Talk:Scots language/Archive 5

Boothman misunderstands me
Um, I think Boothman misunderstands me. I am not denying the existence of Scots (and I think, as a linguist, arguments about "language status" are irrelvent to anyone but governments and their policies) I am just disputing that there is an honest account of Scots happening here.

The Bard: I'll make this easy. I'll uppercase everything I don't understand"

"In a' the numerous human DOOLS,

Ill HAIRSTS, daft bargains [not even sure about this noun phrase!], CUTTY STOOLS,

Or worthy frien's RAK'D i' the MOOLS, -

Sad sight to see!

The tricks o' knaves, or FASH o'fools,

Thou bear'st the GREE! "

I understand ONE single line. Thus the meaning of the whole stanza is lost on me. And that happens to be free of any Scots. I have never heard the word "fash" used in my life. If it exists still it isn't used in/around Glasgow with any great frequency.--- Richard


 * "In a' the numerous human dools, Ill hairsts, daft bargains, cutty stools, Or worthy frien's rak'd i' the mools, - Sad sight to see! The tricks o' knaves, or fash o'fools, Thou bear'st the gree! "


 * Dools is the plural of dool meaning grief or sorrow, hairst is harvest a cutty stool is a short stool, mools is like plowed soil, fash is bother and bear the gree means like coming first or winning, apart from the old fashioned knaves and thou all are words I hear fairly regular. Of course much of it isn't pronounced anything like its written which doesn't help.


 * 84.135.196.170 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, anon. To expand on that, "fash" is fairly commonly used in the phrase, "Dinna fash yersel" meaning "Don't worry" or "Don't trouble yourself" which most Scots know (I would have thought, wrongly it appears). "Hairsts" are "harvests" and are important events in the country whereas they aren't in cities, so I suppose that's why an urban Scot wouldn't know the word. The English for "dool" is "dolour" which is almost as uncommon a word for English speakers as "dool" is for Scots speakers. A "cutty stool" is an old form of punishment in the church -- a small stool too short to sit on comfortably. You'd need to know some Kirk history to understand that whether you were a Scots speaker or not. "Rake" has the same meaning in English (or at least Scottish English) as it does in Scots. "Mool" is "mould" in the sense of "earth" and "gree" is short for "degree" (but the phrase "bearest the gree" is an idiom whose equivalent in English would be "takes the cake").


 * I would have thought that the only words which folk might have difficulty with would be "dool", "cutty stools", "mools" and "bearest the gree". "Hairst", "fash" and "rake" seem fairly commonplace to a small town dweller like me but then everyone's experience is different. And it is poetry which isn't always the easiest type of writing to understand. By the way, for anyone who isn't familar with the poem, Burns is talking about toothache. -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a good chat with my friend today, who also agrees that Scots isn't a seperate language, or at least a language that is dead. Try writing these Burns poems with words that aren't just misspellings of English words, and also don't use words that are "written how they are said". "Hairsts" are indeed harvests, but that is just a corruption of the English word. Imagine if we all written how we talked - it would be quite hard to understand. Your "Scots" is just harder to people like me to understand than say Geordie because I don't ever hear any Scots speakers (on television, radio etc). Why not? There aren't any!!! -- Boothman 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! The words of the wise enlighten us all. Definitely the stuff o high quality Wikipedia articles. I suggest you re-edit the article and share your knowledge with the world. Apparently there is a long tradition of misspelling English words in Scotland. Those doing it call it writing Scots, but of course that may simply be a cunning ploy to disguise their illiteracy. I suppose the German word Herbst is a corruption of the English as well. Another bunch of illiterates - though they do seem to manage to get Hand, Arm and Dame right. How would one go about writing how one talks? I've never heard an Urdu speaker (on television, radio etc.) Why not? There aren't any!!!


 * 84.135.196.170 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, misspellings is an unfortunate choice of word. Probably alternate spelling is better. Still, I stand by the points I make. -- Boothman 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Boothman, I suggest you and your learned friend enrol in an "Introduction to Historical Linguistics" course. There are NO seperate langauges on planet Earth and the notion of "spelling corruption" is so out of date you'll have Environmental Health knocking on your door for trying to pass it on to others. And don't come back with wild claims of credentials as it'll only be embarressing as anyone who has read any linguistics published in the last 50 years will know the claims are daft.

