non-Scottish English would understand very little of). Often speakers are able to 'code switch', which means they can use different language varieties in different contexts, e.g. when speaking to different people.


 * The argument that there are lots of different types of Scots, and that it therefore can't be a language, is often used by people who have some reason (personal, political, emotional, etc.) for not wishing to perceive Scots as a language. It is not relevant from a linguistic point of view - there are plenty of languages with far greater 'internal' variation (not least English) which are nevertheless regarded as a single language.Junglehungry (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All languages are dialects of other languages. The question is, which dialect is the correct one. The answer of course depends on which dialect's speakers have the army and navy. Hence why Norwegians spoke Danish until gaining independence (and by default recognition of their "Danish dialects" as Norwegian!) 92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2009 (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.


 * Your argument was making sense until you mentioned Occitan, which is not a dialect of French. The dialects of French are what are spoken in the north of France (except Breton and Alsatian). Occitan is a separate language with its own dialects. I also believe Scots is a dialect of English, since it is no different to standard English than other dialects of English.--Timtranslates (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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"?.    D b f i r s   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)


 * show an example of written Scots to a random Scotsman and the chances are they'll have a hell of a time understanding it as well. The English wouldn't struggle because its such a radically different language, they'd struggle because its not the normal way of writing. And then in addition; show something written in standard English in the 19th century to a random person today and they will go through it rather slowly.--79.66.241.166 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's modern "educashun" for you. It's enough to make a grown man weep. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @79.66:
 * "'show an example of written Scots to a random Scotsman and the chances are they'll have a hell of a time understanding it as well'"
 * Funnily enough, I just did that (well, to random Scotsmen and Scotswomen). As part of my PhD research I held focus groups, and part of what I asked my participants to do was look at some examples of written Scots, and then discuss them. The results were very interesting! You're right that they had some trouble understanding it, but the consensus was that this was because a) they were not used to reading Scots and b) the texts used some words from other regions, which they were unfamiliar with. However, those participants who had the least experience of speaking Scots (for example those who spent part of their childhood outwith Scotland) also had the most trouble understanding the texts. Anyway, I won't bore everyone with my whole PhD, and until it's published it can't really go in the main article, but if anyone's interested in my research get in touch via my talk page.Junglehungry (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Relations to geordie et al
I really think it needs working into the article somewhere how much in common with the dialects of northern England the Scottish dialects have.

As it stands now reading through it to someone who is uninformed Scots may sound very unique with lots of strange differences from standard English, for instance just quickly looking through them and not trying to look too hard for similarities: diminutives, past tense of verbs, word order, negation, suffixes and relative pronoun. However all these are also widespread further south in the country.

I would add this myself but I know this to be one of those articles with a few people hovering round who like reverting everything.--79.66.207.23 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, the article would be better for it. Be bold, especially if it's well referenced.hippo43 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. References are the key to making things stick. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does state the following: "Northeast English, spoken throughout the traditional counties of Northumberland and County Durham, shares other features with Scots which have not been described above." Though why it links to Northumbrian (Anglo-Saxon) is a mystery to me, unless it is still spoken in Northumberland and County Durham. Instead of linking to to Northumbrian (Anglo-Saxon) I suggest it would be better to link to Northern English.  In the Grammar section, the article also states: "Not all of the following features are exclusive to Scots and may also occur in other Anglic languages." Perhaps instead of linking to Anglic languages link to English language in England.
 * The article is about Scots and if one does decide to clutter it by commenting (and referencing) what is shared with or similar to Northern English, perhaps objectivity demands that what is shared with or similar to Southern English be commented (and referenced) too. Of course simply leaving the article much as it is and adding that which is shared with or similar (and not similar) to the articles Northern and. Southern English so people can make the comparrisons themselves without cluttering this article.
 * Nogger (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Except the article itself here is making a point of saying what makes it different to standard English. People who are reading this article will already be fully familiar with standard English (what with it being the medium in which its written) so there's really no need to point out similarities, most people will instanly assume that which doesn't need pointing out as different in the Scots dialects is just regular English.--79.66.217.229 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that pointing out similarities and differences with neighbouring languages/dialects is 'cluttering' this article. It seems fairly central to an understanding of Scots and how it relates to other tongues.


 * As Nogger points out, the article says "Northeast English, spoken throughout the traditional counties of Northumberland and County Durham, shares other features with Scots which have not been described above." What are these features? I can't see them discussed in this article or the articles about Northern/Northeast/Southern English.hippo43 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Audit of the Scots language commissioned by the Scottish Government
Please see: --Mais oui! (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TV 'must promote Scots language'
 * Scots dialect plan for courts attacked as a waste of money


 * Interesting stuff. siarach (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotch is old-fashioned.
From the intro "The old-fashioned "Scotch" occurs occasionally...". Does this mean Scots used to be called Scotch but is no longer, or does it mean to use the word scotch is to be old fashioned. As a scotch user I'll admit to being out of touch but old-fashioned kind of hurts. Nitpyck (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * naethin wrang wi bein auld-farrant. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "Scotch" tae mean "Scots" is auld-farrant, but ye dae see it whiles. - Tulloch Gorum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.136.110 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lowlands and isles?
Eh? Whats going on here, it only lists the lowlands and a few northern areas as being where Scots is spoken. Sure, English was originally only spoken in the lowlands with the highlands being gaelic but its been quite some time since this was the sole case, these days the highlands are English (and so Scots) speaking. Additionally and unrelated I'd question saying people over the border speak Scots. That would be Northumbrian or Cumbrian. A lot of Scots probally live there but then I'd expect a lot of them also do elsewhere in the UK,--Him and a dog 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing in-line citations
A great part of the information that is presented in this article is not referenced. This might lead to Good Article Review and subsequent demotion to B class status. I'm not initiating GAR now, but this issue has to be addressed. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we use examples of Wikipedians not understanding Scots to show a real instance of its use?
I noticed the following discussion on the Scots Wikipedia between a Scots writer and an English speaking contributer who doesnt seem to understand Scots:

