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 4:15 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
I also meant to add...

Quote:
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.


Firstly, I believe that you are not going to inspire or win purely with economic arguments. People have to be inspired emotionally. Economics change. The unionists will use British prosperity against us, and British poverty against us. The bottom line is that independence is about standing on our own feet, losing our colonial cringe, and gaining self-respect.

Secondly, in my view, the biggest threat to the SNP is not from what you see as extreme elements (since they've never had that much influence), it's from within what you think is "moderate".

What am I talking about?

Careerism! It's hard to be inspired by, let alone vote for, someone who is only in politics for their next pay packet. These folk have done for the Labour Party, and I already see them growing in the SNP, now they see it as a safe career option. They're essentially parasitic, since they only join parties after they have success.

Careerism will be the death of the SNP if we're not careful. These folk invariably have little external life experience, and bend with each civil service diktat. They're uninspired, uninspiring, unimaginative, and create cynicism in the electorate.

We have to ask what we're fighting for in Scotland. Some folk in the SNP seem to want Scotland to become some glorified retail park, or concrete cultural wasteland (and I'm not just talking "Scottish" culture here), or a NATO base. This is what a lot of central Scotland has become already.

_________________
"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: Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Perhaps, but that would get very confusing.



No the confusing part came later when they changed the proper name of inglis to scots in order to confuse the ill educated peasants.

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




The latin name as already explained for a gaelic celt was a scot , hence ard ri na h`alba became in the language of the church rex scotorum. Doesnt change the fact that throughout most of Europe an Irishman was known as a scot.
Yet again no answer to my point , that for 1500 years the only people with claim to the latin name scot was the gaelic speakers. Kind of blows your argument about inglis being known as scots and gaidhlig dismissed as some minor unimportant language right oot the windae.
Quote:

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?


.Inglis is its name. modern English is what we speak today. You cannot seem to grasp this at all.
Your logic appears to be dismissive of all Scottish history , and concentrate on the period of our decline as we became an anglified country and the attempt to resurrect long dead old English words in an attempt to distinguish scots inglis as a separate language.
How is it progressive dismissing the vast majority of our non English speaking history , and concentrating on recent centuries where a minority spoke a dialect of northumbrian English before it morphed into standard English???
Burns wasn’t English , so please don’t build your straw men with me. I never said he was.
As our national bard , he is as appreciated by me as anyone else. A parcel of rogues and to a mouse are still my favourite poems. Nevertheless , he still spoke a dialect of English , while much of Ayrshire was still in its final death throes of speaking our gaidhlig language and no amount of greeting is gonna change that.
It must have been a terrible period for the man , watching his country become ever more anglified and stuck in an unwanted union with our ancient enemy.

I would rather have an English speaking free and independent Scotland than a gaidhlig speaking region of the brit state.
Humza yousaf is more of a scot to me than the likes of skeletor Murphy , I would rather deport this quisling bar steward and his ilk anyday.
I still want a gaidhlig speaking independent Scotland though , that’s first choice.


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




More havering??? Do you agree your language and culture was your identity before the concept of the modern nation state?

Quote:
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.



We all lived in a clan before it slowly changed over the centuries.
Agree with this except your last sentence which is utter cac.

The native tribes of Britons had enough in common with each other to unite against the incoming saxon.
The warring sub kingdoms of Scotland had enough in common to unite against the Viking threat , and likewise the irish tribes against the Normans.

You still do not understand from your twenty first century anglified viewpoint that although we did not have the centralised nation state the Normans first introduced , we still saw ourselves as part of the wider gaelic cultural block.
That’s why the gaels marched in and conquered the foreign anglo danes of Northumbria , they were not of the gaelic culture , and why , even up till recent centuries the Scottish gallowglass went over to help their irish brothers against the English in ireland.


Quote:
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.




The population of the burghs with their European merchants numbered in hundreds , while the Scottish gaidhlig speaking population numbered in hundreds of thousands.
As late as the 18th century the majority population lived north of the forth clyde and were gaidhlig speaking as well as vast areas of the south west.


Quote:
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.


We are as ethnically different to the English as any other indo European nation.
After the 18th century most of us were thoroughly anglified you mean , we didn’t speak german but English as I have been saying.

Lingustically speaking there are very little celts left , but hopefully a resurrected gaidhlig Scotland can change that.

Quote:
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.



Not at all the nucleus of our nation is celtic , you can add new layers but the gaidhlig soul of celtic Scotland will always be there.

Quote:
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.




No they attempted to eradicate gaidhlig Scotland as it was incompatible with their long term goal of a united English speaking centralised britiain with all the myths you seem to be fond of.
The English dialect will never be central to the celtic spirit of the scot , hopefully we can remove this dialect and re assert our national language.

Quote:
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.




The scots language centre??? Ha ha aye very unbiased , how about an article from the bbc on the union?

My source was the English historian and celtic expert peter bereford ellis. Whilst he was once head of the celtic league , he is world renowned for his works on the celts in general and is hardly some gaidhlig terrorist wishing to kill all inlgis speakers.



Quote:
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.













I have family from Ayrshire to angus and have never heard your inglis spoken. Just the varying Scottish accents.
The only people you will hear speaking inglis in ayr is at the robert burns appreciation societies , hosted by john scott in alloway peopled by ninety year old unionists and a few settlers slapping each other on the back on how jockland is a ruddy marvellous place , good malts , good poetry and countryside and how the natives are all caged in the cesspits of the central belt and we even managed to teach them the ruddy language eh wot!!
There is very little consensus on dialects and languages by linguists , that’s why people like you get to spout shit about inglis when the non English speaking world identify the scots as englishmen because we speak their language.

Quote:
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.


don’t make out that scots was spoken in the medieval period then when it didnae exist. Calling northumbrian inglis “scots” doesn’t stop it from being English!

Quote:
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.





English is English is English!

If scots inglis is a language then so is scouse and Geordie , and language decends into farce , meanwhile people like you make us a laughing stock. I don’t see the other independent English speaking nations calling their English a separate language , and neither should we. What are you afraid of? If we call it English , the Scottish will reject it? Maybe that is the heart of the matter!!

Quote:
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.



I am both and the two are mutually acceptable.
Only an eejit would blame a nation for the crimes of their elites , I don’t hate the English. Neither do I wish to be ruled by them or suffer their culture and language.

The irish didn’t invade , do learn your Scottish history. If anything the picts conquered the gaels but chose their language and culture.

English celts???? that’s a new one , in all my years they have normally been called native Britons.
In case you hadn’t noticed , we are becoming americanised too.


Quote:
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.



Glad to hear it , but try and lose the anglo centric view of everything Scottish.
I mean your final paragraph is so unionist scaremongerish its unreal. We cannae let them have independence , the proddies and catholics and the gaels and non gaels will be killing each other.
What a load of pure utter horse shit.
In a free democratic Scotland the majority will shall prevail. Of course , you wish to keep Scottish history under wraps cause if the people find out about what you inglis speakers did to gaidhlig your fucked.!!!

Now why doesn’t that surprise me that you are a monarchist???

Fuck the monarchy , although ill bend a knee to lizzie saxe coburg gotha the first queen of scots if it secures independence then theyre oot!!!

You must be disgusted at our French brothers plastering skaytie kayties tits all over their magazines , what a fucker eh??? :lol:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

hey copperknickers , they got the photographer :lol: :grin: :lol:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
albannach wrote:
You must be disgusted at our French brothers plastering skaytie kayties tits all over their magazines , what a fucker eh??? :lol:


Aye, especially after she was out in Malaysia, holding the hands of dying children in a cynical PR exercise that even Noel Edmonds would cringe at.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
[quote=ScottishRepublican]
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.[/quote]

No, I am a Monarchist because the Union of the Crowns unified the Scottish Kingdom with that of England under the Scottish king, and so the UK is the direct descendant of the Kingdom of Scotland. I never said I wanted to keep the two kingdoms united, its hardly unprecedented for a single King to reign over several separate kingdoms. Besides I think Monarchy is a better mode of government than Republic, look at Sweden, Canada, Holland etc.

Quote:
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...


Regional, regional, regional, insulting, different language, and exactly the same as 'Scottish'; respectively. Lallans perhaps is a possible alternative, though it is often used in my experience to differentiate the true Lowlands variety from the Doric of Aberdeenshire. And besides, Scots isn't just spoken in the Lowlands, its spoken in Shetland, Orkney and parts of the Highlands too.

