Talk:Scots language/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The lack of Personal Pronouns

While in English these are (I, you, he, she, we, they, me, you, him, her, us, them etc) in Scots a lot of these are different {something like} (A, ya(yae), he, she, we(wi), they, me, yis, him, her(hur), us, them) and so on, other notable differences arise from these such as (A'll = I'll) and (is'nae = isn't) this is one of the major and most notable differences between the two and also it is the most widely used in speech, why is it not referenced? ok, i'm not expert and maybe i'm missing something in the difference bewteen dialect and language but this seems like an ommision to me JavaByte 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the same as many English dialects as well as Scottish ones, not too different.--Josquius 03:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

True Josquius, another one is 'Ken' which apparantly mean 'Know' in Scots, there are people in the North East of England who use 'Can' (or Kan?) instead of 'Know, "D'ye can when ee's coming back".

This is certainly used by the older generations in Sunderland, and i would assume in Northumberland also. Gazh 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

but could it not be said that this is the influence of Scots on these English dialects, if this isn't clear then should there not be some mention of the fact?, also why is there so few examples, classic's such as 'A dinnea ken' or 'bye tha noo!' are not mentioned yet constantly confuse tourists and English alike?! JavaByte 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not sure, i mean 'the' is also used inbetween sentances in the colliery accents (Seaham, Peterlee, old Sunderland, Houghton, Hetton etc) quite frequently 'See ye the morra' (see you tomorrow), I'm not sure if this is the same usage as Scots though. If it is, and more 'Scots' examples can be found I'd even like to suggest that 'Scots' could be of 'Northumbrian' origon as opposed to Scottish?