"Do You have any reason for Your Reverts of my edits [2] and [3]? The Category:Bahá'í Faith exsists and is categorized in Category:Releegion. -- JCIV 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. We dinna hae ony categories the nou for ilka releegion - juist the ae category. Sae Ah dinna hink it's a guid idea tae add them in fir Bahá'í. Gin we haed mair airticles, mebbes it wad be a guid tae dae somethin wi mair categories, likes. Bazza 11:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't understand scots. Could you tell me the same in english, please? -- JCIV 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We don't have categories just now for every religion - just the one "religion" category. So I don't think it's a good idea to add them in for Bahá'í. If we had more articles on religion, then maybe it would be good to add more categories. We're only a small wikipedia just now, and the levels of categorisation on the English version just aren't relevant here. Bazza 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) "

I dont know if it could be used in the article, but in a way it would be relevant, as it is a real instance of misunderstanding between two people due to the response to an English question being in Scots ; d Seamusalba (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Content in articles has to be from verifiable relibalbe sources. WP isn't considered a reference for itself, and WP talk pages are no different than other forums in not being usable. In order touse this example, it would have to be published in a secondary reliable source as an example of a misunderstandin. One could probably find similar examples in a linuistic publication (proint or online) that could be used in the article. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point I was hoping someone would highlight.Its a real irony in linguistic terms. an expert can provide source material for a language existing without speaking to the language users. when a user uses the syntax and vocabulary and it isnt understood by a speaker of another language, it doesnt meet the criteria that the expert's source passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamusalba (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've understood my point, or I've missed yours: It has nothing to do with the Scots language, but with the fact that talk pages aren't citeable as reliable sources, That applies to ALL WP talk pages, in all languages. That said, the example is here on this talk page, and anyone can read it here, as I did, and see the problem. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

yes you have indeed. If wikipedians cant understand Scots Wikipedians when asking them a question in English, I find it notable enough to point out the irony on the English language wikipedia talk page for the Scots language subject.If an expert never talks to a Scots speaker but writes an article on its existence, its the equivelant to someone not being included as evidence for rain when they get wet without an umbrella. Seamusalba (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IE, the section is tongue in cheek,p Seamusalba (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I've missed the point. The tounge was in a lower cheek, apparently. - BilCat (talk)

Scots being used and misunderstood ON WIKIPEDIA would not meet WIKIPEDIA'S criteria for inclusion. Thats the point of the section. thanks for highlighting it.

Where you choose to stick your tongue is a personal matter ,p Seamusalba (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You said in the last paragraph of your first post, "I dont know if it could be used in the article". Your meaning there seems prewtty staightforward to me, and that's what I was responding to. That you've now decided this was some kind of joke/prank is your problem, not mine. - BilCat (talk)

"Dont know" does seem pretty clear. It means "i dont know" You have assumed that it wasnt rhetorical and not a question in order to make a point when someone states the obvious (ie the rules on Wikipedia) Scots is used by a Wikipedian. Another wikipedian speaks English and cant understand his response. Its ironic that wikipedians have decided that such exchanges on Wikipedia of a language in use are unusable on Wikipedia articles, despite them only taking place due to the site that theyve made the rules for. You seem to have a problem with my replying. I dont mind. Seamusalba (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Next No 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency novel is to be published in Scots before other languages
--Mais oui! (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The next instalment in Alexander McCall Smith’s bestselling Number 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency series is to be published first in the Scots tongue. Readers of English and other languages will have to wait until 2011 before they can read the latest exploits of Precious Ramotswe, the Botswanan gumshoe.", The Times, 27 Dec 09

Scots or Not ?
The dialects in the far north of England greatly resemble Scots, especially in literature - however they are never referred to as Scots. Does this mean they couldn't be used as sources to show that Scots is used in England? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Those dialects are Primary Sources. Therefore using them would be doing Original Research which is against Wikipedia policy. You need to find a Secondary Source (in other words a Reliable Source) which states that Scots is used in England, if you want to show that. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the thing though, they never have been referred to as Scots - despite some literature being exactly identical, basically it is Scots in everyway except in name and that it was wrote in perceived non-Scots boundries, though i'm sure we'd agree dialects usually do not respect political boundries. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a gradual gradient of dialects of English between the English Midlands and the Highlands of Scotland. Only a political viewpoint distinguishes Scots as a separate language, but then, politicians run the world (or try to)!    D b f i r s   13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. But politicians will always play their games. They would for instance try and make you believe that Slovak is a separate language, rather than a dialect of Czech (which is of course itself, together with Polish or Ukranian, just a dialect of Russian), or that English is a separate language, rather than a dialect of German, however grossly corrupted by French, and as regards the Scandinavian "languages", which are simply dialects of each other... oh well. --Duncan MacCall (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) ;-)


 * Anyway.. my point is the literature and dialects of no more than 80-90 miles south of the border, it's not like i'm talking about Nottingham or Manchester (midlands and midlands respectively). These writings and dialects are from Northumbrian (which as you all know encompassed a bit of modern Scotland) and have the same relatively modern ancestor. Does anyone agree that they're Scots in all but name? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they are dialects of Northern English (as is Scots, IMO!) Political boundaries separate languages, and the languages then diverge if the boundaries remain stable. ( Sorry to upset Duncan, who makes an excellent point! )    D b f i r s   07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm far from upset - I just think that what happened here was that a political boundary which to a great deal ceased to exist made two languages converge more, thus making one language appear to look more like a dialect of another. Anyway, at the end of the day you can never make a definition which would make it absolutely clear where a dialect turns into a language or vice versa, so the two of us'll simply have to agree to differ on this one. --Duncan MacCall (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So many transitions, so much fun. Of course Scots as a language was initially what was later called Erse in Scots, which by then was derived from the language of the Angles who had invaded the British territories of Northumbria and Gododdin, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, and other areas of Hen Ogledd. Whether Geordie is a dialect of Scots, or Scots a dialect of Geordie, is really a perception of national identity. Hence a political boundary. Now being swamped by the spread of Americanglish, but valiantly kept distinctive by the stout practitioners of nedspeak. Will it never end? . dave souza, talk 15:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What really gets to me about the idea of Scots being a language is the way supporters of this theory say it developed. They say it was the same as English up until a certain period in English's development then suddenly went off on its own and became another language. Eh? How come? That just makes no sense and it ignores both the reality of back then and all the time since. There was constant exchange between the Englishes spoken up and down the island and this exchange (and so convergance) got greater as time went on, not less. .--Him and a dog 21:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you all get a hold of a copy of one of the many linguistic surveys of the Scottish and English Borders. How starkly the words change once you get over the border will surprise you. See also Billy Kay's work in Coldstream and Cornhill. Seperated by the border and literally about 500 metres, they speak differently. It is beyond a perception of national identity, there is significant enough shift. Certainly as big a difference as there is between Danish and Norwegian, or Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.67.64 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
There seems to be something missing from this:
 * It is only since the late fifteenth century that Germanic speakers in Scotland have referred to their vernacular as Scottis, at the time they began to refer to Gaelic as Erse ("Irish"), it having previously been known as Scottis. The use of Erse'' is now often considered pejorative.

