Scots don't speak English!

> ... isn't it *you* who are saying *this*

> > is not English? The best laid schemes and > > a Steinbeck novel have jumped out of it so be careful :) > > > > Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, > > O, what a panic's in thy breastie! > > Thou need na start awa sae hasty, > > Wi' bickering brattle! > > I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee > > Wi' murd'ring pattle! > > I am, but it has nothing to do with whether I could understand a > speaker of Scots when I heard him speak. I identify Scots as a > separate language from English because I have read serious > linguistic arguments which have convinced me that it is.

Do other people agree? Can someone summarise this "serious linguistic" argument? Do Geordies speak English or Scousers? My flabber is seriously McGhasted!

[Cross-post to uk.finance in the hope of pinging Ronald Raygun who is on the ground (as it were) and can bring us a first hand report].
Reply to
Troy Steadman
Loading thread data ...

On 19 Jul 2005, Troy Steadman wrote

As I understand it, whilst there's a language called "Scots", that's a completely different creature than what Burns was writing in.

Reply to
Harvey Van Sickle

Is it this > ...Scots is a sister language to

"Howp ye enjoy whit we hae tae offer".

Sounds awfully like: "Hope you enjoy what we have to offer".

"An Innin tae Modren Scots (in English)".

Erm..."An Introduction to Modern Scots"?

"Scots texts for thaim that's efter lairnin Scots or for thaim that haes it an is efter enjoyin hit".

"Scots texts for them that's after learning Scots or for them that has it and is after enjoying it?"

He he he.

Reply to
Troy Steadman

For more in the same vein, see the Scots version of the Scottish Parliament website:

formatting link

Reply to
Andrew Taylor

Concisely answered in Anthony Burgess's book A Mouthful of Air, the common man's guide to language scientist (by an uncommon author.)

Reply to
Don Phillipson

I'm not sure I understand the final question. Is that 'Do Geordies speak English or do they speak Scousers?' or is it 'Do Geordies speak English or do Scousers speak English?'?

Reply to
Linz

Yes.

Reply to
Troy Steadman

Do you mean yes that was the question, or that the answer to the question is yes?

Reply to
Blackthorn

Which question?

"Divvent Gardies speeks English pet?" "Duz yer Gerdie talk Scouse like?"

Reply to
Troy Steadman

I tend to.

The _Oxford Companion to the English Language_ say, near the beginning of their long article on Scots,

Scholars and other interested persons have difficulty agreeing on the linguistic, historical, and social status of Scots. Generally, it is seen as one of the ancient dialects of English, yet it has distinct and ancient dialects of its own. Sometimes it has been little more than an overspill noted in the discussion of English as part of the story of English. Sometimes it has been called the English of Scotland, part of general English yet often in contrast with it, and different from the standard English taught in Scottish schools. Sometimes it has been called a Germanic language in its own right, considered as distinct from its sister in England in the same way that Swedish is distinct from Danish. In addition, in its subordinate relationship with the English of England, its position has been compared to Frisian in the Netherlands (dominated by Dutch) and Norwegian (once dominated by Danish). In _The Languages of Britain_ (1984), Glanville Price notes:

In planning and writing this book, I have changed my mind four times, and, in the end, I devote a separate chapter to Scots not because I necessarily accept that it is a 'language' rather than a 'dialect' but because it has proved to be more convenient to handle it thus than include some treatment of it in the chapter on English.

Whatever it is, Scots is distinct enough to stand alone in this way. Despite the controversy, it has since the beginning of the 18c been the object of scholarly investigation and those scholars who have specialized in its study divide its history into three periods: _Old English_ (to 1100); _Older Scotts_ (1100-1700), divided into _Early Scots_ (1100-1450) and _Middle Scots_ (1450- 1700); and _Modern Scots_ (1700 onwards).

Taking 1100 as the date of the split, that would put it on par with Yiddish, another language that has had to defend its status as a separate language over the years.

