Siol nan Gaidheal forum

Whilst this forum is moderated, opinions expressed are those of the person posting, and are not necessarily those of the organisation.
It is currently Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:43 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Do you think that Lallan Scots is a real language?
Aye! an Scots ower Gaelic 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Yes, and equal to Gaelic 34%  34%  [ 12 ]
Sure, but 2nd to Gaelic 37%  37%  [ 13 ]
Don't know 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Not a 'language' as such, but still ours! 11%  11%  [ 4 ]
No: Gaelic or bust 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Never! A mere slang dialect! 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 35
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Copperknickers wrote:
Quote:
I put it that Coppernickers is not Scottish, by his/her attitude, not by the place of birth.


Still doesn't really get my point: identity is a personal thing, nobody has the right to tell me whether I'm Scottish or not, that decision is up to me. Scottish is not an official nationality, it's not something that gets written down on official documents like British or American.

your cultural identity is a personal thing , your nationality is a different matter.Look on the bright side copperknickers.... at least you get to choose who to play cricket or football for! :wtf:
the second point is very true , and hopefully once we sort out all these labour voting quisling barstewards and get our independance , then that is something we shall remedy!

Scottish not british!

gaidhlig gu brath albannaich!!!

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
Quote:
the second point is very true , and hopefully once we sort out all these labour voting quisling barstewards and get our independance , then that is something we shall remedy!

Scottish not british!

gaidhlig gu brath albannaich!!!


I'm with you on that, although I hope you don't plan on trying to deport me when we are independent. :scaredycat: I hope you understand I have been rather on the side of the 'deil's advocate' when arguing against Gaelic, I do believe it is our national language, I would just like to see Scots have a place in our national identity as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:49 pm 
I hear ya there!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 287
Location: Galloway
Copperknickers wrote:
now we are part of the same country


You mean the same state, I presume?

_________________
><

Chan eil mise nam Bhreatannach


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
Part of the same sovereign state, I should have said. Of course in any other sovereign state, country would be synonymous, but as I was recently explaining to an American, we invented the language so what we say goes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:03 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:02 pm
Posts: 425
The language of the Gael is Scotlands oldest surving language and needs to be protected but the Lalland and Doric also have a right to be protected and thanks to Mike Hance and the Scots Language centre they are!Thanks to the poems and songs of Robert Burns the language of the lowlands is always being spoken.I had a primary school teacher who translated Burns poems to us into Doric so we knew what the poems meant! I think think there is a need for songs and poems of all the Scottish languages to be taught in all Scottish schools but there is a lack of adequatley trained teachers so it is left to the odd talented teachers! :dunce: :violin:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Aye, but we cry one "Scots", and not the other. Go figure.

The ancient "Scottis" language was Gaelic, but if you call Gaelic "the Scottish Language", "Scots language" etc nowadays, then people get upset.

Something of a double standard.

_________________
"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
Quote:
Aye, but we cry one "Scots", and not the other. Go figure.

The ancient "Scottis" language was Gaelic, but if you call Gaelic "the Scottish Language", "Scots language" etc nowadays, then people get upset.

Something of a double standard.


It was merely an ethnic name, because Gaelic was the language of the Scoti. I don't think anyone in late medieval Scotland would have said that because they spoke Inglis, they were therefore English. Besides, until someone comes up with a better term for Scots, then I feel it should have a monopoly on the term 'Scots'. Gaelic gets along fine being called Gaelic without infringing on Scots' territory.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Copperknickers wrote:

It was merely an ethnic name, because Gaelic was the language of the Scoti. I don't think anyone in late medieval Scotland would have said that because they spoke Inglis, they were therefore English. Besides, until someone comes up with a better term for Scots, then I feel it should have a monopoly on the term 'Scots'. Gaelic gets along fine being called Gaelic without infringing on Scots' territory.

What kind of an argument is that????

just because a medievil resident of scotland did not see himself as part of england or wherever , does not make him see himself as a scot.?!!!

Err , all non scottish (gaidhlig) speakers in what is now identified as scotland would have seen themselves at one point as.....non scottish.

The norman french speaking nobility would have seen themselves as non scottish. Remember till modern times a scot was seen as an irishman , something to do with the common langauge they both spoke.

The northumbrian english (anglo danish ) who were incorporated into what became scotland in the 11th century saw themselves as non scots as they spoke a differing language and followed a differnet culture.

The norn speaking vikings of the jarldom of the orkneys would have seen themselves as non scots.

so on and so forth for all the differing peoples who were eventually absorbed into scotland.

Language and culture was the identification of who you were , not i am a saltire waving inglis speaking scotsman who can recite burns poems!!!

The key thing in the medievil period is the change in the language of the ruling class.

If the ruling class of scotland today decided to adopt urdu as their language and identify it as scots , in 200 years time people may very well be having this same argument.

The labels invented or otherwise matter not a feckin jot.

The history language and culture and the truth is what counts.

You have been shown many times by many people , the glue that made scotland and even now keeps it together subconscioulsly is the gaidhig language.