What was the 'vernacular' called before it was given a name previously used to refer to Gaelic? I believe the vernacular was known as Inglis, meaning English Laurel Bush (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I have now fixed that problem Laurel Bush (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Split article
This article is getting very long so perhaps it should be split into Scots language and Modern Scots, the former being a general introduction much as the article English language is. The latter taking infromation pertaining to the contemporary number of speakers, dialects, spelling, phonolgy and grammar with it. That would better fit the historical division into


 * Early Scots
 * Middle Scots
 * Modern Scots

77.47.77.87 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems a fair idea to me. The content that gets moved to Modern Scots will need some editing and a introduction to make it into an article. I'd make a start but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll leave it for couple of weeks so that others can share their concerns or suggestions etc. first.Nogger (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved the content that deals with Modern Scots in particular to that article. Nogger (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you add something to the top of this article directing the reader to Modern Scots for the phonology and grammar. Right now the only hint that that article exists is buried in the See also section.  Also, I think that neither this article nor Modern Scots links to Early Scots or Middle Scots, though they both should.  Likewise, I don't think that either Early Scots or Middle Scots links to either Modern Scots or to Scots language (except for a link to Modern Scots buried in the history section of Middle Scots).  75.183.96.242 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Scots in modern translation of Aristophanes (and indeed other drama)
Should mention be made of the common practice of using Scots to represent Spartan dialects in translation of Greek comedies? (Sommerstein mentions this in his translators note to Lysistrata and Other Plays.) Just wondering if this is an appropriate thing to include. Translations from other languages also sometimes include this if significantly differing dialects are used. 203.167.243.98 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor English
I have removed this paragraph:


 * The Scottish Government's plan on introducing the main home language back into the country has been aimed at more of the younger generation than the elder generation; although introducing the language has only been re-introduce into Scotland for a short period of time, only allowing to migrate into the younger generation as they are more likely to pick up the language more easily than any other age bracket. Re-introduction of language curriculum was sparked of by one the Scottish government's party subleaders, Thomas Baillie.

because it borders on the incomprehensible. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Aylternatif funetik spellin o'an axen dinnar mek a neu langij
Alternative phonetic spelling of an accent doesn't make a new language. Try out this section title. Sounds like a Scottish accent. Too many examples in the article are not of Scots "language", they are of a Scottish accent written in Old English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.246.2 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? "Dinnae" is an English word, now, is it? 89.240.60.226 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't see any example of Scots in the article. (Which surprised me). But I'd agree with your basic premise (alternative phonetic spelling doesn't make a new language) but not with the conclusion: Scots isn't a new language, and it isn't based on alternative phonetic spellings. Both Scots and (modern) English share a common ancestor, Middle English (there are two theories about Scots - one is that it's a dialect of Middle English, another is that it's a distinct Germanic language). Many words are quite different, not at all phonetic alternatives - to take your example, "langij" doesn't work - the Scots word would be "leid". "Mek" is almost right - the proper Scots word would be "mak". The apostrophe between "o" and "an" is unnecessary - they're two separate words (you'll sometimes see an apostrophe in older texts, the so-called "apologetic apostrophe", where the writer thought that a letter had been dropped. This is largely deprecated in Modern Scots, as in traditional Scots, because in Scots the letters were never used). TFOWR 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * However grammatical and dialect changes may, and an independent literature using them does. A Scots translation for your "funetik" English might be "Ither phonetic spellin o a wey o spikkin disna mak a neow leid" which contains phonetic, grammatical and lexical differences from English. But what you wrote is neither good English nor guid Scots. Just gibberish. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Examples of alternative phonetic spelling of the accent that makes this new language can be found in the articles Early Scots, Middle Scots and Modern Scots. 84.181.113.195 (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your example articles prove the point that Scots isn't a "new" language - it's a succession of languages deriving from Middle English, and developing through Early Scots down to the present day with Modern Scots. And the spellings aren't alternative "phonetic" spellings, any more than the American English "color" is an alternative phonetic spelling of the Commonwealth English "colour". In some cases the differences are even clearer: consider the Scots word "abuin" - hardly a phonetic spelling of the English equivalent ("above"). When compared to Dutch this becomes more striking - is "alang" an alternative phonetic spelling of "langs" (Dutch) or "along" (English)? All three languages have a common ancestor - so the similarities are hardly surprising - but to dismiss Scots as a "new" language" consisting of "alternative phonetic spellings" has no basis in scholarship. TFOWR 12:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All languages contain alternative spellings for words from each other. Seamusalba (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Try reading a few Burns poems and songs; I would hardly call most of language used in them "phonetic spelling" for an accent. While more likely to be the older Early Scots in these poems, Modern Scots is the same in as much as it is rightfully considered a seperate language to English. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a monoglot (or so I thought) English speaker, I've just been looking at the Scots version of Wikipedia to see what the "language" looks like. It's amazing - I understood it no problem. How did I miraculously acquire a new "language".....? DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I never learned Italian or Spanish. But I did learn French and Latin. So how come I can easily read Italian and Spanish? How did I miraculously acquire two new languages (and I bet that I could do not too badly on Portuguese too). Fact is that reading a language similar to one that you already know is far easier than writing it. Let alone listening to it or speaking it. So an English monoglot who can read and understand Scots is about as amazing as a Spanish monoglot who can read and understand Portuguese. In other words, not amazing at all. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not quite monoglot, I do speak fluent French (and I did study Latin at School) yet strangely I can't read Italian or Spanish (although I can have a stab). You must be truly talented. I think my amazement (untainted by a POV to push) stands. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with the baseless accusation of POV pushing? AGF, old thing.