They conclude

With its own history, dialects, and literature, Scots is something more than a dialect yet something less than a fully-fledged langauge. A wide linguistic distance lies between it and standard English, the poles of speech in most of Scotland. By and large, spoken and written Scots are difficult for non-speakers, and require an investment of effort. As a result, use of Socts in mixed company can make 'monolingual' English speakers feel excluded. In the larger European context, the situation of Scots resembles that of Frisian in the Netherlands, Nynorsk in Norwegian, Occitan in relation to French in France, and Catalan in relation to Spanish in Spain.

Reply to
Evan Kirshenbaum

It's a vexed argument. I incline to the view that if someone produces a reasonable definition of what is a language and what a dialect, then they should be able to show which category contains the object of their study. I wouldn't be surprised to find some [tongues] [1] in both. Perhaps a practical test would be to have certificates available for those who can show, through course work and / or under examination conditions, that they can comprehend passages in the chosen tongue and write original prose in it. And for those who claim competence in more than one tongue, exercises in translation from one to the other. If we are dealing with a language, it should be simple to grade the work. A dialect would be more difficult.

[1] Is there a word we can use which doesn't prejudge the issue? As in "Here is a list of . Decide which are languages and which dialects."

I must confess, however, that a "language" I can understand without ever having formally learned it seems to fit a definition of dialect better than of a language. Stuff on the web written in Scots is scarcely harder for me to understand than stuff written as Scottish dialect.

Reply to
John Dean

There have been regular and long, often heated discussions on soc.culture.scottish about its status. Try google for a flavour of some of them.

You may understand it in writing, but you would have more difficulty in understanding it when spoken, without the time or contextual clues to interpret it. A test for me would also be whether you could speak, or write it without studying it.

Isn't Scottish dialect just a variant of Scots, as cockney is a dialect of English?

There are distinct recognised versions of Scots- my own one being the Doric, the North-East of Scotland version.

Neb

Reply to
Nebulous

Thirty years ago you would regularly come across Scotsmen (esp Glaswegians), Geordies, Scousers and for some reason Wolverhamptonites who were completely incomprehensible, their dialect being so strong.

Maybe I'm more used to the dialects now, but I suspects the dialects are being diluted by the Aussie soap culture which is universal culture in the UK.

It is rather sad to listen to Welsh radio or French radio for that matter: "Llan..phwy...computer...ogogh...BMW..."

...but to have words "made up" as the Scots are doing is...er...pathetic. It's all the Aussies fault, thank God we're going to give them a good thrashing today!

Reply to
Troy Steadman

I'm glad to see that the bomb at the Oval tube station is not being allowed to interfere with the cricket two hundred yards away.

Reply to
Peter Duncanson

That game is at Lord's.

Reply to
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich

Some Texas cowboys with a big branding iron?

Reply to
sharky

If they're asking people not to move around how do you think turfing

30,000 on to the streets is going to help?

Two weeks ago I was talking in this group about the baleful effects of Kings Cross, Boadicea's body and the St Gile Burial Grounds. The last series of bombs turned out to be a "blazing cross" centred on Kings Cross, the above-ground explosion on a bus to the North and underground explosions East, South and West.

This seems to be another "blazing cross" pattern with the overground explosion in the NE.

Must mean something to someone. Any Miss Marples's able to crack the case?

Reply to
Troy Steadman

I realised that -- but too late.

I had been misled by a BBC studio android asking an on-the-spot reporting android whether the cricket had been affected. This happened just after my wife had been talking to me about the latest excitement in the match [yawn].

Reply to
Peter Duncanson

Blazing Cross -- the Ku Klux Klan is responsible, perhaps?

On the other hand your geography is slightly askew.

The fourth, overground blast was not in the NE.

Blast 1 was to the E. Blast 3 was to the W Blast 2 was approx equidistant from 1 and 3 and slightly to the N Blast 4 was slightly SW of 2

Blast 1, 2 and 3 formed a flattened triangle with Blast 4 inside the triangle.

This representation might work:

2 4 3 1
Reply to
Peter Duncanson

The blast has blown Oval north of Shepherds Bush and Bethnal Green?

Reply to
Troy Steadman

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.