Burns inglis was not even a majority spoken language , and i ask you again to prove that scots is even spoken today in modern scotland.

centuries of brainwashing can only be removed by finding and accepting the truth.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
I think it is very telling , and no disrespect intended here , when people talk of the language of the lowlands as scots etc. This tells me you have bought into the myth , the division of Scotland , of the gaidhlig highlander and the teutonic lowlander. It is a lie , divide and conquer tactics.

Languages come and go , and to quote the famous historian William Watson , change of language does not necessarily mean change of race. We have seen this many times throughout Scottish history , from the absorption of the picts into the gaidhlig culture of the Scottish dal riadans , to the modern scots who have been absorbed into the English culture of the brits.

I do not in any way believe an independent Scotland is going to promote differing languages , there can only be one universal language taught in schools by the state . While I would like to see that language as gaidhlig , I know in my heart of hearts that it will likely be modern English.

There is nothing wrong with scots inglis , and I re assert my support of any of my fellow scots who wish to use it .It is part of our history now like it or not , but there is still too much lies told about scots inglis , often at the expense of gaidhlig.

Scotland is not unique in having differing languages historically , but like most countries there was a common tongue spoken by the majority and that tongue was gaidhlig.

It is hard for a 21st century scot to view an 11th century scot with a degree of understanding . Our land was run in the old celtic way of de centralisation , elected leaders and the idea of primogeniture and absolute ownership of land was alien. The idea that there was an imaginary line in the ground that had gaidhlig speakers on one side and English on the other is completely simplistic. In southern and south eastern Scotland , you would have had within a 50 mile radius , gaidhlig speaking villages alongside brythonic , anglian and danish .

The language of the majority would have followed the language of the ruling classes , and at that time gaidhlig was at its height.

Gaidhlig would have gradually absorbed the rest , even the inglis speakers , in the area of the far south east.
With the overthrow of Macbeth and the coming to power of mael colm a chinn mor ,began the long process that was eventually to lead to the anglicisation of Scotland and takeover by the brits.

In England , we know of the norman takeover. Linguistically , the English language almost disappeared as norman French became the language of power. This would have lead to a French speaking England and a gaidhlig speaking Scotland except for a few massive twists of fate.

In England around the mid 14th century , the norman French gradually began to see England as their homeland and re introduced English as the state language , which was very different to old English and so modern English was born.

In Scotland , beginning with Malcolm canmore , these normanised Scottish kings and leaders began the destruction of the old celtic way of life , the Normans were invited into our land by david 1st in the 12th century which further accelerated the decline of gaidhlig by the introduction of French as the language of the nobility. These Normans could not accept the old celtic way of life , which was seen as a threat to their rule and wished to set up their rule in Scotland in mirror image to what they had in England.

When these piratical chancers , many of whom owned lands in both England and Scotland , re introduced English as the language of the court , they had a major problem in Scotland. The gaidhlig speaking majority in Scotland , that’s us the ordinary people , could not accept the language of our old enemy so our beloved nobility simply changed the labels and called inglis “scots” , thus subconsciously preparing Scotland for takeover by England.

Its easy to blame the English , but much of the destruction of our language was done by our own celto norman nobility , which was then finished off by the brits in the 18th century.

Thus was the myth of the gaidhlig highlander and teutonic lowlander born , and the incorrect labelling of an English dialect as scots.

There were only 12 inglis speaking schools in Scotland prior to 1745 , and after the brits funded the final eradication of gaidhlig over the next century through organisations like the society preservation of christian knowledge , who set about eradicating gaidhlig in Scotland and making us usefull to the brit crown.

Gaidhlig missed burns by a generation , his mother was a gael , so maybe by a twist of fate gaidhlig would have a much higher profile had burns written in the old language instead of inglis.

Its hard to condense the history of hundreds of years into a post on a forum , but this over playing of scots inglis due to lies and myth making and constant rejection or belittling of gaidhlig as just “one of many” of scotlands languages is completely wrong.

Large areas of the south were still speaking gaidhlig long after it had been replaced by English in the central belt and north east , which completely blows apart the argument that only the highlands were gaidhlig and the lowlands spoke inglis.

There can only be one language of the state , and if we cannot re introduce gaidhlig , then we are left with modern English.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
The problem just now is that it is getting confused with what is effectively, an accent of English used in Scotland.

Take the following two sentences:

Aiblins thon wifie wadna speir it.

vs

Whit ye daein pal? Ye comin or no?

I reckon the second's English, but dressed up in Scottish dress. But that's what we see most of the time. The first is a bit old fashioned, but the words are quite different in form from English.

Quote:
constant rejection or belittling of gaidhlig as just “one of many” of scotlands languages is completely wrong.


I wish someone would tell Ian Bayne that. He gave me a lecture about "one of many", and then I said, "So what? Most countries in Europe were like that." He was a bit surprised, and even more surprised when I pointed out that England was actually more diverse than Scotland in its early period.

Every language (including Gaelic) that could be found in Scotland in 1070 (bar Pictish?) could be found in England during the same period, and then some!!! So England was actually more diverse! Yet no one says that the English language was just one of many!

