Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 18 December 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scots and whether it is or isn't a language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scots and whether it is or isn't a language at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scots language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scots language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Scots language was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 20, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 7, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alphabet

The alphabet is missing, also the names of the letters (e. g. a, bee, cee, dee etc.)!--31.17.153.69 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

They would perhaps be better included in Modern Scots and can be found here. 86.139.131.236 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what the blue bit on the map is? Labels! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.178.145 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Areas where the Scots language was spoken in the 20th century". This.--Connelly90 (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not; they've never been Scots-speaking areas. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we may be looking at different maps, which for some reason both use blue to represent the complete opposite things.

Although with the other map it can be assumed that the "blue bit" is areas which Scots didn't spread significantly.--Connelly90 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The alternative narrative

I'm glad we agree Mutt. Meanwhile, just for the record, and for the benefit of anyone reading our exchanges, it seems fair to point out that you are the only person who makes accusations against me of sock puppetry etc. And that it was you who used your position to prevent me from making further comments. I hardly like to mention it, but your own Wiki page uses two unflattering terms to categorise you too: one of which is 'sock puppet. I make no judgment about their truth.

But I don't want to indulge in personal attacks. Simply to see that the subject called 'The Scots Language' gets treated as a subject, and is treated objectively and in an honest and disinterested way like any other subject. And that must include information about its controversial nature. Not to do so is just advocacy for one side of an argument - something quite contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and philosophy. Indeed it is the argument and the controversy which make up much of the subject when it is looked at as a whole.

For those who are interested a vast amount of factual information which casts considerable doubt on much of the currently popular narrative can be found in James Murry's works.

Meanwhile here is just a short selection of quotes from various sources which are highly relevent to the subject of 'The Scots Language' and which do not, as yet, appear in the Wiki text. Cassandra.

“There is nocht tua nations vndir the firmament that ar mair contrar and different fra vthirs, nor is inglis men and scottis men, quoubeit that thai be vtht in ane ile, and nychbours, and of ane langage” - The Compleynt of Scotland 1549.

“...natura autem deum omnium rerum parentem opificemque sequuta Scotie et Anglie regna lingua moribus religionis consensu et vnitate inter se concordia infra vnius insule ambitum inclusit...” James VI to Scottish Parliament 26th April 1604 Procedure: commission; asking of instruments.

“Thairfore, since by the good providence of God bothe nations are in ane illand, speake on and the same language, profess on and the same religion and ar united under the same head and monarch” Instructions from the Parliament of Scotland to ‘there commissionaris’ at London 26th November 1645.

“...both nations using the one and almost the same dialect, to wit the Saxon language. And the Scots and north people of England speak more incorruptly than the south, which by reason of the Conquest and greater Commerce with foreign nations, is become more mingled and degenerate from the ancient tongue”. 1604 Henry Saville (Galloway and Leveck: 1985:213))

Joseph Justus Scaligerus 1567 “Les Escossois et Anglois parlent mesme langage Saxon, vieux Teutonique, ils se servent de mesme Bible, et ne different pas plus que le Parisien d'avec le Piccard”.

"And yet, despite these diversifying influences, which have obtained more or less for five centuries,—despite the incessant warfare, the legacy of wrongs done and suffered, and "undying hate," which were entailed from father to son, on both sides, during the first half of that period, and the remembrance of which it has taken nearly the whole of the second half entirely to efface,—the spoken tongue from York to Aberdeen is still one language, presenting indeed several well-defined sub-dialects on both sides of the Tweed, but agreeing, even in its extreme forms, much more closely than the dialect of Yorkshire does with that of Dorset. It is the old phenomenon with which ethnology has continually to deal, of a community of name concealing an actual difference, a diversity of names disguising an identity of fact". James Murray The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland 1873. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.146 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would post on your talk page if you had one as the following has relevance to you alone rather than to improving this article, it's purpose, but as you use multiple IPs and your comments imply other serious gaps in you knowledge about the mechanics of Misplaced Pages I don't imagine you would see it. Good heavens, userboxes are posted by the user, i.e. I noted on my user page that I have had various daft accusations slung at me, of being a Nazi, a sockpuppet (here, et seq if required), and both a quisling and nationalist (hopefully getting the balance right receiving the latter two). That you have had range blocks imposed several times shows that I'm not alone in clocking your behaviour.