Your arguments here strike as some sort of childish sniping borne of some prejudice than any attempt at reasoned debate. That is all the time you are getting from me.--- Richard


 * I already said spelling corruption was an unfortunate term. I am indeed new to this linguistics stuff so my arguments may well seem daft or misinformed in some way. I'm only trying to offer up some debate on the subject and my own personal view on it. Obviously you are much more experienced than me in this area, so you can give advice on it and direct newbies like myself towards more coherent arguments. -- Boothman 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FAO: Boothman. A quick start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics though this page does use the unhelpfully vague dialect/language distinction (I assume they mean in a sense of mutual intelligibility/grammar rather than ethnic identity...) it will give you an insight as to how linguists perceive the origins/evolution of language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics will give you an overview of language from a sociology perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning will give you some insights into political nautre of the notion of "sepereate languages".

For a far better standard of information, I'd recommend David Crystal's Encyclopedia, Peter Trudgill's Varieties and any number of of Linguistics introductional readers (browse the shelves of any big booshop that has a university nearby!). You can usually find 2nd-hand copies on ABE Books dirt cheap. Wikipedia is as this thread demonsrates wide open to information being highly coloured by an agenda.

Linguistics is a fascinating subject that is like a Big Bang of information, schools, data. Even the lowly subject of proscriptive grammar could fill a thousand libraries.

I guess to understand the nature of this particular argument and my stance being aware of the concepts of the interrelationship and common ancestory of varieies (Proto-Indo-European is another good topic to read) is a good starting point. Then move on to the sociolinguistic view of status & varieties and then consider the issues of language planning. To simplify: where do varieties arise from? who detremines status, and why, and how does that affect the variety.

Of course all ideas are coloured by attitudes and orientations, so I hope you find something useful to your own perspective.

All the best--- Richard


 * Ta -- Boothman 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression that "Scots" is a collection of dialects which are called Scots only because they occur north of the Anglo-Scottish border. If they represent a separate language then what links them together is their common roots in the Ynglis (or Inglis) of Northumbria, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom which has been divided by the modern border, and of which most is south of that border. If the dialects represent a language then Northumbrian is a more appropriate name for it. Laurel Bush 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Laurel. Northumbrian would be totallly in appropriate because Northumbria is an extinct ethnicity- thereby wholly irrelevant to the living language community. By your argument we should all be speaking Indo-European. You think Nederlands/Flemish/Afrikaans should be renamed Plattduetsch? Language is a continuum. Language status/identity is socio-political. Get over it!--- Richard

Yes. Northumbrian is dead. And Scots is Erse. Laurel Bush 10:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC).


 * An' Erse is on a life-support system, Northumbria long ago ceased to have separate state institutions, ethnicity is irrelevant. Whiles, ower mony of yese is cryin Scots deid and quo Burns' words that only fermers use nowadays, no reckoning that Scots is a living language, changing and developing. Gonnae no dae that? ....dave souza, talk 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Would Calling Scots Northumbrian not be a wee bit like calling Gaelic Irish? If it represents a separate language then what links them together is their common roots in Middle Irish of Ireland. The Celtic Kingdom of Dal Riada now divided by modern States.

84.135.238.84 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave Souza, could you please stop using pseudo-Scots on these talk pages. Are you trying to fool us, or just trying to be clever? -- Boothman 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

"ethnicity is irrelevant" just about sums up your ignorant ramblings well enough thanks--- Richard

People, none of this is doing anything to improve the article -- or even to change it. Entertaining and informative as much of this discussion has been, it does not belong on Wikipedia for that reason. And since it's now descending to the personal comments level, I want everyone to know that I will remove any more such comments as suggested in the Be civil policy since they violate that policy which I strongly recommend that you all read. Stick to the point. If you want to suggest a change to the article, go ahead. That's what we should be discussing on this page. If you want to discuss whether Scots is or is not a language, keep it polite. If you want to flame your opponents, take it to alt.wikipedia or soc.culture.scottish on UseNet because it is not acceptable to flame people on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If Scots is a separate language, how come I studied Robert Burns in my GCSE ENGLISH Literature course? It was clearly pointed out in the course material that we were studying dialects of English, including Bajan, Jamaican, Indian, etc. -- (Boothman)


