Dis ony o youse ken the Scots leid?

[sathor]

Ulster-Scots should be a dead give away, but if not.. they are trying to promote the use of the Ulster-Scots language (Ireland). It may be close to Scots, but I imagine it well be still quite different.

Frank

Noah Webster Lives!

[gilmore]

Here is an example of an accent dialect (the set up) and a language (the punch linehttp://www.scotsindependent.org/feat.../scotwit89.htm

And here is a language, I think. Try listening to it without reading it beforehand and see how much you understand: http://www.scotsindependent.org/feat...t/scotwit1.htm

and this one: http://www.scotsindependent.org/feat.../scotwit24.htm

[slohairt]

Well, as both a prolific reader, and writer, and one-time editor, I find Pour1Malts stuff, at times, almost unreadable (Sorry Pour1Malt, and I hope you don't take it too personally). People in Scotland may speak like that, but they are educated in Standard English, the same as "rap artists" (oxymoron) are educated in Standard English, but choose to speak in the patois of the ghetto.

While it may seem "quaint" to write in accent, it really does little to convey the message.

Actually his posts are quite simple to read. He takes the effort to use Scots words that have cognates within the English language. If he didn't, you would probably have a great deal of difficulty reading it.

Scots is not a dialect of English, it is truly a separate language. The definition of 'dialect vs. language' is often one of politics. There is as much difference between Scots and English as there is between Irish and Scottish Gaelic.

[slohairt]

Going with what McMillan said, for a long time Scots didn't have standardized spelling. In fact, most of the time it's wasn't written at all. Except on a few occasions (Robert Burns) it was exclusively spoken language. That is what makes it so difficult to write. Nowadays, the Ulster-Scots Agency (Tha Boord O' Ulster-Scots) is working to standardize the spelling, but it's still a good ways away.

Scots has been written since the mediaeval times. (There are many legal documents written in it.) Therefore it obviously had an orthography. It was probably about as good as English - though that's not saying much! Unfortunately, written Scots was not completely standardised and interest in that waned considerably after 1707. (I wonder why?)

[O'Callaghan]

Scots developped separately and in parallel to English, which is enough to make it a language. However, much of what is spoken today is a hybrid of Scots and English, so it is hard to tell where one begins and the other leaves off.

In some examples it is nothing more than English with an accent and a few Scots words thrown in. OTOH, broad Scots refers to something more like Old Scots, or sometimes it just means a broad accent, depending on who is doing the defining. The large amount of similarity makes definition difficult,and I also suspect that it began to blur around 1707.

I have an anecdote about Scots that I'd like to share. Here's a nonsense phrase often quoted (rightly or wrongly) as an example of Scots:

'It's a braw bricht moonlicht nicht tonicht'!

Just for a laugh, I recited this to an American colleague (co-worker) once, when we were discussing all the languages spoken in the British Isles, and she couldn't work out what I had said. She turned around and asked our (Scottish) boss if she had understood me, who of course said yes and translated it as:

'It's a brave bright moonlit night tonight'

The American was incredulous that we both knew what it meant, but of course it's just a silly stock phrase, and with the exception of one word (braw for brave) it just relies upon one systematic difference, and historically 'gh' in English was originally pronounced as a guttural the same as 'ch' is in Scots (and in German).

You would also think that she might expect that a Scot would be able to understand it, and yet she seemed surprised by that. I assumed the Scottish boss would understand it when I said it, and thought that was a safe assumption. I am English (of Irish descent , obviously), and AFAIK I have no Scots blood atall, although I have some Scots relations and have been to Scotland many times.

I think the real reason our hapless victim was so stunned was that she didn't even realise a priori that any languages other than English were actually spoken in the British Isles. There are probably a lot of Americans that don't. Possibly more than a few English people don't either, sad to say, although one only has to drive across the Welsh border to be confronted with bilingual English/Welsh signs, but some people don't get out much.

[Carolina Kiltman]

I just want to throw this into the pot. Whenever any group is isolated from a larger group, they will develop a distinct way of speaking the "parent" or original group language. If they happen to have had a distinct one of their own, before becoming part of the larger group, that will often result in a "meld" of the two languages. Much in the way a family will, to a certain extent, develop its own unique "language".

Spanish and Portuguese are two different languages that are very close to each other, so much so, that a speaker of one can generally understand what a speaker of the other is saying.

Different areas of the US have distinct variations. After over 40 years living in the South, I still occasionally have ask a "native" to spell a word. (I blame it on my deteriorating hearing. )

[hospitaller]

So, in order to make MacMillan of Rathdown happy, I will write my posts in my 'educated spanish', what with us being a varied rabble.

And I also have no problem at all reading Pour1Malt's posts, as a matter of fact I enjoy reading out loud so I can pronounce as I go.