The "language or dialect (or is the distinction meaningful)" issue is, as you well know, very prominently noted in the article (constituting almost the entire lede for a start). Your campaign can only lead one to believe that you wish the article to unambiguously come down on one side or the other; a position which would not be supportable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all Mutt. I don't wish to censor your views. I simply suggest that the whole of the subject be available and not just the 'pro' lobby's selective (and often historically questionable) version of the narrative. You simply seem to wish to censor the subject e.g. by yesterday deleting the following fact-based suggested correction/addition:

It was not a case of not understanding, but of not understanding well.

The original quote regarding Mary of Guise actually reads:

"At the first their talk was in the Scottish tongue, which the herald not well understanding, he was forced to speak French"

Exactly what this means is unclear. The account is third party. 'Scottish' at this time in England still commonly meant Scots Gaelic; but it seems improbable that this is what was meant. Yet the herald, William Flower, was a Yorkshireman whose ear one would expect to be attuned to a Scottish accent.

Rather than meaning he couldn't understand 'the Scots tongue' generally more probably it simply means he couldn't understand Mary of Guise's peculiar Scots-French very well, so he switched to speaking her native French. This seems more probable, not least since Flowers wasn't a simple 'herald' but rather the Chester Herald of Arms, a significant figure entrusted with this important diplomatic role by the Duke of Norfolk. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.104.235 (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I despair. This is not a content dispute, it is about disruptive behaviour.

One conspiracy is in your head, another is of your making. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's a 'content dispute' Mutt. The 'quote' is in fact a misquote, which as a consequence helps give a false impression of its significance. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.219 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the very top of this page. This forum stream ought to be removed really, however:

The quote is plain and uncomplicated, as are the representations in the two articles which mention the matter, History of the Scots language and William Flower (officer of arms), that Guise and Flower talked or spoke "in the "Scottish tongue" but because (Flower) could not understand...". No interpretation introduced, the omission of the word "well" only being indicative of the level not the meaning, and if there’s any element of misquote involved, the quote makes it more evident than the wording in the articles that it was specifically the Scottish tongue that he didn't understand well (“their talk was in the Scottish tongue, which the herald not well understanding…”), rather than some other element of the meeting. Your theory is entirely speculative, not evident from the quote nor advanced by a source, reliable or otherwise, so apparently yours alone. You are the one misrepresenting the quote. As you've been told countless times before, this is the wrong place for OR.

The pro-what lobby exactly? This may come as a surprise but I, for one, don't actually know what on earth would make you happy in regard to the articles on whose talk pages you post. This article, for instance, discusses a linguistic entity (language, dialect, whatever). It is unclear if you deny this entity exists at all; if you think the article should thus not exist at all and any mention of its subject; if you think it should discuss what type of linguistic entity it is - but that can't be it because it does already, prominently and at length regarding the lack of unity on a conclusion; if you wish the article to say, that there is unity on such a conclusion, and that this is aligned with your conclusion, whatever that may be but reliable sources do not show such unity as to a view or indeed to how significant the matter is; if you dislike the article title alone. If you just want to make ill-defined complaints but have no constructive and concrete suggestion for improvement of the article(s), that is not proper use of the talk pages and you should desist. Read the very top of this page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said above Mutt, I'm simply pointing out that the quote is incorrect - whilst adding helpfull information - to which I shall add here the addtional observation that the 'original' is from an 1898 transcription of an Elizabethan document, so that we can't even be sure what language the original was written in, (Latin?) let alone whether or not it is an accurate transcription. The full meaning is therefore doubly obscure.

Meanwhile, since you ask, the Scots Language is a perfectly proper subject for Misplaced Pages's pages. And I'm more than happy to go along with the Scots Language Centre's definition of it: "The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language".