The Holy Roman Empire a thousand years ago, or Austria-Hungary a hundred years ago, were far more diverse than Scotland in the Middle Ages. Or even India, which has at least SEVEN HUNDRED languages/dialects.

_________________
"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
Quote:
What kind of an argument is that????

just because a medievil resident of scotland did not see himself as part of england or wherever , does not make him see himself as a scot.?!!!


The bottom line is, there is only one word for the Scots language, and that is Scots. Until someone comes up with a better name for it, then Gaelic will continue to be called Gaelic, and so it should, because that is what it is called in Gaelic: Gaidhlig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has never been called 'Scottish' in Gaelic, has it? So what is your point?

Quote:
Language and culture was the identification of who you were


Thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands of people in Medieval europe were ruled by people who spoke a different language to them and came from a different culture. Medieval societies were not heterogeneous, they were extremely diverse, just as diverse as Europe today if not moreso. In the Feudal system, peasants' allegience was to their Lord, and the Lord's was to whatever King claimed hegemony over his lands. Peasants would identify first and foremost with their manor, their own village and its landowner, and then to whatever regional culture they lived in, and then, finally, to their country. Language barely came into it, or if it did it was on a tiny scale: remember, there are instances of people from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire going to Kent, and hearing 'sorry, I don't speak French' upon trying to buy something from the market in their dialect of English: regional dialects within the same country were often unintelligible to each other, and far more regional languages existed.

If you, as an Gaelic speaker, were to try to identify your identity, it would be rather difficult to do so based on language. Nominally, you owed your allegience to the King, who spoke French or Inglis. Actually, you owed your allegience to your Lord, who may have spoken French or Inglis or Gaelic. On a personal level, you identified with your family, friends and other local people, who spoke Gaelic. So it is rather unhelpful to use language as a basis for identity, because your real identity was to your local area, the language being irrelevent. Culturally, the Brythonic and Inglis speaking people were probably quite similar to yours if you lived in the lowlands, and markedly different if you lived in the Highlands.

Quote:
You have been shown many times by many people , the glue that made scotland and even now keeps it together subconscioulsly is the gaidhig language.


How does Gaelic keep it together right now, except through the knowledge that it existed when our country was formed? That's like claiming that Arabic keeps Pakistan together: just because Medieval history was written in Gaelic (metaphorically speaking, because most of it was written in Latin and Scots), that doesn't mean it pervades our modern society. The sad fact is, Gaelic is pretty much irrelevent to 90% of Scots, despite its role in our history.

Quote:
Burns inglis was not even a majority spoken language , and i ask you again to prove that scots is even spoken today in modern scotland.


Burns Scots was the majority spoken language of Scotland. Around 60% of Scots spoke it by 1700 according to the Scots Language Centre. Scots is spoken by plenty today, go anywhere in Ayrshire or Aberdeenshire or parts of Glasgow and you'll find it.

Quote:
Scotland is not unique in having differing languages historically , but like most countries there was a common tongue spoken by the majority and that tongue was gaidhlig.


That is vastly over simplifying things. Scots overtook Gaelic as the majority language some time in the 16th or 17th centuries, and it was the main language of administration of our major lowland towns and cities since the late 1500s up until the 18th century. It is also the language in which pretty much all of our Medieval and Modern literature is in. Indeed I couldn't even tell you a single work of Scottish Gaelic literature of the top of my head, and I doubt even you know more than 4 or 5. Why is it that the history of Scotland seems to stop after 1300 according to most people in this thread? Gaelic was our original national language, Scots was also in its time a national language, and now English is. Both Scots and Gaelic have been subject to vicious wars of persecution, yet both remain alive, albeit hiding away: Gaelic in the Western isles, and Scots in a continuum. But don't be fooled by that, Scots still exists, though it is developing into forms not recognisable to Scots speakers of 100 years ago (so is English).

Quote:
In Scotland , beginning with Malcolm canmore , these normanised Scottish kings and leaders began the destruction of the old celtic way of life , the Normans were invited into our land by david 1st in the 12th century which further accelerated the decline of gaidhlig by the introduction of French as the language of the nobility. These Normans could not accept the old celtic way of life , which was seen as a threat to their rule and wished to set up their rule in Scotland in mirror image to what they had in England.


Strange then, that pretty much all of modern Scottish culture, history and identity is taken from them and the period after. Dark Age Scotland is glorified as the Golden Age by some, but in reality Scotland was made in the Medieval period, and it was made with Latin and Scots side by side with Gaelic. Without Gaelic, Scotland wouldn't be Scotland, but with only Gaelic it would be completely unrecognisable also.

Quote:
Its easy to blame the English , but much of the destruction of our language was done by our own celto norman nobility , which was then finished off by the brits in the 18th century.

Thus was the myth of the gaidhlig highlander and teutonic lowlander born , and the incorrect labelling of an English dialect as scots.


The logic there does not follow. Scots is not a dialect just because you don't like what England did to Gaelic culture, and your claim that Scots rode the suppression of Gaelic like a slipstream does not bear up to much scrutiny when you consider how much Scots itself was demonised. Why do you think it is that the less educated speak better Scots and worse English than the educated? Because English was made the prestige language where once Scots and Gaelic before it was, and so Scots has suffered an even worse fate: relegation to the illiterate poor, just like English was at the time of the French speaking Normans.