Quote:
Firstly, I believe that you are not going to inspire or win purely with economic arguments. People have to be inspired emotionally. Economics change. The unionists will use British prosperity against us, and British poverty against us. The bottom line is that independence is about standing on our own feet, losing our colonial cringe, and gaining self-respect.


Couldn't have put it better myself. But if there are serious holes in the economic and political strategies then they are going to be used against us more than anything else. And if you ask pretty much anyone, that is their main cited reason for being pro-Union. Never mind whether its true or not, that is the belief. We aren't living in the 19th Century, Scots are by and large educated and informed people who take facts and figures into consideration.

Quote:
Secondly, in my view, the biggest threat to the SNP is not from what you see as extreme elements (since they've never had that much influence), it's from within what you think is "moderate".

What am I talking about?

Careerism! It's hard to be inspired by, let alone vote for, someone who is only in politics for their next pay packet. These folk have done for the Labour Party, and I already see them growing in the SNP, now they see it as a safe career option. They're essentially parasitic, since they only join parties after they have success.

Careerism will be the death of the SNP if we're not careful. These folk invariably have little external life experience, and bend with each civil service diktat. They're uninspired, uninspiring, unimaginative, and create cynicism in the electorate.


Quite so. Although they are unfortunately extremely driven in some instances. But my point was, the perception of Nationalists, other than politicians, is that we are somehow deluded and obsessed with Romantic Gaelic culture to the extent that we want all media and education to be in Gaelic. Scotland is not Quebec, we can't just ban Germanic languages, because Scots is a huge part of our culture whether or not you view it as a dialect.

[quote=Albannach]
Yet again no answer to my point , that for 1500 years the only people with claim to the latin name scot was the gaelic speakers. Kind of blows your argument about inglis being known as scots and gaidhlig dismissed as some minor unimportant language right oot the windae.[/quote]

Latin? You're basing your argument on Latin? This would be the same language in which France was known literally as 'the land of the Franks' (an invading Germanic tribe), and Germany as 'Alemannia' or 'Imperium Romanum' ('the land of the Alemanni' and 'the Roman Empire' respectively)? Latin was the language of the Romans, from Italy, and despite its pan-European usage it continued to show its origins all to clearly with regards to geography and knowledge of far out regions. Many Polish and Scandinavian Latin placename translations were more or less made up on the spot in Medieval times, since they were not very well known in Ancient Rome.

[quote[Inglis is its name. modern English is what we speak today.[/quote]

Inglis was its name in Scotland only. In England it was called 'Engliss' or 'Englisch', or 'English', as it is today. In fact even the modern German 'Englisch' is more similar to the English word than the Scots word is. Remember that Scots and English were diverging from a common origin, so naturally the two were referred to as the same language in the Medieval period, when they were extremely similar. Most scholars only cite Scots as a distinct language in the Early Modern period, but of course Scots had to have a 'Middle Scots' according to linguistic protocol.

Quote:
You cannot seem to grasp this at all.
Your logic appears to be dismissive of all Scottish history , and concentrate on the period of our decline as we became an anglified country and the attempt to resurrect long dead old English words in an attempt to distinguish scots inglis as a separate language.


Scotland, similar to England, Wales and Ireland, was influenced heavily by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and the Norman French. You claim that England was some sort of malign influence on Scotland from the Late Medieval period onwards, yet peoples and cultures from England had been influencing Scotland from the Roman period onward, as all neighbouring countries influence each other. Scottish history doesn't end with the Act of Union, we still carried on, Scots continued to be strong right up until the time of Burns and continued to be spoken fluently by some up until even more recently, and the vestiges remain in Scotland even today. But Scots had its genesis and indeed its golden age in the late medieval and renaissance period.

Quote:
Burns wasn’t English , so please don’t build your straw men with me. I never said he was.
As our national bard , he is as appreciated by me as anyone else. A parcel of rogues and to a mouse are still my favourite poems. Nevertheless , he still spoke a dialect of English , while much of Ayrshire was still in its final death throes of speaking our gaidhlig language and no amount of greeting is gonna change that.
It must have been a terrible period for the man , watching his country become ever more anglified and stuck in an unwanted union with our ancient enemy.


And yet, he must have reveled in writing such sublime works in the rich language that is Scots. Just because Burns missed Gaelic by only a couple of generations, doesn't mean Scots magically materialised in Ayrshire at that point: it had a long long history up in Strathclyde and the lowlands, dating to before Scotland and England were under the same sovereign. Burns was looking to celebrate Scots as a language.

'If you are for English verses , there is, on my part an end of the matter ... I have not that command of the language that I have of my native tongue. In fact, I think my ideas are more barren in English than in Scots." (To George Thomson)'

Does that sound like the words of someone who thought of Scots as a tragic consequence of Anglification?

To be continued tomorrow...

Quote:
I would rather have an English speaking free and independent Scotland than a gaidhlig speaking region of the brit state.
Humza yousaf is more of a scot to me than the likes of skeletor Murphy , I would rather deport this quisling bar steward and his ilk anyday.
I still want a gaidhlig speaking independent Scotland though , that’s first choice.


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




More havering??? Do you agree your language and culture was your identity before the concept of the modern nation state?

Quote:
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.



We all lived in a clan before it slowly changed over the centuries.
Agree with this except your last sentence which is utter cac.

The native tribes of Britons had enough in common with each other to unite against the incoming saxon.
The warring sub kingdoms of Scotland had enough in common to unite against the Viking threat , and likewise the irish tribes against the Normans.

You still do not understand from your twenty first century anglified viewpoint that although we did not have the centralised nation state the Normans first introduced , we still saw ourselves as part of the wider gaelic cultural block.
That’s why the gaels marched in and conquered the foreign anglo danes of Northumbria , they were not of the gaelic culture , and why , even up till recent centuries the Scottish gallowglass went over to help their irish brothers against the English in ireland.


Quote:
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.




The population of the burghs with their European merchants numbered in hundreds , while the Scottish gaidhlig speaking population numbered in hundreds of thousands.
As late as the 18th century the majority population lived north of the forth clyde and were gaidhlig speaking as well as vast areas of the south west.


Quote:
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.


We are as ethnically different to the English as any other indo European nation.
After the 18th century most of us were thoroughly anglified you mean , we didn’t speak german but English as I have been saying.

Lingustically speaking there are very little celts left , but hopefully a resurrected gaidhlig Scotland can change that.

Quote:
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.



Not at all the nucleus of our nation is celtic , you can add new layers but the gaidhlig soul of celtic Scotland will always be there.

Quote:
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.




No they attempted to eradicate gaidhlig Scotland as it was incompatible with their long term goal of a united English speaking centralised britiain with all the myths you seem to be fond of.
The English dialect will never be central to the celtic spirit of the scot , hopefully we can remove this dialect and re assert our national language.

Quote:
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.




The scots language centre??? Ha ha aye very unbiased , how about an article from the bbc on the union?

My source was the English historian and celtic expert peter bereford ellis. Whilst he was once head of the celtic league , he is world renowned for his works on the celts in general and is hardly some gaidhlig terrorist wishing to kill all inlgis speakers.



Quote:
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.













I have family from Ayrshire to angus and have never heard your inglis spoken. Just the varying Scottish accents.
The only people you will hear speaking inglis in ayr is at the robert burns appreciation societies , hosted by john scott in alloway peopled by ninety year old unionists and a few settlers slapping each other on the back on how jockland is a ruddy marvellous place , good malts , good poetry and countryside and how the natives are all caged in the cesspits of the central belt and we even managed to teach them the ruddy language eh wot!!
There is very little consensus on dialects and languages by linguists , that’s why people like you get to spout shit about inglis when the non English speaking world identify the scots as englishmen because we speak their language.

Quote:
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.


don’t make out that scots was spoken in the medieval period then when it didnae exist. Calling northumbrian inglis “scots” doesn’t stop it from being English!

Quote:
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.





English is English is English!

If scots inglis is a language then so is scouse and Geordie , and language decends into farce , meanwhile people like you make us a laughing stock. I don’t see the other independent English speaking nations calling their English a separate language , and neither should we. What are you afraid of? If we call it English , the Scottish will reject it? Maybe that is the heart of the matter!!

Quote:
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.



I am both and the two are mutually acceptable.
Only an eejit would blame a nation for the crimes of their elites , I don’t hate the English. Neither do I wish to be ruled by them or suffer their culture and language.

The irish didn’t invade , do learn your Scottish history. If anything the picts conquered the gaels but chose their language and culture.

English celts???? that’s a new one , in all my years they have normally been called native Britons.
In case you hadn’t noticed , we are becoming americanised too.


Quote:
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.