 * I would think that you'd be best to ask the people who set your GCSE ENGLISH Literature course that. I could guess but there's no way I, or anyone else here, would know for sure. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Boothman babe. You have commented all through this thread and now you suddenly remember you studied Robert Burns in your GCSE English. IMHO that's a fair point. Why didn't you produce it at the outset? Or has somebody recently told you they studied Robert Burns in their GCSE English?
 * 89.50.16.242 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Only really thought about that in relation to this the other day. And my EngLit GCSE is set by the government I presume, via AQA. In fact, Burns was my chosen poet on my paper; I did a nice big essay about "To a Mouse". Cowerin' Beasties an' all that. Maybe the whole exam needs shaking up, who knows? -- Boothman 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Germanic language
I'm new to this so please bear with me. I feel strongly enough to find out how to contribute to this. Firstly I see the placement of Scots as a Germanic language as plainly silly. Scots and Gaelic are linked culturally. What you appear to be attempting on this page is to somehow say that the Scots are not Gaelic by using the use of English language as a reason for including them in some pan Nordic, Germanic, English world. It appears more that agenda's are at work. It is also apparent that some of the content of the discussions is very patronising by mis-spelling words to make them appear to suit the dialects. Would you also do this to the other dialects of English spoken around the world and add them to an erudite contribution? Say  Australian, Indian speakers of English, Americans, Maori etc. Or is it just ok to insult English speaking Scots? Many years ago I read an Encyclopaedia called the Junior British Empire Encyclopaedia. It cited that King Arthur was king of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, unfortunately a whole generation of children were exposed to that sort of propoganda and believed it. I see that, that type of propoganda appears to still be at work. Whether it is being propagated by someone who calls themselves a Scots Englishman or an English Scotsman. The same thing occurred in the 1700,s and since then a lot of Scots believe in wearing Kilts as part of culture, when it was originally a fashion statement created by an Englishman. I find this page culturally insensitive and will be doing what i can to have it moved. I guess if this one is allowed to be included as Germanic, then the next group will be the Welsh then the Irish and so on. So come on guys take your insults hiding behind some intellectual pretentions and put them somewhere else. mcwhat!Mcwhat 01:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As a reference to language Scots did mean, originally, Gaelic or Goidelic language. But for some centuries now most people who consider themselves Scots have used the term to refer to language with origins in Middle English, language previously called Ynglis or Inglis. The renaming of this language involved pejorative use of Erse in reference to Goidelic language, so freeing the Scots name for use in reference to the Inglis language. Laurel Bush 09:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