The step from your mother tongue to a close relation is clearly going to be much easier for you than from your second language to some of its relations. I don't see it as such a rare talent for, e.g., Croatian friends to be able to converse with Russians, Spanish ones to talk with Brazilian or Italian ones (or Dutch people to clearly understand Germans but make them talk in English anyway). You seem quite easily amazed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, It's just phonetic English. Mystery solved. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean that Scots has a greater tendency to have retained the phonetics of early Middle English orthographies, lost in modern English, doesn't that make English non-phonetic Scots? No more illogical (but also nonsense).

Following on from that, Croatian is Russian in Roman script, Portuguese is phonetic Spanish, Dutch is phonetic German? Is Catalan phonetic Spanish or French, or Latin indeed? Politics tends to be the reason for defining a dialect as a language or otherwise: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I prefer the post-modern update to the old cliche: A language is a dialect with a political grievance. DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * , What's English's political grievance then ? Or are you saying that English is just a dialect ? -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 18:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * er, yes. Bingo, you've got it last: of course, "standard" English is just a dialect vis a vis "Scots". DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly "untainted by a POV to push" then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * yep DeCausa (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You've evidently been honing that killer riposte. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ...was debating between yep and yeah. Think I went for the right choice ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Only just twigged that my reversion was of an edit of yours. The material you added to the lede is interesting and hardly surprising - it was always drummed into me, and presumably most other Scots, that Scots was corrupted Queen's English or slang, and whether it is a language or not it's certainly neither of those. I wouldn't have been surprised if the figures were higher. The material is highly pertinent, in the context of the sub-sections of the article, as it already was. It is in no way of sufficient significance to place it in the lede however and slapping it in there is so glaring you surely aren't holding to your "untainted by a POV" status. Heading for a "nope" now possibly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strange you think it so insignificant. It's extremely significant for two reasons. A. It is relevant in any debate as to whether it is a language or language variety. As the lede says, (1) there is no academically agreed criteria for a "language" (2) scholars therefore have different views on how to categorize Scots. In that context it is highly significant how Scots speakers self-identify. It's not relevant whether that's a 'good' or 'bad' reason, in your opinion. B. Whether or not reason (A) is correct, it is a highly sigmificant fact in itself. Any article on a language in WP where the majority of speakers don't consider it a language has surely has to state that prominently. This justifies it's place in the lede. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent me - as I have said, "The material is highly pertinent" - and the topic already had a "place in the lede" in a more appropriate fashion ("After the union...slang, rather than Scots."), although that could have had minor tweaks.

The perceptions of the Scottish people as to whether a significant mode of speech (to coin a not entirely suitable neutral term) within their culture has the status of slang, dialect(s) or language is highly worthy of inclusion. However the notability of the perceptions is not from the merit of the opinions held, overwhelmingly non-expert as they are, but from the light they throw on the influences that have brought them about. This is clear where the opinion poll is mentioned in the context of the article subsection. However, cherry-picking for the lede this one particular and detailed point, which, whether right or wrong, is from inexpert rather than scholarly opinion but happens to be in line with your stated opinion, is pretty blatant POV pushing. What's more I'd have to say your mate's statistical counter proposal, however intended, is more a case of two wrongs don't make a right than an elegant solution.

In my limited experience, at least some, if not most, Moroccan Berbers - and in one case a multi-lingual, highly educated and articulate individual - will absolutely insist that their language is "a dialect" (in absolute terms, rather than in relation to other Berber dialects) in direct contrast to Arabic, which is "a language". Though the linguistic relation between these languages is much more distant than that between Scots and (Standard) English, the major reason for the popular distinction between the two terms is the same. The "language" is the high status mode of speech, the "dialect" or slang the deprecated one. That is the major consideration for most people, rather than the linguistic aspects. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, he’s not my “mate”. As you can see from my last edit summary, I thought his change was childish, but I couldn’t be bothered to argue it any further. The change he reverted was my inclusion of a very short reference (“a 2010 study found that most speakers of Scots did not consider that Scots was a separate language” the lede is supposed to summarise not replicate the text). Secondly, I didn’t misrepresent your position: you said “The material is highly pertinent, in the context of the sub-sections of the article, as it already was. It is in no way of sufficient significance to place it in the lede”. (And by the way, I was the person who put it in the sub-section -on the same day as in the lede- the editor who used it for the 85% claim didn't feel this was relevant for some reason.) However, your misquote of yourself (!) seems to indicate you now think it should go in the lede against the reference to slang. In fact, my “mate” seems to have deleted that reference for some reason so you would need to restore it. I don’t have any strong feeling against putting it there if you want to – I think the point is made wherever it goes. As to your general point (and the reason I put it where it is now): the pertinent point is not the 64% but the 58%. You want to say that the significance is, effectively, to demonstrate the social/historical pressure not to treat it as a language. Whilst that may well in part be true, it is not its only significance. It pre-supposes that the opinion of the 58% is invalid. (I won’t make the obvious cheap-shot about that being an elitist perspective.) If there was a scholarly consensus that it is a language, then I would agree with you. But there isn’t. For the 58% to hold the view that they have is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable position. An analogous area is ethnicity. The predominant academic position is that it’s not possible to universally define ethnicity, race etc. Therefore, self-identification has become the main criterion. You accuse me of POV-pushing (actually you don’t really know what my ‘POV’ is). But if you are right, what is the difference with what you are doing? DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for mild leg-pulling in referring to the IP as your mate. Forgot to link last night before signing off but on reflection and having re-read the whole lede in detail I think that overall the problem is the massive over-emphasis in it on the whole topic of the language/dialect's status, taking up 80% of the lede. It's very important but not (practically) the only and overweening topic for inclusion in the lede. The edits in dispute are only the most overly-detailed part thereof and there ought to be other aspects covered in the lede; it could do with expansion. I have no particular opinion about what to draw from the stats themselves, just their context in the lede and I'm at a bit of a loss as to whether and how "mate"'s addition counters or complements the other (your) statistics, if that is what it is supposed to do. You'll have to point out the misquote of myself and it's relevance to your conclusion therof, I'm not sure which bit you're referring to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you about the proportion of the lede on that issue - it's particularly strange because the body of the article doesn't actually cover it so it's coverage is just in the lede. I think this is why I felt the need for the study to appear there. In fact, there should be a separate section in the body of the article on whether it's a language with most of the lede transferred there (and probably re-written - it's not very good at the moment anyway). All the lede need say about this is something like "There are differing views over whether Scots is a distinct language, a language variety or a dialect of English, in part arising because there are no generally agreed criteria for what constitutes a language." The lede could then also summarise other topics from the main body. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting dangerously close to agreement... Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