Saludos a todos y sigamos escribiendo sobre nuestra pasion, el kilt.

[gilmore]

This is from the interesting site that Slohairt posted a link to http://www.scots-online.org/grammar/lang.htm

It's long, but worth it.

Language or Dialect?
Popular culture usually thinks of a dialect as a substandard, low status, often rustic form of a language, usually associated with the peasantry, the working class or other parts of the community lacking in prestige. Dialects often being thought of as being some kind of erroneous deviation from the norm - an aberration of the 'proper' or standard form of language.

The fact is that all speakers of any language are all speakers of at least one dialect - standard English for example is as much an English dialect as is any other form of English. No dialect is in any way linguistically superior to any other.

Linguistically speaking dialects are usually regarded as dialects of a language, that is, subdivisions of a particular language

What is a language?

"A language is a collection of mutually intelligible dialects" - A definition which conveniently characterises a dialect as a subpart of a language, and provides a criterion for distinguishing between one language and another.

Another criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects is the Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache framework developed by the linguist Heinz Kloss. Under the terms of that framework Kloss considered Scots to be a Halbsprache (half language). Ausbau referring to a variety having its own standardized form which is used autonomously with respect to other related languages. The Abstand refers to the distance between the languages as regards mutual intelligibility. A Dachsprache is usually a standard language which 'roofs' different dialects in a dialect continuum.

Take for example, the Scandinavian languages, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. These are usually assumed to be different languages. Speakers of these three languages can, with little effort, understand and communicate with one another. These languages have little Abstand and are mutually intelligible.
Take for example German, assumed to be a single language. There are varieties of German which are not understood by speakers of other varieties.

What does the above prove? One thing for certain - 'language' is not a particularly linguistic notion at all. The reason why Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and German are thought of as single languages has as much to do with political, geographical, historical, sociological and cultural reasons, as with linguistic ones.

There for the term 'language' is relatively 'unscientific'. Linguists usually refer to 'varieties of language'. There for Norwegian Swedish and Danish could be referred to as varieties of Scandinavian.

Accents
Accent refers to a variety which is phonetically or phonologically (pronunciation) different from other varieties.

Dialects
A dialects is a variety which is grammatically (and perhaps lexically different) as well as phonologically different from other varieties.

Dialects and accents frequently merge into each other without any discrete break.

Geographic Dialect Continua
A dialect continuum is a chain of mutual intelligibility across geographical space. Adjacent dialects are usually intelligible but dialects which are further apart may not be mutually intelligible.

An example of such a dialect continuum is the Romance dialect continuum stretching across the Iberian peninsula through France and parts of Belgium down to the southern tip of Italy. From one place to another across this area there would be some linguistic differences distinguishing one place from the another. Some times the differences would be greater some times less, but with distance they would be cumulative. The further apart the places the greater the differences would become. As the distance increases between places communication becomes increasingly more difficult and eventually impossible. In places far apart the 'dialects' spoken are mutually unintelligible, though all across the dialect continuum a chain of mutual intelligibility exists.

In this example the continuum includes Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, French and Italian. Where did one language end and the other begin?

Europe has many other dialect continua. The west Germanic language continuum includes Frisian, Dutch (Flemish), Low Saxon, German and Swiss German. The varieties spoken in Ostend in Belgium and Zürich in Switzerland are not mutually intelligible but are linked by a dialect continuum. Low Saxon is often regarded as a dialect of Dutch in the Netherlands and a dialect of German in Germany. The same 'language' a dialect of two different ones? Low Saxon is in fact a marginalised language not a dialect of either Dutch or German.

Another dialect continuum is the north Slavic dialect continuum including Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian

As elsewhere in Europe a language continuum exists in the British Isles. Stretching from Cornwall to Shetland. Beat Glauser's research into the Scots / English linguistic border showed that the phonological an lexical borders where almost identical. One of the most marked borders in a European language continuum. This of course has to do with historical and social factors. Before the union of 1707 people in Scotland looked to court Scots as their linguistic standard whereas in England people looked to London. After the Union people in Scotland continued using Scots as an expression of their identity. To a large extent it seems as if English stops at the border and Scots Begins.

Many Scots who speak English do so with a Scottish accent. Their grammar and lexis is standard English, sometimes with traces of Scots grammar and lexis. This is obviously a dialect of English - usually called Scottish Standard English.

[gilmore]

Autonomy and Heteronomy

Since heteronomy and autonomy are the result of political and cultural rather than purely linguistic factors they are subject to change. For example, until 1650 part of what is now southern Sweden was part of Denmark. The dialects spoken here were then considered to be dialects of Danish. As a result of war and conquest this area became part of Sweden. Forty or fifty years later these dialects were considered dialects of Swedish although no linguistic change had taken place. These dialects had become heteronomous with respect to standard Swedish rather than Danish.