Quote:
There were only 12 inglis speaking schools in Scotland prior to 1745


Source?

Quote:
Gaidhlig missed burns by a generation , his mother was a gael , so maybe by a twist of fate gaidhlig would have a much higher profile had burns written in the old language instead of inglis.


Maybe so. Although I doubt it would have become as well known if it was written in a language that nobody outside of Scotland understood. Much of Burns is actually written in English, he deliberately tried to keep out some of the heavier elements of his speech for the benefit of his audience in Scotland and beyond.

Quote:
this over playing of scots inglis due to lies and myth making and constant rejection or belittling of gaidhlig as just “one of many” of scotlands languages is completely wrong.


Are you denying now that English, Latin and French have a part in Scotland's history?

Quote:
There can only be one language of the state , and if we cannot re introduce gaidhlig , then we are left with modern English.


Or we could use Scots. We could even follow Israel's example, and construct a new language based on resurrected Medieval Scots, complete with borrowings from Gaelic, French and Flemish, and maybe with a few grammatical elements of Gaelic and German thrown in for fun. In fact I think with a few alterations we could construct a language almost intelligible with Dutch and the Scandiavian languages, which would have great benefits for trade, multilingualness and general cultural identity. It's not very likely I know but it has been done before and it's a good idea.

Quote:
The problem just now is that it is getting confused with what is effectively, an accent of English used in Scotland.

Take the following two sentences:

Aiblins thon wifie wadna speir it.

vs

Whit ye daein pal? Ye comin or no?

I reckon the second's English, but dressed up in Scottish dress. But that's what we see most of the time. The first is a bit old fashioned, but the words are quite different in form from English.


That is from how long ago? English has changed, its still English. Scots has changed through time like any other language.

Quote:
So England was actually more diverse! Yet no one says that the English language was just one of many!


Are you joking? French and Latin are absolutely pivotal to English national identity, why do you think up until 50 years ago we were all forced to learn them (and are still forced to learn French, despite the fact it's a pretty useless language compared with Spanish or Mandarin).

Quote:
The Holy Roman Empire a thousand years ago, or Austria-Hungary a hundred years ago, were far more diverse than Scotland in the Middle Ages. Or even India, which has at least SEVEN HUNDRED languages/dialects.


Funny you should mention India, because the situation of Hindustani is similar to that of Scots and English: Urdu is not even a dialect, it is the same language as Hindi albeit with some vocabulary and register differences owing to cultural differences between Muslims and Hindus. Yet Urdu was adopted as the national language of Pakistan, even though it originated in India. Scots is not alone in being extremely similar to a neighbouring language, and as you can see in the intense hatred between Indians and Pakistanis, language is not necessary for cultural identity: I rather doubt there would be any difference if Pakistan had chosen Sindhi or Persian as its national language to Pakistan's identity.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Quote:
Scots has changed through time like any other language.


Aye, it's become more English. :roll:

That's why you can buy signs with "Nae Smokin" on them now, rather than "Nae Reekin".

_________________
"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Copperknickers wrote:

The bottom line is, there is only one word for the Scots language, and that is Scots. Until someone comes up with a better name for it, then Gaelic will continue to be called Gaelic, and so it should, because that is what it is called in Gaelic: Gaidhlig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has never been called 'Scottish' in Gaelic, has it? So what is your point?


Why not call it inglis , after all it was its original name for nearly a thousand years , before you had to change the labels to get people tae speak it!!!

not only was both inglis and gaidhlig not known as scots , but neither did the people call themselves scots.It meant , since it was coined by the romans , an irishman up till the 15th century.The catholic church has records of irish priests throughout europe known as scots over centuries.
So for 1500 years it meant a gaelic speaking celt and now laughably you think inglis speaker have the monopoly on the term because you have used it for 5 centuries to define english speaking scots. :wacko:

Quote:
Thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands of people in Medieval europe were ruled by people who spoke a different language to them and came from a different culture. Medieval societies were not heterogeneous, they were extremely diverse, just as diverse as Europe today if not moreso. In the Feudal system, peasants' allegience was to their Lord, and the Lord's was to whatever King claimed hegemony over his lands. Peasants would identify first and foremost with their manor, their own village and its landowner, and then to whatever regional culture they lived in, and then, finally, to their country. Language barely came into it, or if it did it was on a tiny scale: remember, there are instances of people from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire going to Kent, and hearing 'sorry, I don't speak French' upon trying to buy something from the market in their dialect of English: regional dialects within the same country were often unintelligible to each other, and far more regional languages existed.

If you, as an Gaelic speaker, were to try to identify your identity, it would be rather difficult to do so based on language. Nominally, you owed your allegience to the King, who spoke French or Inglis. Actually, you owed your allegience to your Lord, who may have spoken French or Inglis or Gaelic. On a personal level, you identified with your family, friends and other local people, who spoke Gaelic. So it is rather unhelpful to use language as a basis for identity, because your real identity was to your local area, the language being irrelevent. Culturally, the Brythonic and Inglis speaking people were probably quite similar to yours if you lived in the lowlands, and markedly different if you lived in the Highlands.