Glad to hear it , but try and lose the anglo centric view of everything Scottish.
I mean your final paragraph is so unionist scaremongerish its unreal. We cannae let them have independence , the proddies and catholics and the gaels and non gaels will be killing each other.
What a load of pure utter horse shit.
In a free democratic Scotland the majority will shall prevail. Of course , you wish to keep Scottish history under wraps cause if the people find out about what you inglis speakers did to gaidhlig your fucked.!!!

Now why doesn’t that surprise me that you are a monarchist???

Fuck the monarchy , although ill bend a knee to lizzie saxe coburg gotha the first queen of scots if it secures independence then theyre oot!!!

You must be disgusted at our French brothers plastering skaytie kayties tits all over their magazines , what a fucker eh???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
[quote="Copperknickers"



Quote:
Latin? You're basing your argument on Latin? This would be the same language in which France was known literally as 'the land of the Franks' (an invading Germanic tribe), and Germany as 'Alemannia' or 'Imperium Romanum' ('the land of the Alemanni' and 'the Roman Empire' respectively)? Latin was the language of the Romans, from Italy, and despite its pan-European usage it continued to show its origins all to clearly with regards to geography and knowledge of far out regions. Many Polish and Scandinavian Latin placename translations were more or less made up on the spot in Medieval times, since they were not very well known in Ancient Rome.


Well , you are a bit of a strange individual. You disappear then come back months later and resurrect long dead threads. Off we go again…..


Scot , or scotti first emerges into recorded history in latin , so why shouldn’t I mention the fact that it was originally used to describe irish tribes in the roman period. My clear point remains that in 2000 years of recorded history , it was a word used to identify a gaelic speaker , and only in the last 5 centuries has it gradually come to mean an English speaking inhabitant of Scotland. The rest of your paragraph is just diversionary nonsense.

Heres some suggested meanings of the name


Scotland, Scots ; E. Ir. Scott, pi. n. Scuit, d. Scottaib, Irishmen ;
Adamnan

Scotia, Ireland, Scoti, the Irish, Scoti Britanniae,
Scots of Dalriada, etc., Scoticus, Irish, Scotice, in the Gaelic
language, Lat. (fourth cent.) Scotti, Scdti, *Skotto-s. Stokes
translates the name as "masters, owners," allied to Got.
skatts, money, Ger. schatz, treasure, stock, Oh. SI. skotii, property, cattle. The root skat, hurt, scathe, cut, of Eng.
scathe, has been suggested, either as " cutters" or " tattooed
ones" (so Isidore of Saville). Rhys has suggested connection
with W. ysgwthr, a cutting, carving— " tattooed or painted
men."
http://www.electricscotland.com/webc...ofscotland.pdf



Quote:
Inglis was its name in Scotland only. In England it was called 'Engliss' or 'Englisch', or 'English', as it is today. In fact even the modern German 'Englisch' is more similar to the English word than the Scots word is. Remember that Scots and English were diverging from a common origin, so naturally the two were referred to as the same language in the Medieval period, when they were extremely similar. Most scholars only cite Scots as a distinct language in the Early Modern period, but of course Scots had to have a 'Middle Scots' according to linguistic protocol.




copper knickers with respect so what????

No one is arguing anything other wise?!!



Quote:
Scotland, similar to England, Wales and Ireland, was influenced heavily by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and the Norman French. You claim that England was some sort of malign influence on Scotland from the Late Medieval period onwards, yet peoples and cultures from England had been influencing Scotland from the Roman period onward, as all neighbouring countries influence each other. Scottish history doesn't end with the Act of Union, we still carried on, Scots continued to be strong right up until the time of Burns and continued to be spoken fluently by some up until even more recently, and the vestiges remain in Scotland even today. But Scots had its genesis and indeed its golden age in the late medieval and renaissance period.



Once again you do seem to struggle with your history quite a bit.

The romans never touched Ireland and only lightly touched Scotland south of the clyde forth. Likewise the anglos saxons , in all my years the only part of Scotland that I know of the anglo saxons settled was whithorn in Dumfries which they held between 750 - 800 ad before being kicked out and the area in the lammermuir hills which was conquered by us in 1018.
The Vikings influenced Europe from Ireland to Ukraine , likewise similar for the Normans in western Europe.
Of course there are cultural influences , especially linguistically , even gaelic has influences from English. My point is Scotland didn’t drop gaidhlig as the national language simply because they got fed up with it , it was a concentrated campaign to destroy our celtic culture not by the English , but by the norman incomers from the 12th century onwards who hated the tanist system of electing kings and the brehon laws and lack of private land ownership in Scotland. They wanted Scotland in mirror image of feudal England , even as late as the 18th century they were still trying to eradicate the old celtic culture , only by then it was their descendants in the brit elite doing the damage.
I never said Scottish history did end with the treaty ( more pro English words from you , its treaty , they say acts in England) of union , and once again you have already been told scots was never a majority language.
Scots doesn’t have a standard written form , and is regarded as nothing more than a dialect of english . You yourself have constantly been pulled on the course of this thread for ignoring old scots grammar , all you do is structure a dialect of English rather than a differing language you claim we all speak.

How many scots schools are there in Scotland today copper knickers????



Quote:
And yet, he must have reveled in writing such sublime works in the rich language that is Scots. Just because Burns missed Gaelic by only a couple of generations, doesn't mean Scots magically materialised in Ayrshire at that point: it had a long long history up in Strathclyde and the lowlands, dating to before Scotland and England were under the same sovereign. Burns was looking to celebrate Scots as a language.

'If you are for English verses , there is, on my part an end of the matter ... I have not that command of the language that I have of my native tongue. In fact, I think my ideas are more barren in English than in Scots." (To George Thomson)'

Does that sound like the words of someone who thought of Scots as a tragic consequence of Anglification?

To be continued tomorrow...



…once again I am not arguing anything different. I already pointed out it took centuries for gaidhlig to be pushed back to where it is today.
More diversionary nonsense. I simply stated I never called burns English , so less of the straw men!

Scots would never have been a dialect/language in Scotland except for a massive slice of good fortune , beginning with the conquest of the lammermuir hills area in 1018 , the old English language was beginning to be replaced in the area until the arrival of the norman nobility in Scotland a century later. They introduced their French , just like in England as the language of the court before it was replaced by English in the late 14th early 15th centuries as the language of the elite of both Scotland and England.

Once again only gaidhlig and modern English were languages spoken by the majority in Scotland , scots inglis is no more than a dialect/language spoken by a minority at a certain point in history just like cumbric , pictish , norse , danish within what is now modern Scotland and try as you might nothing will change this.

If enthusiasts like yourself wish to learn it , so be it but I see no appetite for it in the nation as a whole and I stand by emphatically all that I have written.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Good God, these replies are getting longer and longer...

Quote:
No, I am a Monarchist because the Union of the Crowns unified the Scottish Kingdom with that of England under the Scottish king, and so the UK is the direct descendant of the Kingdom of Scotland. I never said I wanted to keep the two kingdoms united, its hardly unprecedented for a single King to reign over several separate kingdoms. Besides I think Monarchy is a better mode of government than Republic, look at Sweden, Canada, Holland etc.


Look at Nepal, 1940s Japan, Tonga and the Shah's Persia... or Swaziland...

They are not our royal family.

The union of crowns is invalid. Has been since the 17th century. You can't have a union of crowns with no king.

Then a few decades later our royal line was deposed and replaced by usurpers. Broken again.

When Victoria came to the throne, the union of crowns between England and Hannover was dissolved. Salic law disallowed queens.

England had anti-Catholic laws, Scotland didn't. But that union of crowns was retained. Within a few years, Scotland was annexed, her parliament dissolved and moved into the English parliament. And that's how Jacobitism started. (I'm not getting into a long debate about that.)

There is no way in Hell that Elizabeth Windsor is the legitimate heir to the Scottish throne. In fact, I believe about fifty people precede her.

As For my opinion about any monarchy the clue's in my screen name.

_________________
"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 Feb 24, 2013 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
The English border country wasn't as Anglo-Saxon as you think. Norse was spoken in Cumbria in 1066, and the north west of England isn't very AS at all. More Norwegian (Hiberno-Norse, i.e. semi-Gaelic) and Welsh. There are even Gaelic placenames dotted along the coast from West Wales, the Wirral and Lakeland. The Norse names here often display inversion, i.e. Norse words and Celtic syntax. Welsh was spoken in Cheshire into the 20th century. (Partly because of gerrymandering) Some of the region doesn't even appear in the Domesday book!

