> ... 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].
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?'?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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].
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.