Talk:Scots language/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've removed the following and replaced it with some grammar. If offended just put it back.

"An example of Glaswegian Scots would be:

D'ye ken, hen?

D'ye means Do you, ken means know, and hen means hen which is a common way for a man or woman to address a woman.

The article on Glasgow contains other examples of the Glasgow dialect.

In North East Scots (Doric) the same question would become

Div ye ken, quine? [kw@in] (SAMPA)

'Hen' is not used in Aberdeen. The word quine, used for all women, is related to the Standard English word, queen." -- 217.225.25.95

Well done! You have dramatically improved the article. Thanks -- Derek Ross

I've never heard 'quine' used in an address, in the way 'hen' is used.

Hiv ye nae ? Weel, weel, I hiv, bit then I wis brocht up in Aiberdeen and roond aboot, sae I heard wummen cried "quine" jist lik the Gleswegians cry them "hen", a' the time. A quine's mebbe nae quite as auld as a hen, bit there's nae muckle in't. A've nivver heard "Hen" eesed in Doric ava'. Fowk aye eese "quine". -- Derek Ross 06:23, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't think 'hen' necessarily refers to an older woman. I've heard neds call female neds 'hen', and I've heard older women call young girls 'hen', but I don't think it's socially acceptable for a younger person to call an older woman 'hen', since it would be too familiar. -i.m.

Aberdeen has a much closer relationship with its rural hinterland than the other Scots cities. That is why I did not include Aberdeen with the other Scots cities. The dialect of Aberdeen is still very much the dialect of the countryside surrounding it. This is not so true of the other cities and that's why they should not be lumped together. -- Derek Ross

Contents

D'ye Ken...in Glasgow no' likely

i've just read the article on Scots language which appears to be fairly accurate apart from the part where Glaswegian Scots uses the word ken(know). I'm sorry but that term just simply is not used in Glasgow or anywhere in West Central Scotland, that term is primarily an east coast and central term.

Quines 'n' Loons

The above poster is, I think, correct. Maybe historically 'ken' was used in Glasgow, but I live here now, and I've never heard anyone use it--most Glaswegians tend to associate it with Edinburgh and Aberdeen. One Glaswegian I spoke to said he had a mate called Ken, who couldn't understand how everyone in Aberdeen knew his name without need for introduction... :-)

Btw, it was me that said I'd never heard 'quine' used in an address in Aberdeen. When I'm standing at a bus stop in Glasgow, I often hear people say "how you doin', hen?" or "you alright, hen?", but I never heard anything like that with 'quine' in the seven years I lived in Aberdeen. I did hear the phrase 'paper quine' (referring to the lassie who delivers the newspapers, as opposed to 'paper loon'), but I never heard anyone call anyone else 'quine' *directly*.

I got the impression that in Aberdeen, 'quine' has slightly comic/mildly insulting implications, possibly related to the phrase 'Torry quine', i.e. a silly parochial girl from the village of Torry, historically south of (now in) Aberdeen. 'The Torry Quine' is also the sobriquet of Aberdonian comedienne, June Imray, whose (recently re-released on CD) LPs are a great source of the Doric language (along with the Scotland The What? LPs). Four of Imray's comic songs have 'quine' in the title: 'The Torry Quine', 'The Cafe Quine's Lament', 'The Quine Who Does The Strip At Inverurie', and 'The Torry Quine Again'.

                                                              -i.m.

I take your point on "ken". I wasn't aware of it as an east-west thing though. Surely people in Ayrshire or Dumfriesshire still use it ? It would be interesting to know. In any case if the phrase in the article is wrong, it should be changed to something more correct.

As for "quine", my relatives in Aberdeen, Buchan and Peterhead still happily use "min", "loon", or "quine", as terms of direct address when speaking to other Doric speakers, although not when speaking "properly" or to non-Doric speakers. Perhaps, your experience is just a reflection of the sad fact that fewer people in Aberdeen use Doric as a matter of course nowadays. I'm not sure what effect the Torry Quine would have had on matters. I'm used to hearing "quine" used in non-comic contexts and I certainly don't feel that "quine" has worse connotations than previously but since you feel that it does, perhaps other people who generally hear the word used in comic songs rather than day-to-day conversation feel the same way. -- Derek Ross