Northumbria ditto, Their Norse were Danes not Norwegians though and less gaelicised. Again Welsh hung on in this supposed anglian region until a thousand years ago, perhaps more in the upper reaches of the dales and river valleys like the Tweed. When Scotland conquered down to the Tweed, it was not absorbing a purely Saxon or even Germanic territory.

And it was ALREADY partly Gaelicised. Some south east Gaelic placenames predate the conquest. Iona christianised the area, educated some of the Northumbrian kings (who knew Old Irish and even wrote in it occasionally), founded Lindisfarne and its Celtic style gospels... Lindisfarne was transferred to Durham because of Norse attacks.... in a roundabout way Durham University can trace itself back to Iona. Geordie dialect still has one or two Gaelic words in it.

Don't expect to read this in popular history books though.

Northumbria was the least AS of the areas on the eastern seaboard of modern England. Blame the Danelaw. Blame obstinate Welsh. Blame Gaelic missionaries...

And despite all the talk of medieval Scottish diversity, England was much more so, still is. Every language spoken in Scotland (known to us) was spoken in England at some point (except Pictish maybe)... plus several more.
And it's still the case. With immigration, many more languages are spoken in England than here. Some of them are probably only spoken in their native region, the United States and London. We're positively monocultural in comparison.

_________________
"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 Feb 24, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
The English border country wasn't as Anglo-Saxon as you think. Norse was spoken in Cumbria in 1066, and the north west of England isn't very AS at all. More Norwegian (Hiberno-Norse, i.e. semi-Gaelic) and Welsh. There are even Gaelic placenames dotted along the coast from West Wales, the Wirral and Lakeland. The Norse names here often display inversion, i.e. Norse words and Celtic syntax. Welsh was spoken in Cheshire into the 20th century. (Partly because of gerrymandering) Some of the region doesn't even appear in the Domesday book!

Northumbria ditto, Their Norse were Danes not Norwegians though and less gaelicised. Again Welsh hung on in this supposed anglian region until a thousand years ago, perhaps more in the upper reaches of the dales and river valleys like the Tweed. When Scotland conquered down to the Tweed, it was not absorbing a purely Saxon or even Germanic territory.

And it was ALREADY partly Gaelicised. Some south east Gaelic placenames predate the conquest. Iona christianised the area, educated some of the Northumbrian kings (who knew Old Irish and even wrote in it occasionally), founded Lindisfarne and its Celtic style gospels... Lindisfarne was transferred to Durham because of Norse attacks.... in a roundabout way Durham University can trace itself back to Iona. Geordie dialect still has one or two Gaelic words in it.

Don't expect to read this in popular history books though.

Northumbria was the least AS of the areas on the eastern seaboard of modern England. Blame the Danelaw. Blame obstinate Welsh. Blame Gaelic missionaries...

And despite all the talk of medieval Scottish diversity, England was much more so, still is. Every language spoken in Scotland (known to us) was spoken in England at some point (except Pictish maybe)... plus several more.
And it's still the case. With immigration, many more languages are spoken in England than here. Some of them are probably only spoken in their native region, the United States and London. We're positively monocultural in comparison.


thanks fur that s.r. i thoroughly agree. i think the northumbrian dialect is best described as anglo norse by the time it was incoporated into scotland in the 11th century.

basically i think this guy just comes on here to troll and wind everyone up. how else can you understand someone who talks of the act of union , instead of the treaty which most scots , outwith the odd unionist , term it. As i have said before , he has a definite anglo view of all things scottish.

i reference the works of the highly respected peter beresford ellis and the likes of william watson , and he terms them as inglis hating spawn of satan or some such reference that i cannae be bothered to check back on. Obviously never heard of them.

With regards to history , we are wasting our time. i mean its comical schoolboy stuff claiming the scots and irish share the romans and saxons in common with england :wacko:

:dontfeed:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
final thing s.r , placenames like penicuik , or hill of the cuckoo , show the britons long persisted in the south east of scotland according to watsons celtic place names.

The angle dominated period was what , roughly mid 7th century when they burnt dunedain to the ground till mid 9th century when they were effectively ended as an anglian kingdom by the danes.

in between , they suffered massive defeats like dunnichen and eadhbert of northumbrias army being wiped out in the mid 8th century returning from a siege at alt cluyd , and as p.b ellis states , sir frank stenton says that eadhbert was the last anglian leader in the mid 8th century to lead an effective expedition beyond what is now the modern border.

We know he claimed lordship over areas like kyle , but there was no evidence of settlement. Place names like cunningham give the false view that an angle settled in ayrshire, until as watson points out the earliest recording of the name is cunegan in the 12th century and while the origin is doubtfull , it may be brythonic.

We know the celtic place names of scotland is the older and the greater , but the teutonic placenames , as i am sure you may agree mainly come from the norse and some danish , and later scots inglis names. very few anglian place names outwith the area of the lammermuir hills.

cheers s.r

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Posts: 41
albannach wrote:
Quote:
Latin? You're basing your argument on Latin? This would be the same language in which France was known literally as 'the land of the Franks' (an invading Germanic tribe), and Germany as 'Alemannia' or 'Imperium Romanum' ('the land of the Alemanni' and 'the Roman Empire' respectively)? Latin was the language of the Romans, from Italy, and despite its pan-European usage it continued to show its origins all to clearly with regards to geography and knowledge of far out regions. Many Polish and Scandinavian Latin placename translations were more or less made up on the spot in Medieval times, since they were not very well known in Ancient Rome.


Well , you are a bit of a strange individual. You disappear then come back months later and resurrect long dead threads. Off we go again…..


I am not a regular of this forum, I only come here to post occasionally on subjects that interest me. Its hardly a long dead thread, it is the top thread in this section of the forum, and there is an ongoing debate: I prefer to wait until I have time to reply properly. Its only common courtesy to reply to all the points that you made in your post, if you don't want that then why do you bother replying at all?

Quote:
Scot , or scotti first emerges into recorded history in latin , so why shouldn’t I mention the fact that it was originally used to describe irish tribes in the roman period. My clear point remains that in 2000 years of recorded history , it was a word used to identify a gaelic speaker , and only in the last 5 centuries has it gradually come to mean an English speaking inhabitant of Scotland.


I can't even discern what the original point of this argument was, so I have only this to say: the term 'rex scotorum' has been applied since the Wars of Independence to the King of Scotland, or 'Scocia', in Medieval Latin, and it encompassed all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Scotland as distinct from the 'Angli', the English, the inhabitants of the 'regnum anglorum' or Kingdom of the English. Quite patently, there is no distinction made in that appellation between Anglic speaking lowlanders and Gaelic speakers (although as you will point out, at this time the majority of Scots even in the lowlands were still Gaelic speaking). The point is, the Scoti were a people under the King, a political entity, as much as a cultural one. The declaration of Arbroath quite clearly cites these things, among other sources I could mention. Yes, the original definition referred to something different, but it changed over time. Gaelic was at one point the main language of the Scottish people, but it has never had a monopoly on Scottish linguistic identity and it certainly doesn't now.

Quote:
Quote:
Inglis was its name in Scotland only. In England it was called 'Engliss' or 'Englisch', or 'English', as it is today. In fact even the modern German 'Englisch' is more similar to the English word than the Scots word is. Remember that Scots and English were diverging from a common origin, so naturally the two were referred to as the same language in the Medieval period, when they were extremely similar. Most scholars only cite Scots as a distinct language in the Early Modern period, but of course Scots had to have a 'Middle Scots' according to linguistic protocol.


copper knickers with respect so what????

No one is arguing anything other wise?!!


You are arguing that Scots is not a true language worthy of a place beside Gaelic as one of our national languages, when it was the language of the elite for hundreds of years, the majority language of Scotland for over a century, and the dominant language of Scottish literature for nigh 600 years. Indeed if you go right back to the time of Blind Harry, Gaidhlig was barely divorced from Irish in literature. Correct me if I am wrong, but the standard version of written Gaelic in the Early Middle Ages in Scotland was the same as that in Ireland iirc. Gaidhlig has a history not so different from Scots: introduced by foreign invaders, given prestige as the language of the elite and gradually gaining territory, enjoying a high period, and then a decline and persecution. The only reason Scots was not persecuted to the same extent is that it didn't have to be, since it was assimilated as a plebeian parasitical language at the lowest register of Scottish English. Assimilation is just as deadly a force as extermination in many cases, especially when the extermination was not complete.