phonology, grammar etc.
Would it hurt if this article had a section about the grammar, phonology, vocabulary of Scottish, you know a section about the language itself, instead of all the side issues and politics? The article as it stands now is like an article about peanut butter that goes on and on about the jar but doesn't even mention its ingredients--Merijn2 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good analogy :) I agree there needs to be much more of a focus on the language itself in terms of structure etc. rather that the politcial side of things; which still has a place, don't get me wrong.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That can be found in Modern Scots and also to some extent in Early and Middle Scots. 84.181.101.188 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought up this very same point in 2007 (see my user page) and i notice the comments from then have gone and the same issue is still present JavaByte (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Defamation?
"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."

But libel and slander are called defamation in English law. This doesn't seem to make sense therefore. I'm going to delete it unless someone can clarify the text. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Scots law, governance and church terms certainly passed into Scottish (standard) English. The above is probably not a particularly good example, if it is one at all. Delete it or someone should provide better (sourced) examples, perhaps Procurator Fiscal? Provost? Moderator? etc. 92.9.173.8 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants
Are there any Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants (native speakers) in Ireland or Northern Ireland (UK)? --- 80.109.224.73 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. Mind you there are probably Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking Muslims too. Just not very many. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember a Protestant Irish Gaelic speaker from Northern Ireland being interviewed once on an episode of Eorpa. Seamusalba (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There were quite a few Protestants (mainly middle class intellectuals) in the early 20th century Gaelic revival in Ireland eg Douglas Hyde, who became President. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the island of Inishbiggle in Co. Mayo is notable as a community of Protestants whose first language is Irish, even if the population of that island has dwindled over the years. Also, unless I'm misreading your question, the vast majority of Scots Gaelic speakers are Protestant, though I doubt there are many, if any, Scots Gaelic speaking Protestants in Ireland. Mac Tíre   Cowag  06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Scots "Language"
The article is headed Scots language but the only thing in the article that supports Scots as being a language is a bare assertion that "it is sometimes treated as a distinct Germanic language". Not much on which to elevate it to language status.

Can anyone supply neutral sources that show Scots as being a separate language? I'm not aware of any. Otherwise I would submit it be termed Scots dialect or even Scots English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a separate article on Scots English and since there are different Scots dialects in different parts of Scotland, on several of which we already have articles, a single article named "Scots dialect" would not be a good idea. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 15:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the main point is that there is no agreed meaning (either academically or generally) for "language" as distinct from dialect/language variety etc. As a result, it doesn't really mean anything...so I would say there's "no harm no foul" in the title. Giving Scots the "status" of "language" is more of a political statement than anything. You could have a pretty desultory argument over whether that's NPOV, but it really isn't worth the effort... As far as sources are concerned that's not a problem - there's a load of stuff from the Scottish govt. calling it a language. As I say: political. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, it's all coming from the Scottish government. Is that really a good reason for having "Scots language" whereas we don't have, say, "Geordie language"?  Unless there are significant neutral sources then isn't there a danger that we're heading into partisan territory?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.26.60 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is considerable previous debate on this matter, above on this page and in its archives, so it would be worth your while checking that out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was previously discussed (and agreed) that the lead should have some of the language v dialect stuff taken out of it and a more thorough section (better sourced) on that aspect built up in the main body. That would deal with these sort of queries - it is an omission from the article. DeCausa (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be something about this I agree. However it shouldn't be limited to whether Scots is English, but whether English is a single language. The main argument for Scots being a separate language is similair to that of Afrikaans, ie it has a divergent grammatical history to English-English. Afrikaans was at one time regional Dutch after all, and English developped divergently at an earlier period in Scotland than elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Seamusalba (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Scandinavian links
Is it worthwhile mentioning the similarities between Scots and some of the Scandinavian languages?