United Kingdom article

Will someone add the Scots name on the table in the article United Kingdom, please? --Kaihsu Tai 22:07, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy about that. I amn't aware that there is an official name for the UK in Scots. I suppose that you could translate "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" word-for-word. In fact that is what seems to have been done for the Ulster Scots version of the name so the best idea would probably be just to remove the word "Ulster" since Ulster Scots is Scots. Mind you I'd still like to know where that particular translation came from. -- Derek Ross 03:22, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The old version of the article was a very easily readable introduction to the subject and indeed the concept (and its politics). The version with the linguistic technical data, my eyes fall off the page trying to read it. Is the linguistic stuff shiftable to a sub-article? - David Gerard 11:51, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Done; created History of the Scots language (following heading form of History of the English Language) and moved all the phonetic development details there. Elf 04:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent :-) Must track down more info on the politics of the dialect/language (and there's some politics right there) - or someone who can write something encyclopaedic on the subject. - David Gerard 11:16, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Scots official ?

Since when has Scots been an official language in Scotland? I may be wrong but I'd appreciate some sources to back that up. It was also written: "although the Scottish Parliament makes legislation available in Scots, as well as English and Gaelic". What legislation? Apart from a leaflet and a report to the Sport an Education comittee I am not aware of any legislation made available in Scots. 11.09.04 -- Anonymous

And I'd like to know what you're talking about. I don't see anywhere in the article that claims that Scots is an official language in Scotland. The only claim about "officiality" is that it was the official language of the original Scottish Parliament and if you want sources for that, take a look at any Scottish Act prior to 1603. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

There was a previous version that had this information in the box giving info about the language. The person who added it has since removed it realising this information was flawed. Ony moose

History?

A bit more about the history of the language would be welcome... —Ashley Y 05:15, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it's in a separate article. Never mind... —Ashley Y 05:17, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Lowland Scots

Is the pedantic insertion of Lowland before Scots really necessary. Is anyone really going to confuse it with highland Scots?

You forgot to change Ulster Scots to Ulster Lowland Scots!

Seamus P. Dantic

Calling it Lowland Scots is common courtesy since Scotland does not have one language.
I think the qualification is called for not due to a highland/lowland distinction but because the terms "Lowland Scots" and "Scots Gaelic" both exist. Though "Scots" alone only refers to the Germanic language, it is much more confusing for people who are just beginning to learn about Scotland and her languages. — Hippietrail 11:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think this actually only adds to the confusion. The terms Scots, Lallans and Gaelic are perfectly adequate without adding more qualifiers. You can have Scots/Scottish Gaelic if you really must, but why complicate matters? — Moilleadóir 17:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Erm Gaelic is not perfectly adequate. It means Irish and Manx as well, not the Scottish form exclusively. Gaidhlig might be okay.
Central Belters think they're the whole bloody country like. Imagine if Highlanders started calling their language "Scottish" what the folk in Glasgow and Edinburgh would start to say.

Calling the language Lowland Scots implies that Highlanders don't speak it. And that's not my experience. Some folk living in the North and the West Highlands speak Gaelic as well, of course, but then so do some Edinburghers. Scots is common throughout rural Scotland, Lowland and Highland, so it doesn't make sense to call it Lowland Scots. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:11, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Flit?

Not sure that "flit" is a donation to English. Flit means "move house" in Scotland, but in English is darting about, moving quickly etc, a wee bit different. Same origin, different meaning... like "reek" never meant "stink" in Scots.

What does "reek" mean in Scots? "Smell" as in German and Dutch , or "smoke" as in Old Norse(?)/Scandinavian (cognates)? (Possibly something other?)
Reek means smoke as in the Scots New Year saying Lang may yer lum reek meaning Long may your chimney smoke -- or as in Edinburgh's nickname Auld Reekie meaning Old smoky -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:47, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

"Little Doubt"?

The following piece I find very POV:

There is little doubt that, had Scotland remained independent, Lowland Scots would be regarded as a separate language from English. This has happened in Norway with Norwegian. Norwegian, once regarded as a dialect of Danish, has been regarded as a language in its own right since Norwegian independence in the 19th century.