I can accept some of what you are saying but why the need to use english history??? The linguist dr mario pei has written about the english language and how it nearly died out under the normans , practically ceasing to be a written language and was nothing more than the jargon of peasants before it was revived under the more modern english we know , in the 14th century.

Your language WAS your cultural identity , there was no nation state in the modern sense to belong to.
We didnt owe allegiance to our king , you are using english history here old son.It was to our clan , led by the mormaers. They would have spoken gaidhlig , with french later , then gaidhlig with inglis when it replaced french then later english when the whole parasitical bunch became totally anglified and trotted off to london to be part of the big brit family.
You see old boy , we didnt practice feudalism , certainly not till a very late stage and not throughout the whole land as it was alien to us and the scots rejected it.
Fundamental to our social attitude was there was no concept of absolute ownership of land , nor could it be sold , alienated nor concealed from the clan. Unlike your feudal barons in england , it was not theirs to do as they pleased , as it belonged to the people.

Culturally , the brythonic and gaels were similar , thats why they are defined as celts.
Not the minority inglis though , thats why they are defined as germanics :eek:


Quote:
How does Gaelic keep it together right now, except through the knowledge that it existed when our country was formed? That's like claiming that Arabic keeps Pakistan together: just because Medieval history was written in Gaelic (metaphorically speaking, because most of it was written in Latin and Scots), that doesn't mean it pervades our modern society. The sad fact is, Gaelic is pretty much irrelevent to 90% of Scots, despite its role in our history.


Apart from being all around you , in the names of the hills, towns , in many of the words we use , an important aspect for a nation is the laws of the land.
much of scottish law is based on old celtic laws of the gaidheals , the ancient tanist system to elect kings , which also gave us the right to de pose them if unfit to rule us as first among equals.See this in action in the claim of right in the 17th century which was used to depose james 7th in favour of william and mary , not to mention the fact that we , the scottish people , not the parliament are soveriegn , all from the old gaidhlig customs laws and rules we lived by for centuries.

Medieval history was written in the language of the church , greek then latin , and gaidhlig.It was important enough a language for king james the 4th to be a speaker in the early 16th century.
of course most of it is lost to us now being destroyed by the inglis speakers in their attempts to eradicate our nations history and identity .


Quote:
Burns Scots was the majority spoken language of Scotland. Around 60% of Scots spoke it by 1700 according to the Scots Language Centre. Scots is spoken by plenty today, go anywhere in Ayrshire or Aberdeenshire or parts of Glasgow and you'll find it.


Inglis was never the majority language of scotland. The majority population spoke gaidhlig till the end of the 18th century. With 12 inglis speaking schools before 1745 in a country world famous for educating its poor , somehow i doubt it.

I was in ayr 4 weeks ago and not once did i hear your inglis spoken.As a 40 year old scot , native to glasgow who was taught , and achieved his o level in english , i have never heard inglis spoken in scotland.
If you are defining the english dialect spoken in scotland as a seperate language , then language identification has lost all meaning.

Quote:
That is vastly over simplifying things. Scots overtook Gaelic as the majority language some time in the 16th or 17th centuries, and it was the main language of administration of our major lowland towns and cities since the late 1500s up until the 18th century. It is also the language in which pretty much all of our Medieval and Modern literature is in. Indeed I couldn't even tell you a single work of Scottish Gaelic literature of the top of my head, and I doubt even you know more than 4 or 5. Why is it that the history of Scotland seems to stop after 1300 according to most people in this thread? Gaelic was our original national language, Scots was also in its time a national language, and now English is. Both Scots and Gaelic have been subject to vicious wars of persecution, yet both remain alive, albeit hiding away: Gaelic in the Western isles, and Scots in a continuum. But don't be fooled by that, Scots still exists, though it is developing into forms not recognisable to Scots speakers of 100 years ago (so is English).


Still not one ounce of proof that inglis was the majority language in scotland.
I notice you keep mentioning scots inglis in a medieval context.Gavin douglas was the first writer to call inglis scots in the 16th century , the medieval period ended in the 15th century. just saying :razz:

The reason there is no gaidhlig literature is that you inglis speakers destroyed most of the reams of material and countless books during the reformation.


Quote:
Strange then, that pretty much all of modern Scottish culture, history and identity is taken from them and the period after. Dark Age Scotland is glorified as the Golden Age by some, but in reality Scotland was made in the Medieval period, and it was made with Latin and Scots side by side with Gaelic. Without Gaelic, Scotland wouldn't be Scotland, but with only Gaelic it would be completely unrecognisable also.


see above :madcow:

Quote:
The logic there does not follow. Scots is not a dialect just because you don't like what England did to Gaelic culture, and your claim that Scots rode the suppression of Gaelic like a slipstream does not bear up to much scrutiny when you consider how much Scots itself was demonised. Why do you think it is that the less educated speak better Scots and worse English than the educated? Because English was made the prestige language where once Scots and Gaelic before it was, and so Scots has suffered an even worse fate: relegation to the illiterate poor, just like English was at the time of the French speaking Normans.