Quote:
Quote:
Scotland, similar to England, Wales and Ireland, was influenced heavily by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and the Norman French. You claim that England was some sort of malign influence on Scotland from the Late Medieval period onwards, yet peoples and cultures from England had been influencing Scotland from the Roman period onward, as all neighbouring countries influence each other. Scottish history doesn't end with the Act of Union, we still carried on, Scots continued to be strong right up until the time of Burns and continued to be spoken fluently by some up until even more recently, and the vestiges remain in Scotland even today. But Scots had its genesis and indeed its golden age in the late medieval and renaissance period.



Quote:
Once again you do seem to struggle with your history quite a bit.

The romans never touched Ireland and only lightly touched Scotland south of the clyde forth. Likewise the anglos saxons , in all my years the only part of Scotland that I know of the anglo saxons settled was whithorn in Dumfries which they held between 750 - 800 ad before being kicked out and the area in the lammermuir hills which was conquered by us in 1018.


I never said they ruled those places, just that the cultural influence spilled over. Celtic Christianity in Ireland came as a direct result of the Roman occupation of England, for example.

Quote:
My point is Scotland didn’t drop gaidhlig as the national language simply because they got fed up with it , it was a concentrated campaign to destroy our celtic culture not by the English , but by the norman incomers from the 12th century onwards who hated the tanist system of electing kings and the brehon laws and lack of private land ownership in Scotland.


Not by the English, as you say, but by the Anglo-Normans. The same Anglo-Normans from whom many of the the Lowland nobles and the Medieval Kings of Scotland were descended. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to be Celtic in the High Medieval Period, the prestige languages were Latin and French, and later Scots. Gaelic was the language of the peasantry and the highlanders, not of the Norman elite. I am slightly confused as to how you can consider yourself a Scottish nationalist if you view these Normans as usurpers. It seems to be you are more of a Celtic nationalist, you must therefore logically view the Wars of Independence as more of a civil war between different factions of the English than a Scotland vs England affair. Of course, if you view the Gaidhealtachd as the true Scottish nation then that's fair enough, but that's not even Scottish ultranationalism, its Gaelic nationalism. Its rather like ETA claiming dominion over all of Spain.

Quote:
I never said Scottish history did end with the treaty ( more pro English words from you , its treaty , they say acts in England)


Well as it happens I am in England, so you'll have to excuse me. We wouldn't want the Brit-stapo arresting me :D.

Quote:
once again you have already been told scots was never a majority language.
Scots doesn’t have a standard written form , and is regarded as nothing more than a dialect of english .


It was a majority language, it is pluricentric (like English, Spanish, and many other languages), and it is only regarded as a dialect by people with blatant political anti-Scots sentiment such as yourself.

Quote:
You yourself have constantly been pulled on the course of this thread for ignoring old scots grammar , all you do is structure a dialect of English rather than a differing language you claim we all speak.
How many scots schools are there in Scotland today copper knickers????


As I said above, Scots has been assimilated into English, it is a parasitic language that exists only at the lowest register of Scottish communication. That doesn't mean it is entirely dead. No, there aren't any communities of Scots speakers where English isn't spoken, there are only people with varying degrees of Scots knowledge, and it would take artificial means to resurrect it as the language that it once was, but there are still people who write Scots, there are still people who recite it, there are still people who retain vast amounts of vocabulary, and there are whole hosts of people who are severely disadvantaged by having to speak toward the Scots end of the continuum at home, and the English end in school. It is therefore more alive than a language such as Latin or Sanskrit, and it has equally large quantities of texts proving that it once was a language in its own right.

Quote:
Scots would never have been a dialect/language in Scotland except for a massive slice of good fortune , beginning with the conquest of the lammermuir hills area in 1018 , the old English language was beginning to be replaced in the area until the arrival of the norman nobility in Scotland a century later. They introduced their French , just like in England as the language of the court before it was replaced by English in the late 14th early 15th centuries as the language of the elite of both Scotland and England.


The same type of 'good fortune' that led the Romans to withhold from invading Ireland and wiping out Gaelic altogether, like they did most other European languages of that time. History has many lucky happenstances, they are totally irrelevant: the fact remains that Old English did arrive in Scotland, it did evolve into Scots, and Scots was adopted as the native language of hundreds of thousands of Scots in the lowlands from the late Medieval period onward, as well as being adopted as the language of the court.

Quote:
If enthusiasts like yourself wish to learn it , so be it but I see no appetite for it in the nation as a whole and I stand by emphatically all that I have written.
[/quote]

You are entitled to your opinion and I am not trying to change it, I just want to try and persuade you that Scots was at one point a majority language, it was distinct from English, and its rise to prominence predates any large scale campaign of persecution against Scottish culture, a campaign in which it has also been victimised.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Probably worth mentioning a bit more about place name studies.

One of the biggest myths of Scottish history - Edinburgh = Edwin(e)sburgh. It was named before King Edwin came to the throne, and is originally a Brythonic name.

* Dinas Eidyn (Old Brythonic, last bit possibly connected with Votadani/Gododdin)
* Din Eidyn (intermediate)
* Dun Eideann (Gaidhlig)
* Edinaborg (Norse - Orkneyinga Saga etc)
* Edwinesburh (single form by Simeon of Durham, based on what he thought the origin of it was)
* Edinburgh (medieval)
* Dunedin (anglicised Gaidhlig)
* Edinburrie, Edina, Embro (old fashioned Scottish names)
* Embra, Enbra (local)
* Caeredin (modern Welsh as used in Wales)

Maybole in Ayrshire is considered Saxon on the basis of one record, which gives it a Saxonised form. Yet, it fits well with Celtic origins, and there are more records to suggest that than the Saxon one. Funny how Gaidhlig lasted nearby this "Saxon" settlement on the wrong side of the Southern Uplands until at least the 1760s. We even have a record of who the last speaker might have been and which farm she lived on (Cultezron, which is a stone's throw from the outskirts of the town).

Prestwick is obviously the Norse for "priest's bay", "prestur" + "vik", yet it too is considered to be of Saxon origin. When someone suggested to me that the Norse never used "prestur" much, and preferred "papa" for Celtic priests, I pointed out that it was commonly used by the Norse in the Isle of Man, which is probably more Norse - and more Gaelic - than Ayrshire perhaps.

Then you've got Crichton and Creetown. These seem to turn up in places where there is a boundary (crioch). The River Cree is the boundary between the Stewartry (A' Mhaoirne)/Kirkcudbrightshire, and the Shire/Wigtownshire in Galloway. to this day. Yet the same name turns up in Midlothian.

The old name of Temple in Midlothian is Balantrodach. Since the warriors (trodaich) connected with the baile (fermtoun) of Temple were Knights Templar, it seems fairly obvious that this Goidelic name postdates their arrival in 1128! It's not Brythonic either, since a Brythonic name would begin with Tre-, like Trabrown, Traquair etc. Yet just to fox any ideas that Goidelic names in the Lothians post-date Scottish invasions, there are plenty of church dedications in the Lothians and Borders which can be demonstrated to pre-date that by at least a century or two.

Here is a paper on the subject, although I do have some disagreements with some of the conclusions...
http://www.spns.org.uk/PNsMIDLOTHIANv3.pdf

Even York isn't a Germanic name. People would think it is, because it seems to be one (AS or Norse), until you look at the Roman name Eboracum, which is pre-AS/Norse, and is Celtic like a lot of older English names. Jorvik looks like a nice Viking name, like Leirvik (Lerwick, muddy bay) or Breivik (which means broad bay, or a cold blooded political murderer in Norwegian) Eboracum comes from old Celtic for place of the yew trees - maybe Iubh(a)raich in modern Gaelic. Boudicca would be Bwyddog (Welsh) or Buadhag (Gaidhlig) in modern Celtic. About the nearest moderm English equivalent would be "Booty", but that doesn't mean victory, it just means the spoils. Caractus = Caradog.

The key point here is that the Anglo-Saxons worked by assimilation. It took fifty years for the Franks to cross Gaul, and conquer it, giving it their name (France), but it took about five hundred for the Saxons to work their way to the modern borders of Cymru and Kernow (Cornwall), because they were absorbing Celts, and usually relegating them to a kind of slave class. When the Normans pushed the Saxons down, the Celtic people left in England went down even further, meaning that to get out of that position they had to adopt English/Anglo-Saxon culture. The origins of English, by the way, probably come out of the German mercenaries in the later Roman Army, stationed in south east England... who couldn't be bothered learning the local language. Then they invited some of their relatives over when the Romans left.

_________________
"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 Mar 02, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
"Copperknickers"]
Quote:
I am not a regular of this forum, I only come here to post occasionally on subjects that interest me. Its hardly a long dead thread, it is the top thread in this section of the forum, and there is an ongoing debate: I prefer to wait until I have time to reply properly. Its only common courtesy to reply to all the points that you made in your post, if you don't want that then why do you bother replying at all?