Swedish, for example, has several words so similar to Scots that they must surely share a common origin:

86.136.8.144 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are actually hundreds of words and expressions that are shared by Scots and Swedish/Danish/Norwegian. One of my own favourites is cleg (as in horsefly). However, to be included in the article, we ought to have some academic external references. I last looked several years ago and found a paper (a doctoral dissertation?), but it'd be nice to have a look in Google Books or Google Scholar. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to distinguish three types of similarity. Firstly, Scots is Germanic like Scandinavian and shares common Germanic words with Scandinavian that it has inherited from Old and Middle English (e.g. bairn). Secondly, English was transformed by contact with Old Norse 850 to 1050 taking thousands of borrowings (e.g. kirk), and Scots has inherited these. Thirdly, the interesting kind (and ones that would be most suited for inclusion in this article) are ones that Scots and only Scots borrowed from Scandinavian from 1350 onwards (including those borrowed via Gaelic). How many of these are there? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Norse input into Scots and Northumbrian English is well documented I think. But I was very interested in Bra being Swedish for good. I had always assumed that Scots Braw was connected with Gaelic Brea. Could Scots Gaelic also have taken the same word from Norse? strange, because it's also in Irish - Eireann go bra! DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is where academic sources come in. Is anyone aware of published research? (By the way, I don't think that Middle English inherited 'kirk' from Old Norse. It came from Greek, but I'm not sure by which route it reached the Scots, Scandinavian, Dutch and German languages.) --Mais oui! (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Firth might be borrowed from Scandinavian via Gaelic. It would be hard to come up with a list of any Gaelic borrowings because the guys who did the formative scholarship on Scots in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were usually passionate Teutonists and found the idea of Celtic borrowings repulsive; hence they are usually ignored except in obscure articles done by modern Celtic scholars (you can find them though if you put the effort in). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirk is the Scandinavian form of church. You can often tell Old Norse borrowings by turning a Germanic word with a ch or sh sound into a k sound (kirk versus church, skirt versus shirt, shrub versus scrub, etc )Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, why is it kirche in German and kerk in Dutch? Surely high and low German languages did not inherit this word from Scandinavia?!? Surely it was the other way round? Approx 40% of modern Swedish came from German (during the Middle Ages). It seems likely that the word for church was one of them, as Germany/Low countries was Christianised before Scandinavia (funnily enough by Scots and Irish missionaries!) --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look here: 'Kirk' is probably of Old Norse origin. If I remember correctly, Anglo-Frisian regularly has 'ch' where other Germanic languages have 'k' before front vowels: church - Kirche; cheese - Käse, etc. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called palatalization. The exact same thing happens to Romance in Gaul (e.g canis > chien) and other parts of western Europe in the same era. Maybe its the influence of British Romance on early English (or possibly even a Celtic influence). English changes lots of Ks to CHs, lots of SKs to SHs, and then a bit later borrows a range of Norse cognates that haven't undergone the change ... sometimes the borrowed word supplants the English one (as with kirk in Scotland and northern England), sometimes it is kept alongside with a similar but distinct meanings (shirt and skirt, scrub and shrub). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, the change took place on the European mainland, i.e. before the Germanic settlement. That is why the palatalization is found in English as well as Frisian. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course as far as the evidence goes it could have happened to both Frisian and English at the same time, or spread from English to Frisian, or spread from a third Germanic variant to both. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep I would agree with adding a section about this. In the Swedish language wikipedia there is a section in the Scots language page about the Scots languages similarities with Scandinavian tongues including a table similar to the one potrayed above although adding in a few more words wouldn't hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm repeating myself but I remember spending a happy time wandering round Esbjerg one Sunday afternoon, looking at the shop signs and trying to work out what they meant. It was surprising to me at the time how often my Scots vocabulary helped. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglic Categorisation ?
Just curious here as to why Scots is referred to as an Anglic language. This sub-division doesn't appear in any other Germanic language wikipedia pages - Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, German, Danish etc. where it just lists Scots as a West Germanic language. Is there really a need to add the anglic/anglo-frisian sub categories ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

West Germanic


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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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)

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)

similar dialects?
Why is it not discussed in the article about the similar dialects of northern England and what it has in common with them and where it differs? Theres a lot of comparing it to standard English but no mention of how it compares to Geordie and the like.


 * That is touched upon in Modern Scots. If its not discussed its because its deemed irrelevant, individuals can compare the Modern Scots, Northern English and related articles themselves or because no one has added it. You are free to add relevant and sourced information. 84.134.169.101 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
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.


 * Danish: 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.

Born in Yorkshire in the north of England, and familiar with 'Yorkshire Tyke' the local dialect, it strikes me that this discusion is absurd. The various 'Scots' were/are clearly all local dialects of the English language no different from standard English than my own Yorkshire dialect - or some American regional Englishes for that matter. I've travelled through Scotland often, from North to South and East to West - everyone I have ever met, spoken to or simply overheard, speaks English as their normal language, no doubt, no question about it. True there are some folk, say in Glasgow, who speak English with a local accent so pronounced it is not so easy for an outsider to understand on first hearing; but the same is true of many parts of England, my own Yorskhire, and of the USA. The idea of Scots as a seperate language is a quite artificial argument, one motivated I am quite sure by nothing more than contemporary political nationalism in Scotland, a campaign which seeks to emphasise and exploit every possible, real and imagined, difference between Scotland and England. Giving any formal legal recognition to Scots as a separate language is nothing more than political humbuggery. Steve A. Halifax Yorkshire.18th April 2012


 * Sounds to me like you heard people speaking English in a Scottish accent, rather than in the Scots language. The problem with Glaswegian English is that it is heavily accented and spoken with a rather fast tempo. Slow it down and you'll find you understand it almost perfectly. Scots on the other hand is quite different from English, even when spoken slowly. Try this video clip and see what you make of it. Too many people confuse Standard Scottish English, working class Scottish English dialects, and the Scots language. Also, as this is an encyclopaedia, it simply describes that which exists. The fact that many linguists throughout the world recognise Scots as a distinct language, together with the political establishment in Scotland, the UK and the EU, and independent cultural and linguistic organisations and institutions is enough for Wikipedia to have an article on the Scots language. Mac Tíre   Cowag  13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikpedia should indeeed have a page on the 'Scots language' if only because it's a term that is used. But I really can't see that it differs any more from standard English than my own broad Yorkshire Tyke, which almost no one I imagine would call a distinct language. I think the problem lies in the name 'English' which confusingly means both the main language used in Britain, and the people of England, i.e. the inhabitants of just part of Britain. The 'English language' and 'Standard English' are really two different things. Historically the English language (I rather prefer the term 'Anglish') was the collective term for all the many variants of it spoken throughout Britain. One 'Anglish' dialect, that used in South East England, has become recognised as Standard English. Every other variant of 'Anglish' Yorskhire Tyke, Broad Scots, Inglis etc became a dialect once one standard language version came to be recognised as 'universal' to be used in prefernce to all other dialects. Standard English, Scots, Tyke are quite clearly each just types, variants or dialects of the collective term 'the English language'. Nah then lad, dost tha not see warrahmon abaht? Steve A. Halifax, Yorks.