What I object to - and so should any serious enquirer - is the often fanciful 'history' of the Scots language sold to a Scottish readership by Hugh MacDiermid and his accolytes in the 20th century to buttress the status of Scottish dialects in support of Scottish nationalism. To give but one example of that style of deceptive presentation: a statement such as 'Scotsmen called their language Inglis' is simply historical nonsense. They actually called the language English. 'Inglis' was just a common spelling of 'English' in both Scotland and England. There are many such examples. What's needed is serious history, not MacDiermidite pseudo-history. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.10 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The latter post is a perfect example of why what you do on talk pages is inappropriate. You come here to generally "object" (and as far as I can tell, possibly not even in regard to the content of this or any other wiki article) but you make not the vaguest suggestion at actual concrete improvement to articles. That's not what talk pages are for. You may know what the implication of your complaints would be for those articles but you leave us none the wiser in which case please stop doing this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is a third hand gloss, on a second hand transcript, of an original account. Thus it needs wording with particular care, with regard to both the wording of the referenced 19th century Calendar transcript, and the difficulty of knowing exactly what was written at first hand. Having carefully re-checked the Calendar of State Papers I suggest a substitution with:

"When an English diplomat spoke to Mary of Guise and her councillors in 1560, he is reported as speaking with her first in the 'Scottyshe toung', but then he, 'not well understanding', was obliged to continue in Mary's native French"

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.104.91 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Making no material difference whatsoever to the way the articles currently phrase it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. The present gloss is factually misleading. "When an English herald spoke to Mary of Guise and her councillors in 1560, at first they spoke in the "Scottish tongue" but because he could not understand, they continued in her native French". (i) This uses the word 'herald' in its generic sense, rather than as the formal title of the particular diplomat. (ii) it is not clear from the 19th century transcript whether 'they' refers to the Herald plus Mary and her councillors, or to the Herald and Mary alone. (iii) there is a significant, and potentially vast difference, between the meaning of 'he could not understand' and 'not well understanding'. I therefore suggest changing the wording as indicated above, or similar. Then perhaps we can move on to address one or two far more important matters of historical fact. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.102.203 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking just isn't the word for it. I'm genuinely at a complete loss to understand what your difficulty is with an understanding of the text and why you think it is of any significance to this article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you genuinely cannot understand the significance Mutt then I'm as baffled as you are. So what I will therefore simply do in a few minutes time is to amend the relevent sentence in the main text - as suggested above - so that it factually mirrors what is actually said in the 19th century transcipt to which it refers. No one can argue with that. Thereafter I suggest we delete this whole section as 'closed' and move on to some items with more meat on them. I think you will find them more interesting - and significant. Cassandra.

As usual for your forum postings there is no meat whatsoever on this and you are introducing what is best an anachronism and at worst yest another misrepresentation. Flower was a herald, why are you changing from that wording to state he was diplomat? Heralds may have been, to one degree or another, precursors of modern diplomats but it is considerably more accurate to use the term for what he actually was. Also you have made several typos. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I must disagree Mutt. The correct 21st century English word to use is diplomat. 'Herald' in this context was Flowers' title not his profession. However it's a minor point, so I won't argue it further. The relevent sentence has been changed to correctly reflect what the original transcript says and I'm content with that. My apologies for any typos. If you also are content to leave the sentence as it now is may I invite you to delete this whole section and I'll then bowl you a harder ball to catch. Merry Christmas. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.29 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good gracious - if you are calling for the above to be deleted on the basis of its utter inappropriateness as forum chat and OR, fantastic, but why did you even start in the first place? But as you have expressed an intention to continue with your forum campaign you clearly haven't grasped it and can I reiterate that you should stop now - no more of your balls please. The edit history would still be there so if you're trying to cover your tracks, that won't work. This isn't a game, you don't know what my opinion is on anything, you can't thus presume to know something I will disagree with on a factual basis, only on the basis that your musings are consistently unsupported and misrepresentative on whatever matter you land upon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

...and regarding that I left the alteration from "Scottish tongue" to "Scottyshe toung"; the modern orthography of the paraphrase is perfectly adequate, but as the orthography of the quote is the latter, either will do. There is however not a jot of difference in the substance of the facts, just the orthography. So your insistence on the supposedly crucial importance of such a correct but superfluous change, towards the verbatim, is hardly consistent with asserting that what is referred to in the quote as a herald be altered to refer to him as something it does not say, a diplomat; a change from the verbatim and of substance. To reiterate, I'm not arguing against your point on the matter of this quote because I've not the foggiest what the point actually is, but the changes you are advocating, for whatever reason, are, as usual, not sound. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Focused broad Scots

What is "focused broad Scots"? It sounds like an oxymoron. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I removed "focused" since it just confuses things. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith's accent

I wanted to mention that reading this article, I got the impression that Adam Smith was very much against anything but standard English. But Smith was in fact "a member of the Select Club where he cooperated in preserving the Scottish language against English inroads and in increasing native literary production; as an editor of the Edinburgh Review, he glorified traditions peculiar to Scotland; as a founder of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he dedicated himself to Scottish nationalism." This quote is from page 343 on the following link:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1053043?uid=3738032&uid=363698621&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=60&sid=21103759346773

Given this, I think the impression given of Smith by mentioning him in the context of feeling almost ashamed of his accent is potentially misleading.