Although i would imagine i would face a bit of opposition if i was to claim that. Gazh 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Its definatly not Scots influence on northern English. Its northern English influence on Scots from way-back-when. Old Northumbrian (Anglish?). Modern influence on northern English is a southern dialectifying (hey I made up a word) not a Scots dialectifying one.--Josquius 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird discussion. Whatever our personal opinions on the dialect/language debate, folks, we surely all have to agree that there is a single dialect continuum all the way from Shetland to Scilly. And, given that fact, is it really so surprising that the various Northern and Scots dialects have undergone parallel development to some extent ? Of course there are similarities. That is because all the modern dialects, whether Scots or English, ultimately derive from the Old English, spoken in the Isle of Thanet -- if you want to go back their ultimate origins in Britain. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright Derek. Well i think a point i would like to make is that there is a difference between 'Scots' and 'Scottish English', often 'Scots' being perceived as the real dialect of Scotland and SCO-ENG being the cleaned up formal version. If parts of England use 'Scots' then surely it is not actually 'Scots'? Gazh 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, would you say that if parts of Scotland use 'English' then surely it is not actually 'English' ? I hardly think so. Yet what you are saying sounds very similar, albeit with England and Scotland reversed. I agree that there's a difference between Scots and 'Scottish English' but Scots is only one that counts as a standalone language because it's the one which was used by government, education and the Scottish literary establishment when Scotland was independent. Scottish English only really gained ground after the Union. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots and Scottish English are just artificial points along a partially social and partially geographic dialect continuum, formed through the varying powers of modern standard English to influence Scots/Scottish English. Historically, all features of Scots (spoken north of the Forth or west of Clyde-Nith) must either 1) derive from forms of Middle English which had already developed before the period 1150 to 1300 (most significantly those forms in the area between the Bishopric of Durham and the Firth of Forth, but also the Midlands and Anglo-Welsh marches) or 2) later developments, either through continued outside influence or native changes. It is incalculably misleading to label Scots a descendant of "Old English" if the implication is that they separated in the Old English period; you might as well say Scots and English are both descendants of proto-Germanic. Most of the immigrants in the period 1150 to 1250 who brought English to non-English Scotland seem, from the records, to have come from the area in an around the estates of David, Earl of Huntingdon (this is particularly the case in Aberdeenshire, Angus and Fife), from Greater Northumberland and the Anglo-Welsh marches (important west of the Clyde), but also bare in mind that a large proportion of the people who spoke English in 13th century Scotland were second or third generation Flemish military or burghal settlers; the extreme Northumbrian character of Scots is likely to come mostly from the way English was spoken in "Lothian", an area for the most part, forming as it did part of the core zone of the earldom of Bernicia/Northumbria, no less "Northumbrian" in the 12th and 13th centuries than any other part of the old kingdom/earldom. This is because English speakers in the period 1200 to perhaps as late as 1450 were thinly - often very thinly - scattered elsewhere in what became the Scottish Lowlands and thus Lothian, a large source of these English speakers anyways, had a sustained period of concentrated influence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The implication is not (and was never intended to be) that they separated in the Old English period. That would be silly. Just as silly as denying that they are both descendants of Proto-Germanic; or indeed Proto-Indo-European. Which no one is doing either. What I was implying was that English has moved northwards and westwards through its Old English, Middle English phases, and indeed during its Modern English phase, ever since it was introduced to Britain at the end of the Roman period. And long before it was differentiated into Scots/Southern English or even Northumbrian/Southern English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that this implication is taken by most people (and made several times above), even if it is not meant. Just check the chronology on the History of the Scots language article. Such a chronology in fact seems to indicate that its inventors actually meant this implication. BTW, placing articles rather than prepositions before time expressions is characteristic of Celtic idiom, either Gaelic or Welsh (c/f to-morrow, am morgan, but a-màireach and the morra), not Germanic idiom. "To-morrow" is certainly in use in southern English by the 13th century, so it may be the result of Celticisation in Northumbria before then or Celtic influences in Scotland or Cumberland spreading to Northumberland and Co. Durham after. It's funny because "the now" is not Germanic at all, there is no "to-now" (semantically absurd) in southern English, but there is an dràsta in Gaelic, lit. "the now". There needs to be more research on that kind of thing. Things like that are most likely to survive language change because although bilingual people can easily identify vocabulary based on language, they do not consciously identify grammar (listen to any foreigner speaking English, the classic one being the German couple in Casablanca who ask "how much is the clock?"); but for these very reasons it is also a very badly researched area of the English and Scots languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The the in the likes of the morra (OE to morgen) is simply a "corrupt" form of other prefixes or particles, spreading by analogy e.g. even nou > eenou > the nou. These began appearing in the literary record from the 1600s, replacing to forms for example. This was long after any Celtic influence was likely to have been the source. 90.240.89.28 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only in that period that you get any extensive evidence of popular language, so I'd be careful about giving such a theory the status of fact. "The noo" is problematic for such a theory, and to me, the example you give to get around it is too convoluted to be persuasive let alone convincing. Any articles you can direct me to? As for "celtic influence" being being redundant by then (and again the date may be irrelevant), no part of Scotland was more than a few dozen miles from a Gaelic speaking region even a century later, and that's besides the fact that most of the Scottish Lowlands that was English speaking in the 1600s had been Gaelic speaking only three centuries (9 x 12 generations) previously. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations in DOST help show when particular usages appeared in the literary record. The entry for the in the SND provides some insights. Perhaps there is something in the DOST history of Scots. As to the fact that no part of Scotland was more than a few dozen miles from a Gaelic speaking region, interesting as it is, it doesn't tell us much since most people at the time never got further than the next ferm toun, and that extremely rarely. Hardly a situation in which language contact would be a regular occurance. The influence of previous generations? Since you are speculating that it may be the result of Celticisation in Northumbria before then or Celtic influences in Scotland or Cumberland spreading to Northumberland and Co. Durham after, you should perhaps provide some evidence that is more than personal conjecture. Any articles you can direct me to? The person making a claim is usually expected to provide something to back it up. Admittedly lack of evidence is not proof of no evidence so there is a remote possibility that it was in fact picked up off extraterrestrials in the 12th century when they built the Acharn Falls stone circle near Aberfeldy. 90.240.89.28 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, shame on me for making a good-faith request! Why is it so bad that I ask you to direct me to articles that could do more justice to the arguments you put above than you have done? This is surely the natural thing to do, no? It was certainly not done for the sake of winning any argument, as you seem to think, but for my own information. And of course I wasn't as you should realise making any claims ... but rather forwarding a suggestion I suspect to be correct. It was my fault I guess for forgetting the natural hostility of many quaint "Scots" enthusiasts to all things "Celtic". I'm sure live would be simpler for all of us, and indeed more comforting for yourself, if those aliens hadn't come in the middle ages and removed all evidence of Gothic Pictish and "Pre-Literary Scots" that may have proved the slow transition from Pictish to Scots your forebears got all wet in their pants about. Sadly though, unless archaeologists unearth an alien craft bound for Mars stuffed with an 8th century edition of Hardyknute and other Gotho-Pictish manuscripts - perhaps they could try digging at Aberfeldy - it will have to remain a charming idiosyncrasy of the 18th and 19th century Scots language movements. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They [Scotch enthusists] are somewhat irritating. Though to be fair, the influence of aliens in many fields is underestimated. Some good reads which may bear some relevance to the matter at hand are MacKay's The Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe and More Especially ... and his Dictionary of Lowland Scotch. 84.71.235.85 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The Dictionary can be downloaded here and the other here. Enjoy:-) 84.71.235.85 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are fascinating tomes, German anon. Now when are you gonna get an account here (or do you have one already)? You've been around a long time, it's a shame you haven't settled down yet. User:Gothic Pict is available, as are User:Mischievous Alien and User:Mischievous ET; so is User:Hardyknute. I dunno if User:John Pinkerton is available, but User:I Heart John Pinkerton is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno where you get your IP info from, using Orange, can drive to Cambridge within an hour. How about User:Helveticus? 84.71.235.85 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to those alien crafts then? Well, it's a funny coincidence that you have had German IP addresses for like a year. Whether you're actually in Germany or not, your German IP addresses are convenient, and since your IP varies every second post, "German anon" will do as your name until you get an account. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Derek, you make a valid point about English being used in Scotland, however i would add that English originated in England (or angland? germany?), i would despute that the Scots 'language' originated in Scotland, or an area that is now Scotland ;)