Until the beginning of the 19th century the official language used in Norway was Danish. It was only with the reemergence of Norway as an independent nation that a distinct, autonomous standard Norwegian was developed - with two orthographies - Bokmål and Nynorsk.

It was only in the 1920s that what we now call Afrikaans became an independent language with the acquisition of its own name, orthography and standardised grammar. Before that is was considered a form of Dutch.

Scots was definitely an autonomous Ausbau variety before 1707 with its own 'standardised' orthography and grammar. At the time no language in Europe was as standardised as they are today. The orthographic variation of the time was no different than in contemporary England. It was the result of English becoming the official language which eventually caused Scots speakers to think of English as the standard or Dachsprache to which their vernacular was heteronomous. Scots did not cease to be spoken in 1707.

The Scandinavian Languages Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are considered languages because they have distinct, codified, standardised forms, with their own orthographies, grammar books, and literatures; that correspond to three separate nation states.

Is Scots a dialect or a language?

Arguments put forward in order to define Scots as a language are:

Scots has at least five dialect groups and some of these are further subdivided.

The dialects of Scots are, with their differing pronunciation, grammar, lexis and accents, mutually intelligible to Scots speakers. English speakers often find (broad) Scots dialects unintelligible.

An extensive literature in Scots reaching back at least 600 years, latterly without a standard written form resulting from the fact that hardly any education takes place through the medium of Scots. Even so Scots grammars have been published over the years so codification or Ausbau isn't completely lacking here.

Most people consider Scotland to be a nation, and not a peripheral region of Britain/England.

Scots is also officially recognised.

From the Scottish Education Department's Scots Language Factsheet (12.08.99) dealing with the Scottish Executive's Policy on the Scots Language:

"The Scottish Executive considers the Scots language to be an important part of Scotland's distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage..."
"The UK Government announced on 4 June 1998 its decision to sign the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This came into effect as of the 1 July 2001. The Scots language will be covered by Part II of the Charter. By applying Part II of the Charter to Scots the Government will be recognising the distinctive nature and cultural value of the language."

"The Consultative Steering Group Report (Section 3.3 §§ 53-64 'Language') has recommended that the normal working language of the Parliament should be English but the CSG Report recognised the strong historical and cultural arguments for facilitating the use of Gaelic and Scots in the Parliament"

"This involves teachers in valuing pupils' spoken language.... This makes children aware of the richness of the language and helps them value the Scots they may use at home or with their peers."

And the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement Approved by referendum on 22 May 1998:


"Rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity.
Economic, Social and Cultural Issues

3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

And the agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of Ireland establishing implementation bodies:

"Annex 2, DEFINITIONS, Part 5, Language
1.7 "Ullans" is to be understood as the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal. "Ulster-Scots cultural issues" relate to the cultural traditions of the part of the population of Northern Ireland and the border counties which is of Scottish ancestry and the influence of their cultural traditions on others, both within the island of Ireland and in the rest of the world."

"Annex 1, Part 5, Language

Ulster Scots

- promotion of greater awareness and use of Ullans and of Ulster Scots cultural issues, both within Northern Ireland and throughout the island."

At the end of the day there is no 'scientific' way to prove whether Scots is a language or a dialect. It boils down to a body's personal opinions and prejudices. We could argue about this until the cows come home - or in Scots: Till the kye comes hame.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So, in order to make MacMillan of Rathdown happy, I will write my posts in my 'educated spanish', what with us being a varied rabble.

Saludos a todos y sigamos escribiendo sobre nuestra pasion, el kilt.

My Dear Hector,

For the benefit of those who may not have any fluency in Spanish, I hope you will please forgive me for replying in English.

First, let me say that I am happy to read, or speak, "educated Spanish" as it makes a pleasant change from the Mexican-Spanish patois that I speak on an almost daily basis.

I am sure there are a number of ladies and gentlemen on this forum who speak any number of languages-- Hebrew, Japanese, Italian, Russian, Amharic, German, French, the list is undoubtedly longer-- I'm sure several members speak Native American languages as well; Ron probably has more than a smattering of Navaho.

The point is, whatever intellectual linguistic achievements we may have, we communicate in English. Clear, precise, written English is the tried and true best way to communicate with other English speakers & writers.

If anyone doubts this, try writing a letter in broad Scots to your bank manager asking for a loan (even in Edinburgh) and see how far you get, or how seriously your request is taken.

You see, Hector, just as "clothes make the man"-- look at how little effect naked people have had on the course of history-- so does the written word. No mater how fine or noble the intent or idea, if not clearly presented it will be overlooked, or dismissed. Worse, it could be ridiculed.

My original comment was merely a request for clear communications, nothing more.