Daniel Matthews-Ferrero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.211.66 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to view the quote in question with that link but it's also here. That does seem to contradict the ref at Scuilwab, both reliable sources. Both discuss language rather than accent though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is scuilwab really reliable? "Picts frae the Pentland hills to the Pentland Firth" is contradicted by Manaw Gododdin, weel ayont the Pentlands. Equating Smith's support for Scottish cultural identity with Scottish nationalism seems questionable, and a glance at his better known writings suggests he avoided Scotticisms in his more technical writings. The popularity in Edinburgh at that time of elocution lessons in English suggests there was some feeling that spoken Scots was at best old-fashioned, but we'd really need something better on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the Edinburgh Review glorifying the traditions peculiar to Scotland, his 1755 letter shows no evidence of Scots terms. Perhaps a later example can be found? . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As Scuilwab seems to be produced by Scottish Language Dictionaries it certainly ought to be a WP:RS, though they seem to be using a bit of poetic licence in the instance you site above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the subject of Adam Smith’s accent is a minefield of potential misunderstandings. For Hume, Smith et al. there were sound self-promotional and commercial reasons for expunging Scotticisms from their works. As Kurt Wittig explained in 'The Scottish Tradition in Literature', "English was now the dominant language in a United Britain, and since they made it their object to capture, in London and on the Continent, a market for Scottish books, it was obligatory for them to write English, as best they could". (Wittig could have made things even clearer if he had written "southern educated English".) According to James Buchan ('Capital of the Mind', 2003), the intention "was not to sacrifice Scottish national culture to southern politics, but by making it general, cosmopolitan, classical, businesslike, polite and loyal, to promote it. These were energetic and ambitious Scots who wanted to act on the British and colonial stage; and for that they thought they must themselves adopt the speech of the metropolis".

The Cunningham Wood statements have to treated with great caution, as he does not define what he means by "Scottish nationalism" in the context of Smith's time. I suspect he means that Smith dedicated himself to promoting national identity (to be fair he does state "national tradition" at the start of the passage), but this should not be confused with any other aspects of the later 19th-century ideology labelled "nationalism".

I agree with Dave questioning the reliability of the Scuilwab material. This is one of those attempts, like Scots Misplaced Pages, to create an artificial language on a par with Esperanto and pass it off as "Scots". One isn’t quite sure if it’s a hoax by someone enjoying a good p***-take. As a Scot, my first instinct is to laugh at it, but then I feel like crying when I realise the desperation it represents.

The Scuilwab article is in fact in standard written English (it lacks the flavour of someone thinking in idiomatic Scots) interpolated with Scottish speech rendered in written form.

There are many terms that would never be encountered in an older text in Scots because they are relatively modern coinings. Scots equivalents either don’t exist or have been eschewed: authorities / ventured / mercenaries / generation / dominance / incursions / establishment / extensively / feudal system / government / numerically / immigration / encouraged / refugees / occasionally / typesetters / commercial / insidiously / intensified / elocutionists / energetically / pronunciation / vocabulary / grammatical. (We must be careful, however, not to identify these as loan-words from English, rather than shared by both Scottish and southern English.)

There are terms that seem acquired through exposure to a modern higher education: the language situation in Scotland / social situation / upper echelons of society / tradin(g) environment / state occasions / reflection on the inadequacy of (why not "o" here?) / formulaic introduction / registers / economically, socially and politically / upward social mobility / attributes of a standard language / significant contribution / influenced by the historical influences / proscribed language / social handicap / university level /research

There are normal English words rendered phonetically merely as they would sound when pronounced by some Scots: intermairryin / coonty/ presteegious (ridiculously juxtaposed with authoritative) / yiss.

And there are ludicrous archaisms such as "no sae lang syne".

There are also missed opportunities for using Scots: prosperous (why not "weel-to-do"?) / yaised, yisses (why not the Scots forms "uised, uises") / pairliament (why not "pairlament"?) / school (why not "schuil"?) / similar comments (why not "like sayins"?) / remained (why not "stayed"?)