'Scots' is free? Is it because you put it in a past tense? Is this supposed to mean that anyone can now choose to alter its meaning? Lets free "Latin" and maybe ancient "Greek". I know what we can do now; lets call the Roman alphabet the English alphabet. Scots and Gaelic are cultural references not just language. Keeping it in this vein as a Germanic item is clearly trying to rewrite history. If i move to India call myself a Hindi, perhaps have some grandchildren, and continue to speak English does this mean I (or my grandchildren) now have the right to say the local people are part of Germanic culture? Who renames this as a language? Definately some agenda at play. Keeping this page here just lowers the plausibility of Wikipaedia as a serious knowledge base. Open to abuse by propogandists, culturally insensitive people, and ill informed.Mcwhat 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wonder if this much effort is spent on discussions about other English language dialects?Mcwhat 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... this is about the one thing about Scots over which there isn't any debate. Scots is definitely Germanic -- as are English, German, Dutch, the Scandinavian languages and a raft of others. It's a linguistic term, and all it means is that all these languages/dialects/varieties are linguistically and historically related -- a common ancestor, similar wordstock/syntax, etc. It doesn't make any claim to Scotland's culture being "Germanic" or not.
 * This is as opposed to Gaelic, which is a Celtic language. Mendor 14:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous; What do you mean no debate? Scots is definately not a seperate language. The Scots speak a version of English. So do many other people around the world. Some Scots are able to speak the Scots lauguage "Gaelic". A study on liguistics of the various English dialects spoken around the world does not belong on the page of Ancient Germanic History. It could be added to a section which deals with English dialects. I am Scots and I understand the English spoken by other Scots. It most certainly is not the Scots language. I repeat myself in saying plausibility is being erroded in this section. Using the same reasoning can I say the majority of the worlds English speakers are actually speaking American?Mcwhat 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood you. Claiming that Scots is not a separate language is certainly justifiable, though -- as you can see from above -- it's debated. I thought you were claiming that Scots (whether it's a language or a dialect of English or whatever) is not Germanic. It is, as are English and all English dialects (although English-based creoles might complicate things somewhat). Cheers, Mendor 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Mendor. English and all its dialects is an enormous subject matter, even with the creoles, it is continually changing. I just don't understand why Scot's English is, singled out and placed among Ancient Germanic languages. Or for that matter why it is regarded as another language. Scots and Scots Gaelic are one and the same. Likewise Maori and Maori language, Irish and Gaelic, Welsh and Cymric, Fijians etc. Yet the majority of these are English speakers. No one person or elite group can arbitrarily alter this, nor should they be given credence for trying to. Scots is not a seperate English based language. Just like Welsh is not a seperate English based language. Just ethnic groups speaking local dialects. regardsMcwhat 06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry McWhat; but Scots is not the same as Gaelic/Gallic. Scots Gaelic is derived from Irish Gaelic; while "Scots" is arguably the closest thing left to Anglish/English/Inglis that is still spoken in the UK ... both in terms of its Germanic pronunciation and in its vocabulary. And I do mean still spoken ... rural communities in South Ayrshire in particular. The fact that comparitively few people speak Scots does not make it a dialect of its more modern cousin. Conversely, chronologically speaking, I could argue (but I wont) that modern English is actually a dialect of Scots, since the latter has remained closer to the Anglish origins that both share ... § --Angusmec 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that Scots is closer to English than English is, obviously, self-contradictory; moreover, the idea that Scots is closer to Middle English than Modern English is a myth, spawned by comparing modern standard English (spoken by almost no-one in Britain until the 20th century) with the most archaic "Scots" dialects; in reality, if you do it fairly and compare English dialects from places like the Black Country, regional English dialects are just as if not more like their Middle English forebears as "Scots" ones. The example you cite, South Ayrshire, is rather unfortunate, since Scots/English was not spoken there en masse until about the 16th or 17th century (little older than the first versions of North American English), so it cannot possibly preserve English from the Middle English period, unless by importing such preservations from its feeder areas in the east or north. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute Calgacus ... before you start chucking words like 'myth' about, be careful not to misquote me. The points I am making are very simple.


 * 1. Scots is derived from Anglish (Can we at least agree on that ?)


 * 2. A form of Burns-like Scots is still spoken in South Ayrshire today. As to where it came from and why it persists there is not actually relevant; the point I am making is that it is still spoken. (Can we agree on this ?)


 * 3. Due to a whole bunch of reasons (political/demographic/economic) areas like South Ayrshire have been relatively isolated from a migration perspective; thereby depriving the spoken language of more modern influences. (Agreed ?)


 * If you agree with the above points, then there is no great leap to my final point which is that Scots is closer (in both its vocabulary and pronunciation) to Anglish than Modern English. I completely agree that there will be a whole host of other Anglish dialects within the UK of which the same can be said; but this is a page on Scots.


 * Why do I bother making the point ? Because, contrary to some earlier postings, Scots is not lazy "saliva laden" English. There are perfectly logical reasons why the Scots accent/language/dialect is so distinctive (dare I say Germanic ?) when compared with its Modern English cousin.

--Angusmec 11:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree that Scottish accents sound Germanic. If anything, they sound Irish, and any non-British person will say. There is nothing Germanic, for instance, about the Glasgow accent, though I won't deny the Germanicness of the Shetlandic and Orcadian accents. Anyways, what is Anglish supposed to be? Middle English? Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Scots is an illegitimate corruption of English or anything. Such a notion could only believed by people totally ignorant of linguistics. But regional "Scots" dialects, like other dialects in the UK, are "archaic" vis-a-vis modern Scottish or British English because of geographical and social remoteness from the "cores" of Britain's prestige dialects, not because they are "Scots". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies Calgacus, Re Anglish, I should have said Anglic, (Old English) ... dating from about 550AD. I avoided using Middle English, so as not to get bogged down in arguments about whether Scots comes from Northumbrian (old english) or not.


