A call to regulate the term "kilt"

[ChattanCat]

Well, well, well. What we have here is a garment that cannot be afforded by most middle income people. Imagine a wardrobe of nothing but kilts. Count your dress pants, casual pants, work pants, even shorts. How many? Now multiply by $700. Hom much? (I have 40 x &700 = $28k) Now I cannot afford a wardrobe for the price of a luxury car. So, we need luxury kilts and machine "kilts".

I would not call myself a kilt maker (at least not yet), but I make kilts. Am I to be barred from making kilts? Barred from wearing my scottish made 100% wool tartan, hand made to the exacting standards of Tewksbury's and Stuehmeyer's directions?

Doesn't sound practical to me.

CC

[Nick]

I dare this guy to examine my Ancient MacBeth, handsewn Tewksbury and tell me to my face it isn't a kilt

[pdcorlis]

While I understand some of the frustration that leads to this sort of thinking it won't work - language can't be regulated, legislated, or controlled - its dynamic, flexible, and evolving.

[ChromeScholar]

"Hand sewn in Scotland from Scotland wool" states the quality of the garment.

Actually it doesn't. It states where it was made, and what it was made of. It could still be garbage. The maker of the kilt determines the quality, not the materials used, or location it was made.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I don't think you understood me, Gilmore. I don't have a problem with people saying that only onions from Vidalia can be called "Vidalia Onions."

I would, however, have a problem with someone attempting to claim that only onions from Vidalia are, in fact, true onions.

Same thing with kilts. A machine-sewn acrylic Pakistani made kilt sold for $40 is still a kilt. It's just a much lower quality kilt.

We don't need to come up with a restrictive definition of "kilt." We just need to have some truth in advertising so that people are not being misled.

[macwilkin]

We don't need to come up with a restrictive definition of "kilt." We just need to have some truth in advertising so that people are not being misled.

I think Matt has summed it up quite nicely.

While I certainly do not agree with the proposed legislation in this story, I, as a self-proclaimed "bluff old traditionalist", can respect the sentiment behind it.

Regards,

Todd

[ardchoille]

We just need to have some truth in advertising so that people are not being misled.

Well said Mr. Newsome.

On the other hand, what is the definition of "jeans"? Is any garment which is made of denim (denim skirts?) also called jeans? Are jeans only made of denim?

[ccga3359]

Well said Mr. Newsome.

On the other hand, what is the definition of "jeans"? Is any garment which is made of denim (denim skirts?) also called jeans? Are jeans only made of denim?

Jeans are generally made from denim. One could have a jean skirt the same as one could have a kilted skirt. The former are not jeans, the latter not a kilt. A kilt made of denim is not jeans and according to the article would not be a kilt. Could we call them keans or a jilt? Yes, but people would look at us strange. Can you tell that now I'm just gibbering?

[gilmore]

I don't think you understood me, Gilmore. I don't have a problem with people saying that only onions from Vidalia can be called "Vidalia Onions."

I would, however, have a problem with someone attempting to claim that only onions from Vidalia are, in fact, true onions.

Same thing with kilts. A machine-sewn acrylic Pakistani made kilt sold for $40 is still a kilt. It's just a much lower quality kilt.

We don't need to come up with a restrictive definition of "kilt." We just need to have some truth in advertising so that people are not being misled.

I understand you perfectly.

Admittedly, the Vidalia onion example wasn't as on point as others.

But I don't think you understand me. Words have legal meanings. It's not a matter of "When I say 'kilt,' I mean this, therefore this is what 'kilt' means," or "There are so many different kinds of kilts that the term can't possibly be defined."

There is a multivolume work called "Words and Phrases" put out by West Publishing company that takes up about 40 feet of shelves in most law libraries. It contains the legal definitions of hundreds of thousands of words dating back hundreds of years. Some of these words were defined by the courts. Some were defined by legislatures. Some were defined by administrative agencies. Regardless of how they came to be defined, that definition is controlling as a matter of law in the applicable jurisdictions. Some of these definitions are excrutiatingly precise and have been the subject of much litigation.

So, the parliament of Scotland or the United Kingdom or the EU could easily decide that only garments with X number of yards of wool, with knife pleats across the back and made in Scotland can be sold as "kilts" within Scotland, within the United Kingdom, or within the EU. It could also decide that similar garments with box pleats are legally defined as "less than virile man skirts" and cannot be sold as anything else. I don't know that that is the perfect solution, but there is no doubt that it could be accomplished simply.

As to what "we" need to do, those of us on the western side of the Atlantic may have opinions, but are not really part of the discussion. Of course overseas sales may be an issue, but how Scots resolve these problems will be done by Scots, other British, their trade associations, their parliaments, etc.

[pdcorlis]

Game, set, and match to Mr. Newsome I believe... Well said Matt.