It would never have occurred to Hume. Smith et al. to write as they spoke. They came from a tradition in which educated discourse had moved from being conducted in Latin to being conducted in English, i.e. their own English, not a southern variety of it and certainly not a Robert Burns-style rural dialect. They would have believed they were writing in English, not in Scots. With growing discourse with the South in a united Britain, it would however have become clear that some terms with which they were comfortably familiar in their variety of English would not be understood in the south, and that is probably what is meant by "Scotticisms" in the context of their writings. Take for example a term common in Scots law like "anent" (referring to, regarding). That is the kind of word Hume, Smith et al. would have expunged from their writings if it were pointed out to them. Their desire to remove Scotticisms from their publications tells us nothing about their everyday speech within their own company and with their fellow countrymen. In the absence of a contemporary description, we simply cannot know what their normal speech was like from our distance in time.

I recently read a work by a St. Andrews University professor in which he used "anent" quite naturally and appropriately throughout his text. This would strike some readers as an odd archaism, yet his writing is a more honest way of keeping Scots alive than the pastiche produced by Scuilwab and others like him. If it is true that the Scottish Language Dictionaries team is behind such efforts, they should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting this drivel on the world. Kim Traynor | Talk 11:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily disgree with much of what you say about the style of Scots Scuilwab employs but the issue here is its reliability as a source, on the subject of Adam Smith's use or avoidance of Scots. That it expresses it linguistically in a way that may be open to criticism isn't pertinent in respect of the factual content. I'm neither supporting or questioning its reliability but, unless its claim to be a product of SLD is spurious, that link ought to make it in Wiki terms a WP:RS, or someone at SLD needs a talking to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Matt, I understood that Dave was raising the question of how reliable the article is in terms of what it is asserting on a particular point. In respect of Adam Smith's English, all that source does is repeat stock knowledge that Hume and Smith were keen to remove Scotticisms from their published works, as you would expect them to do. The fact that they did so does not tell us to what degree this influenced their attitude to spoken Scots and their own speech. I agree with Daniel above that it would be wrong to imply that Smith was in any way ashamed of the way he spoke, even though it was an age of self-improvement in many fields, not least language usage. Kim Traynor | Talk 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

With you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There must be better sources than this Phd thesis from 1952, but if it has some validity then pp. 75–76 and 166–170 give support to Kim's view. The enlightenment writers took up what we could call standard English as a way of getting their work valued and recognised across a broad market, with instances of such success that Johnson conceded that "the Scotch write English wonderfully well". Speaking in the Scottish vernacular resulted in difficulties, as in the anecdote of a gentleman's daughter being unaware that Love for Love was smutty as 'it was high English, and I did not understand it", and Kames recounting how when three of the Lords of Justiciary spoke to the House of Lords, one was hardly intelligible, the second was not elegant but his meaning well comprehended, and of the third, who had claimed to have made the English language his particular study, "Deil ae word, from beginning to end, did the English understand of his speech." Lest we focus too much on Scottish, Sheridan's publicity pointed to the difficulty which "natives of different kingdoms and counties, that speak a corrupt dialect of English, find in the attainment of the right pronunciation of that tongue." Geordie, Somerset Irish or Welsh dialects were also "corrupt" in this view.

In short, rather than attempting to rid themselves of their Scots in a bid to establish standard English as the official language of the newly formed union, they actively promoted a standard English as the official language of the union, removing their Scotticisms both in writing and speech so that they were fully understood by the educated classes who spoke an emerging standard English rather than a regional dialect. Perhaps that nuance isn't supported by better sources, but it makes more sense. Worth reviewing, I think.

There was a partial revival in the early 19th century with Scott popularising vernacular dialogue in a standard English setting. I'm currently reading John Galt whose 1820s books, written in character, are in standard English incorporating Scotticisms such as "ayont". Many of these words had me reaching for the dictionary, others such as "stramash" seem surprisingly modern. Galt was clearly writing at a time when standard English was normal in prose, but local character could be readily evoked with vernacular dialogue. . . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

IP edits by "TY" the "orig. auth."