Scots inglis wasnt demonised , it was promoted way out of its depth for the reasons already given by the celto normans , and when they sold us down the river for their judas gold , it was convenient for them to dump your regional dialect of inglis in favour of the standardised english of the brit state.

Quote:
Source?


Macbeth p.b ellis chapter 10

the scottish insurrection of 1820 p.b ellis/seamus mac a ghobhainn


Quote:
Are you denying now that English, Latin and French have a part in Scotland's history?


We cant change the past , only puncture the lies of history written for us by the english.
We can change the future , and that means not just political independance but cultural independance from the saxon and the eradication of their language from our land .

Quote:
Or we could use Scots. We could even follow Israel's example, and construct a new language based on resurrected Medieval Scots, complete with borrowings from Gaelic, French and Flemish, and maybe with a few grammatical elements of Gaelic and German thrown in for fun. In fact I think with a few alterations we could construct a language almost intelligible with Dutch and the Scandiavian languages, which would have great benefits for trade, multilingualness and general cultural identity. It's not very likely I know but it has been done before and it's a good idea.


I would rather use bengali if we couldnt use gaidhlig , rather than have any form of english foisted on our children. :ranter:



Quote:
That is from how long ago? English has changed, its still English. Scots has changed through time like any other language.


ah yes , inglis , the regional dialect of the north brits. :funny:

tell me copperknickers , do you support independance???

:saltire:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
The problem just now is that it is getting confused with what is effectively, an accent of English used in Scotland.

Take the following two sentences:

Aiblins thon wifie wadna speir it.

vs

Whit ye daein pal? Ye comin or no?

I reckon the second's English, but dressed up in Scottish dress. But that's what we see most of the time. The first is a bit old fashioned, but the words are quite different in form from English.

Quote:
constant rejection or belittling of gaidhlig as just “one of many” of scotlands languages is completely wrong.


I wish someone would tell Ian Bayne that. He gave me a lecture about "one of many", and then I said, "So what? Most countries in Europe were like that." He was a bit surprised, and even more surprised when I pointed out that England was actually more diverse than Scotland in its early period.

Every language (including Gaelic) that could be found in Scotland in 1070 (bar Pictish?) could be found in England during the same period, and then some!!! So England was actually more diverse! Yet no one says that the English language was just one of many!

The Holy Roman Empire a thousand years ago, or Austria-Hungary a hundred years ago, were far more diverse than Scotland in the Middle Ages. Or even India, which has at least SEVEN HUNDRED languages/dialects.


totally agree wi ye pal.

:laughandpoint: aye only scotland had diverse languages dont ye know , even our languages are too wee too poor and too stupid until we became a proper nation (britain) and spoke a proper language in english :binbang:

this crap will end on independance , even now the old lies is being found out.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
Quote:
Scots has changed through time like any other language.


Aye, it's become more English. :roll:

That's why you can buy signs with "Nae Smokin" on them now, rather than "Nae Reekin".


:funny:

see when the kids start using american english do we still get to call it scots??? :sheep:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
I was in Mallaig station once, and I heard some youths speaking with what I thought were American accents. It took me a couple of minutes to work out they were Scots.

Used to work beside a lad, who would always say "siddy" instead of "city". Really pissed me off.

_________________
"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:12 am
Posts: 46
Did I hear the name "Ian Bayne" ? Ian O. Bayne ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
albannach wrote:
Copperknickers wrote:

The bottom line is, there is only one word for the Scots language, and that is Scots. Until someone comes up with a better name for it, then Gaelic will continue to be called Gaelic, and so it should, because that is what it is called in Gaelic: Gaidhlig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has never been called 'Scottish' in Gaelic, has it? So what is your point?


Why not call it inglis , after all it was its original name for nearly a thousand years , before you had to change the labels to get people tae speak it!!!


Perhaps, but that would get very confusing.

Quote:
not only was both inglis and gaidhlig not known as scots , but neither did the people call themselves scots.It meant , since it was coined by the romans , an irishman up till the 15th century.


Not entirely true. The Scottish kings are recorded as 'rex scotorum' from very early on = King of the Scots.

Quote:
The catholic church has records of irish priests throughout europe known as scots over centuries.
So for 1500 years it meant a gaelic speaking celt and now laughably you think inglis speaker have the monopoly on the term because you have used it for 5 centuries to define english speaking scots.


Lots of languages have obscure names. French comes from the Franks, who spoke a Germanic language. German has about 4 different name derivations depending on the language. Things have names based on what people call them today, you seem to be using the logic used by typical old school nationalists, and worse: set an arbitrary date in time (say, the unification of most of Scotland under the Gaels), call that the 'formation of the nation', then set an end date, say the 18th century takeover by the English, and say that everything between those two times was a golden age. Why should we return to the Medieval era names? How is that progressive? How is that going to help nationalism, if we change the name of Scots, the language of Robert Burns, to 'Inglis' (ie, English). Effectively labeling Burns as English. Anyone would think you view him as a missed opportunity for Gaels, rather than one of the greatest Scots. Do you actually want an independent Scotland, or are you going to deport everyone who cannot show 6 generations of pure Gaelic ancestry and regress to Medieval Gaeldom? :hide:

Quote:
I can accept some of what you are saying but why the need to use english history??? The linguist dr mario pei has written about the english language and how it nearly died out under the normans , practically ceasing to be a written language and was nothing more than the jargon of peasants before it was revived under the more modern english we know , in the 14th century.