Ok , I am going to attempt one last time in contradiction of what I said earlier about feeding the troll. One more attempt at being reasonable with you. All I ask is for clear concise answers , as honest as you can fully referenced and backed up by reputable sources outwith wikipedia and the scots language centre. Failure to do so on your part will confirm you are an dishonest individual who is trolling this thread.

Now your first point. I am not a regular on this forum either , I have slightly more than double the posts ( 90 to your 38) that you have and neither am I a member of siol. Unlike you , I am not interested in a cock measuring contest about which language is better , rather I am interested in scotlands true linguistic history. I mean , one of your first posts on this forum was slagging gaidhlig off and claiming it wasn’t spoken in the lowlands , utter nonsense long dismissed , which I see you went quiet on when you had your arse handed to you by adanmh Macleod and ultach to name a few.

Posting replies months later is extremely unusual don’t you think???


Quote:
I can't even discern what the original point of this argument was, so I have only this to say: the term 'rex scotorum' has been applied since the Wars of Independence to the King of Scotland, or 'Scocia', in Medieval Latin, and it encompassed all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Scotland as distinct from the 'Angli', the English, the inhabitants of the 'regnum anglorum' or Kingdom of the English. Quite patently, there is no distinction made in that appellation between Anglic speaking lowlanders and Gaelic speakers (although as you will point out, at this time the majority of Scots even in the lowlands were still Gaelic speaking). The point is, the Scoti were a people under the King, a political entity, as much as a cultural one. The declaration of Arbroath quite clearly cites these things, among other sources I could mention. Yes, the original definition referred to something different, but it changed over time. Gaelic was at one point the main language of the Scottish people, but it has never had a monopoly on Scottish linguistic identity and it certainly doesn't now.




Classic example of waffling on to deflect from the fact you originally claimed the name "scots "was the preserve of English speaking inhabitants of Scotland , and I simply pointed out the name meant originally right up to modern times a gaelic speaker. Therefore , calling the inglis dialect “scots” in 16th century propoganda is a bit of a misnomer.

Yes it did have a monopoly on Scottish linguistic identity because we called ourselves gaidheals or albannach , and gaidhlig was the language that united Scotland into a nation from the various sub kingdoms of irish , pictish and cumbrian speakers with a norse and anglo danish minority fringe.
Show me, backed up by credible references , when in history inglis was the language of the majority of people in Scotland.????

Gaidhlig doesn’t now , because we all speak English and are taught standard English at school , another point you ridiculously denied , without any credible proof.


Quote:
You are arguing that Scots is not a true language worthy of a place beside Gaelic as one of our national languages, when it was the language of the elite for hundreds of years, the majority language of Scotland for over a century, and the dominant language of Scottish literature for nigh 600 years. Indeed if you go right back to the time of Blind Harry, Gaidhlig was barely divorced from Irish in literature. Correct me if I am wrong, but the standard version of written Gaelic in the Early Middle Ages in Scotland was the same as that in Ireland iirc. Gaidhlig has a history not so different from Scots: introduced by foreign invaders, given prestige as the language of the elite and gradually gaining territory, enjoying a high period, and then a decline and persecution. The only reason Scots was not persecuted to the same extent is that it didn't have to be, since it was assimilated as a plebeian parasitical language at the lowest register of Scottish English. Assimilation is just as deadly a force as extermination in many cases, especially when the extermination was not complete.




Nope , I am asking you clearly to provide proof that;

1. Scots inglis is regarded as a language when we know there is no consensus by linguists that it is a separate language in its own right from English , anymore than any other English dialect is a language in its own right.
2.we know it was the language of the elite for centuries , from 1400 roughly to 1603. Please provide credible proof it was the language or dialect of the majority of people in Scotland and when that timeframe was. I am not interested in your personal opinion , but credible proof. If you don’t know or cant provide it , then please say so without resorting to innuendo.
3.gaelic was barely divorced from irish , another straw man argument. Ultach has already said to you earlier in this thread. Stop the straw men please or I will refuse to further debate . Give us facts and credible evidence. The rest of your paragraph is nonsense not worthy of a reply.



Quote:
I never said they ruled those places, just that the cultural influence spilled over. Celtic Christianity in Ireland came as a direct result of the Roman occupation of England, for example.




I understand your point but what pathetically confusing terminology. The roman occupation of England???? England didn’t exist till nearly 500 years after the romans left , this is up their with your anglo saxon celts quote. You mean the roman occupation of Britain ?


Quote:
Not by the English, as you say, but by the Anglo-Normans. The same Anglo-Normans from whom many of the the Lowland nobles and the Medieval Kings of Scotland were descended. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to be Celtic in the High Medieval Period, the prestige languages were Latin and French, and later Scots. Gaelic was the language of the peasantry and the highlanders, not of the Norman elite. I am slightly confused as to how you can consider yourself a Scottish nationalist if you view these Normans as usurpers. It seems to be you are more of a Celtic nationalist, you must therefore logically view the Wars of Independence as more of a civil war between different factions of the English than a Scotland vs England affair. Of course, if you view the Gaidhealtachd as the true Scottish nation then that's fair enough, but that's not even Scottish ultranationalism, its Gaelic nationalism. Its rather like ETA claiming dominion over all of Spain.




More of a yawning nonsensical paragraph. I agree with the first 3 sentences then you begin to talk nonsense again. Gaidhlig wasn’t the language of the norman elite , you have obviously never heard of, or know nothing about robert the bruce then??? One example of an anglo norman lord whose mother tongue was gaidhlig from his mother and who held(we have documentary evidence)a Scottish parliament at st modans priory in ardchattan in 1308 whose business was conducted WHOLLY IN GAIDHLIG.

The Normans were usurpers , and are regarded so not just historically in Scotland , but in England , Ireland and wales too. I am actually surprised at you for saying this. I thought this was a general view held by all concerning the history of these islands and the 30 000 norman Flemish and Breton pirates that came to England in 1066 and STOLE THE LAND. Likewise in Ireland ,and wales too , and were invited in to steal the land by the Scottish king david in the 12th century. Surely you cant dispute this basic fact of history?????

Once again you go off topic with the rest of your post. The gaidhealtachd was the Scottish nation. It does not mean what you appear to imply , the highlands . It means the gadhlig speaking area which was once all Scotland. Of course , for someone like you who claims gadhlig was never spoken in the lowlands , it must be kind of hard to grasp.
See professor Kenneth jacksons “the celtic aftermath in the islands”where he write in consequence of king malcom conquering bernica in 1018 after carham , the whole of what is now Scotland became gaidhlig in speech.

Quote:
Well as it happens I am in England, so you'll have to excuse me. We wouldn't want the Brit-stapo arresting me :D
.





So? No matter where you are in the world , a true scot needn’t adopt an anglo centric viewpoint of history. that’s your trouble copper knickers , you have been taught or learned a pro English jaundiced view of Scotland and her history. So much of what you write is so wrong on so many levels. I am interested in the truth , not a personal agenda to push gaidhlig on everyone.
Please can you provide credible proof to back up what you are saying , if not then say you cannot or be known as a troll.
Whats the brit stapo??? English people are welcomed in Scotland like any nationality , we just dont want liars and mischief makers distorting our history for their own personal agenda


Quote:
It was a majority language, it is pluricentric (like English, Spanish, and many other languages), and it is only regarded as a dialect by people with blatant political anti-Scots sentiment such as yourself.




Where is the proof please , backed up with figures and reputable references , that inglis was a majority spoken dialect??? please provide this!
It is pluricentric like English because IT IS A DIALECT OF ENGLISH!!! Please provide evidence from a reputable source that there is a general consensus that inglis is a separate language on its own from English .?
How can I have political anti scots sentiment when I only wish to know the truth ????
Provide the evidence and convince me???


Quote:
As I said above, Scots has been assimilated into English, it is a parasitic language that exists only at the lowest register of Scottish communication. That doesn't mean it is entirely dead. No, there aren't any communities of Scots speakers where English isn't spoken, there are only people with varying degrees of Scots knowledge, and it would take artificial means to resurrect it as the language that it once was, but there are still people who write Scots, there are still people who recite it, there are still people who retain vast amounts of vocabulary, and there are whole hosts of people who are severely disadvantaged by having to speak toward the Scots end of the continuum at home, and the English end in school. It is therefore more alive than a language such as Latin or Sanskrit, and it has equally large quantities of texts proving that it once was a language in its own right.