The IP identifying as "TY" asserts that longstanding apparently sourced material in the article is POV pushing and removes it. That they include the actual removal of a source in their edits (regarding material they don't like?) would cast suspicion on this assertion. There is no one "orig. auth." to the article but countless ones and as this editor edits under different IPs, if they are referring to an earlier edit or edits by them, in which they introduced a different and supposedly accurate reflection of the sources, it is thus not possible to spot this. As far as I can tell the IP is not referring to recent substantial changes, so if they feel the sources are not reflected accurately, it is incumbent on them to lay out what the sources do actually say and/or where the edits are which have compromised them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think "TY" means Thank You? They have their IP, at least.

I guess they meant they wrote that part? I don't know, but they would pay attention to it. I think it lays with them what to do, and how could they show the source?

So, I don't see anything needing to be done. You should talk to THEM, instead of just pushing your own views and continuing pointless edit wars because you don't believe someone when they claim to be the author or that part. Remember - assume good faith!185.37.86.148 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok.

Indeed I guess they do mean they wrote it, which is why I ask them above to identify the edit or edits in question in which they claim to have introduced the material.

Removal of sourced material and citations without explanation (and the expectation that this will be repeated, which it was, whether these IPs are the same editor or not) is clearly something "needing to be done". This is nothing to do with my views but with the removal of material apparently based on reliable sources. The views of reliable sources count, not yours or mine.

I am talking to "THEM" above. As the matter regards this article, this is the appropriate place to discuss it but even if it was something for them as an individual, as they edit from different IPs, they don't have a user talk page to address.

Assuming good faith about a problematic edit clearly does not necessitate allowing it to remain and compromise the integrity of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the Introduction

The second paragraph of the Summary strikes me as unsound. It states that "Because there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots" - yet the source it gives is dated 1992. Since then, there has been, from what I can tell, a significant increase in its recognition as a language -- does it strike no one else as tenuous to source something over twenty years old, especially with Scotland having been so politically lively for these past 15 years?

It also says, "Broad Scots is at one end of a bipolar linguistic continuum, with Scottish Standard English at the other", going on to say "Consequently, Scots is generally regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English, yet it has its own distinct dialects". The linguistic continuum is merely the degree of dilution of Scots with English, or vice versa, isn't it? Whereas the article takes this as implying Scots falls within English - which would be POV-pushing. For example - the Norn language underwent centuries of dilution with Scots, until its extinction - this does not preclude Norn's status as a language. Not to mention that the source for Scots being "generally regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English" is the same one of 1992 origin discussed above...

Finally, the survey cited, in which it is claimed 64% of respondents "don't really think of Scots as a language" seems quite slanted for agreement, does it not? Anyone amending or adding to this article would, presumably, be aware of Scots' status as a language questionably existing, let alone being widely reflected in pragmatic terms of use and education in real-life. Had the survey asked "don't think of Scots as a language" then there would be no issue, but asking "don't really think of Scots as a language" gives this humming-and-hawwing vibe of "Well, I guess, not really". Given its pitiful formal recognition and institutional establishment, this is a potent amplification to thoughts of dismissal, and, because of this, strikes me as a flimsy source. However, if there are no other (reputable) surveys to be found, it is preferable to having none.

What do you think?

178.191.31.129 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The twenty year old source is a high quality and reliable one (though it would be interesting to know the exact wording if anyone has it). To go any way to contradicting it a source of similar quality which specifically states that there is no longer any such disagreement would be required, or to a much lesser extent at the very least, and even then, that there was such disagreement until recently would be worth keeping in the article, cited with the 1992 source. Unless and until there is such a new source, the wording should stay. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we continue, are you going to respond to the rest? 62.46.249.15 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My post from yesterday largely adresses your first paragraph. Regarding your second paragraph, I can see how you arrive at your impression that this passage of the article "imply(s) Scots falls within English" but think rather its intent is that, being closely associated with a much higher profile tongue (on a linguistic continuum with it), it is treated (regarded) as a variety thereof, without taking sides as to whether it is or not. That said, I think the text could be clearer about this but without knowing the wording of the "bipolar linguistic continuum" sentence's citation (Stuart-Smith) or the one for the following "ancient varieties of English" sentence (Aitken), it is a little difficult to comment on how the text of the article represents them.