Your language WAS your cultural identity , there was no nation state in the modern sense to belong to.
We didnt owe allegiance to our king


As I said, nominal and extremely liquid allegiance, indeed almost indirect allegience.

Quote:
It was to our clan , led by the mormaers. They would have spoken gaidhlig , with french later , then gaidhlig with inglis when it replaced french then later english when the whole parasitical bunch became totally anglified and trotted off to london to be part of the big brit family.


Quite so, I was using the situation of where I live in the lowlands, but if you lived in the isles it would be different, and if you lived in a clan it would be different. My point was, it was your immediate community that you identified with, and that could be a tiny area surrounded by speakers of Norse, Inglis, Welsh, etc. So as I said, although your community would have spoken the same language, it wasn't a nation, you didn't have anything more in common with other Gaelic speakers than you did with some Inglis and Cumbric speakers in many contexts.

Quote:
You see old boy , we didnt practice feudalism , certainly not till a very late stage and not throughout the whole land as it was alien to us and the scots rejected it.
Fundamental to our social attitude was there was no concept of absolute ownership of land , nor could it be sold , alienated nor concealed from the clan. Unlike your feudal barons in england , it was not theirs to do as they pleased , as it belonged to the people.


Not in the rural and highland areas, but around the towns (ie the main population centres) surely had a more English system after the Anglo-Normans became established.

Quote:
Culturally , the brythonic and gaels were similar , thats why they are defined as celts.
Not the minority inglis though , thats why they are defined as germanics


Indeed so, but ethnically we are not much different to the English, and after the Medieval period most of us were thoroughly Germanified. There are no true Celts these days I'm afraid, they were an admirable but primitive culture who survive now only in their languages and genes, and what remains they left us.

Quote:
Quote:
How does Gaelic keep it together right now, except through the knowledge that it existed when our country was formed? That's like claiming that Arabic keeps Pakistan together: just because Medieval history was written in Gaelic (metaphorically speaking, because most of it was written in Latin and Scots), that doesn't mean it pervades our modern society. The sad fact is, Gaelic is pretty much irrelevent to 90% of Scots, despite its role in our history.


Apart from being all around you , in the names of the hills, towns , in many of the words we use , an important aspect for a nation is the laws of the land.
much of scottish law is based on old celtic laws of the gaidheals , the ancient tanist system to elect kings , which also gave us the right to de pose them if unfit to rule us as first among equals.See this in action in the claim of right in the 17th century which was used to depose james 7th in favour of william and mary , not to mention the fact that we , the scottish people , not the parliament are soveriegn , all from the old gaidhlig customs laws and rules we lived by for centuries.


I was talking about the language more than the culture. But even as regards the culture, Europe in general became unrecognisable after the Early Modern period and the enlightenment. Scotland may retain a layer of its former system, but it is not anything remotely like a Celtic system today, and a Celtic system would not be viable. You might as well claim that we should boycott using steel, because it was the English who supplanted our traditional iron forging techniques.

Quote:
Medieval history was written in the language of the church , greek then latin , and gaidhlig.It was important enough a language for king james the 4th to be a speaker in the early 16th century.
of course most of it is lost to us now being destroyed by the inglis speakers in their attempts to eradicate our nations history and identity.


They eradicated Gaelic identity because they saw it as a primitive and barbaric system. They were iconoclasts and barbarians themselves for doing so. But you cannot claim that what they gave us was pretty central to Scottish identity also.

Quote:
Quote:
Burns Scots was the majority spoken language of Scotland. Around 60% of Scots spoke it by 1700 according to the Scots Language Centre. Scots is spoken by plenty today, go anywhere in Ayrshire or Aberdeenshire or parts of Glasgow and you'll find it.


Inglis was never the majority language of scotland. The majority population spoke gaidhlig till the end of the 18th century. With 12 inglis speaking schools before 1745 in a country world famous for educating its poor , somehow i doubt it.


I've provided you with a source, until I see a counter source then I only have your word to go on. And not
some blatantly biased 'Scots is the spawn of Satan: a blog by GaidhligGhille92' type source, please.

Quote:
I was in ayr 4 weeks ago and not once did i hear your inglis spoken.As a 40 year old scot , native to glasgow who was taught , and achieved his o level in english , i have never heard inglis spoken in scotland.
If you are defining the english dialect spoken in scotland as a seperate language , then language identification has lost all meaning.


Then you were in the wrong places, or you were being wilfully deaf to it. I always hear people speaking in Scots in Ayrshire, mostly to be fair in rural areas. It is not Burns style Scots, but it is Scots all the same. Language identification is always difficult, and I'm not claiming that Scots has not become Anglified, but you should see languages such as Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese: grammatical difference doesn't necessarily come into it.