What a liar. So scots has now been assimilated into English when earlier you said

“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.”

Another example of your contradictory views and the rest of the paragraph is more innuendo.



Quote:
The same type of 'good fortune' that led the Romans to withhold from invading Ireland and wiping out Gaelic altogether, like they did most other European languages of that time. History has many lucky happenstances, they are totally irrelevant: the fact remains that Old English did arrive in Scotland, it did evolve into Scots, and Scots was adopted as the native language of hundreds of thousands of Scots in the lowlands from the late Medieval period onward, as well as being adopted as the language of the court.





Once again more nonsense. I am not interested in your personal opinion. Please provide credible referenced proof that scots is a language separate from English and is viewed as such by a majority of linguists , and prove hundreds of thousands of scots spoke this dialect please???


Quote:
You are entitled to your opinion and I am not trying to change it, I just want to try and persuade you that Scots was at one point a majority language, it was distinct from English, and its rise to prominence predates any large scale campaign of persecution against Scottish culture, a campaign in which it has also been victimised.
[/quote]



I am not interested in opinions but factual evidence for the benefit of Scotland and our history. Please start to provide them. otherwise if you cannot , admit you cannot or be known as a troll and I will no longer debate with you.

last chance.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
Probably worth mentioning a bit more about place name studies.

One of the biggest myths of Scottish history - Edinburgh = Edwin(e)sburgh. It was named before King Edwin came to the throne, and is originally a Brythonic name.

* Dinas Eidyn (Old Brythonic, last bit possibly connected with Votadani/Gododdin)
* Din Eidyn (intermediate)
* Dun Eideann (Gaidhlig)
* Edinaborg (Norse - Orkneyinga Saga etc)
* Edwinesburh (single form by Simeon of Durham, based on what he thought the origin of it was)
* Edinburgh (medieval)
* Dunedin (anglicised Gaidhlig)
* Edinburrie, Edina, Embro (old fashioned Scottish names)
* Embra, Enbra (local)
* Caeredin (modern Welsh as used in Wales)

Maybole in Ayrshire is considered Saxon on the basis of one record, which gives it a Saxonised form. Yet, it fits well with Celtic origins, and there are more records to suggest that than the Saxon one. Funny how Gaidhlig lasted nearby this "Saxon" settlement on the wrong side of the Southern Uplands until at least the 1760s. We even have a record of who the last speaker might have been and which farm she lived on (Cultezron, which is a stone's throw from the outskirts of the town).

Prestwick is obviously the Norse for "priest's bay", "prestur" + "vik", yet it too is considered to be of Saxon origin. When someone suggested to me that the Norse never used "prestur" much, and preferred "papa" for Celtic priests, I pointed out that it was commonly used by the Norse in the Isle of Man, which is probably more Norse - and more Gaelic - than Ayrshire perhaps.

Then you've got Crichton and Creetown. These seem to turn up in places where there is a boundary (crioch). The River Cree is the boundary between the Stewartry (A' Mhaoirne)/Kirkcudbrightshire, and the Shire/Wigtownshire in Galloway. to this day. Yet the same name turns up in Midlothian.

The old name of Temple in Midlothian is Balantrodach. Since the warriors (trodaich) connected with the baile (fermtoun) of Temple were Knights Templar, it seems fairly obvious that this Goidelic name postdates their arrival in 1128! It's not Brythonic either, since a Brythonic name would begin with Tre-, like Trabrown, Traquair etc. Yet just to fox any ideas that Goidelic names in the Lothians post-date Scottish invasions, there are plenty of church dedications in the Lothians and Borders which can be demonstrated to pre-date that by at least a century or two.

Here is a paper on the subject, although I do have some disagreements with some of the conclusions...
http://www.spns.org.uk/PNsMIDLOTHIANv3.pdf

Even York isn't a Germanic name. People would think it is, because it seems to be one (AS or Norse), until you look at the Roman name Eboracum, which is pre-AS/Norse, and is Celtic like a lot of older English names. Jorvik looks like a nice Viking name, like Leirvik (Lerwick, muddy bay) or Breivik (which means broad bay, or a cold blooded political murderer in Norwegian) Eboracum comes from old Celtic for place of the yew trees - maybe Iubh(a)raich in modern Gaelic. Boudicca would be Bwyddog (Welsh) or Buadhag (Gaidhlig) in modern Celtic. About the nearest moderm English equivalent would be "Booty", but that doesn't mean victory, it just means the spoils. Caractus = Caradog.

The key point here is that the Anglo-Saxons worked by assimilation. It took fifty years for the Franks to cross Gaul, and conquer it, giving it their name (France), but it took about five hundred for the Saxons to work their way to the modern borders of Cymru and Kernow (Cornwall), because they were absorbing Celts, and usually relegating them to a kind of slave class. When the Normans pushed the Saxons down, the Celtic people left in England went down even further, meaning that to get out of that position they had to adopt English/Anglo-Saxon culture. The origins of English, by the way, probably come out of the German mercenaries in the later Roman Army, stationed in south east England... who couldn't be bothered learning the local language. Then they invited some of their relatives over when the Romans left.


great post s.r. thanks fur that.

of course , by destroying arguments for anglo saxon occupation of much of southern scotland , as evidenced by contemporary as well as place name evidence , we destroy the myth behind scots inglis , that is that everything to the north and west of a line from dumbarton to stonehaven was gaelic and everything south and east was teutonic in speech. This old argument has been destroyed by many linguists and historians down the years. gaidhlig was the language of the scots people , uniting the country as one cultural block and scots inglis was the language/dialect of division , the language/dialect of only the lowlands, and then only in part.

Can i point out i do not blame england for scotlands language problems. i blame people like copperknickers for continuing to peddle lies and dis information when people simply want to know the truth.
how many so called scottish historians over the years , like george pryde in the 1960`s who wrote basic nonsense in "a new history of scotland" that the first gaidhlig books were not printed till the late 18th century when we know the entire bible was published in gaelic in 1690? Furthermore the first known printed gaidhlig book was bishop john carswells form na h-ordaigh in 1597 , a prayer book translating john knoxs liturgy.
is it any wonder we have so much confusion about what language was spoken in scotland when!!?

i think paul kavanaghs articles are probably the best attempt in the modern era about scotlands languages , and while there are still grey areas and some things i disagree with , i salute the guy for an enjoyable read and more importantly , unlike copperknickers , attempting to portray the truth backed up by evidence that we have.

there were no english speakers in scotland of any numbers before the conquest of the far south east in 1018.
that brought a small minority into scotland , and contemporary evidence and place names show gaidhlig started to displace english for the next century till it stopped when king david invited the normans in. french and gaidhlig was the language of the elite , the majority of the population speaking gaidhlig.
the norman elite in both england and scotland begin adopting the new compound language of english in the early 15th century. prior to this some english , among many european languages would have been spoken by merchants in the burghs , from the 12th century onwards. again , majority of the population spoke gaidhlig.
scots had its window as the language dialect of the state between 1400 to 1603. i believe had scotland remained moarchial and politically seperate from england , scots , a dialect of english may very well have developed in to a seperate language but it didnt .
it wasnt even known as scots till gavin douglas first called it scots in the early 16th century , it was classed as english 100 years after the ruling elite first adopted it as their tongue.
so up to roughly 1500 , its spoken only by a minority of elite and isnt classed as seperate from english. As previously quoted , the venetian ambassador write at this time ( one andrew trevisano) the language of the scots is the same as the irish. he doesnt say our language is scots the same as the english?!!
james the 4th spoke gaidhlig as well as inglis. we know this as fact , records show the spanish ambassador to scotland , senor ayala , records this. james speaks gaidhlig because the majority of his subjects speak it .
the anti gaidhlig governemnt that arises in scotland during the reformation mid 16th century begin creating english schools for rooting out the irish language. merely instruments of cultural genocide in our country.
they destroyed whole libraries of our countries history and culture , in gaidhlig , such as the library catalogued by edward lhuyd later in 1699 , the catalogue survived but the book themselves were destroyed.
all we have is the book of deer from the 9th century , a single 11th century poem and a massive gap up to the islay charter of 1408 showing a sophisticated literary medium. Even in 1408 gaidhlig was being used as the language of administration in scotland.
so up till the mid 16th century , gaidhlig was known to be the language of the majority. in 50 years time scotland and england become joined in a monarchial union , 1603 as we know and the elite become angliscised. a single standard english bible was prescribed for all by our wonderfull monarch. standard english was the language used in church services from then on in.
to quote paul kavanagh

"With the loss of the old Scots formal literary language came the loss of the spoken variant of that literary language. By the late 18th century the usual written language corresponding to spoken Scots was Standard English, and increasingly the Standard English spoken language was regarded as the only proper form of speaking on formal or dignified occasions. Written and spoken English were now the formal and literary styles"

The population of Scotland was about 1,600,000 in the year 1800. Approximately 300,000 people, just under 20% of the Scottish population, were monolingual Gaelic speakers who spoke no other tongue.

so 2 centuries after the end of inglis as the language of the ruling elite in scotland , a fifth of scotland population couldnt speak in any dialect of english. these are the official census figures carried out by the brits , not some imaginary personal opinion. furthemore yet again , no mention of scots , no one sees it as a seperate language. yet they see fit to mention gaidhlig , tha language of rebellion.

i would be gratefull if anyone could provide me statistics of when scots was the language or dialect of the majority of people in scotland. no evidence in its 16th century hey day and after the union of 1603 , it becomes a minoritised dialect among the ruling elite , when the majority of the people speak gaidhlig still.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
I'm guilty of saying Act of Union, but technically, we should say (two) ActS of Union, but (one) Treaty of Union.