I'm sure that we would all dispute such an assertion, <grin>. Ultimately English was introduced from the Continent (in the form of Old English). However the modern dialects of its successors have developed at different times and places within the UK as their speakers spread throughout Britain, so it's certainly possible to claim that at least some of the Scots dialects (and I'm thinking particularly of the northern ones) "originated" in Scotland in the same sense that Northumbrian "originated" in Northumbria. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet you would Derek. What we also have to remember is that throughout modern times there has been increasing efforts to make the North East dialects more 'English' sounding, something that is in full effect right now, so, certainly from an alternative view i think it could be very viable to suggest that a 'Scots' dialect could have even originated further south than Northumbria, and with general standardisation of English it could have been cleaned up all the way until the North-east where it appears it lives on in modern times. Gazh 12:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, you might be right about the grammar coming from Celtic (or pre-celtic?) origons, but i would hazard a guess that even after 'colonisation' of Britain by the Germanics that Celtic languages were the language of the people for a while after, Northumbria could quite well have been very celtic with germanic rulers. I even think me mate Bede talked about this in the early days ;) Gazh 10:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The vast majority of English people are descended from British speakers, esp. so in Northumbria where British was probably the majority language of the kingdom until the 8th or 9th century. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is where the discussion could get really interesting, however i don't think we can stray off topic as I'm sure someone would come along and smite us, i will ask though - how on earth did they get large populations to change language ? Gazh 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sugest add a new section - Scots in common use

for obvious reasons, as examples of Scots useage and to inform of the kind of Scots phrases that are used today in Scotland.

Question

Why is scots language so similar to english? Scots doesn't even have the fancy symbols like á or ž? Scots may be an Scotlish, similar to Signaporish. 67.162.51.226 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Scots is directly derived from English, however it is important to remember it had official language status in Scotland, and therefore its name is not in dispute. Gazh 08:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots is most certainly NOT derived from English in any way. It shares the same root langauge, but is not a deviation of English - Duncan Sneddon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse it does, When the original English was brough here (the date is disputed, pre-roman norweigon invaders maybe?) it probably was alot more like Scots than modern standard british english, but it's root is the same; English, and the fact that it has altered in it's own way over the centuries would mean that it is derived from English. Gazh (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Scots in England

There are several hundreds (if not thousands) of Scots speakers in northeast England, especially in the borderlands of Northumberland. I'm unaware of any serveys that have been conducted over the issue but Scots is definitely spoken south of the border in certain areas. Could be alter the map to show "possible Scots speaking regions" in a lighter shade of blue south of the Scottish border? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.50.109 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very tedious task and i wouldn't recommend it, afterall where does Scots end and English begin? It would be original research to even begin to answer that with intent. Gazh (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazh is right. There are researchers who have plotted "isoglosses" in order to answer this sort of question. However it is so dependent on which linguistic features you pick to differentiate between Scots and English that the answer varies quite a bit. Wikipedia is a "general knowledge" source whose remit is to give an overview of a subject. Anyone wanting that level of detail should go to the specialist literature on the subject. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know more about these isoglosses Derek, if there is some kind of break in the accent/dialect shift i'd be tempted off the top of my head to say it would be around the Tees if anywhere, my accent is quite typical of a young person from south Sunderland, yet i would say i have more in common with an Edinburgh accent than a Leeds one. The idea that some native people anywhere in Northumberland would speak in an accent alien to mine is a bit mad, i have been upto Berwick and Alnwick many a time and i have to say the young people especially sound very Newcastle. Gazh (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, Gazh. It certainly fits with my own experience anyway. Isoglosses generally plot divisions between extremely minor speech differences -- the sort of differences you would expect between a North Newcastle speaker and a South Newcastle speaker. Things like using back-r instead of front-r, or a southern "a" instead of a northern one. It's extremely unlikely that any native person in Northumberland would speak in an accent completely different from yours. However there will be very minor differences from one speaker to another. If you want to know more about isoglosses, the WP article is a reasonable starting point but you would really need to go to the linguistics section of a good library to find out more. It's fascinating stuff though, particularly when you can find research on a part of the country that you know well. For instance here's an article on Berwick speech which I think most people would find pretty enjoyable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it was very interesting to say the least, the conclusion is sad but inevitable about the 'standardisation' of English on this side of the line, my kids will certianly be speaking full accent and dialect i will see to that. Cheers Gazh (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He means that Sunderland is split by the River Wear and it's boundries extend both sides of it. Newcastle is wholly over the north of the Tyne. So where in Sunderland the divide means each side of the river and their accents respectivly, technically a 'north newcastle' speaker probably means Gosforth - Gosforth accent has more incommon with Westminster than in does Northumberland. I understood your point however, just though it needed pointing out. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)