 * As to the Germanic 'accent', I could have used a more linguistically accurate term; but there are a number of germanic 'traits' that can be found in Scots:


 * # The OO sound which in the the south west sounds much more like an umlau'd U in German. e.g. The Angles battle cry is purported to have been oot ... for out. That same pronunciation still persists in Scots today.
 * # Dominant R.
 * # "Saliva Laden" CH ... although Gaelic has a similar construct ...
 * # The NZ 'ng' as used in Menzies (Mingis) Campbell is straight from Old/Middle English.
 * # Then there are the words themselves ... ken (know) from kennen, kirk (church) from Kirche, gang (walk) from gang are a few examples off the top of my head.


 * As for Scots/Irish and which 'accent' sounds like the other ... I'm not touching that one with a barge pole. It would be easier to debate the primacy of the egg over the chicken ! --Angusmec 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The z in Menzies is simply a largely defunct Scots spelling-convention, and the sound exists in most European languages; moreover, both Scots and English are Germanic languages, so will obviously have a large number of common Germanic words; but as an interesting survey, the words of Chaucer contain a much larger proportion of Germanic-derived words than the John Barbour's Bruce. It's natural that Scotland's dialects will preserve words rare in other English dialects, but this also happens in regional English dialects. As for sounds such as CH and RH and OO, these exist also in most European languages, including Gaelic and Welsh; preservation of these three sounds in Scots are more likely down to Gaelic influence; that influence being the only distinguishing factor between Scottish and English English. The ai and oi peculiar to Scottish accents are also certainly due to indigenous influence, as these sounds are rare in any Germanic dialect group, and for instance, occur also in certain Irish accents. Anyways, you should call Old English "Old English" or "Anglo-Saxon"; "Anglic" is just a Latinate way of saying "English", and so is pointless and misleading. BTW, using High German as a base of comparison isn't helpful, as that language is almost as far from common Germanic as English. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so pretty much all phonetic sounds can be found in any language ... so that's probably the wrong place to start. But before I move on, the z in Menzies is actually a Middle English character called yogh. Anyway, instead of looking at sounds in isolation, lets look at specific words containing those sounds ... e.g. licht, dochter ... both are recognised as old and/or middle english ... and both are still in common speech in South Ayrshire. As are pronunciations like broon coo (!); or brun ku (as is still said in Friesland Dutch). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is no Celtic influence in particular Scots dialects. However, I am saying there is more of a germanic influence than some seem prepared to accept. As for word counting, I think if you compare Scots as spoken in (for e.g.) South Ayrshire with modern English, you'll find that the more modern cousin has far and away the larger French influence. Also, why shouldn't I compare High German words with Scots ones ? If they are the same word, then the odds are they have the same root (Oh; BTW, just to further my point, I have found references to kennen as middle english, gan as old english and kerk as old dutch) . Finally, WHAT IS MY POINT CALLER ? Basically this. My POV is that Scots is a dialect of old/middle English which retains closer links to its ancestor than modern English. This is contrary to the common view that Scots is merely slang and a corruption of English; and that contradiction ought to be recognised on this page. --Angusmec 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "preservation of these three sounds in Scots are more likely down to Gaelic influence; that influence being the only distinguishing factor between Scottish and English English. The ai and oi peculiar to Scottish accents are also certainly due to indigenous influence, as these sounds are rare in any Germanic dialect group, and for instance, occur also in certain Irish accents."
 * That's jolly interesting stuff. Have you sources for any linguists who have explored such matters?
 * 172.189.39.27 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it sources won't be forthcoming. Such a shame. It would have been interesting reading if it were true. 84.135.220.246 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And Scottish Gaelic is not derived from Irish Gaelic anymore than French is derived from Italian. Both Scottish and Irish Gaelic are derived from Medieval or Old Gaelic just as modern Romance languages are derived from Latin and its early descendants. siarach 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Siarach, you are absolutely correct ... Apologies. --Angusmec 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An anecdote about Scots accents sounding Germanic: on a school trip to Heidelberg, when on a tram I found myself turning round to see who else with a Leith accent was on board when it was just locals, and asking for things in a shop in my best failed O-level prelim German was completely accepted until I must have done something particularly horrible to the grammar, and the assistants looked up sharply in surprise. Make what you will of that, but it's widely thought easier for a Scot to learn German pronunciation, if only because of lochs. ...dave souza, talk 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not exactly scientific. I remember that locals in Freiburg thought I was Russian. Maybe my German was just crapper?! ;) BTW, the CH sound in loch existed in Proto-Indo-European and exists in most modern European languages, though not in English or French. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)I