Quote:
Quote:
That is vastly over simplifying things. Scots overtook Gaelic as the majority language some time in the 16th or 17th centuries, and it was the main language of administration of our major lowland towns and cities since the late 1500s up until the 18th century. It is also the language in which pretty much all of our Medieval and Modern literature is in. Indeed I couldn't even tell you a single work of Scottish Gaelic literature of the top of my head, and I doubt even you know more than 4 or 5. Why is it that the history of Scotland seems to stop after 1300 according to most people in this thread? Gaelic was our original national language, Scots was also in its time a national language, and now English is. Both Scots and Gaelic have been subject to vicious wars of persecution, yet both remain alive, albeit hiding away: Gaelic in the Western isles, and Scots in a continuum. But don't be fooled by that, Scots still exists, though it is developing into forms not recognisable to Scots speakers of 100 years ago (so is English).


Still not one ounce of proof that inglis was the majority language in scotland.
I notice you keep mentioning scots inglis in a medieval context.Gavin douglas was the first writer to call inglis scots in the 16th century , the medieval period ended in the 15th century. just saying :razz:


Doesn't change the fact that Inglis was the same language as Scots and had a huge foothold in Scotland in the late medieval period. The Greeks don't call themselves 'Greek', doesn't stop them from being Greek.

Quote:
Quote:
The logic there does not follow. Scots is not a dialect just because you don't like what England did to Gaelic culture, and your claim that Scots rode the suppression of Gaelic like a slipstream does not bear up to much scrutiny when you consider how much Scots itself was demonised. Why do you think it is that the less educated speak better Scots and worse English than the educated? Because English was made the prestige language where once Scots and Gaelic before it was, and so Scots has suffered an even worse fate: relegation to the illiterate poor, just like English was at the time of the French speaking Normans.


Scots inglis wasnt demonised , it was promoted way out of its depth for the reasons already given by the celto normans , and when they sold us down the river for their judas gold , it was convenient for them to dump your regional dialect of inglis in favour of the standardised english of the brit state.


It was convenient for them to attack the Gaels and later the Scots for political reasons. They didn't care about the culture or the language, they cared about the fact that the people who happened to be preserving ancient culture and languages were a group of vicious rebels hold up in an impregnable position in the Highlands which posed a serious threat to British rule. If anything it was poor adaptation on the part of the Gaels that caused them to be persecuted so much, which I is why I cannot stand by and let people like you resist things which cannot be resisted. The hallmark of a vibrant and successful nation/state is absorbing that which is good and discarding that which is not useful. By all means, we need to revive some of what was destroyed, but we should be emphasising the difference of Scots: by calling it an English dialect, all you are doing is alienating most of Scotland's population and most of our existing national identity.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you denying now that English, Latin and French have a part in Scotland's history?


We cant change the past , only puncture the lies of history written for us by the english.
We can change the future , and that means not just political independance but cultural independance from the saxon and the eradication of their language from our land.


You are not a Scottish nationalist at all, but a Gaelic nationalist. I respect your passion, but the English are not the sole source of mistakes and violence and destruction in Scotland's history. We might still be speaking Pictish if the Irish had not invaded, and the English Celts suffered even worse than us at the hands of the Anglo-Saxons. It was a war of cultures, not of nations, and you need to stop identifying cultural destruction with political violence. Besides, England is no longer Saxon, it is Western, i.e. American.

Quote:

tell me copperknickers , do you support independence???

:saltire:


Yes, of course I do. But I prefer to be a realist rather than a pure nationalist. I'm getting the feeling that there are going to be some serious ideological spats between extreme nationalists and the more moderate elements of the SNP if we are ever independent, and the problem is that with extreme nationalism comes other extremes. I'm not a Republican by the way, I'm a solid Monarchist.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Quote:
I'm not a Republican by the way, I'm a solid Monarchist.


Is that so you won't upset voters? That's the usual excuse. I'm not claiming the majority of the population as republicans, but a handful of toffs and religious bigots seem to comprise the majority of "solid monarchism" in this country.

Even though the SNP manages to open all kinds of cans of worms with various other issues which have nothing to do with independence, but alienate their voters. I could reel them off...

The minimum pricing thing, for a start. Ill thought out, a vote loser, and something which has failed dismally anywhere else it has been tried.

Another would be gay marriage. Whichever stance the SNP takes on that one, they'll piss someone off.

And a dozen more besides - windfarms anyone?

Quote:
The bottom line is, there is only one word for the Scots language, and that is Scots.


Lallans, Doric*, Patter, Claik, a' Bheurla Ghallda, Lowland Scotch**... That's just a few of the other names I can think of... and there are more...


* Used to refer to rural dialects all over Scotland, and furth of it.
** Which is actually a word of Scottish origin, and was used by the Scots themselves for a number of years.

_________________
"The thistle rises and forever will" - MacDiarmid

NB - I am not the same person as the poster "Scottish republic".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Copyright Siol nan Gaidheal © 2003-15

Newsnet Scotland