 * I gather Tyke was never the form spoken by the Kings of England, the standard for politics, and this type of thing. If it was then it would be the standard we all use today. That's what it comes down to. The President would talk it and there would be nothing wrong with that. It would be the SE English that would be the "funny" one.


 * In Scotland, it was an independent state and had it's own spoken form(s). That's why this page exists and why there's Norwegian and Danish languages. Even then there's state record where a visiting English envoy spoke in Scots tongue, as one would. But as they did not fully understand it, the conversation had to be done in French. There are other examples. That was true Scots.


 * The thing is actual complete Scots is practically obsolete outside of some northern rural communities or the like of Shetland. I cannot understand a full Shetland and this is why decent knowledge of Scots. Not even Doric is where it should be. Scots is badly eroded. You go around Scotland hearing English. Yes. It is however nothing to do with this page.


 * The entry to the article page is now being front loaded with a poll, yet few in Scotland truly know what Scots is, its history, or even the position of other world languages, to give and answer to such a thing. You can mention the poll, sure, but it was never sitting on the front before. Why not have it was spoken by kings, visitors and currently under EU charter on front for balance?--Revolt (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I think i understand now. This is clearly a case of politics and wishful thinking intersecting with objective fact. I cannot seriously imagine that any objective disinterested linguist would consider Scots/Inglis to be anything other than one of the several forms of the English language once common throughout the British Isles. Even an expression like 'a wee bairn' is Old English, not something uniquely Caledonian. But for Scots nationalists it is clearly a matter of almost religious dogma that Scots is/was a seperate distinct language. And one cannot argue with religious dogma. Meanwhile I've recently been investigating a number of Wiki pages concerning various aspects of Scottish history and note a common thread: objective history is being edited and re-written to emphasise and oftimes exagerate differences between Scotland and England. An interesting phenomenon! Yorkshire Tyke


 * Such is the problem with wikipedia and why I left it. Parties that have a vested interest in a subject via overwhelming numbers can dominate and drown out the majority view which is represented by only a few people since the majority doesn't see it as an issue and as such isn't really interested in it. The "Scots is a language and that is a fact" stuff is pretty bad on wikipedia but there's other bad stuff out there too, check out the Cornish nationalist sillyness if you're brave enough.
 * Anon/Unsigned: "The "Scots is a language and that is a fact" stuff is pretty bad on wikipedia" ... Really? Why? There are plenty of strong references to support the assertion. Even distinguished English linguist Peter Trudgill recognises that Lowland Scots is 'probably the most distant (variety) of Standard English'.(English Accents and Dialects, 2005). Kind of refutes Yorkshire Tyke's suggestion that Scots is just like any other English dialect. Afterall, how many other English dialects can claim to have adjectives like hackit, glaikit, sleekit, shilpit, mockit, drookit and foonur't still in every day use? This isn't a political/nationalist point ... it's simply a fact ... which is all we should really concern ourselves with here. "Scots Language" is a term that exists and has a legal definition supported by multiple national governments. In addition, when arguably the most prominent academic in the field states that Scots is at the extreme end of the dialect/language continuum, then any argument to the contrary is going to have to be supported with some SERIOUS evidence/sources ... something that those who disagree with the 'Scots Language' term consistently cease to do. Angusmec (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys are missing an important aspect. Two closely related languages can be dialects of each other and still be separate languages. That is the case with Macedonian/Bulgarian and all three Scandinavian languages. Norwegian is a dialect of Danish, but Danish is also a dialect of Norwegian because there is no hierarchy between the two languages. In saying that Scots is a dialect of English you are assuming a hierarchy with Standard English on top. But since Scots is historically the official language of a state, it can be viewed as equal to English. So Scots is clearly a dialect of English, but English is also a dialect of Scots.--Orakologen (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A source regarding what? Be specific.--Orakologen (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously Mutt Lunker is asking for a valid and verifiable source about the information you are quoting above. Specifically, all of it. Otherwise it can't be considered anything other than POV, which is insufficient. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

.

Germanic or Anglic?
Since it's debatable whether Scots is a dialect of English or not, IMO it would be more informative to call it an 'Anglic' language. 'Germanic' makes it sound more distantly related, like Swedish. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since either would be correct, I was initially ambivalent. But after some consideration and reading the article in full again, I think "Anglic" is more precise and gives a picture of Scots' position in the Germanic family in one succinct word. Additionally, as currently written, this sentence:
 * "Alternatively, Scots is sometimes treated as a distinct Germanic language, in the way Norwegian is closely linked to, yet distinct from, Danish.[7]"
 * in the second paragraph of the lede notes its place within Germanic, making "Germanic" in the opening sentence seem redundant.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For consistency, it should be kept as Germanic. English language says "(West) Germanic" so should this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree "West Germanic" should be the term used. Germanic is a much more commonly known and understood term and would cause less confusion. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who understands the word "Germanic" will understand "Anglic". Anglic would cause less confusion, as it indicates the degree of closeness Scots has w English compared to other Germanic languages. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, I changed it.--Wester (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The move is controversial and there should have been a fuller discussion before the move.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not bipolar continuum
The article - in the initial paragraphs - says "focused broad Scots is at one end of a bipolar linguistic continuum, with Scottish Standard English at the other." I don't see how this can be true, and as its a hugely important point I think it needs some additional evidence or to be changed. There are - and must always have been - a broad set of dialects of English/Scots with no clear dividing lines between them. This doesn't make for a bipolar continuum... in fact it's the opposite of this. The implication is that someone speaking broad 'Scots' in Shetland will have a language close to someone speaking broad 'Scots' in Ayrshire... but that's nonsense. Surely the relationship between the three dialects/languages - Ayrshire Scots, Shetland Scots, 'Standard' Scottish English would be drawn as a triangle, or a Venn diagram, not a 'continuum'. And that's just choosing three of the options. Surely it would be much more true to say something as follows: "A very wide multidimensional and continuous range of dialects/languages and simply accents make up 'English' - some of these spoken currently, and some in the past, some more likely to be written and some more likely only spoken. Where one dialect/language ends and another begins is not generally agreed - although the variation between extremes can very great. Thus 'Scots' is a broad definition grouping together some parts of this range of language defined primarily by the fact that they are or have been used within the bounds of modern 'Scotland'." Rowmn (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "aye"
Way back on March 4, 2004, some anonymous editor added a lot of material. One thing added was that "aye" is pronounced like "I". Is this true? Yesterday I ask'd a Scot to read a sentence with the word, and he pronounced it as rhyming with "hay". He's from Stirling but he says he doesn't know the old way of speaking very well. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Longer than "I", does not rhyme with hay and it's in common current usage, nothing old way about it. He must either not speak Scots or possibly isn't used to seeing it written down. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also depends upon which "aye". "aye" meaning "yes" is pronounced like the English word "eye". "Aye" meaning "still" or "always" is pronounced a bit longer, as Matt says. Derek Ross (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'm not sure my friend used the term "old way", but he said he doesn't use the sorts of terms that his grandmothers would use. By the way, he didn't know what I meant when I used the term Scots (meaning the language). He thought I was referrin' to Gaelic.