 * Maybe just a Leith/Heidelberg thing, or perhaps my teacher was better than I realised. The intriguing thing is that from around 600 the SE was Old English/Northumbrian speaking, came under Gaelic rule in 1018, then about a century later Middle English was reintroduced with the burghs. Did Gaelic push out Inglis in that relatively brief period, or was it more of a court language with limited effect on the vernacular? ...dave souza, talk 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, 600 is a rough date when English people first enter the south-east, not when the south-east is English speaking (language never changes overnight). Anyways, Gaelic made some incursions in the south-east (see, for instance, Máel Bethad of Liberton for an example), but the mass of the population of south-east Scotland (that is, the modern Lothian and the Borders region) has been predominantly English-speaking since the 8th century; Gaelic didn't change that, hence why Lothian was called in 1180, when it would have been Gaelic if Gaelicization had been successful, "Land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots". On the other hand, the south-east is only a small region of (modern) Scotland, and was not the core of any state (unlike almost every other region of Scotland) until the Scots made the region their capital in the early modern era. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, sorry about the 600: I was thinking of the young Caedmon, allegedly born in the 630s around Melrose and Northumbrian speaking: or perhaps bilingual. Will try to move some points to the foot now. ..dave souza, talk 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, English has acquired more French words than it has German words so I guess that makes it a Franco language. Oh sorry siarach, I beg your pardon, that makes it an Italian language. No, that makes it Latin, no...........  Scotish Gaelic is an import of Old Irish  and it is just about as foreign as English or German or French is.  Lowland Scots English is as much a part of Scotland as Highland Scots Irish is.  Getting tired of this Gaelic dominance trend.  Lowland Pete 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't want to burst your bubble, Pete, but An Siarach is correct. Even if French comes from Italy, it is not correct to call it "Italian", because "Italian" refers to the Romance dialects spoken within the borders of modern Italy. Scottish Gaelic is not called Irish, except by Irish nationalists or people who dislike Scottish Gaelic; moreover, Old Irish was not called "Old Irish" either; that name is the invention of modern scholars. Old Irish was known as Gaelic in Old Irish, and Scottica (i.e. Gaelic) in Latin, not Eirenic or Hibernica. And for the record, there is no period in recorded history where Gaelic was not spoken in Scotland; that it's an import from Ireland, rather than merely the result of certain parts of Scotland not engaging in Q->P sound-shift, is just one historical theory no longer universally accepted. Maybe you should remember also that "Scotland" meant "Land of the Gaels", so if Gaelic is as foreign as French or German, maybe you can explain why no European people have ever called it "Land of the French" or "Land of the Germans"? ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My bubble cannot be burst, for I know my history in this area. I guess your theory is that the only true Scot is a highlander and that we lowlanders are pretenders to the Scottish dynasty. You mention Scottica from the Latin as a "proof". Well Scotia was the Latin name for Ireland in the middle ages. Yes, you will deny it, twist it, massage it in whichever way you want to, but it still remains valid. The invading Scotians from what is now called Ireland never forgot who they were or from whence the came, that was only to come later in the form of Scottish nationalism, and they named their part of Caledonia as Scotia too. It gets back to my main point, and it is this, English is as much part of Scotland as Gaelic is. Lowland Pete 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with you there Pete, there does seem to be an element of gaeltachd snobbery here ... Comments like "Lowland Scots' claim to have any historical existence, let alone a central role in Scottish history is phantasmal" (See below) kind of sum that mode of thinking. As speakers of a minority language/dialect themselves, you'd think they'd have more sympathy ! Anyway ... can we please get back to the point I'm trying to make; which is that some distinctive aspects of the Scots accent and vocabulary are directly attributable to its close ties to middle/old english. Why is this important ? Because many (non-linguists) believe that Scots is merely a corruption of modern english ... whereas ironically words/pronunciations like 'oot', 'licht' and 'ken' are far from corruptions; and can be traced right back to middle and old english. In fact, forget tracing them back ... they ARE middle and old English.--Angusmec 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)