Outlander Gaelic

**The Q** · 8th March 16, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by neloon

A hypothetical story.

Suppose someone, obviously from their name not of US descent, living in Chicago let's say, claimed to have recovered a moribund dialect of Western Apache on the basis of a single(!) contact. We cannot tell how idiosyncratic this contact may be but our hero recognises his speech as one of 200 such dialects that he somehow knows once existed. He has no recognised linguistic credentials or contact with academic or other agencies involved in Native American language preservation and indeed despises the main such agencies (possibly because they commented adversely on his theories). A Scottish film company is conned into choosing him as language coach for a "cowboys 'n Indians" series they are producing.

Maybe you have to live in Scotland to see the funny side of this. Since the storyline is part fantasy, maybe it all makes sense.

Alan

A bit like those who claim to speak Cornish?

**neloon** · 9th March 16, 04:03 AM

freep,
I think you have the general picture. I will try to answer some of your questions.
First, what is a dialect? Is it defined by pronunciation, or vocabulary, or grammar. How many use it? A lot has to do with some degree of geographic separation. Gaelic pronunciation varies considerably - Lewis is particularly different from the rest, but Deeside, isolated by the Grampians, seems also to have had definable characteristics. Vocabulary varies principally in relation to borrowed words and that will depend on what the external contact was e.g. via cattle drovers or by visiting East coast fishing boats. The Gaelic of today has to cope with modern terminology so some people will say "na computairean" and others "na computers", but unnecessary English borrowings are increasingly prevalent - "seomar" has widely been replaced by "rum" (room). Teenagers on Lewis will commonly say "rialaidh math" (really good) instead of "gle mhath".
Nowadays, there are really no dialects of Gaelic so there is no question of mutual non-intelligibility and even Irish Gaelic is quite easily understood by Scots Gaelic speakers. In the past, Gaelic was not much written down and orthography was very variable but is now reasonably standardised
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_ccc/...tions-En-e.pdf
So we cannot possibly say that there have been 200 dialects of Gaelic since the language has had to absorb from Pictish, Norse, Scots etc. and these historical developments have simply produced an evolving continuum with little point in recognising arbitrary divisions. Placename studies underline some of these points.

I think I should stop now!
Alan

**The Q** · 9th March 16, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by neloon

freep,
I think you have the general picture. I will try to answer some of your questions.
First, what is a dialect? Is it defined by pronunciation, or vocabulary, or grammar. How many use it? A lot has to do with some degree of geographic separation. Gaelic pronunciation varies considerably - Lewis is particularly different from the rest, but Deeside, isolated by the Grampians, seems also to have had definable characteristics. Vocabulary varies principally in relation to borrowed words and that will depend on what the external contact was e.g. via cattle drovers or by visiting East coast fishing boats. The Gaelic of today has to cope with modern terminology so some people will say "na computairean" and others "na computers", but unnecessary English borrowings are increasingly prevalent - "seomar" has widely been replaced by "rum" (room). Teenagers on Lewis will commonly say "rialaidh math" (really good) instead of "gle mhath".
Nowadays, there are really no dialects of Gaelic so there is no question of mutual non-intelligibility and even Irish Gaelic is quite easily understood by Scots Gaelic speakers. In the past, Gaelic was not much written down and orthography was very variable but is now reasonably standardised
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_ccc/...tions-En-e.pdf
So we cannot possibly say that there have been 200 dialects of Gaelic since the language has had to absorb from Pictish, Norse, Scots etc. and these historical developments have simply produced an evolving continuum with little point in recognising arbitrary divisions. Placename studies underline some of these points.

I think I should stop now!
Alan

I thought you were getting going quite nicely....

**kiltedcontractor** · 13th March 16, 12:52 PM

I watch with my wife. She has read all the books. We actually look foward to it. I realize that the story is fictional but i do not think that gives them the right to take so many liberties with historical accuracy. We watch for entertainment value not history lesson. It has caused us to research things we might not have otherwise.

**freep** · 13th March 16, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by kiltedcontractor

I watch with my wife. She has read all the books. We actually look foward to it. I realize that the story is fictional but i do not think that gives them the right to take so many liberties with historical accuracy. We watch for entertainment value not history lesson. It has caused us to research things we might not have otherwise.

What historical inaccuracies have you noted?

**freep** · 13th March 16, 03:24 PM

I've a history degree and have come to find that there are movies, tv shows and books in the historical fiction genre that cover the spectrum from abysmal (Braveheart, Reign, Breakheart Pass) to so-so (The Patriot, Dances With Wolves) to pretty decent (IMO Outlander, Vikings and others). If you demand outright exact accuracy from any sort of fiction you're doomed to disappointment. For that matter such disappointment will follow you into the full-on study of history. The amount of inaccuracy of even original sources is stunning.

So, in order to be able to watch and read historical fiction I find a policy of noting the minor foibles in storytelling, promising myself to write the producers a stern note (which I never actually do) and enjoying the rest of the movie, tv show or book to be most useful. I would also point out that I've learned a lot about things and events outside of my specialty as a result of researching some little detail that didn't seem quite right. Sometimes I've even been surprised t find such details were actually correct.

**Luke MacGillie** · 17th May 16, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by freep

I've a history degree and have come to find that there are movies, tv shows and books in the historical fiction genre that cover the spectrum from abysmal (Braveheart, Reign, Breakheart Pass) to so-so (The Patriot, Dances With Wolves) to pretty decent (IMO Outlander, Vikings and others). If you demand outright exact accuracy from any sort of fiction you're doomed to disappointment. For that matter such disappointment will follow you into the full-on study of history. The amount of inaccuracy of even original sources is stunning.

So, in order to be able to watch and read historical fiction I find a policy of noting the minor foibles in storytelling, promising myself to write the producers a stern note (which I never actually do) and enjoying the rest of the movie, tv show or book to be most useful. I would also point out that I've learned a lot about things and events outside of my specialty as a result of researching some little detail that didn't seem quite right. Sometimes I've even been surprised t find such details were actually correct.

The Material culture is atrocious. Plaid brooches, comicon sword baldrics, obvious machine sewn button holes. It's horrid

I read the books, have not seen anything other than stills as I don't have a functioning TV and neither of my streaming services has the show.

**freep** · 17th May 16, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Luke MacGillie

The Material culture is atrocious. Plaid brooches, comicon sword baldrics, obvious machine sewn button holes. It's horrid

I read the books, have not seen anything other than stills as I don't have a functioning TV and neither of my streaming services has the show.

More's the pity.

**Luke MacGillie** · 25th May 16, 08:14 AM

OK so I finally bit the bullet and purchased a subscription to the show.

Im actually pretty happy with the storytelling and cinematography.

They should hire me to be a tech advisor so that folks baldric buckles get properly buckled, and frizzens closed when holding a pistol on someone.

I don't get why it took to the middle of the first season for an actual Scottish pistol on a Scot to make an appearance.....

**OC Richard** · 16th March 16, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by The Q

A bit like those who claim to speak Cornish?

Not sure what is meant here. The corpus of Cornish is quite large, and anyone who has studied it knows how to pronounce it. Any such person could read any of the thousands of surviving lines of Cornish and be speaking Cornish.

If you mean conversing in Cornish, I met a linguist who is equally fluent in Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. Whenever he meets another person fluent in Cornish, well, they can converse as well and you and me in English.