Any idea who the anonymous editor was in 2004? He added a huge amount to the article. The section that mentions "aye" has been moved to Modern Scots.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Highlands
The article says that Scots is spoken in Lowland Scotland. So what kind of English is spoken in the Highlands? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Predominantly Standard Scottish English and a small minority of Scottish Gaelic are the two languages spoken in the Highlands. Mac Tíre   Cowag  13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or in some of the more depopulated parts of the Highlands upper class English... -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 09:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just found that there's a whole article about it: Highland English -- Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic
The opening paragraph describes Scottish Gaelic as "...the Celtic language historically spoken in most of the Highlands and the Hebrides." Historically (at it's hight) it was spoken over almost the whole country. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic#History 81.203.63.156 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends what one means by "the whole country" 'Scotland' or 'Scot-land'. Dauvit Broun in his essay 'When did Scotland become Scotland' points out that in the past 'Scotland' meant something much less, territorially, than Scotland today. It is not until the reign of Alexander II (1214-49) that it is possible to find Scottish sources habitually referring to the area south of the River Forth and the Firth of Clyde – south of Stirling and Loch Lomond – as part of 'Scotland'. Before this 'Scotland' was even understood to mean only the area north of the Forth, south of Moray and east of the Grampians. See the whole essay at:
 * http://www.historytoday.com/dauvit-broun/when-did-scotland-become-scotland


 * The language and population of the south-east of modern day Scotland appears to have been continuously Anglo-saxon or 'sassenach' AKA 'English' since the Kingdom of Bernicia was founded there in the 7th century. Cassandra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.2.158 (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so it depends what's meant by "almost the whole country" as the IP actually says, not "the whole country" then. You can also add in the Northern Isles to areas without a Gaelic history but Scotland (its modern day extent, no difficulties with what that means), sans a large part of the Lothians and Berwickshire, plus the Northern Isles could reasonably be described as almost the whole country. Never one to miss a chance to twist a talk page into a forum it's not the hardest of tasks to play hunt-the-agenda in the post in the section above either, for those familiar. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course there is an agenda Mutt - it's Wikipedia's agenda: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The Scots Language pages are odd in that they appear to contain no evidence other than that which supports the proposition that 'Scots is a language'. I don't really care whether Scots is a language or not, but I do care very much for truth and accuracy. And I'm sure people want to know why this is a controversial subject. You and I both know that there is excellent published evidence/material which contradicts the prevailing orthodoxy and historical narrative - making no reference to such evidence leaves the pages relating to the Scots language looking more like advocacy than neutral reportage of the subject. My suggestion, as I've said before, is that there should be a final section headed 'Criticsm'. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.34 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought this section was a discussion about the mention of Scottish Gaelic in the article in regard to the areas it is spoken in - what on earth does any of the post above have to do with that? You are showing your POV-pushing colours truly by now ranting on about another subject entirely to that which was being addressed here. As you persist in IP-socking (presumably to evade sanctions), to respond I’ll have to further clutter this page as there is no option to tear you off on your own talk page.


 * In truth, “what you and I both know” about is your astonishing, delusional and blind persistence in the face of the continued exposure of your either entirely unsupported WP:OR or self-confessed, transparent and risibly easily-exposed misrepresentation and synthesis of sources (e.g. here). Be this incompetence or barefaced mendacity on your part, it's your misrepresentations that are my beef with you, not any opinions they are twisted to advance. From experience, if I see you using a source, it’s a fair bet it doesn’t support, and probably contradicts, what you say about it. You’re clearly still under the impression that the purpose of Wikipedia is as a forum or chat room for your cogitations. If you want pen pals, go somewhere else please.     Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Mutt, you get so upset. Do calm down. I'm afraid I don't know what 'IP socking' might be so I can't realy respond - though I feel sure it's not the case. But what I do know, amongst many other things, is that James Murray 'the Father of Scots Language Studies' gives a very different historical narrative than the one which apears in Wikipedia's pages. Why are he and his successors' views airbrushed out of these pages? Surely any reasonable person would expect reference to ALL relevent information about a subject to be provided? Anything less simply looks like censorship. Perhaps some other interested Wiki reader will take a peek at Murray's 'Dialects' and they will see exactly what I mean. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.100.51 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IP address. WP:SOCK. As you have been told on countless occasions, it is not your opinions that are being addressed but that you have continually shown yourself not to be capable of/trustworthy in representing sources that you claim support them. Any pertinent source may of course be used but not to support something it doesn't in fact say. That's obvious and not difficult. You have been IP range-blocked several times for abusing talk pages as a forum. I'm not sure why you can't grasp any of this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)