This passage, or something very similar, is longstanding in the lede but was unreferenced until this edit in June 2009. It would be interesting to know exactly what aspects of the pre-existing text are supported by the citations and I wonder if some unintentional synthesis crept in. Stuart-Smith apparently simply states that Scots and English are on a continuum. However it is unclear whether the Aitken source states that he himself, as an expert in the field of Scots lexicography, regards Scots as a variety of English or if he is noting that some regard it so (interestingly, the wording of the article added at the same time as the citation in June 2009 says "often regarded" and not "generally", per the current wording). It is also unclear that Aitken links it being so-regarded to it being on a continuum, in which case the word "consequently" (existent in the text from before the addition of citations, so no doubt unintentionally) synthesises such a link that is not stated in either source and thus should be removed. As the subsequent sentence regarding an entirely variant view of Scots (per Norwegian and Danish) is also from Aitken, it would thus seem he is commenting on the lack of agreement in views on the matter, not his own view. The wording of the citations would be immensely helpful in this regard, if anyone has access.

(Incidentally, that there is the dilution you refer to may well be the case but, to my understanding, that is not really what a linguistic continuum is about.)

Regarding your third paragraph on the text in the lede regarding public attitudes, whatever one thinks of the methodology of the study, this is what it reported and as a government study it can't simply be dismissed. If there are other reliable sources on public attitudes, or criticisng the methodology of this study, they could be included in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you haven't actually responded to my first paragraph, in which I attacked the source's unsuitable age. You responded by saying it's reliable? The presence of other sources is irrelevant, if the source in question is unsuitable - though is perhaps relevant in the context of its lack of recognition in past.

As for sources on it now being universally recognized as a language by all relevant authorities, http://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/facts-about-scotland/, a tourism-site operated by the Scottish government, lists it as an independent language.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCultureSport/arts/Scots. The official website /of the Scottish government/ recognizes it as a language.

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/knowledgeoflanguage/scots/introducingscots/index.asp - "Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish and UK Governments and by the European Union.".

Scots is recognized by multiple entities of the Scottish government, the UK government, and the European Union, as a minority language of Europe. Yet none of these sources, bar the EU's recognition with the UK's consent, is mentioned within the article.

I am hard-pressed to find any sources disputing its status as a language other than "Scholars disagree whether Scots is a genuine dialect or a language" - a claim unsourced in itself and part of a condescending, unreliable article for the Daily Mail. It, itself, claims the "Scots dialect" to be "little used", despite 30% of Scots claiming knowledge, I believe.

Do you not think, therefore, that this article is ridiculously distant from reality? No doubt, there are a multitude of grey-haired scholars who grumble over the Scottish, UK and EU governments acknowledging Scots as a language as it was historically - but reading this article, with these extremely pertinent recognitions in the thick of the article and given as far-from-definitive and not presented in the introduction, one would infer that its status is doubted /far/ more than it actually is. There is some work to be done on the presentation of Scots' status and recognition in the real world.

I can see now what the Author may have been trying to say, though there is still unaddressed the issue of its relevance with regard to age.

In response to the end of your second paragraph, yeah, it would be handy were there some access to the source online, but Google returns nothing.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wQucr4-cllwC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+English+Language+aitken&source=bl&ots=9w9tmc2FJT&sig=P5bdyjH1yhntgOgtt07CJt8cEHk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=78SNVNCZMZHY7AbZt4HABw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=aitken&f=false - If you click on Page 150 in this link, there are multiple sources regarding Scots, and Aitkens is shown to think Scots a 'semi-language' - clearly, he does not think it a mere dialect, so your thoughts on him regarding it as being recognized as such by others and the lack of agreement, as of 1992, is likely.

"(Incidentally, that there is the dilution you refer to may well be the case but, to my understanding, that is not really what a linguistic continuum is about.)". Two entities, one to varying degrees mixed with the other. Does that not sum up a linguistic continuum pretty well?

The problem with is indeed what is reported - that, regardless of its commission by the government, we, as independent observers, can recognize fault, in its flimsy presentation and bias, as I discussed and stands unrefuted. Another relevant study - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/most-scots-want-the-mither-tung-taught-in-schools-1.998834. This seems like it would belong in the article - as it highlights Scots' importance to the people, as well as 85% using it at least on occasion. Regardless, though, it is as I stated better left included, in the lack of more reliable studies. Google returns no formal criticism of the phrasing. 193.81.44.248 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a source, particularly one from such an authorative scholar on the subject as A. J. Aitken, as being of an "unsuitable age" at only 22 years is not a sound line. The view as to whether a tongue is a dialect or language is at the very least strongly influenced by politics (as you recognise), so reflecting any change in the last 22 years is at least in great part down to political changes rather than anything linguistic or scholarly. It hasn't suddenly become a language (or become a dialect) when it wasn't one before. There is still not universal agreement on the matter so it is appropriate that the article say so. There may well be room for expanding on this in the article but that there is a diversity of opinion should be reflected. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