That's because each parliament had to pass a bill, and a treaty was signed by both parties.

What is the plural of Anschluss by the way?

Whether Broad Scots is a language or dialect is completely moot. On the one hand, Pidgin in Papua New Guinea is often classed as a language (and it says some seriously weird things using a lot of English words), the Scandinavian and three Gaelic languages are treated as separate and Afrikaans (Cape Dutch) & Maltese are... on the other hand, Mandarin and Cantonese are treated as dialects, as are various forms of Basque (opposite of Catalan), Egyptian Arabic & Swiss German are treated as dialects, so are various forms of Kurdish, Yiddish, Armenian, Tibetan, Georgian and Quechua. All of the latter group are more differentiated than Broad Scots and English.

In the middle, sometimes a language, sometimes a dialect, you can find Broad Scots, Belarussian, Valenciano, Galician, Flemish, Romansch, Serbian & Croat (or Serbo-Croat?), Slovak, Kashubian, Jamacan Patois, Urdu & Hindi (or Hindustani? Both since "purified") etc etc

The jury's out. How do you define it? From the anglified version of the central belt? From older farmers? From Shetlandic (which is as Norn as it is "Scots" and could claim itself to be new tongue perhaps)? From Burns (who wrote in it with a mixture of English)? From Caithness dialect with its unique Gaelic and Norse influences? From the Ruthwell Cross (whose language is not distinctive)? From MacDiarmid who indulges in deliberate obscurity? From Glaswegian sitcoms? Or Kelman and Irvine Welsh? Or TS Law and Willie Soutar? Or Sheena Blackhall and Ms Robertson of the travelling folk.

_________________
"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 Mar 02, 2013 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/index.html

lists the Lord's Prayer in many languages. The text should be of passing familiarity to most people. I'll post some examples by way of comparison.

_________________
"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 Mar 02, 2013 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
I'm guilty of saying Act of Union, but technically, we should say (two) ActS of Union, but (one) Treaty of Union.

That's because each parliament had to pass a bill, and a treaty was signed by both parties.

What is the plural of Anschluss by the way?

Whether Broad Scots is a language or dialect is completely moot. On the one hand, Pidgin in Papua New Guinea is often classed as a language (and it says some seriously weird things using a lot of English words), the Scandinavian and three Gaelic languages are treated as separate and Afrikaans (Cape Dutch) & Maltese are... on the other hand, Mandarin and Cantonese are treated as dialects, as are various forms of Basque (opposite of Catalan), Egyptian Arabic & Swiss German are treated as dialects, so are various forms of Kurdish, Yiddish, Armenian, Tibetan, Georgian and Quechua. All of the latter group are more differentiated than Broad Scots and English.

In the middle, sometimes a language, sometimes a dialect, you can find Broad Scots, Belarussian, Valenciano, Galician, Flemish, Romansch, Serbian & Croat (or Serbo-Croat?), Slovak, Kashubian, Jamacan Patois, Urdu & Hindi (or Hindustani? Both since "purified") etc etc

The jury's out. How do you define it? From the anglified version of the central belt? From older farmers? From Shetlandic (which is as Norn as it is "Scots" and could claim itself to be new tongue perhaps)? From Burns (who wrote in it with a mixture of English)? From Caithness dialect with its unique Gaelic and Norse influences? From the Ruthwell Cross (whose language is not distinctive)? From MacDiarmid who indulges in deliberate obscurity? From Glaswegian sitcoms? Or Kelman and Irvine Welsh? Or TS Law and Willie Soutar? Or Sheena Blackhall and Ms Robertson of the travelling folk.


i have always said treaty of union sr. point is most scots dont have copperknickers pro english jaundiced view of scottish history , thats why i question his views.

i fully agree withthe rest of your post and its also pretty much what most arguments conclude except of course our friend here is absolutely sure it is a language. it is a moot point. so what does he know that the majority of linguists dont?

i can fully accept what you are saying because i know you are being honest , copperknickers and i cannot get beyond the basic starting point because he is dishonest and will not admit anything other than it is a language.

standard english is only spoken by 9 % of the modern uk population , and its not even a regional dialect , spoken only by snobs and cardboard snobs across the current uk. THerfore my point also stands that regional english dialects are also , like scots english dialects , unique intheir own ways and can also be described as languages in their own right using the same arguments as inglis in scotland.

for scots to be taken seriously in post independant scotland , where it will come into conflict with gaelic as there can only be one argument of the state , it has to be
1.classed as a language in its own right
2.have a standard written form taught to our children.
3.have a proper history as unbiased as possible in how it connects with us.


gaidhlig is harder to learn and may very well die out. scots is too close to english to be taken seriously so who will bother with it.

i am intersted to see in an independant scotland when the language debate crops up what will happen.

best wishes sr.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Scottish Republican wrote:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/index.html

lists the Lord's Prayer in many languages. The text should be of passing familiarity to most people. I'll post some examples by way of comparison.


cheers sr .

i notice gaidhlig comes under the heading SCOTTISH :innocent9:


Image

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
Lord's Prayer in Tok Pisin (talk pidgin), Papua New Guinea. The grammar is weird but you can make out some of the words.

Papa bilong mipela (papa belong me-fella)
yu stap long heven. (you stop long heaven)
Mekim nem bilong yu i kamap bikpela. (make-'em name belong you ? come up big fella)
Mekim kingdom bilong yu i kam.
Strongim mipela long bihainim laik bilong yu (strong-'em me fella long ? like belong you)
long graun, olsem ol i bihainim long heven. (long ground, also? ?)
Givim mipela kaikai inap long tude. (give 'em me fella... long today)
Pogivim rong bilong mipela, (forgive 'em wrong belong me fella)
olsem mipela i pogivim ol arapela i mekim
rong long mipela. (also me fella 'e forgive 'em all other fella 'e make 'em wrong long me fella)
Sambai long mipela long taim bilong traim. (someby? long me fella long time belong ?)
Na rausim olgeta samting nogut (?all get ?something no good) long mipela.
Amen.

_________________
"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 Mar 02, 2013 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: In the early days of a better nation
The Lord's prayer in Tok Pisin (talk pidgin), Papua New Guinea. While a lot of the words are English, the constructions aren't. "Our" comes out as bilong mipela (belong me fella)

Once you get wrong the mind bending rules, and changes e.g f - p, you can work a lot out.

It's a world away in more ways than one.

Tok Skot bilong impela Copperknickers.

----

Papa bilong mipela yu stap long heven.
Papa belong mefella you stop long heaven

Mekim nem bilong yu i kamap bikpela.
make 'em name belong you 'e come up big fella.

Mekim kingdom bilong yu i kam.
make 'em kingdom belong you 'e come

Strongim mipela long bihainim laik bilong yu
strong 'em mefella long like ?behave 'em belong you

long graun, olsem ol i bihainim long heven.
long ground also 'em all 'e ?behave 'em long heaven

Givim mipela kaikai inap long tude.
give 'em mefella ?coca enough long today

Pogivim rong bilong mipela,
forgive 'em wrong belong me fella

olsem mipela i pogivim ol arapela i mekim
rong long mipela.
also 'em me fella 'e forgive 'em oll other-fella 'e make 'em wrong long me fella

Sambai long mipela long taim bilong traim.
someby? long me fella long time belong ?

Na rausim olgeta samting nogut long mipela.
? rouse 'em altogether something no good long me fella

Amen.

_________________
"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 ... 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