Is really a fact that there is "little doubt" that this would have happened? I mean, the United States has been independent for quite some time, it's primary language differs widely in orthography, grammar and vocabulary from standard English, yet I have never seen a serious scholar claim that American English is a separate language from British English. I can agree that this might have happened, but the wording in the present article really crosses the line. Comparing with Norwegian is a false analogy (besides omitting that Norway didn't become truly sovereign until 1905). —Gabbe 13:40, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that the difference between Scots and English is no greater than the difference between American English and British (Government?) English. This is rather naive. The difference between the two variants of English are so small that I (a native speaker) can't tell whether you used the American or British variant to write your note. On the other hand the differences between Scots and English are so large that it is easy for me to tell that you did not use Scots to write it.
Note that there are countries such as Germany and Austria whose governments both use variants of the same language, so the fact that the US and Britain have separate governments isn't really relevant. The point is that a speech mode such as Scots which is not used by any government has more chance of being classed as a dialect than a speech mode such as English which is used by one or more governments.
You also need to explain your comment that Norwegian and Scots are not analogous. I would say that both are used by people belonging to small countries which were formerly independent before joining unions with more powerful neighbours for a few hundred years and that both are similar to neighbouring languages, so there is certainly a weak analogy there at the least. Be that as it may, if you don't like the Scandinavian analogy then an equally good analogy can be made with the Romance dialects which form a linguistic continuum across southern Europe. There is little doubt... sorry... it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the dialects which are generally considered to be languages are the ones used by the governments within the Romance area. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:23, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
The point about Norwegian is that it was never considered to be "a dialect of Danish". The Danes certainly thought that Norwegian was a separate language and under almost a millenia of occupation did everything in their power to eradicate Norwegian as a spoken language. By the 19th century, it had come to the point were the upper class in Norway spoke and wrote Danish, wheras all writing was conducted almost exclusively in Danish. An analogy of this would be the status of Gaelic in Ireland, although the difference between the relations Gaelic/English and Norwegian/Danish are that Gaelic and English are way more apart from each other. The difference between the relation Norwegian/Danish and Scots/English is that nobody ever made the claim that Norwegian was a dialect of Danish.
As for the Romance languages, there are certainly "stateless languages", such as Catalan, Occitan, etc. And for non-Romance languages there is Basque, and so on. While the usage of these languages have often been surpressed and its speakers subjected to serious oppression in the past, they nevertheless remain languages and not dialects. Turkey not recognizing Kurdish as a language doesn't make it less of a language, even if it is not used by the government of any state. So I don't see your point about "a speech mode [...] which is not used by any government has more chance of being classed as a dialect than a speech mode [...] which is used by [...] governments". The classification of a speech mode as a language/dialect is irrelevant of whether or not it is used by a government.
I don't wan't to make a straw man argument here, but your notion is in line with Max Weinreich's maxim "A Language is a Dialect with an Army and a Navy" and that type of reasoning is insufficient. Whether Scots would have been classified as a language or a dialect is regardless of whether Scotland would have remained independent or not. The point I'm trying to make is that it is an oppinion, not a widely held truth, that Scots "would be regarded as a separate language" had Scotland remained independent. That's why the article shouldn't claim that "there is little doubt that [...]", which is a POV. —Gabbe 10:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Merger of Scots into English

I added to and changed this to Language Change. I also edited Status because some points would be better placed under one or the other heading.

Whether or not "The English considered Scottish immigrants to be scroungers, ignorant and corrupt." seems to be irrelevant. Apart from that, the English are not a homogenous mass of biggots. Such attitudes were probably held towards any immigrants at the time.

The criticism by Gabbe of the comparrison to the situation in Norway is a fair one ("nobody ever made the claim that Norwegian was a dialect of Danish"). I added a comment about Catalan/Castillian but being no expert on either it may be equally flawed. Perhaps the nature of this comparrison and examples needs to be revised.

Ken Mair 04.01.05

Abufe of abuse?

In the image used on the page occurs the text "Lufe God abufe al and yi nychtbour as yi self". This is perfectly understandable if "abufe" is taken as "abuse", i.e. the "f" is the long s "ſ". Is "abufe" the Scots form of "abuse"? Anárion 09:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely it translates as Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself? Man vyi 09:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

d'oh... of course. Anárion 09:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<grin> Although "Love God, abuse all and your neighbour as yourself" does somehow sound more Calvinist... -- Derek Ross | Talk 12:10, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)