...Forgot: your understanding of a linguistic continuum is not mine. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The pertinence of the source has not been doubted in regard to who produced it, but rather, when it was produced, and you, yourself, I would expect to concur with me wholeheartedly in thinking 22 years a long time in Scottish abstraction in this 21st century, especially politics and cultural awareness/change. Were one to view such a timeframe on a cosmic scale, then it is, indeed, a non-relevance; but, with the advent of these numerous distinctions by authoritative bodies not present twenty-two years ago and its increasingly prominent role in the curriculum, I struggle to see how you could claim it's not been a fair wee while, relatively, since Aitken put to paper his musings and knowledge on the subject.

You go on to discuss how the nature of a speech is, in theory, set as Language or Dialect not by politics but by sovereign linguistic merit. But then, what do you say to the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian tongues? How do you refer to the Croatian and Serbian speeches? Are Ukrainian and Belorussian listed in your mental factbook as perversions of Russian? Q.E.D., politics /does/ play a relevant role in the distinction of languages among dialects. Were the Kalmar Union in tact to this day, there would doubtless be ~20 million speakers of "Scandinavian" (in fact, "Scandinavian" is taught to pupils in Iceland as a general form of the Danish language, I believe). Had the pair got on, they'd all speak Serbo-Croat (in fact, it is only partially recognised as a language to this day, and in hushed tones among the world's embassies), etc. You see now that we do not live in a world where Norwegians speak Danish, or Scandinavian - but Norwegian, and should you navigate to Norwegian's entry, you will not see its status as a language doubted in the introduction, nor, I should think, in the entire article, other than flat remarks about its close intelligibility with Swedish and Danish.

Therefore, it can safely be concluded that politics is relevant, and with an ever-growing proportion of Scots identifying as Scottish or Scottish only, as well as the swelling matter of nationality and nationhood - I feel no need to source this - the importance of Scots to the Scots as a matter of national pride, distinguishing them from a motley ~60,000 Gaelic speakers and other members of the Union, is salient, regardless of recognition. It would thus seem justification for its classification as a language has grown. This, I offer as a mere example of how we /must/ consider the political dimension to classification of tongue, and, in doing so, hope to illustrate to you why this dimension is pertinent - perhaps more so, in this instance - than scholarly consideration or linguistic divergence.

Scots, in its nascent stage of growth from Northern English, was referred to by natives as "Inglis", among various other spellings, until after further continuing its development, had diverged from the other Anglic speeches of Great Britain that it was recognised - widely regarded, as the article states - as a sister tongue to English. With the union's creation, it was cast aside as naughty dialect and left to rot, and, in this unparalleled age of scholarly pursuit, I think few would deny its increasing re-recognition as its own entity. Does this not convince you further of, well, not only the importance of the scholarly angle in our discussion regarding the introduction's presentation of the situation, but politics, too, showing, as the article itself tells, how key it is to perception of peoples and their languages?

I acknowledge there is a lack of consent, but, I will reiterate, I believe the article poorly reflects the current status of the entity in a very one-sided portrayal of its situation. We seem to be in agreement that its contentious nature be explained, and possibly of one mind that there is poor clarity and inaccurate implication presented to the reader.

Lastly, I thought the definition of a linguistic continuum to be fairly obvious, and in response to your initial comment on my reference to it, sought a definitive one, and was satisfied with what I found. Please explain yourself as opposed to merely voicing disagreement - we can't resolve a misunderstanding if we don't know what it is! 62.178.45.55 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Scots Language: Inconvenient Truths

This who read the head of this page will see that "This is not a forum for general discussion about Scots and whether it is or isn't a language."

The consequence of that ban is that much of the story of the Scots language remains untold - in particular all factual and historical material which might cast doubts, and indeed raise eyebrows, about the subject is effectively being censored.

To address the problem I've posted an essay 'Scots Language: Inconvenient Truths' on my own wikipage. It contains much, but very far from all, of the information about which wikipedians are currently being left in the dark. I very much hope it will suggest some improvements to these pages. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Scotland articles
• Top-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Mid-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles