scots language
easy rider
Spectrum,1984.
"In the year 638 the Angles conquered from Northumberland the Celtic
fortress Din Eidyn and combined the Celtic and Germanic elements to a new
name: Edinburgh. In the centuries that followed the Old North English
spread over the Northern Kingdom. It swept away the Celtic Old Brittish in
the South and East."
"In his own kingdom the Scots was, during the medieval times a flourishing
language, with an own extended literature. The decay started during the
Reformation and the introduction of an English bible and was completed after
the Act of Union in 1707 when the two country's became one.
The difference between the spoken and written language persisted. This
occurs especially in the poems of Robert Burns (1759-1796). "
Scots is considered a a rich and picturesque old 'Inglische"dialect. The
difference with the New English is so big that I think it ought to be
recognized as a language.
Cheers Gerda
Nick-Durie
easy rider <g.ku...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:8tq4uk$ikb$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
You are right Gerda and those of us in the know usually think about it thus.
Tom
in its own right is 'How many Languages'? There are so many differences between
the North East for instance and West and Central Scotland. Many of the poems of
Burns are alien to me (coming from Aberdeen - not that I do not like them) for
instance
although many words I recognise. Also the pronunciation differs. Of course the
is
the same in English to a certain extent. For exaple to say 'From' in the West
you may say
'Frae' but in the North East it become 'Fae'. Even within say Glasgow people
use
different language from area to area.
A Stank in Glasgow becomes a Brander in the North East - totally different.
Weans
become Bairns and so on. Also sayings
"I'll see ye at the back ah 9" in Aberdeen means I will see you at half past
nine (ish).
This could mean half past eight elsewhere and if you further north time has no
meaning at all!
Is Doric a language in its own right?
Tom
Tom
easy rider
"Tom" <aberdon...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:3A1AD88F...@yahoo.com...
No; my dictionary describes Doric as a 'rustic' dialect. I suppose you can
say that the Scots language is spoken in various dialects as Dutch is spoken
in various dialects. People might disagree with my idea.But to me there is
Scots culture, Scots litterature, Scots wiskey and hopefully Scots language.
Cheers Gerda
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> easy rider wrote:
>
connochies
Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I would think that a good many languages would become non-languages if we
used your criteria Tom. Sure Scots has different dialects and accents but
they are all built on the same foundation. Folks from say Jarrow, rural
Norfolk, the city of London, and Liverpool can all have similar differences
in their language, but we wouldn't say English doesn't exist. Of course in
natural speech Scots speakers speak their dialect and not a standardised
Scots, but that is only because it has been superceded by English and
suppressed. I don't know, but I suspect Gaelic probably has "or had" a rich
blend of dialects too.
cheers
Allan
Tom
a dialect
of Old English. Dinna fash yersel! I take your point however. Modern Scots is
much different to the old stuff
you see hyped in books about Burns and tourist books.
From the dictionary:
eese (rhymes with peace):
Eese is a Northern form of use.
Fit eese is at?
The verb is generally "use".
Good one this but the ending is wrong. Should nearly always end with min!
ie
Fit eese is at min?
or begin with min
min; fit the hell eese is at?
Just as in other languages (say Polish) one must get the endings right of the
sentences min.
For example in Glasgow
"Haud oan a minute"
should be
"Haud oan a minute wee man"
or
"Hoad on a minute hen"
or even
"Hoad oan a minute ye c***"!
(the last use is the most commonly met - particularly in Shetlleston. I know
many old Shettlestonians.)
Another good one from the dictionary (which I applaud)
bear:
A bear is a usually derogatory term for a wild and uncouth
young man, particularly one who drinks a lot.
The bar closed long before the bears' drooth was
assuaged.
Well that example is very old fashioned sounding. Who talks about drooth
nooadays?
or even assuaged?
I have heard bear many atime and the explanation is good.
Tom
easy rider wrote:
> "Tom" <aberdon...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> No; my dictionary describes Doric as a 'rustic' dialect. I suppose you can
> say that the Scots language is spoken in various dialects as Dutch is spoken
> in various dialects. People might disagree with my idea.But to me there is
> Scots culture, Scots litterature, Scots wiskey and hopefully Scots language.
>
> Cheers Gerda
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > easy rider wrote:
> >
connochies
David A. Allan <daa...@pd.jaring.my> wrote in message
news:8vf06p$c9m$1...@news6.jaring.my...> news:3A1AF996...@yahoo.com...
> <snip>
> > Well that example is very old fashioned sounding. Who talks about drooth
> > nooadays?
>
> Many of my family members! (Aberdonians/Angus fowk!)
>
> David
Ay, oo hae drouth doun here in Kelsae tae.
Nick-Durie
writing a massive scrift and my computer crashed. I'd compared archaic
Yorkshire dialect annat - dead annoying.
Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A1AD88F...@yahoo.com...
> Yes the earlier post was a joke. The problem with considering Scots a a
language
>
It's OK, ignorance is ubiquitous - that's what happens after three hundred
years of casual oppression, you get people that consider their ignorance on
the subject to be a virtue (for example the various "-side"s of Scotland).
> in its own right is 'How many Languages'? There are so many differences
between
> the North East for instance and West and Central Scotland. Many of the
poems of
> Burns are alien to me (coming from Aberdeen - not that I do not like them)
for
> instance
> although many words I recognise.
Burns didn't write in Scots, he wrote in what he termed "the Scottish
dialect".
"Scots wham Bruce has aften led!"
I think not - that ain't Scots it's a makkieupper.
Also the pronunciation differs. Of course the
> is
> the same in English to a certain extent. For exaple to say 'From' in the
West
> you may say
> 'Frae' but in the North East it become 'Fae'. Even within say Glasgow
people
> use
> different language from area to area.
> A Stank in Glasgow becomes a Brander in the North East - totally
different.
> Weans
> become Bairns and so on.
But surely if Scots is a language which has been made very dialectical throu
linguistic tyrrany then all these words are Scots and any Scots speaking
Scot is entitled to use any of them. I use 'Glaswegian' words all the time,
I always have done, I know exactly what kind of thing a malkie is and _just_
what sort of woman could be described as a 'hairie'. The pronlem is who
decides what words are regional. Take the word bumfil (To those not in the
know this word means to stuff violently. I can bumfil my duvet up and my
duvet can be all bumfilt up.) according to CSD I should not be using that
word, nedless to say I've know it since I was a wei bit bairnokkie. Ither
wirds is crehd hwan thai isna, tak fir ensampil thi wird 'hie' (tae gae
summgait richt swith) ton wird is kenmerkit as deid bi CSD yitt houanaabe
mah Gran uizes it aa thi tymm an syne Ah dae anaa.
Why can't a Glaswegian call a 'stank' a 'cundie' or a 'brander', the reason
is tha he doesn't know these words exist, coz nobody has bothered to educate
him in his own language.
Also sayings
> "I'll see ye at the back ah 9" in Aberdeen means I will see you at half
past
> nine (ish).
> This could mean half past eight elsewhere and if you further north time
has no
> meaning at all!
> Is Doric a language in its own right?
Losch min fit claivers is iss, ye mith trew at thi Doric is a langage bot Ah
divna, it's juist anidder byleid o thi Scots leid!
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> easy rider wrote:
>
Jim Stewart
> >attempt, believe me. It is just that I come away unconvinced that their
> >'Scots' is no more than their own regional dialect with a degree of
> >invention.
> >
> >As ever, I stand to be corrected.
> >
> >Regards
> >Glenallan
> >---------
> >
>
> I think you will be - there are a good dozen who can write authentic
> Scots in this group, mainly because they're writing as they speak.
>
> (Are you actually Scottish, or of Scotish descent? I found that a
> surprising statement.)
>
> - měcheil
>
> - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
And I am surprised at you Micheil, Most of us of Scots descent know
well enough to listen and learn as most of the Scots are about to lose it
and they do not realize how precious the loss of Scots or Gaelic would
be to our future generations. We may kid and jostle in other threads, but
when it comes to the language or the stories, we are all ears.
Jim Stewart
David A. Allan
James Buchan
bein a drooth or idder wirds lik vrocht ur girse ,yakkie,
partans,trunks,ruddiks spyaangs in aa kine o idder words.Nae doot ava the
blissid glesga folkies ull hae ti try in gar his aa spik lik em bit fit wye
nae jist gyaan te e maist aalfashint dialect in mak at Standart Scotch?
Free Scotland spikkin Gaelic in Doric!
bar at INDEPENDENCE FOR AIBIRDEENSHIRE!
Kwitie
Glenallan
written convention for the glottal stop. Does anyone know if there is one?
I find that using say.... tha' and wee boa' etc... is just not good enough.
It simply does not express the 'sound' of it. There are many other
examples. I think this is a big weakness in making sense of what is
written. The net effect is 'music hall Scots'....and quite unreal.
(btw...I am not convinced it is a 'language' anyhow, but that is an issue
that has been done to death.)
Maybe we ought to have a Dante Aleghieri Society for "Scots". (whit?)
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1b0...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> I'm sorry about not responding earlier to this, I was in the process of
> writing a massive scrift and my computer crashed. I'd compared archaic
> Yorkshire dialect annat - dead annoying.
>
>
> Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Glenallan
I always come away from these discussions of 'what constitutes' Scots'
with a certain unease that the issue has never been properly addressed.
Often, indeed continuously, we are treated to minor examples of local
difference, such as the 'stank' example, whilst there appear to be few,
if any who can write a whole page in this 'language' with any degree of
real conviction whereby they may reasonably claim and assert.
"I have written a page of authentic Scots"
This is not to disparage the noble attempts of those who make the
attempt, believe me. It is just that I come away unconvinced that their
'Scots' is no more than their own regional dialect with a degree of
invention.
As ever, I stand to be corrected.
Regards
Glenallan
---------
Micheil
wrote:
> Who talks about drooth
>nooadays?
Most Scots speakers living outside cities...
Micheil
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>I don't know, but I suspect Gaelic probably has "or had" a rich
>blend of dialects too.
>
It has at least four.
Nick-Durie
gae
> summgait richt swith) ton wird is kenmerkit as deid bi CSD yitt houanaabe
> mah Gran uizes it aa thi tymm an syne Ah dae anaa.
>
Insertion made in -Ł&&-
> Why can't a Glaswegian call a 'stank' a 'cundie' or a 'brander', the
reason
> is that he doesn't know these words exist, coz nobody has bothered to
educate
> him in his own language.
>
> Also sayings
> > "I'll see ye at the back ah 9" in Aberdeen means I will see you at half
> past
> > nine (ish).
> > This could mean half past eight elsewhere and if you further north time
> has no
> > meaning at all!
> > Is Doric a language in its own right?
>
> Losch min fit claivers is iss, ye mith trew at thi Doric is a langage bot
Ah
> divna, it's juist anidder byleid o thi Scots leid!
>
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > easy rider wrote:
> >
Nick-Durie
Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vf5ea$6c9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> There can be no proper written example of "Scots", unless there is a
> written convention for the glottal stop. Does anyone know if there is one?
>
We need that like we need a hole i the heid. I use glottals for Ks, Ps and
Ts but then this is a feature of English as well, every language with
plosives has glottals, it's better not to record them coz they aren't always
realized.
> I find that using say.... tha' and wee boa' etc... is just not good
enough.
>
> It simply does not express the 'sound' of it. There are many other
> examples. I think this is a big weakness in making sense of what is
> written. The net effect is 'music hall Scots'....and quite unreal.
>
Only if you read it poorly.
> (btw...I am not convinced it is a 'language' anyhow, but that is an issue
> that has been done to death.)
I'm not convinced that English is a real language in fact I think it is
merely a patois spoken by the illiterate - it's just bad Scots with bad
grammar which borrows from the worst elements of French and Latin. It is
not worthy of my contempt, but then that is an issue which has been done to
death.
You're wrong.
>
> Maybe we ought to have a Dante Aleghieri Society for "Scots". (whit?)
>
Whereunto the inverted commas?
Alan Blacklock
"David A. Allan" wrote:
As does my Mum (Fife), although her usage is...
"I hae a drooth you could photograph"
Alan
Alan Blacklock
Micheil wrote:
> > Who talks about drooth
> >nooadays?
>
> Most Scots speakers living outside cities...
Or outside pubs......
Alan
Micheil
<RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>There can be no proper written example of "Scots", unless there is a
>written convention for the glottal stop. Does anyone know if there is one?
>
>I find that using say.... tha' and wee boa' etc... is just not good enough.
>
>It simply does not express the 'sound' of it. There are many other
>examples. I think this is a big weakness in making sense of what is
>written. The net effect is 'music hall Scots'....and quite unreal.
>
>(btw...I am not convinced it is a 'language' anyhow, but that is an issue
>that has been done to death.)
>
>Maybe we ought to have a Dante Aleghieri Society for "Scots". (whit?)
>
>Cheers
>Glenallan
>---------
For years I have been pushing the colon - wha:? - but no one wants to
know.
However, in languages like Hawai'ian, the ‘ (called "okina" in
Hawaiian) is a glottal stop. So when you say Hawai‘i, there's a
glottal stop between the two "i"s. Easy for Scots and Cockneys to say.
It's represented by either an acute accent, an apostrophe, or a single
upside down comma
Same with the Cheyenne native American language - ‘.
Even the Ainu language of Japan has the glottal stop and they also
write it as an apostrphe.
From: http://www.din.or.jp/~tommy/ainu.htm
"There are five vowels: i, e, a, o, and u .
There are 12 consonants: p, t, k, c, s, m, n, r, h, '( glottal stop),
w, and y"
Micheil
<RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>(I insert this post here for convenience only. It is not personal.)
>
>I always come away from these discussions of 'what constitutes' Scots'
>with a certain unease that the issue has never been properly addressed.
>
>Often, indeed continuously, we are treated to minor examples of local
>difference, such as the 'stank' example, whilst there appear to be few,
>if any who can write a whole page in this 'language' with any degree of
>real conviction whereby they may reasonably claim and assert.
>
>"I have written a page of authentic Scots"
>
>This is not to disparage the noble attempts of those who make the
>attempt, believe me. It is just that I come away unconvinced that their
>'Scots' is no more than their own regional dialect with a degree of
>invention.
>
>As ever, I stand to be corrected.
>
>Regards
>Glenallan
>---------
>
I think you will be - there are a good dozen who can write authentic
Scots in this group, mainly because they're writing as they speak.
(Are you actually Scottish, or of Scotish descent? I found that a
surprising statement.)
- měcheil
Glenallan
near the root of my own personal difficulty with written portrayals of
Scots.
Whether it is a dialect or language is of no relevance to this point.
Further, to clear the dead wood away, I was not discussing English.
> Only if you read it poorly.
I will not be obtuse, but this statement really does not help, either as a
point
of rhetoric or as a point of fact. It is clear to me, if not to you, that
the 'writer'
has a responsibility to try to write intelligibly to and for the reader.
Often this does not occur, which is why I was discussing Scots usage.
I did not realise that I had uttered such sacrilege.
> I'm not convinced that English is a real language in fact I think it is
> merely a patois spoken by the illiterate - it's just bad Scots with bad
> grammar which borrows from the worst elements of French and Latin. It is
> not worthy of my contempt, but then that is an issue which has been done
to
> death.
I have to say that your contempt is of no account.
If this is the measure of your 'scholarship', then I really am wasting my
time
in seeking your advice or having any dialogue on the matter.
As a Glaswegian, born and bred, with a reasonably keen ear for the dialects
of at least the west of Scotland, I have a valid interest in finding a
convincing written form of Scots, which may cause the language /dialect to
be
usable in an international context.
> You're wrong.
Prove it. You're the expert.
Glenallan
---------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1b2...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Glenallan
near the root of my own personal difficulty with written portrayals of
Scots. Whether it is a dialect or language is of no relevance to this
point. Further, to clear the dead wood away, I was not discussing
English.
> Only if you read it poorly.
I will not be obtuse, but this statement really does not help, either as a
point of rhetoric or as a point of fact. It is clear to me, if not to you,
that the 'writer' has a responsibility to try to write intelligibly to and
for the reader. Often this does not occur, which is why I was
discussing Scots usage. I did not realise that I had uttered such
sacrilege.
> I'm not convinced that English is a real language in fact I think it is
> merely a patois spoken by the illiterate - it's just bad Scots with bad
> grammar which borrows from the worst elements of French and Latin.
>It is not worthy of my contempt, but then that is an issue which has been
>done to death.
I have to say that your contempt is of no account.
If this is the measure of your 'scholarship', then I really am wasting my
time in seeking your advice or having any dialogue on the matter.
As a Glaswegian, born and bred, with a reasonably keen ear for the dialects
of at least the west of Scotland, I have a valid interest in finding a
convincing written form of Scots, which may cause the language /dialect to
be usable in an international context.
> You're wrong.
Prove it. You're the expert.
Glenallan
---------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1b2...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Glenallan
I have always lived here.
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"Micheil" <Mic...@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:3a1b360e.37506588@news...
Glenallan
The fact that a Scot writes as he speaks is not proof positive
that he is writing Scots. I may tell you, as a Scot, that I write
how I speak, but this is not necessarily true, which is the point
I was trying to get to.
Obviously, what I am writing here is a pretty fair
approximation of standard English, and as it happens a pretty
good approximation of how I do speak. I do this in order that both
you and I have a very good understanding of the thoughts I am
trying to convey. It is true that I may fail in this, but it is somewhat
silly for me to suggest that you are not reading properly.
Coming (at last) to the topic of written Scots, my concern is, that
outside of a very few who have particular knowledge the
dialect / language is NOT easily read by Scots.
I hope you will forgive this pedantic journey toward the above
paragraph.
I am intrested in some conventions of written usage which
facilitate understanding of Scots and does not obscure it for the
reader.
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"Jim Stewart" <ste...@ceet.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:8vffm9$s7v$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu...
> > >This is not to disparage the noble attempts of those who make the
> > >attempt, believe me. It is just that I come away unconvinced that
their
> > >'Scots' is no more than their own regional dialect with a degree of
> > >invention.
> > >
> > >As ever, I stand to be corrected.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >Glenallan
> > >---------
> > >
> >
> > I think you will be - there are a good dozen who can write authentic
> > Scots in this group, mainly because they're writing as they speak.
> >
> > (Are you actually Scottish, or of Scotish descent? I found that a
> > surprising statement.)
> >
> > - měcheil
> >
> > - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
>
Tom
of Scotland is
surely Bud is it not - at least among the 30 somethings? And for the very young
the alcho-pops
things that taste like lemonade! I noticed that Bud is also used in evryday
language in Glasgow
"Hows it goin bud"!
The days of the Whisky drinking Glasgow or Scottish drunk at the bar are
numbered. He drinks
Bud and and gets drunk at Archaos or Club30!!
Tom
connochies
> I really am not trying to be difficult here.
> The fact that a Scot writes as he speaks is not proof positive
> that he is writing Scots. I may tell you, as a Scot, that I write
> how I speak, but this is not necessarily true, which is the point
> I was trying to get to.
>
> Obviously, what I am writing here is a pretty fair
> approximation of standard English, and as it happens a pretty
> good approximation of how I do speak. I do this in order that both
> you and I have a very good understanding of the thoughts I am
> trying to convey. It is true that I may fail in this, but it is somewhat
> silly for me to suggest that you are not reading properly.
>
> Coming (at last) to the topic of written Scots, my concern is, that
> outside of a very few who have particular knowledge the
> dialect / language is NOT easily read by Scots.
>
> I hope you will forgive this pedantic journey toward the above
> paragraph.
>
> I am intrested in some conventions of written usage which
> facilitate understanding of Scots and does not obscure it for the
> reader.
>
> Cheers
> Glenallan
There is no universally accepted standard system of writing Scots because it
didn't develop properly like other languages because of the march of
English. However in the 15th and 16th centuries the literature written in
it is was written in a reasonably consistent language. Likewise in the 20th
century there is a form of writing which is widely accepted by Scots
writers, based on the Scots Style Sheet of the 1940s, and modified by the
SLS Recommendations. It is not very "difficult" especially for Scots
speakers, it is remarkably consistent in usage, and apart from the most
diverse aspects of some dialects, it reads how it sounds. As I have said in
previous posts, the people who have trouble with [or are even openly hostile
to] Scots, are invariably other Scots. By the way, why should we worry
about writing the glottal stop - the English don't?
Allan
Glenallan
Thank you for your helpful response. I have no interest in maintaining any
posture on this topic beyond the terms of enquiry. I was unaware that there
was a 'Scots Style Sheet of the 1940s' and SLS recommendations. (What is the
SLS?)
Is it the case then that, the Scots we often see is a form of 'Esperanto" of
the Scottish dialect / language.? Personally, as an English speaking Scot,
with a good understanding of the Glasgow and West Coast vernacular, for that
too is my dialect, I find that this is often presented in a comic, unreal
kind of way. I fall into this trap myself. This accounts for my general
dissatisfaction about written Scots.
I suspect that most Scots who believe they are speaking Scots are actually
speaking a vernacular English, and that the two dialects / languages are
inextricably mixed up. I suggest no rightness or wrongness in this. Rather
I am suggesting that it is difficult to write in such a manner that the
'sound' is maintained.
My only concern with English in this context is that I am interested in
writing Scots for an English speaking audience. I will not enter the arena
of 'open hostility to Scots'. That is not my interest here.
I will concede that the English glottal stop issue is less of a problem to
me, because in general, if I am told the setting is in England
(i.e. Yorkshire, Northumberland etc), I can hear the accent in my
"mind's ear". It is not so easy with Scots.
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
There is no universally accepted standard system of writing Scots because it
didn't develop properly like other languages because of the march of
English. However in the 15th and 16th centuries the literature written in
it is was written in a reasonably consistent language. Likewise in the 20th
century there is a form of writing which is widely accepted by Scots
writers, based on the Scots Style Sheet of the 1940s, and modified by the
SLS Recommendations. It is not very "difficult" especially for Scots
speakers, it is remarkably consistent in usage, and apart from the most
diverse aspects of some dialects, it reads how it sounds. As I have said in
previous posts, the people who have trouble with [or are even openly hostile
to] Scots, are invariably other Scots. By the way, why should we worry
about writing the glottal stop - the English don't?
Allan
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8vfsmd$fvn$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8vfkr8$l96$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I really am not trying to be difficult here.
> > The fact that a Scot writes as he speaks is not proof positive
> > that he is writing Scots. I may tell you, as a Scot, that I write
> > how I speak, but this is not necessarily true, which is the point
> > I was trying to get to.
> >
> > Obviously, what I am writing here is a pretty fair
> > approximation of standard English, and as it happens a pretty
> > good approximation of how I do speak. I do this in order that both
> > you and I have a very good understanding of the thoughts I am
> > trying to convey. It is true that I may fail in this, but it is somewhat
> > silly for me to suggest that you are not reading properly.
> >
> > Coming (at last) to the topic of written Scots, my concern is, that
> > outside of a very few who have particular knowledge the
> > dialect / language is NOT easily read by Scots.
> >
> > I hope you will forgive this pedantic journey toward the above
> > paragraph.
> >
> > I am intrested in some conventions of written usage which
> > facilitate understanding of Scots and does not obscure it for the
> > reader.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Glenallan
>
>
Scotty
Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<3A1AD88F...@yahoo.com>...
<snip>
> Is Doric a language in its own right?
I was always lead to believe so.
My mother, an amateur Doric writer and poet, taught me that Doric was the
second oldest language still spoken in the UK. I'm not sure of the source
of her information, though I believe there is some form of Professor of
Doric at Aberdeen Uni that she used to correspond with (not certain of this
though).
I know that West-Coasters who moved to Buchan during the Oil Boom of the
Seventies seemed to have as much trouble understanding us locals as the
English, Welsh and Irish did - but that's just one man's experience.
If it is a dialect of anything then I believe it's a dialect of
Northumbrian, but again I can't remember why I think this.
Oh dear, I'm not being very helpful and I'm just gibbering.
Scotty (fae Creemin near i' Broch)
Helen Ramsay
> <snip>
> > Well that example is very old fashioned sounding. Who talks about
drooth
> > nooadays?
> <snip>
>
> Many of my family members! (Aberdonians/Angus fowk!)
Ma faimly an aa!
Cheers,
Helen
Bob Peffers
> > Yes the earlier post was a joke. The problem with considering Scots a a
> language
> >
> > in its own right is 'How many Languages'? There are so many differences
> between
> > the North East for instance and West and Central Scotland. Many of the
> poems of
> > Burns are alien to me (coming from Aberdeen - not that I do not like
them)
> for
> > instance
course
> the
> > is
> > the same in English to a certain extent. For exaple to say 'From' in the
> West
> > you may say
> > 'Frae' but in the North East it become 'Fae'. Even within say Glasgow
> people
> > use
> > different language from area to area.
> > A Stank in Glasgow becomes a Brander in the North East - totally
> different.
> > Weans
> > "I'll see ye at the back ah 9" in Aberdeen means I will see you at half
> past
> > nine (ish).
> > This could mean half past eight elsewhere and if you further north time
> has no
> > meaning at all!
> >
>
>
> I would think that a good many languages would become non-languages if we
> used your criteria Tom. Sure Scots has different dialects and accents but
> they are all built on the same foundation. Folks from say Jarrow, rural
> Norfolk, the city of London, and Liverpool can all have similar
differences
> in their language, but we wouldn't say English doesn't exist. Of course
in
> natural speech Scots speakers speak their dialect and not a standardised
> Scots, but that is only because it has been superceded by English and
> suppressed. I don't know, but I suspect Gaelic probably has "or had" a
rich
> blend of dialects too.
>
>
>
>
> Allan
>
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:I have pointed this one out before but different
accents are used in different areas of cities. Within areas of towns and
within even small counties. Do the people of Leith, Newhaven and Granton
speak the same dialect as the people of Morningside? Do the people of
Kelvinside speak the same dialect as those from The Gorbals. Do the people
of Kirkcaldy speak the same dialect as those from Crail or Anstruther? There
is a difference between a different language and a different dialect. I
speak Scots and I can understand Scots speakers from the Borders to the far
North without any difficulty. My own accent would probably be a mixture of
Fife and Lothians with a bit of Borders thrown in for good measure. I have
never had any Scot fail to understand me. I can not speak or understand
Gaelic though.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Web site, The Eck's Files.
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Tom
brothers
and a sister whose mother had died and explores their experiences before the
funeral
the next day. It sounded very authentic - complete with correct sentence endings
and
cheeky wee nedy kids. It was a black comedy. If you write the script for such a
film
how do you write it? In English or ''weegie'? Or do the actors 'ad lib'?
Tom
Glenallan wrote:
> "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8vfsmd$fvn$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:8vfkr8$l96$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > I really am not trying to be difficult here.
> > > The fact that a Scot writes as he speaks is not proof positive
> > > that he is writing Scots. I may tell you, as a Scot, that I write
> > > how I speak, but this is not necessarily true, which is the point
> > > I was trying to get to.
> > >
> > > Obviously, what I am writing here is a pretty fair
> > > approximation of standard English, and as it happens a pretty
> > > good approximation of how I do speak. I do this in order that both
> > > you and I have a very good understanding of the thoughts I am
> > > trying to convey. It is true that I may fail in this, but it is somewhat
> > > silly for me to suggest that you are not reading properly.
> > >
> > > Coming (at last) to the topic of written Scots, my concern is, that
> > > outside of a very few who have particular knowledge the
> > > dialect / language is NOT easily read by Scots.
> > >
> > > I hope you will forgive this pedantic journey toward the above
> > > paragraph.
> > >
> > > I am intrested in some conventions of written usage which
> > > facilitate understanding of Scots and does not obscure it for the
> > > reader.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Glenallan
> >
> >
ian-s...@blueyonder.co.uk
<aberdon...@yahoo.com> :
>I stand very much corrected on the "Drooth" thing.
>However, the national drink of Scotland is surely Bud is it not ?
>
Certainly not, especially in connection with any discussion on drouth.
Don't you remember,
"I'm very thirsty,
I'm thirsty too
Here's a drink for me and you,
Barr's Irn Bru !"
Ba-Bru and Sandy
19canteen.
-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.scs.informer.ukgateway.net/
Nick-Durie
> I saw a Glasgow film the other night which was a classic. It involved
three
> brothers
> and a sister whose mother had died and explores their experiences before
the
> funeral
> the next day. It sounded very authentic - complete with correct sentence
endings
> and
> cheeky wee nedy kids. It was a black comedy. If you write the script for
such a
> film
> how do you write it? In English or ''weegie'?
This might be informative:-
VOICE OVER
Picture it. The Calton. Fair Fortnight. 1937. Full of Eastern promise.
Wimmen windaehangin. Weans greetin for pokey hats. Grown men, well intae
their hungry thirties, slouchin at coarners, skint as a bairn's knees. The
sweet smell of middens, full and flowing over in the sun. Quick! There's a
scramble in Parnie Street! The wee yin there's away wae a hauf-croon.
Back closes runnin wae dug pee and East End young team runnin wae the San
Toy, the Kent Star, the Sally Boys, the Black Star, the Calton Entry Mob,
the Cheeky Forty, the Romeo Boys, the Antique Mob, and the Stickit Boys.
Then there wiz the Communist Party. Red rags tae John Bull. But if things
were bad in the Calton they were worse elsewhere. Franco in the middle.
Mussolini oan the right-wing. Hitler waitin' tae come oan. When they three
goat thigether an came up against the Spanish workers, they didnae expect
the Calton tae offer handers.
The heirs a John MacLean, clutchin a quire a Daily Workers, staunin oan
boaxes at the Green, shakin thur fists at the crowd that gathered tae hear
aboot the plight ae the Spanish Republic. Oot ae they gatherins oan the
Green came the heroes ae the International Brigade, formin the front-line
against fascism.
The Blackshirts, the Brownshirts, the Blueshirts, fascists of every colour
an country came up against the men an women ae no mean city, against grey
simmets an bunnets an headscarfs, against troosers tied wae string an shoes
that let the rain in, against guns that were auld enough tae remember
Waterloo. Fae nae hair tae grey hair they answered the call. Many never came
back. They were internationalists. They wur Europeans. They wur Scots.
Glasgow should be proud ae them!
for the whole thing plus others betake yourself hither:
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/STELLA/STARN/scotplay/CALTON/CATAL.HTM
This is a good site.
Or do the actors 'ad lib'?
No. They might give something a Scottish pronunciation or the like but I
don't think they would ad lib.
>
> Tom
>
connochies
> I stand very much corrected on the "Drooth" thing. However, the national
drink
> of Scotland is
young
> the alcho-pops
> things that taste like lemonade! I noticed that Bud is also used in
evryday
> language in Glasgow
>
> "Hows it goin bud"!
>
> The days of the Whisky drinking Glasgow or Scottish drunk at the bar are
> numbered. He drinks
> Bud and and gets drunk at Archaos or Club30!!
>
> Tom
I know what you're getting at Tom. We don't live in the past and it can be
annoying when we are potrayed as doing so. However the Scots language too
is not quite a thing of the past yet. In many parts of Scotland these Bud
drinkers [there is no accounting for a lack of taste] will order their
modern drink in Scots.
cheers
Allan
connochies
Scotty <alan....@terra-nova.e-mail.com> wrote in message
news:01c05483$a796c9e0$b04cc3c1@tnpc3671...
>
The only other form of Scots which is being seriously put forward as a
seperate language is Ulster Scots. It is a fact of Scots that it has been
so suppressed that many speakers will refer to what they speak as speaking
the Doric, or right Hawick speaking, or Ayrshire etc. Divide and rule is
what springs to mind. These are all Scots, though they are interesting and
valuable dialects in themselves.
>
> My mother, an amateur Doric writer and poet, taught me that Doric was the
> second oldest language still spoken in the UK.
I'm sure that Gaelic, Irish and Welsh speakers would argue with that one.
Not forgetting just plain old Scots, which was spoken in the Borders and
Lothians long before it crept northwards.
I'm not sure of the source
> of her information, though I believe there is some form of Professor of
> Doric at Aberdeen Uni that she used to correspond with (not certain of
this
> though).
>
> I know that West-Coasters who moved to Buchan during the Oil Boom of the
> Seventies seemed to have as much trouble understanding us locals as the
> English, Welsh and Irish did - but that's just one man's experience.
>
> If it is a dialect of anything then I believe it's a dialect of
> Northumbrian, but again I can't remember why I think this.
It is true that modern Scots evolved from the Northumbrian dialect of old
English, but I don't think it was ever called Northumbrian! The CSD gives
the older Scots period staring about 1100AD, although the poet Gavin Douglas
first used the adjective Scots for the language at the turn of the 1500s.
He apoligised for using bastard Latin, French or English when Scots was
scant.
Allan
connochies
> Allan,
>
> Thank you for your helpful response. I have no interest in maintaining any
> posture on this topic beyond the terms of enquiry. I was unaware that
there
> was a 'Scots Style Sheet of the 1940s' and SLS recommendations. (What is
the
> SLS?)
The Scots Language Society
>
> Is it the case then that, the Scots we often see is a form of 'Esperanto"
of
> the Scottish dialect / language.? Personally, as an English speaking
Scot,
> with a good understanding of the Glasgow and West Coast vernacular, for
that
> too is my dialect, I find that this is often presented in a comic, unreal
> kind of way. I fall into this trap myself. This accounts for my general
> dissatisfaction about written Scots.
Yes many people write in their dialect, which personally I find interesting;
some will write in phonetics; or some just make it up as they go along; and
some will revert to Scots only when expressing vulgarity. However none of
that takes away from the actual language. If people have to teach
themselves a written language then you are bound to have wide variation in
standard.
> I suspect that most Scots who believe they are speaking Scots are actually
> speaking a vernacular English, and that the two dialects / languages are
> inextricably mixed up.
Of course that is true, but it depends where you are what mixture is taking
place. There are many areas where what is often being spoken is rather more
Scots than English, and there are bilinguals who can swap instantly from one
to the other. I would regard myself in that category, though Scots does
come more naturally. Again years of neglect have caused this erosion. The
Glasgow dialect of course has a low prestige with some Scots purists, though
I would not regard myself in that category necessarily.
I suggest no rightness or wrongness in this.
Rather
> I am suggesting that it is difficult to write in such a manner that the
> 'sound' is maintained.
This is how MacDiarmid's "Crowdieknowe" is written in "A Scots Grammar" by
David Purves.
O ti be at Crowdieknowe
Whan the lest trumpet blaws
An see the deid cum lowpin owre
The auld grey waws.
Mukkil men wi tousilt baerds
A grat at as a bairn
'l skrammil frae the croudit cley
Wi fek o sweirin.
An glower at God an aw his gang
O angels i the lift
- Thae trashie bleizin French lyke fowk
Wha gar'd thaim shift!
Fain the weimen fowk'l seek
Ti mak thaim haud thair rowe
- Fegs, God's no blate gin he steirs up
The men o Crowdieknowe.
It is almost all written in words still in current use, and certainly to a
Scots speaker it is written how it sounds. In fact this system for spelling
in Scots is far less idiosyncratic than the English spelling system is.
>
> My only concern with English in this context is that I am interested in
> writing Scots for an English speaking audience. I will not enter the arena
> of 'open hostility to Scots'. That is not my interest here.
>
> I will concede that the English glottal stop issue is less of a problem to
> me, because in general, if I am told the setting is in England
> (i.e. Yorkshire, Northumberland etc), I can hear the accent in my
> "mind's ear". It is not so easy with Scots.
But that is personal to you. Many people do think and hear more naturally
in Scots. Thankfully! If that wasn't the case it would have died out years
ago. Hope I don't sound too preaching, but it is important to me. I feel
cheated that I had to discover my own culture after I left school. I feel
agrieved that a teacher would actually lambast my Scots "dialect" when I was
being taught in the area that was the cradle of the language , especially
when my speech was grammatically correct.
I have had disagreements with Micheil in the past over our interpretation
of history, but must say that I admire him in his love for Gaelic, and his
obvious respect for other languages. The more we have like him, the better
for both our surviving indiginous tongues. Also despite the individual way
he has of spelling, as long as there are people with Nick's passion, "oor
auld leid" will hang on in there.
Glenallan
On a rather more personal, and hopefully non-controversial note, I have no
difficulty whatsoever with the MacDiarmid (David Purves) passage quoted.
In fact it is rather less taxing than the poetry of Burns in written form.
Further, the play, as illustrated on the website at Nick's post, was pretty
authentic Glaswegian, whilst the Voice Over was neutralised to some extent,
but was still Old Labour Glaswegian in construction. This I would expect.
( I know about these things :-) )
For what it is worth, the play (as written) carried an exaggerated sense
of the "amount or volume" of Glasgow vernacular used at any one time.
This again is acceptable in a play, for the sake of drama, but it is not
exactly how Glaswegians speak. In one longish paragraph, we see here
almost the distilled essence of 'all' of the Glasgow dialect(s) with some
slight natural exaggeration.
It is seldom spoken in this way. Take this as Gospel from one who was
raised in Toonheid, the very epicentre of the Glaswegian Universe. :-)
I myself have used every one of the forms of phraseology used in the play,
but, importantly, not all of them in the same monologue.
This brings me almost full circle to my original quest of 'divining' a
written form that conveys the 'sound' of the language.
A der sae wul jist nee'ae dae the bes' wi kin an ge' oan wi i'.
(Oh for a Glottal stop)
Thanks, Allan, for taking the time.
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8vhm12$r8r$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Bob Peffers
> > I saw a Glasgow film the other night which was a classic. It involved
> three
> > brothers
> > and a sister whose mother had died and explores their experiences before
> Glasgow should be proud ae them!
>
> for the whole thing plus others betake yourself hither:
> http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/STELLA/STARN/scotplay/CALTON/CATAL.HTM
>
> This is a good site.
>
>
>
> don't think they would ad lib.
>
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
>
>
strange names that I took to be the Glasgow gangs, I had no trouble at all.
A few months ago I was reminded about Robert Louis Stevenson's, *Thrawn
Janet*, by young Nick Durie. I had not read it for some 40 years but I
looked it up on the web and read it as easily as I read, (most), of the
posts on this newsgroup. I have gone to the websites of various Aberdeen and
Dundee people and I find I can read there writings just as easily. Does this
not point to the fact that a Scots speaker will be able to do so with equal
ease? On the subject of the cundy, there are various name for sievers,(is
that a strange one to anyone), cundies etc. all over Scotland but there are
subtle differences in what kind of thing they actually are. Perhaps this is
more a case of someone having a greater vocabulary than another person
rather than regional variations?
Bob Peffers
different from English in having great differences between areas. The people
of Devon and Cornwall have a very different sound to those of the East End
of London. The people of Birmingham sound to me like people from a different
land to the people of Tyneside. So why is it that, the English in
particular, site the differences in Scotland's regions as proof that Scots
is not a language? Even worse they dismiss Scots as slang English. While I
would class some of what I hear in Scotland as slang at least it is Scots
slang.
Tom
of speaking with a bit of Elaine C Smith. I too understood most (but not all) of the
MacDiarmid but find Burns taxing. Is Burns a case of the emperors new clothes?
Do people all pretend they know it? I remember reciting it at school and even winning
two prizes for reciting it but never knew what it all meant!! Language is as it is spoken today and
not 300 years ago but!
Tom
ps Toonheid is that near Cambuslang?
connochies
Bob Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vi217$a3q$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8vhm10$r8r$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Scotty <alan....@terra-nova.e-mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:01c05483$a796c9e0$b04cc3c1@tnpc3671...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> > > <3A1AD88F...@yahoo.com>...
> different from English in having great differences between areas. The
people
> of Devon and Cornwall have a very different sound to those of the East End
> of London. The people of Birmingham sound to me like people from a
different
> land to the people of Tyneside. So why is it that, the English in
> particular, site the differences in Scotland's regions as proof that Scots
> is not a language? Even worse they dismiss Scots as slang English. While I
> would class some of what I hear in Scotland as slang at least it is Scots
> slang.
Well said Bob, though I've not really experienced English reaction to the
language like that. They normally don't know what is meant by Scots and
simply think everyone speaks like a Glaswegian. In my experience it is
invariably Scots who have trouble with the language, yet none of the
postings so far have really explained to me why this should be so. We have
heard it is not a language because there are different dialects. I can't
quite fathom this one out as every language [I would think] has different
dialects. We have heard that it can be difficult to convey the sound of
Scots, more especially the Glasgow dialect, in written form. Again this
must surely be true of Geordie, Scouse, Brummy, Cockney, or any of the rural
English dialects.
There was a letter from a monoglot Aberdonian in one of the newspapers a wee
while back complaining about the possibility of bilingual signs. One of his
points is that they would be calling toilets "the lavie." It made by blood
boil how he could only equate Scots with what is a slang word in English. I
should have told him about Lorimer's New Testament, so he could see how
dignified the language can be. Do you think he would have seen through his
prejudice? Probably not.
Allan
Chic McGregor
I think you'll find 'lavie' is Roman slang.
Possibly the legacy of one time compulsory classical languages in the
Scottish education system. Ironically 'Academies' which are nowadays
regarded as more academic, were set up initially at the behest of
local employers and tradesmen who wanted a more practical and useful
educational product.
regards
chic
Glenallan
It is the birthplace of the brave and the noble. It is the seed bed of the race of Scotland's giants.
"Tom" <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A1C9182...@yahoo.com...
Glenallan
the clouded view of the English as bogie-men who would deny us the right to
use our own tongue. I believe that this self indulgence is the biggest
impediment to the development of the Scottish people.
During the course of my moderately useless life, I have found that the
English do not really care how the Scots speak. It is we, who are searching
for signs of that anointing oil of 'Scottishness' who are concerned about
how we speak. For some, it would appear that their Scottish identity would
tumble like a house of cards if it is found that Scots is a dialect of
English. I do not share this anxiety.
For me the definition of language is really quite simple.
If we can all understand each other, even with a little difficulty, from
Lands End to John o' Groats, and that language is called English, then we
are speaking English, and every dialect within it is exactly that, a dialect
of
English. Doubtless, there are many who disagree most emphatically with this,
but invariably the case is laboured and false, drawing on ethnic
considerations which are not properly part of the reasoned argument.
I cannot deny, indeed I applaud, the expressive richness of many of the
dialects, none more expressive than Scots in the mouth of a skilled and
erudite Scottish wordsmith.
This applies too, to that particular Scottish rendering of English that has
made Scottish oratory amongst the most respected in the institutions of the
UK. It is clear to me that if God speaks English, he does so with a
Scottish accent.
Take the recent eulogy by Dr Gordon Brown, Chancellor, on the occasion of
Donald Dewar's funeral. Regardless of politics, what wonderful Scottishnes
he expressed.
Regards
Glenallan
---------
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8vigb7$fie$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Bob Peffers
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:It may be those not from a rural background find the
writing of Burns hard going because he came from a farming background and
many words and terms used in his works reflect this. Perhaps the people who
find some of his works hard to follow could note whether the writings from
the time Burns was accepted into polite Edinburgh Society are any easier to
follow?
Nick-Durie
>
>
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:It may be those not from a rural background find the
> writing of Burns hard going because he came from a farming background and
> many words and terms used in his works reflect this. Perhaps the people
who
> find some of his works hard to follow could note whether the writings from
> the time Burns was accepted into polite Edinburgh Society are any easier
to
> follow?
Regard (spellin haes bein maed menssfu, apostrophes haes bein smourt an GHs
fir souchie souns haes bein maed intil CHs):-
But I gae mad at their grimaces,
Their sichan, cantan, grace-prood faces
Their three-mile prayers, an hauf-mile graces,
Their raxan conscience,
Whase greed, revenge, an pride disgraces
Waur nor their conscience
but I go mad at their grimaces
their sighing, whining/hypocritical, (allusion to the elect, saying that
they are smug about their 'predetermination') faces
their prayers which go further than their graces
their stretching conscience
whose greed, revenge and pride disgraces
worse than their conscience
I confess I had to look up two words there, one of which looks like a nonce
word "grace-prood" and the other "cantan" which is only in Burns' glossary,
not CSD.
It's annoying to say a gross Anglicism like that use of 'whase' followed by
a correct usage, "waur nor".
connochies
> It is important, I think, for the identity of the modern Scot to cast
aside
> the clouded view of the English as bogie-men who would deny us the right
to
> use our own tongue. I believe that this self indulgence is the biggest
> impediment to the development of the Scottish people.
>
> During the course of my moderately useless life, I have found that the
> English do not really care how the Scots speak. It is we, who are
searching
> for signs of that anointing oil of 'Scottishness' who are concerned about
> how we speak. For some, it would appear that their Scottish identity would
> tumble like a house of cards if it is found that Scots is a dialect of
> English. I do not share this anxiety.
>
> For me the definition of language is really quite simple.
>
> If we can all understand each other, even with a little difficulty, from
> Lands End to John o' Groats, and that language is called English, then we
> are speaking English, and every dialect within it is exactly that, a
dialect
> of
> English.
That is where we must disagree then. You see Scots as simply a dialect of
English. Despite the fact that it was the state language of Scotland.
Despite the fact that it has as long a history as English. Despite the
impressive canon of literature brought forth against the odds. Despite its
different word stock. Despite different grammar.
Monoglots in this country tend to be unable to believe that a language could
be closely related to English. No doubt you have no problem in accepting
Norwegian, Afrikaans, or Catalonian as languages despite their closeness to
other tongues.
The "Concise Oxford Dictionary" defines the noun language as "the language
of a particularly community or country." No-one surely can deny that Scots
was once the predominant language of the Lowland part of Scotland? Dialect
is described as this "the form of speech peculiar to a particular region."
So yes our dialects are only dialects but only a deaf horse woud say that
the Border or Buchan dialects are forms of English rather than Scots.
I have no anxiety over all this. I know what I speak, I like how I speak,
and I'm proud of my languages heritage. And though I can converse in normal
Scottish Standard English as well as anyone, no one will ever convince me
again that my more natural speech is not proper.
Allan
Tom
remember reciting
"the Cotters Saturday Night". Of course the teacher had to explain to all of us
what a Cotter
was in the first place before we got started! (We would have called him a
Fairmer or a fairmin Chiel)
For a that - I am no slaggin Burns though for a that.
We were more at home with TV programs on Grampian such as 'Bothy Nichts'
which was all about the life in the Bothy and the songs they sang. Bothies were
long gone
but we still understood nearly 95%.
'Gee us a sang then chiel'?
'Weel - I'll jist thump up the Buchan Plooman'!
or the 'Ba O Kirrimuir' (mak sure its the richt een)
Going back to the war years, my mother reminds me of this gem. Sung to the tune
'Farmers in his den'
" We're a awa te the war"
"We'll fill oor buggies we tar'
"We fell ower a dyke an trumped in shite"
"We're a awa te the war"
I also enjoyed the literature of Lewis Grassic Gibbon at School (he went to
the same school
as me anyway long back). The point I am making is that the regionality of Scots
is so diverse
that it is hard to keep up and enjoy another regions culture at times. When I
first came to Glasgow
it took me several year to adjust. They still liked Billy Conolly (who I liked
too) but I prefered
the wit of the 'Scotland the What' team. Now I can enjoy both but it has taken a
long time to
instill the culture.
Tom
Bob Peffers
> It is important, I think, for the identity of the modern Scot to cast
aside
> the clouded view of the English as bogie-men who would deny us the right
to
>
> Take the recent eulogy by Dr Gordon Brown, Chancellor, on the occasion of
> Donald Dewar's funeral. Regardless of politics, what wonderful Scottishnes
> he expressed.
>
> Regards
> Glenallan
> ---------
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Bob Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:8vi217$a3q$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8vhm10$r8r$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > Scotty <alan....@terra-nova.e-mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:01c05483$a796c9e0$b04cc3c1@tnpc3671...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> > > > > <3A1AD88F...@yahoo.com>...
> > > Frae Auld Bob Peffers:To be honest it must be said that Scots is no
> > > different from English in having great differences between areas. The
> >
> >
> > Allan
> > > --
> > > Auld Bob Peffers,
> > > Web site, The Eck's Files.
> > > http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
> > >
> >
for a short time. I was battered every day by the, (massed), English kids
due to my Scottish accent. I was also discriminated against by the teachers
and the headmaster. To everyone in that school I was public enemy No.1. This
at the time when we were fighting Herr Hitler's bully boys. I had just come
from a Scottish farm cottage and spoke with a very broad Scots accent. That
was my only crime. You say the English are not against the Scots Language.
You are wrong. The people who suffer most from the Scots Cringe also seem to
be the ones who have the poorest command of the English language. Ask
yourself why? Perhaps what you call your Glasgow accent is just that.
perhaps you are speaking Standard Scots English with a bit of Scots slang
thrown in. Perhaps that is not Scots but there are many people in Glasgow
who do speak Scots with a Glasgow accent. The two things are not the same.
Bob Peffers
> I too came from a farming background in but the North East of Scotland. I
> remember reciting
> "the Cotters Saturday Night". Of course the teacher had to explain to all
of us
> what a Cotter
> was in the first place before we got started! (We would have called him a
> Fairmer or a fairmin Chiel)
> For a that - I am no slaggin Burns though for a that.
> We were more at home with TV programs on Grampian such as 'Bothy Nichts'
> which was all about the life in the Bothy and the songs they sang. Bothies
were
> long gone
> but we still understood nearly 95%.
>
> 'Gee us a sang then chiel'?
> 'Weel - I'll jist thump up the Buchan Plooman'!
>
> or the 'Ba O Kirrimuir' (mak sure its the richt een)
>
> Going back to the war years, my mother reminds me of this gem. Sung to the
tune
> 'Farmers in his den'
>
> " We're a awa te the war"
> "We'll fill oor buggies we tar'
> "We fell ower a dyke an trumped in shite"
> "We're a awa te the war"
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> Bob Peffers wrote:
>
> > "Tom" <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A1C9182...@yahoo.com...
> > > Yes, couldn't have put it better myself. Old labour Glaswegian is the
> > Billy
> > > Connolly school
> > > of speaking with a bit of Elaine C Smith. I too understood most (but
not
> > all) of
> > > the
> > > MacDiarmid but find Burns taxing. Is Burns a case of the emperors new
> > clothes?
> > > > (Oh for a Glottal stop)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Allan, for taking the time.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Glenallan
> > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > > "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:8vhm12$r8r$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > >
> > > > > Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8vgf9r$6ab$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > > Allan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your helpful response. I have no interest in
> > maintaining
> > > > any
> > > > > > posture on this topic beyond the terms of enquiry. I was unaware
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> > Frae Auld Bob Peffers:It may be those not from a rural background find
the
> > follow?
> > --
> > Auld Bob Peffers,
> > Web site, The Eck's Files.
> > http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
>
*Scotland the What*, team much more enjoyable than Billy Conolly. *Bothy
Nichts*, was also much more my taste than the Glasgow type shows. I had no
difficulty with either dialect but found my self more in tune with humour of
the North East. My roots are Lothians, Borders and Fife. Perhaps this wider
knowledge of dialect was only because my ears were tuned to a larger range
of dialects from an early age and a better empathy with rural areas. Written
Scots though is a different matter and this shows up by being more familiar
with Burns' type spellings that are somewhat Anglified and perhaps best
avoided.
Glenallan
You may believe me when I say that I accept and respect your position on
this issue. You may also believe and expect that I have noted Bob's
(Peffers) similar disposition on the matter.
You may further, I trust, believe that I have absolutely no objection to any
speech form that may exist, which may be regarded as genuine.
In this regard, I trust, can we agree that I have no inherent 'problem' with
Scots, as defined by you.?
It is a fact that the question of language, as ever, is intrinsically
related to politics (in the wider sense) and has a connotation, usually
based on and in an ethnic concept of the validity of the language.
Now, this is a valid and debatable notion. That is to say that it is worthy
of debate or discussion and resolution in those terms...if those are the
terms applied.
However, in the interest of linguistic accuracy we ought to consider the
relative proximity of the languages in linguistic terms one to another and
search the record in terms of the psycholinguistic advance or demise of the
tongues of all of the European peoples.
It is true, and it is natural that languages and speech forms do actually
die (yes) and are often replaced, however slowly by other more
'convenient' forms
It is asserted, and is most probably true, that early forms of the
Anglo-Saxon language were disposed along the East Coast of Britain by
differing tribes, Anglo-Danish-Saxon etc of Germanic origin who were never
of numerical dominance in Britain. These speech patterns then advanced
gradually into Britain taking scant regard of the existing political
boundaries,
for that is the very stuff of colonisation.
(You will be surprised at my frankness, for truth is my only goal)
Yes, a nation is colonised by language, and numerous examples abound, but
colonisation does not last forever in any place. We have then to deal with
the language that remains. You cannot stop the clock, for it has already run
past your time.You cannot turn it back, for its context has gone.
You can (that is society) can only obey the commercial / cultural
imperatives of the 'new' order.
Witness the new linguistic global imperatives, American English, German,
Mandarin Chinese, Japanese and Russian..as well as British English.
Transnational economics has indeed generated a climate of linguistic
acquiescence. Thus it ever was. Thus it ever will be.
I will pause to take my breath now. ;-)
Regards...Glenallan
------------------------------------------
Posted from alt.scottish.clans
The Online Home of the International Scot.
-------------------------------------------
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8vk8v0$613$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8vj74d$660$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > It is important, I think, for the identity of the modern Scot to cast
> aside
> > the clouded view of the English as bogie-men who would deny us the right
> to
Tom
literature though.
I would say the same of Shakespear and would be shot down in flames! I just like
language to be a form of communication - a means to an end. When we get all
arty-farty
that's when I leave well alone! As a means of communication I see no reason for
using language 100s of years out of date. By this I mean - by all means use
Scots language
if we can agree it exists as a seperate entity, but at least use the modern
version.
I would make similar comments about the King James VI Bible.
regards
Tom
Nick-Durie wrote:
> Bob Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8vjmr2$f40$4...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Frae Auld Bob Peffers:It may be those not from a rural background find the
> > writing of Burns hard going because he came from a farming background and
> > many words and terms used in his works reflect this. Perhaps the people
> who
> > find some of his works hard to follow could note whether the writings from
> > the time Burns was accepted into polite Edinburgh Society are any easier
> to
> > follow?
>
> Regard (spellin haes bein maed menssfu, apostrophes haes bein smourt an GHs
> fir souchie souns haes bein maed intil CHs):-
>
> But I gae mad at their grimaces,
> Their sichan, cantan, grace-prood faces
> Their three-mile prayers, an hauf-mile graces,
> Their raxan conscience,
> Whase greed, revenge, an pride disgraces
> Waur nor their conscience
>
> but I go mad at their grimaces
> their sighing, whining/hypocritical, (allusion to the elect, saying that
> they are smug about their 'predetermination') faces
> their prayers which go further than their graces
> their stretching conscience
> whose greed, revenge and pride disgraces
> worse than their conscience
>
> I confess I had to look up two words there, one of which looks like a nonce
> word "grace-prood" and the other "cantan" which is only in Burns' glossary,
> not CSD.
>
> It's annoying to say a gross Anglicism like that use of 'whase' followed by
> a correct usage, "waur nor".
>
connochies
I fully understand the proximity of our language to English, and have no
problems with that. I also fully understand the proximity of Czech to
Slovak, German to Dutch, and Norwegian to Danish and Swedish. Being closely
related to another language and being descended from common routes does not
mean it is not a language. I am all to aware of the colonisation of
languages. I know that Scots is in peril. However I recognise that it is
still spoken widely throughout southern Scotland and up the east coast.
With one or two areas in particular still retaining a rich and "some may say
old fashioned" form of the language. We can not stop the clock as you say,
but we can make attempts to retain what is left of our two languages. They
are disappearing in different ways. The Gaels are simply dying off, with
the problem being many children of Gaelic speakers are simply not learning
the language. Scots is being diluted by generation after generation of word
loss etc. However it is still out here for now. I am not an anachronism,
or a made up tartany touristy thing. I simply was brought up along with my
family and friends in a largely Scots speaking community. I will not refute
my existance. :-)
Allan
Tom
definition
(well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by definition
speak Scots.
It is the current language that is used and is and always has been developing.
We do not have to
speak like Rabbie Burns to speak Scots. 'Hello big man - hows it goin'? is as
much Scots
as is 'Fit like - foo are ye deein min'?. It is being 'diluted' to a certain
extent - mainly by American
culture. How many people have you heard saying 'that's cool' nowadays or 'don't
go there'!
Similarly with music and all of Scots culture. It is not considered to be 'cool'
to listen to Jimmy Shand and his band any more! Things change and we must change
with them.
I for one hate the old image of Scotland as the place of tartans and clans with
a bit of 'Och aye the noo' and a bit of the loch Ness Monster thrown in.
Scotland has become a modern
European country with a proud innovative and technical heritage. A land whose
people helped pioneer the industrial revolution and still play a major role to
this day. At least I would rather think of us like that than a land of haggis
and neeps and English haters. Every year we have a
Burns Night but how often do we honour (say) James clerk Maxwell - one of the
worlds
greatest Scientists on a par with Einstein? Never, and most Scots have never
even heard of him.
Same goes for Wallace (not William) who co-discovered the theory of evolution
wuth Darwin.
When we think of other countries, what do we think of. For example England.
England is
associated with say the mother of parliaments,Shakespeare and winning the world
cup
a long long time ago! We should be marketed in a different way - we are worth
more than
Haggis,Tartan and neeps.
Tom
Glenallan
There is little point in pursuing the usual circular debate on this issue.
Let us accept that Scots IS a language and skip the Swedish / Norwegian
analogies, for I know nothing of these other languages, and move to the next
stage. Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could also leave Gaelic out of it.
Lets us 'agree' Scots is a language. What is to be done with this language?
Your strongly held views will have some kind of imperative for it use and
dissemination, I would guess.
If it is dying, shall we run courses in the language?
What would the status of the Scots language be in any future Scotland.?
It is certainly as valid for Scotland as Urdu, which is used, I believe, in
census documentation for immigrants from the Indian subcontinent
who do not speak English.
What is the agenda for Scots, for that is surely the important point,
unless we are just playing word games.??
You shot noo, pal. :-)
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8vl5ut$9fa$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Glenallan
The above is slang, pure and simple. It makes me cringe.
It is neither Scots nor English.
If your Solicitor or Doctor used this, you would rightly wonder if
he had taken leave of his senses.
Glenallan
---------
"Tom" <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
LOGGER_O
"Glenallan" wrote:
: Allan,
:
: There is little point in pursuing the usual circular debate on this
issue.
: Let us accept that Scots IS a language and skip the Swedish /
Norwegian
: analogies, for I know nothing of these other languages, and move to
the next
: stage. Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could also leave Gaelic
out of it.
and I was just going to jump in and give you a little rundown on the
Swedish, and Norwegen Language origins.
Iain...
Glenallan
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"LOGGER_O" <LOGG...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:b9wT5.1586$xb1....@eagle.america.net...
Nick-Durie
Historically this is complete twaddle, ask yourself this, why aren't you
speaking Norman French? Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it was
quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today)? Why is it
that in Catalonian cities people now speak what was once regarded as the
language of peasant boors?
Nick-Durie
> Allan,
>
> There is little point in pursuing the usual circular debate on this issue.
> Let us accept that Scots IS a language and skip the Swedish / Norwegian
> analogies, for I know nothing of these other languages,
Then perhaps you should know something of them. A Swede can readily
understand a Norwegian speaking any one of the official types of Norwegian,
as can any Dane, and viceversa.
The same is true of many other languages. I once read a passage in Nynorsk
(one type of Norwegian) without any knowledge of the language, but because
of my knowledge of Scots I knew that 'frå' = Scots 'fae', I knew also that
'det er' works in exactly the same way as Scots 'thi ir' (i.e. it means both
'there is' and 'there are'). The reason this works is because I knew both
these Scots constructs came from Old Norse. If we followed your criterion
for whether a language exists or not then Norwegian, specifically Nynorsk,
would therefore be yet another dialect of English.
and move to the next
> stage. Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could also leave Gaelic out of
it.
>
> Lets us 'agree' Scots is a language. What is to be done with this
language?
What can anyone do with English?
Are you suggesting that one language has intrinsically more merit than
another, that argument is never used by linguists for any language can be
stretched to accomodate new concepts. Regard:-
English Scots German
Telephone Faurspeiker Fernspreche
English hasn't bothered to actually create a word, it's simply stolen its
word from Greek whereas Scots and German have created there own, and
surprise! Surprise! Because of the closeness of Scots and German
linguistically the two words look alike.
I have already proposed several neologisms to this group, more can be added,
that's how it works in all other languages, why should Scots be any
different?
> Your strongly held views will have some kind of imperative for it use and
> dissemination, I would guess.
>
> If it is dying, shall we run courses in the language?
Yes.
> What would the status of the Scots language be in any future Scotland.?
The status would be "a language of Scotland", or perhaps it should be given
this epithet "ae leid o thi Scots kinrik".
> It is certainly as valid for Scotland as Urdu, which is used, I believe,
in
> census documentation for immigrants from the Indian subcontinent
> who do not speak English.
Yes, what's your point?
Scots is as valid as Urdu and I would want Urdu to be afforded the same
status as Scots, moreover I would have it taught like Scots. Scots should
be a mandatory subject in Scotland, as should Urdu, Cantonese, Gaelic and
English.
>
> What is the agenda for Scots, for that is surely the important point,
> unless we are just playing word games.??
It should become the language of state, it was once; why should English be
the sole language of state, you give me one LINGUISTIC reason why it should
be the language of state, especially in its present Anglicised form?
A form which almost none of us speak on a day to day level; it was worked
out that in only 5% of Scots households are children brought up in a
standard English speaking environment.
Nick-Durie
Couldn't agree more.
Glenallan
> speaking Norman French? Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it was
> quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today)? Why is it
> that in Catalonian cities people now speak what was once regarded as the
> language of peasant boors?
I cannot believe that what I have written below is 'complete' twaddle,
though I
gather there are points you disagree with. If you tell me what those points
are
I will endeavour to deal with them.
> Historically this is complete twaddle, ask yourself this, why aren't you
> speaking Norman French?
I am not clear what you mean by this. Perhaps you will develop your point.
> Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it was
> quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today)
You will have to illustrate this a demonstrable fact.
> Why is it hat in Catalonian cities people now speak what was once
> regarded as the language of peasant boors?
-----
No, no....you will have to give me a context in which to deal with your
argument. I may as well retort..."because I do not know Norman French
or have any need to". Further, if we are to resort to talking to the
people of Scotland about Catalan cities to demonstrate our points, we
are on a very shaky foundation indeed.
What is your point??
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
>
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1ea...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Glenallan
If you are suggesting that Scots be the language of state, can
we not have English too please. Most of the Scots I have come
across understand it.
Shall we agree to have Scots AND English, or is that contentious??
No one I know speaks Norman French or Catalonian.
Glenallan
----------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1ea...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
Glenallan
the sole language of state, you give me one LINGUISTIC reason why it should
be the language of state, especially in its present Anglicised form?
Nick,
For political reasons, there is LESS than no chance of this happening
in any kind of Scotland. It is a shame, but it is a pipe dream and I
believe it will remain so.
Linguistics has very little to do with it. Politics has everything to
do with it.
Cheers
Glenallan
---------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1ea...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
Tom
language
as well as 'common' language. A Doctor in Aberdeen may well say 'Fit like' if
it made his bedside manner any better. A Lawyer would use any language if it
made him more money!
Tom
Glenallan
Tell us whits oan yer mind in plain Scots an
let's be done wi this tripe.!!
Glenallan
---------
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a1ea...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
Nick-Durie
> > Historically this is complete twaddle, ask yourself this, why aren't you
> > speaking Norman French? Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it was
> > quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today)? Why is
it
> > that in Catalonian cities people now speak what was once regarded as the
> > language of peasant boors?
>
> I cannot believe that what I have written below is 'complete' twaddle,
> though I
> gather there are points you disagree with.
Hyperbole, as you well know, is a debating technique.
If you tell me what those points
> are
> I will endeavour to deal with them.
>
> > Historically this is complete twaddle, ask yourself this, why aren't you
> > speaking Norman French?
>
> I am not clear what you mean by this. Perhaps you will develop your point.
>
In the late thriteenth century the position of the English language was such
that only rural people and the lower classes spoke it, moreover it had
become highly Franglicized. The language was confined to the gutter, all
official dealings were either in Norman French, or if you were 'better'
educated they were in Parisian French or Latin. Thanks to Feudalism however
the working class were then a much larger group than they are today,
although they were without a doubt far more discriminated against. The much
and rightfuly lauded poet Chaucer helped destroy this state of affairs
because, as a learned man and the most talented writer of his age he chose
to write not in French or Latin, as all 'good' writers were wont to do but
instead wrote in the foul peasant tongue. Soonafter people began to accept
that it was unreasonable to have the laws of a Nation written in a language
only the oligarchy understood but it took much longer for the aristos to
adapt to the 'low' language and when they did they often took many of their
words with them. That is why in English has Latinate words for all the areas
where the aristos exerted power over: war, government, science, literarture,
art - all these disciplines use latinate words. We have balistas not
flaneshotters, we have councils not redeforegatherings, we talk about
intelligence not wit, we vote, we collect taxes, we don't ingather scats.
Scots is in the posistion that English was all those hundred years ago,
still widely spoken in a watered down form but not represented in any areas
of power.
> > Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it was
> > quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today)
>
> You will have to illustrate this a demonstrable fact.
No I won't. It's a well known fact that Hebrew was not a living breathing
language before Israel was created, it became so because the people
immigrating to the new State all spoke different languages and needed a
linguafranca, the language of the erudite Jewish biblical scholars was a
natural choice.
>
> > Why is it hat in Catalonian cities people now speak what was once
> > regarded as the language of peasant boors?
> -----
> No, no....you will have to give me a context in which to deal with your
> argument.
Under Franco in Spain speaking anything but true Castilian was actually
banned under law. Habla Cristiano, or something like that, was the
Castilian 'Nationalist's' response to anyone not speaking Castilian. The
Catalonian language - which had suffered under the yolk of intolerance ever
since Castile came to dominate the less powerful Nations, which now make up
the modern Spanish state - was now in very serious threat of becoming
extinct; the 'educated' 'urbane' people of the towns and cities would not
debase themselves by speaking this heathen tongue, for it was thought
unChristian to speak the language, but after Franco left power things began
to become more liberal, this begat a more Nationalistic outlook on the part
of the ordinary folk of the Catalonian Nation, which in turn fostered moves
to revitalize the language (which like Scots had a very fine literary
history from during the time when the Nation had been an independent State),
moves which resulted in the language appearing on television. Intitially
this was thought outrageous, how could this peasant brogue appear on
television, did that not debase the medium? In the end attitudes softened,
people began to accept that they language many still knew in their hearts
how to speak was not inferior. It was written in the Country's laws that
anyone had the right to speak either Castilian or Catalan. Nowadays the
language is taught in schools and only the farright believe that people can
only speak aright by speaking Castilian, thence the drop in support for such
individuals.
> I may as well retort..."because I do not know Norman French
> or have any need to". Further, if we are to resort to talking to the
> people of Scotland about Catalan cities to demonstrate our points, we
> are on a very shaky foundation indeed.
Non sequitur.
>
> What is your point??
>
My point is that languages can come back from the brink of disaster,
sometimes from the grave of history!, to again become majority languages.
If there was continued government support I am quite sure I could get the
whole of Scotland to be speak ancient Akhadian, all there need be is wilful
assitance from government, i.e. usage of the language in schools, the civil
service, parliament and the courts. At present you can still be chucked in
jail for saying "ay" in court.
> Cheers
> Glenallan
> ---------
Nick-Durie
> Well, oot wi it man fur god sake!!
> Tell us whits oan yer mind in plain Scots an
> let's be done wi this tripe.!!
>
Ah'm reddie hwan you ir big man. Ir ye still sae siccar i caain sicna gait?
Uizin Siccan slang outby anthat?
Stephen Copinger
Glenallan wrote in message <8vlk9r$b5g$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>'Hello big man - hows it goin'?
>
>The above is slang, pure and simple. It makes me cringe.
>It is neither Scots nor English.
>
>If your Solicitor or Doctor used this, you would rightly wonder if
>he had taken leave of his senses.
>
exactly that greeting. Considering that they practice almost exclusively in
Legal Aid cases,and the pittance such work pays, they may well have taken
leave of their senses.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
LOGGER_O
"Glenallan" wrote
: OK. Iain, Go for it.!!
:
Here is my limited knowledge of Swedish and Norweign Languages.
They are the same. Infact they were the same for several years, as
was the official languages of Iceland, Orkney, Holland, and the
Shetland Isles.
Why do you say that Iain? Well an oversimplification is it was the
same country for a great many years. When the the Norway ceased to
control the empire, the people in those countries did not simply come
home to Norway.
Seems Norway was no longer home to them, but the language was still
their language, official or other wise.
Iain...
easy rider
recall Norway was united with Denmark from the 14thunil the 19th century,
about 1820. Then they had an own constitution but still in union with
Sweden untill 1905 when Norway became a independant kingdom. After the
Reformation the Danish became the language at school and in church, and in
about 1600 also in Court. The Danish influence was to great that the old
Norwegian wasn't spoken anymore. when Norway became separated from Denmark
in 19th century they also wanted to purify their language.
So they 'created' (by Ivar Aasen) 1850 the "Landsmål"(since 1929 called
Nynorsk) wich has the basis of West North dialects and a Old norwegian
strain.
The other language, still based on Danish is called Bokmål (formerly
Riksmål) .
Both languages have equal rights and are acknowledged in 1907.
Nothing is impossible, but people have to agree(have there noses in the same
direction...)
Cheers Gerda
connochies
Scotland by
> definition
> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
definition
> speak Scots.
One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data. However
I do not agree that simply speaking in a Scottish accent means you are
speaking Scots. They are two seperate and distinct things.
> It is the current language that is used and is and always has been
developing.
> We do not have to
> speak like Rabbie Burns to speak Scots. 'Hello big man - hows it goin'? is
as
> much Scots
> as is 'Fit like - foo are ye deein min'?.
Well yes that is a phrase which could be Scots or English. It is in no way
as "distinctly" Scots as your second example. No-one is suggesting that you
have to speak like Rabbie Burns or in fact that you have to speak any form
of Scots. I'm not for telling anyone how to speak.
It is being 'diluted' to a
certain
> extent - mainly by American
> culture. How many people have you heard saying 'that's cool' nowadays or
'don't
> go there'!
> Similarly with music and all of Scots culture. It is not considered to be
'cool'
>
> to listen to Jimmy Shand and his band any more! Things change and we must
change
> with them.
Was it ever cool to listen to Jimmy Shand :-) Come on, much traditional
music nowadays doesn't suffer from the "auld fogie" image. Witness the
Celtic Connection festival for example. All types of music is available in
modern Scotland, and it's a bit teen-age to worry if others think your
collection is all cool or not.
> I for one hate the old image of Scotland as the place of tartans and clans
with
> a bit of 'Och aye the noo' and a bit of the loch Ness Monster thrown in.
> Scotland has become a modern
> European country with a proud innovative and technical heritage. A land
whose
> people helped pioneer the industrial revolution and still play a major
role to
> this day. At least I would rather think of us like that than a land of
haggis
> and neeps and English haters.
Agree with much of what you say there. We do suffer from this gross
stereotyping. However just because we are a modern country, it doesn't mean
we have to completely ditch all our traditions. I speak English through the
day to a wide variety of clients making investments and striking deals, then
revert to Scots when relaxing and socialising with friends. What is the
problem with that? Scots is often viewed as simply rural, parochial, and of
yesterday. This is simply not true. For instance in the Borders it is
spoken in the towns as well as the countryside. We are not all hosiery
workers you know. It is spoken in the electronics plants as well as the old
mills. How can we start to appreciate other cultures in the world if we
can't even appreciate our own.
Every year we have a
> Burns Night but how often do we honour (say) James clerk Maxwell - one of
the
> worlds
> greatest Scientists on a par with Einstein? Never, and most Scots have
never
> even heard of him.
> Same goes for Wallace (not William) who co-discovered the theory of
evolution
> wuth Darwin.
> When we think of other countries, what do we think of. For example
England.
> England is
> associated with say the mother of parliaments,Shakespeare and winning the
world
> cup
> a long long time ago! We should be marketed in a different way - we are
worth
> more than
> Haggis,Tartan and neeps.
>
> Tom
Wouldn't argue with most of what you say there, I tire of the the corny
stereotypes, but you don't have to ditch Burns to promote scientists! We
do
go way overboard on Burns, just as the English speaking world as a whole
goes way overboard on Shakespeare. England has this image
of dotty maiden aunts making tea for the lads playing cricket on the village
green. This scene exists but it's not the norm. I find it amusing that you
pour scorn on Scottish myths and shaky traditions etc, yet seem impressed by
the English ones. Westminster may call itself the Mother of Parliaments,
but is it? Wasn't the Icelandic one in place before it? They even call
Wembley "The Home of Football" when it is just a baby compared with Hampden.
We all have our myths. Plus you seem impressed with Will the Bard yet he is
just a long dead writer who wrote in language that no-one really speaks
nowadays which is strange as this is the reason that you seem to dismiss
Burns.
Although I too don't like the emphasis put on it, there is a place for
tartan in the modern Scotland. It may only have been a symbol of Scotland
for the past 200 years or so, but it is there to stay. Just witness an
international game or a modern wedding. Sure whisky may not be the most
popular drink in Scotland, but we do happen to at least make the stuff. I
go to France for the wine, and Belgium for the beer, so why
shouldn't people come here for the whisky. We do happen to eat haggis quite
a lot. We can even buy it in virtually every fish and chip shop. Apart
from Berwick try to find it as fast food in England! Of course we are going
to be associated with it. To stop the stereotypes we need to actively
promote what is worthy of display rather than simply rubbish these old
images, which like it or not, are based on some truths.
cheers
Allan
LOGGER_O
"Nick-Durie wrote:
Snip
:
: Historically this is complete twaddle, ask yourself this, why aren't
you
: speaking Norman French? Why is Hebrew now a living language (for it
was
: quite dead last century and survived only as Latin does today
You may want to think this one over again. Of course the language was
near extinction when the Jewish scholars were exterminated during
Hitler's escapades.
I met, and got to know a few Jews that had survived the Holocaust.
They spoke Jewish as those in Israel do. Where did they learn it you
might ask. Well they said they learned it from their teachers, the
Rabbi, and their parents. It was not just a novelty. It was a part
of their religious teaching.
Was the language in common usage as a state language in any of the
European countries. No it wasn't it was however still an intricate
part of the teaching to required for worship in the Synagogue.
Of course this has been IMHO!
Iain...
easy rider
"LOGGER_O" <LOGG...@email.msn.com> schreef in bericht
news:r9DT5.1632$xb1....@eagle.america.net...
>
> "Glenallan" wrote
> : OK. Iain, Go for it.!!
> :
> Here is my limited knowledge of Swedish and Norweign Languages.
>
> They are the same. Infact they were the same for several years, as
> was the official languages of Iceland, Orkney, Holland, and the
> Shetland Isles.
------I would like to know more about this, can you explain please.
Especially the Holland part.
Cheers Gerda
easy rider
Hebrew, Jiddish and Iwriet (modern Hebrew spoken in Israel.And Jiddish is a
language formed in about 1500 in Germany by Jewish people.
If you say "jewish" I find it confusing. Many Jews speak Jiddish.
Cheers Gerda
>
connochies
> It should become the language of state, it was once; why should English be
> the sole language of state, you give me one LINGUISTIC reason why it
should
> be the language of state, especially in its present Anglicised form?
Nick has a lot of valid points there, and he is right in that languages
which were in a similar, or even worse state than Scots have made remarkable
comebacks. However you are right in that there is a very good reason that
Scots or Gaelic [sorry I brought it up again] could not at present be the
language of state. Simply not enough people would want it. A sad fact, but
a fact never the less. However I do feel that Scots should have official
recognition and should gain from the benefits that could bring. also it is
grossly underfunded. Normalisation, for instance hearing more Scots in the
media, and improving what is taught in schools, may at least save the
language immediately, and could have positive benefits in the future. Many
people will not realise that Scots can be taken at higher level, and is
taught in two of our universities - though I doubt the phrase "hello there
big man" will be high up on the agenda :-)
I was not meaning to go all over the place before mentioning other languages
etc, but they are relevant. All over Europe people speaking minority
languages are having the same difficulties. One story from Ireland was
appalling. A four year old was being classed by health inspectors as having
a mental age of one and a half; it took the playgroup leader to explain that
the child simply did not understand them. They had been unable to
comprehend that a child from an Irish speaking family may not have known any
English yet at that age. Up to date news on such subjects can be caught on
http://www.eurolang.net This site also gives some info on all the UK's
remaining indiginous minority tongues [Scots, Ulster Scots, Gaelic, Irish,
Welsh and Cornish] seemingly there are about 200 fluent Cornish speakers,
but apparantly no fluent Manx speakers. For those that are interested.
Nick-Durie
See "survived only as Latin does today", i.e. the language of Law and
Religion, outwith ecclesiastical and law contexts we also, all of us, know
rather a lot of Latin as it was wrought onto the English language. I am not
saying Hebrew did not exist, of course it did, but it was not the vernacular
of Jewish people athwart Europe. Consider how many Catholics know a great
many Latin words and how to use them, and this only from hearing the bastard
Latin the Catholic Church uses, this doesn't mean this Latin is alive, for
it is not really Latin at all, Latin is dead, it has ceased to evolve,
Church Latin is a literary creation made up of Old French, classical Latin
and sundry other additions but nobody sits and speaks it as a first tongue,
moreover the pronunciation of a good many Latin words would make a Roman
wince.
Take a word like "Caesar", it should actually be pronounced almost exactly
the same as it still is in Kaiser in German. Another word like "curriculum"
it should be pronounced thus: /kurikulum/ instead it is often given this
appalling bastard Latin sound: /kArIkjAlAm/
This was how Hebrew survived, an ecclesiastical oddity which had made a
lasting effect upon Yiddish in terms of loanwords and in terms of words used
as throwaway phrases, such you get with a French words like "moi" or "ou lá
lá".
Hebrew wasn't alive in any real sense of the word and it is very doubtful
whether all or even most Jews had any degree of fluency in it, all the
accounts I have read seem to be of Jews just sort of halfheartedly going
throu it as a kind of duty with some talented pupils taking it more
seriously, such as is the case with foreign, or native, languages in British
schools.
Bob Peffers
> 'Hello big man - hows it goin'?
>
> The above is slang, pure and simple. It makes me cringe.
> It is neither Scots nor English.
> > Haggis,Tartan and neeps.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > connochies wrote:
> >
> > > Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:8vklav$grh$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > Allan,
> > > > You may believe me when I say that I accept and respect your
position
> > >
> > > Allan
> >
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:Some few years ago Dr. Moir had a practice in Kelty in
Fife, (Still going within the last 10 years). He had two sisters also in the
medical profession. One a Hospital Matron and one a District Nurse. They all
spoke broad Scots and they were all, *Far I the buik*,(erudite). There was
also Dr.Andrew Sanjana from a second generation Indian immigrant family of
Doctors who also spoke broad Scots. All of them were far more respected than
the present crop of Doctors in the Village. Many Scots people still eat
Haggis, neeps and tatties on a regular basis. You cannot be serious that
these people are all, *Auldfarran*, (old fashioned). I have spent all my
life speaking Scots. I was not employed in an industry that anyone could
call old fashioned. I have never worn a kilt or played the bagpipes though
for I am not a Highlander. I do have a meal about once a week of haggis with
champit neeps and tatties, (very tasty too). I do not think anyone could
call either my wife or I out of date or old fashioned. Why on earth should
you think we should change our ways, and language), to suit anyone else? We
are both well balanced people who think for ourselves and not stupid
dedicated followers of fashion. The idea that my wife would judge an item of
clothing by the label sowed on the outside of the garment as better, (and
pay over the odds for it), than one that she examined and judged the quality
by her own standards is absolutely hilarious.
Aefauldlie, (Sincerely),
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Web site, The Eck's Files.
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Bob Peffers
>
> Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
> > Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
> Scotland by
> > definition
> > (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
> definition
> > speak Scots.
>
> images, which like it or not, are based on some truths.
>
> cheers
>
>
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
anyone tell me what is actually wrong with Jimmy Shand Music? I am a jazz
fan and always have been. It was in when I was young but so were many other
music forms. This did not prevent me liking traditional Scots Music, people
like Frank Sinatra, Country & Western or indeed much of the classics. Why on
earth should I give up a liking for any kind of music that I like just
because some numptie thinks it is not, *kwel*. Reminds me a bit of when the
fashion for bathroom suites was Aubergine and such dark colours. I was
building my bathroom at the time and refused to install the plastic
Aubergine suite the Plumber Merchant tried to make me buy. My good quality
white suite is still doing sterling duty and is still not out of fashion. If
such daft things are kwel they can keep them. Good music of all kinds is
never out of fashion and everyone has free choice of what they want to
listen to. I do not need and stupid presenter on the media to tell me what I
must listen to.
Tom
of which I was ignorant of.
To answer some points raised about my earlier posting:
I think the tartan and haggis thing is overdone or done to death. Yes we still
wear tartan a few times a year - at weddings, graduation etc and yes some still
eat haggis
(not me as I am a new fangled vegetarian) However,given the choice I am sure
most Scots
prefer a good curry! Pakora is the national dish of Glasgow for instance washed
down with
a bottle of bud.I am sure if you did a survey of haggis vs curry that curry
would win easily.
I am still partial to Skirley myself but cannot get that easily in restaurants.
I used the English as an example of stereotyping - that is what they are know
for. I make
no comments to the rights and wrongs of it. We are stereotyped in a a different
way and one
which I believe to be way out of date. Yes we should be proud of our heritage
but let us
not be stuck in the past and not move forward. To be known for a dish of sheeps
brains
and a piece of cloth is stretching things a little too much. I do not wish to
ditch tartan
and Burns for Scientists but to make people more aware - paritcularly
foreigners.We should
honour both. Of course the media in any country is always biased to the arts as
most of the people
who work in it have arts backgrounds and understand little or no Science. It is
considered
ok to be ignorant of Science but not so the arts!
On the good side there are some recent Scottish films which are not of the
tartan and haggis
variety and which are amongst the best.
Tom
Bob Peffers
> OK. Iain, Go for it.!!
>
> Glenallan
> ---------> news:b9wT5.1586$xb1....@eagle.america.net...
> >
> > "Glenallan" wrote:
> > : Allan,
> > :
> > : There is little point in pursuing the usual circular debate on this
> > issue.
> > : Let us accept that Scots IS a language and skip the Swedish /
> > Norwegian
> > the next
> > : stage. Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could also leave Gaelic
> > out of it.
> > and I was just going to jump in and give you a little rundown on the
> > Swedish, and Norwegen Language origins.
> >
> > Iain...
> >
> >
>
>
when the notion takes me. I also write a monthly story for the Kelty
Community Council Newsletter under a pen name. I always watered down the
Scots thinking that was what the readers wanted. I built myself a web site
and put my poems and stories on the pages. Next thing I know there are
e-mails coming in asking me to use more Scots words in the stories. This has
been reflected in requests from within the area too. I can only conclude
that there is a slow, but increasing flow, of people who seem to be prepared
to use and enjoy their own language since Scotland got her own Parliament.
Perhaps the Scottish cringe is at long last being changed and people are not
so ashamed to be Scots and to speak , *Wir ain leid*.
Chic McGregor
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
>Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
>> Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
>Scotland by
>> definition
>> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
>definition
>> speak Scots.
>
>One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
>Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data. However
Eh? I saw a figure that said one and three quarter million spoke
Scots though I have no idea how 'they' arrived at that.
BUT!
Surely approx 8 million Scots speak Scots to 'SOME extent or other'.
(5 million in Scotland + c 3million elsewhere, mostly England). Seems
to me 'some extent or other' would pretty much include everyone.
>I do not agree that simply speaking in a Scottish accent means you are
>speaking Scots. They are two seperate and distinct things.
>
I'm not talking about accents I'm talking about vocabulary. Are there
any Scots who do NOT use Scots vocabulary to 'some extent'?
NO kens, wees, wheeshts etc.
Damn few, and they're aa brain deid.
>
>> It is the current language that is used and is and always has been
>developing.
>> We do not have to
>> speak like Rabbie Burns to speak Scots. 'Hello big man - hows it goin'? is
>as
>> much Scots
>> as is 'Fit like - foo are ye deein min'?.
>
>Well yes that is a phrase which could be Scots or English. It is in no way
>as "distinctly" Scots as your second example. No-one is suggesting that you
>have to speak like Rabbie Burns or in fact that you have to speak any form
>of Scots. I'm not for telling anyone how to speak.
>
Naw bit yir sayin whit they div speke, an gettin it gie wrang furby.
>
>
>It is being 'diluted' to a
>certain
>> extent - mainly by American
>> culture. How many people have you heard saying 'that's cool' nowadays or
>'don't
>> go there'!
Ah dinnae mind ony chiel's language, bit tae tak oor guid kin fae ower
the A'lan'ic. Thir's monies a question mun be spered.
Fur exaimpul
Whit wie diz "Cool" and "Hot" baith mean a thang is gie poplir?
Whit wie diz "WassUP?" and "What's goin' DOWN" baith mean 'Whit's
daein?"
Whit wie diz " It's the IN thang!" and "It's far-OUT!" baith mean that
somethin's aa the rage?
Ye can "Stick it OUT" or "Hang on IN there", it jist gings oan an oan.
>> Similarly with music and all of Scots culture. It is not considered to be
>'cool'
>>
>> to listen to Jimmy Shand and his band any more! Things change and we must
>change
>> with them.
>
>Was it ever cool to listen to Jimmy Shand :-) Come on, much traditional
>music nowadays doesn't suffer from the "auld fogie" image. Witness the
>Celtic Connection festival for example. All types of music is available in
>modern Scotland, and it's a bit teen-age to worry if others think your
>collection is all cool or not.
>
Weel said rigardin modirn youth, there's mair interest than ivver in
Celtic an Folk myaezic, an that's guid. But a mun be auld enuch tae
mind whan Jimmy Shand WIZ cool, even in Inglan. Whiles, ye micht hae
heard o' the White Heather Club, a poplir UK wide TV show yince upon a
time? Scottish Country dancin tae wiz taught in maist Inglish skales
as weel as Scots. Bit times change.
>> I for one hate the old image of Scotland as the place of tartans and clans
>with
>> a bit of 'Och aye the noo' and a bit of the loch Ness Monster thrown in.
>> Scotland has become a modern
>> European country with a proud innovative and technical heritage. A land
>whose
>> people helped pioneer the industrial revolution and still play a major
>role to
>> this day. At least I would rather think of us like that than a land of
>haggis
>> and neeps and English haters.
>
>
>Agree with much of what you say there. We do suffer from this gross
>stereotyping. However just because we are a modern country, it doesn't mean
>we have to completely ditch all our traditions. I speak English through the
>day to a wide variety of clients making investments and striking deals, then
>revert to Scots when relaxing and socialising with friends. What is the
>problem with that? Scots is often viewed as simply rural, parochial, and of
>yesterday. This is simply not true. For instance in the Borders it is
>spoken in the towns as well as the countryside. We are not all hosiery
>workers you know. It is spoken in the electronics plants as well as the old
>mills. How can we start to appreciate other cultures in the world if we
>can't even appreciate our own.
>
Braw Lads or Cornits, reevers aa.
>
>
>Every year we have a
>> Burns Night but how often do we honour (say) James clerk Maxwell - one of
>the
>> worlds
>> greatest Scientists on a par with Einstein? Never, and most Scots have
>never
>> even heard of him.
But Maxwell micht hae done better hud he attemptit tae modifie his
Scots which wiz gie irksome tae his Inglish acquaintences by aa
accoonts.
He wiz prood o his Scots culture. Mind the first colurt photie the
Warld evvir seen wiz a ribbon o Maxwell tartan?
>> Same goes for Wallace (not William) who co-discovered the theory of
>evolution
>> wuth Darwin.
It gings further back nar yon. Hutton set the basis fur geology itsel
an Darwin did nae muckle mair nar spread the word o his lecturers at
Edinburgh intill Inglan.
The maist wranged o Scotia's great natural philosophers mun shairly
be, IMO, James Gregory.
>> When we think of other countries, what do we think of. For example
>England.
>> England is
>> associated with say the mother of parliaments,Shakespeare and winning the
>world
>> cup
>> a long long time ago! We should be marketed in a different way - we are
>worth
>> more than
>> Haggis,Tartan and neeps.
>>
>> Tom
Yer far fae wrang.
>
>
>Wouldn't argue with most of what you say there, I tire of the the corny
>stereotypes, but you don't have to ditch Burns to promote scientists! We
>do
>go way overboard on Burns, just as the English speaking world as a whole
>goes way overboard on Shakespeare. England has this image
>of dotty maiden aunts making tea for the lads playing cricket on the village
>green. This scene exists but it's not the norm. I find it amusing that you
>pour scorn on Scottish myths and shaky traditions etc, yet seem impressed by
>the English ones. Westminster may call itself the Mother of Parliaments,
>but is it? Wasn't the Icelandic one in place before it? They even call
>Wembley "The Home of Football" when it is just a baby compared with Hampden.
>We all have our myths. Plus you seem impressed with Will the Bard yet he is
>just a long dead writer who wrote in language that no-one really speaks
>nowadays which is strange as this is the reason that you seem to dismiss
>Burns.
>
>Although I too don't like the emphasis put on it, there is a place for
>tartan in the modern Scotland. It may only have been a symbol of Scotland
>for the past 200 years or so, but it is there to stay. Just witness an
My but thur revisionists ur haein their effect efter aa. Tartan is
mair like 2000 years an mair auld. (No that it is in ony wie
important in terms o Sco''ish culchir).
>international game or a modern wedding. Sure whisky may not be the most
>popular drink in Scotland, but we do happen to at least make the stuff. I
>go to France for the wine, and Belgium for the beer, so why
>shouldn't people come here for the whisky. We do happen to eat haggis quite
>a lot. We can even buy it in virtually every fish and chip shop. Apart
Weel, a wuild say there's a whin mair whisky taen than haggis in
Sco'lan, sae ye've loast me thonder.
>from Berwick try to find it as fast food in England! Of course we are going
>to be associated with it. To stop the stereotypes we need to actively
>promote what is worthy of display rather than simply rubbish these old
>images, which like it or not, are based on some truths.
>
Dinnae fash yersel, culchir is a whin mair nar haggis nar whisky nar
tartan. Evin langitch is nae sae important. There are mony things o
gie mair importance nar langitch rigairdin culchir.
rigairds
chic
Alan Smaill
a summary of the position of Hebrew that looks accurate to me;
in the middle he says:
> This was how Hebrew survived, an ecclesiastical oddity which had made a
> lasting effect upon Yiddish in terms of loanwords and in terms of words used
> as throwaway phrases, such you get with a French words like "moi"
that's the strong form of the pronoun;
nothing throwaway about that!
(compare the Gaelic mi/mise forms)
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Alan Smaill
> Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8vmdq6$bu4$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > It should become the language of state, it was once; why should English be
> > the sole language of state, you give me one LINGUISTIC reason why it
> should
> > be the language of state, especially in its present Anglicised form?
>
>
> Nick has a lot of valid points there, and he is right in that languages
> which were in a similar, or even worse state than Scots have made remarkable
> comebacks. However you are right in that there is a very good reason that
> Scots or Gaelic [sorry I brought it up again] could not at present be the
> language of state. Simply not enough people would want it.
Gaelic is an accepted language in the Scottish Parliament.
The signs in Edinburgh pointing out our parliament are bilingual.
Speeches in Gaelic are accepted (with simultaneous translation)
-- I'm not just dreaming this, am I ?
We are not talking about "the" language of state here --
why should there just be one language?
Let's be generous.
Sean MacUisdin
> Gaelic is an accepted language in the Scottish Parliament.
>
> The signs in Edinburgh pointing out our parliament are bilingual.
>
> Speeches in Gaelic are accepted (with simultaneous translation)
> -- I'm not just dreaming this, am I ?
>
> We are not talking about "the" language of state here --
> why should there just be one language?
>
> Let's be generous.
Canada has two official languages, so why couldn't Scotland?
--
Air muir 's air tir,
Sean of Clan Uisdin
-------------------
If anyone is looking for Sean of Clan Uisdin, he can be found in the
bathtub mulling over his thoughts wi' a dram o' Glen Ord.
Remove 'mac' to reply.
... The heroes of the race of Conn are dead,
How bitter to our hearts is the grief for them!
We shall not live long after them,
Perilous we think it to be bereaved of the brotherhood!
Cathal MacMhuirich
"Well, I'm sick of this room and everyone in it!" - Bender
"Everything's gone wrong since Canada came along!" - MAC (Mothers
against Canada)
LOGGER_O
"easy rider" <g.ku...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:8vn08u$4un$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
:
: "LOGGER_O" <LOGG...@email.msn.com> schreef in bericht
: news:r9DT5.1632$xb1....@eagle.america.net...
: >
: > "Glenallan" wrote
: > : OK. Iain, Go for it.!!
: > :
: > Here is my limited knowledge of Swedish and Norweign Languages.
: >
: > They are the same. Infact they were the same for several years,
as
: > was the official languages of Iceland, Orkney, Holland, and the
: > Shetland Isles.
:
: ------I would like to know more about this, can you explain please.
: Especially the Holland part.
: Cheers Gerda
sorry!!! Typed Holland, and meant Denmark.
While it is true, that in older yet times the coast of Brittany,
Normandy, through The Present day Netherlands including Holland, unto
Denmark was controlled by the Norse, the influence in language was
that of the old Norse.
snip.
Some near thirty years ago, while traveling through central Belgium I
came to need some assistance. I had shredded a tyre while traveling
down the motorway. Thinking that I would not have a problem with the
language, (I spoke some German) I stopped at a local call booth to
request some assistance.
What language came out of the ear peice, I did not comprehend. It
sounded something like a French, and German Mixture, but it
comprehension was out of my grasp. I had with me a young lady who had
been schooled in French, and Switze she offered her assistance.
She too could not understand the speaker. Without assistance, we had
to walk a distance of a few kilometers, and on the way came upon a
farmer. We asked for assistance, and after our futile attempts to
communicate in first German, then French, he laughingly spoke to us in
an distinctly British English accent. Seems he had understood us the
entire time, but was enjoying see us squirm.
The farmer explained that the language spoken in that local was a sort
of Flemish dialect. He said that there was a considerable pressure to
stop the use of the language when in communication but, many of the
people locally had refused and continued to use the language of their
birth.
Iain...
connochies
Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fwewvds...@puffin.dai.ed.ac.uk...
> "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> writes:
>
> > Glenallan <RMB...@clydesdale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:8vmdq6$bu4$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > It should become the language of state, it was once; why should
English be
> > > the sole language of state, you give me one LINGUISTIC reason why it
> > should
> > > be the language of state, especially in its present Anglicised form?
> >
> >
> > Nick has a lot of valid points there, and he is right in that languages
> > which were in a similar, or even worse state than Scots have made
remarkable
> > comebacks. However you are right in that there is a very good reason
that
> > Scots or Gaelic [sorry I brought it up again] could not at present be
the
> > language of state. Simply not enough people would want it.
>
> Gaelic is an accepted language in the Scottish Parliament.
>
> The signs in Edinburgh pointing out our parliament are bilingual.
>
> Speeches in Gaelic are accepted (with simultaneous translation)
> -- I'm not just dreaming this, am I ?
>
> We are not talking about "the" language of state here --
> why should there just be one language?
I agree that all three languages should be official.....but I was replying
to a post stating that Scots should be"the" language of state. even to an
enthusiast like me that is not practical as most would not want it. The
languages need more than lip service with a few signs and the odd debate -
though it would be a start for Scots.
cheers
Allan
connochies
Chic McGregor <charles....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3a1f0b59...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:50:21 -0000, "connochies"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
> >> Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
> >Scotland by
> >> definition
> >> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
> >definition
> >> speak Scots.
> >
> >One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
> >Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data.
However
>
> Eh? I saw a figure that said one and three quarter million spoke
> Scots though I have no idea how 'they' arrived at that.
The General Register Office came up with the 1 and a half million, but you
are right, how do they come to that? Again the fact that all Scots will
generally use the odd Scots word or phrase does not make them Scots
speakers. It just means they use a few words.
connochies
Bob Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vn6gn$unm$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8vmvch$8m5$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
> > > Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
> > Scotland by
> > > definition
> > > (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
> > definition
> > > speak Scots.
> >
> snip
> > images, which like it or not, are based on some truths.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> > Allan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers: There is a lot of rot spoken about Scots music. Can
> anyone tell me what is actually wrong with Jimmy Shand Music?
Nothing is wrong with it Bob. I was simply pointing out that the "White
Heather Club etc" did have an old fogie type image at the time among the
Scottish youth. This can not be denied surely. The current exponents do
not suffer from this image. The post I was replying to seemed to worry
about that. :-)
easy rider
there is a war going on. Brussel is supposed to be bilingual, but most
people chosse to talk one of them, pretending they don't understand the
other. I always use English when talking to foreigners. I could do French
and German too, but my English is better.
Flamish is considered a nice, friendly sounding Netherlands dialect. As we
receive the Belgium broadcast we are more used to hear it. But otherwise it
is rather hard to understand. When I was in Cornwall (on the Scilly's) I had
the same problem, but got used to it after some time.
Cheerio Gerda
>
>
>
Nick-Durie
> > <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
> > >> Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
> > >Scotland by
> > >> definition
> > >> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
> > >definition
> > >> speak Scots.
> > >
> > >One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
> > >Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data.
> However
> >
> > Eh? I saw a figure that said one and three quarter million spoke
> > Scots though I have no idea how 'they' arrived at that.
>
> are right, how do they come to that? Again the fact that all Scots will
> generally use the odd Scots word or phrase does not make them Scots
> speakers. It just means they use a few words.
>
they sent me their report - it is pretty exhaustive and shows how they
evaluated profficiency in the language and how they assessed the wording of
a possible census document throu the use of dozens of different thingwies.
This is the questionaire which assessed linguistic profficiency (be careful
it's harder than it looks, some of it is in easy urban dialect, some of it
is harder):-
Questionnaire 3: Please translate the following sentences into English:-
1. Ma feet's lowpin, ma neb's sair an ma lug's dirlin the day.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The hoose wis clatty an fou o stoor an oose.
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The howff wis hoatchin, but the fella had a drouth on him.
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thae folk are flittin the morra tae a scheme doun the toun.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The wumman gaed ben the hoose an redd it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. A wis feart thare wis nae mair bodies tae gie me a hurl haim.
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The message bag was stowed wi breid an tatties firby the poke o aipples.
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Whit wey are ye no gaun tae the kirk the morn's forenoon?
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Ower the brigg, ye can see folk humphin neeps.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Yon mankie bairn's git a greitin face, but ma wee wean's nae bather iva
------------------------------------------------------------------
The last question is very hard and I'm sure most folk'll get it wrong.
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Du...@aladdinscave.net> writes
>
>connochies <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
>news:8vnvho$72l$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Chic McGregor <charles....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a1f0b59...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> > <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
>> > >> Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone in
>> > >Scotland by
>> > >> definition
>> > >> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
>> > >definition
>> > >> speak Scots.
>> > >
>> > >One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
>> > >Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data.
>> However
>> >
>> > Eh? I saw a figure that said one and three quarter million spoke
>> > Scots though I have no idea how 'they' arrived at that.
>>
That dirty babies got a miserable/crying face, but my little toddler is
no bother at all...
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The last question is very hard and I'm sure most folk'll get it wrong.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Issues? You think *You* have issues?
Nick-Durie
Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Vq6GMBAK...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3a200...@news1.vip.uk.com>, Nick-Durie <Nick-
> Du...@aladdinscave.net> writes
> >
> >connochies <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:8vnvho$72l$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Chic McGregor <charles....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3a1f0b59...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >> > <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Tom <aberdon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:3A1E231C...@yahoo.com...
> >> > >> Understand your point of view. However, I believe almost everyone
in
> >> > >Scotland by
> >> > >> definition
> >> > >> (well,most people who are born here including Asian Scots etc) by
> >> > >definition
> >> > >> speak Scots.
> >> > >
> >> > >One estimate is that one and a half million Scottish people speak
> >> > >Scots to some extent or another. Though we do not have clear data.
> >> However
> >> >
> >> > Eh? I saw a figure that said one and three quarter million spoke
> >> > Scots though I have no idea how 'they' arrived at that.
> >>
You fell for it!
'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in Scots
means handicapped or disabled.
mdthorpe
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a200...@news1.vip.uk.com...
bather
> iva
> >
> >
> > That dirty babies got a miserable/crying face, but my little toddler is
> > no bother at all...
>
> You fell for it!
>
> 'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in
Scots
> means handicapped or disabled.
>
correct, which I think just shows that, like English, Scots language
meanings vary from area to area and/or evolve. I also cannot help but feel
that "wee
wean" is tautology.
David.
Nick-Durie
> Alan Hardie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:12:36 -0000, "Nick-Durie"
> <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
is
> >> no bother at all...
> >
> >You fell for it!
> >
> >'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in
Scots
> >means handicapped or disabled.
> >
>
>
They're not related, I don't think anyway.
CSD gives the etymology of 'Mank (v)' as late Latin 'mancare' whence
Northern Middle English 'mank'. Altho in all fairness to Bryn the Brit
colloquialism could also be a distinct possiblity if they thought it was a
Scots word, and not a UK one.
connochies
mdthorpe <mdth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JnVT5.10722$ea7.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> bather
> > iva
> > >
> > >
is
> > > no bother at all...
> >
> > You fell for it!
> >
> > 'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in
> Scots
> > means handicapped or disabled.
> >
be
> correct, which I think just shows that, like English, Scots language
> meanings vary from area to area and/or evolve.
As far as I can see it means basically the same in English and Scots
[faulty, deficient, wanting, defective, botched, ill-made - in the Scots
dictionaries; bad, inferior, defective, dirty, mutilated - in the Concise
Oxford] Only the English dictionary gives the form "manky" though, the
Scots ones use "mank" or "mankit" with mankie actually being a type of
woolen material.
Allan
Nick-Durie
> Did not know either but I doubt anyone would use Wean and Bairn in the
same
> sentence.
Ah yeah but this all hangs on whether or not you consider Scots to be a
language or just a series of dialects, why not use both, they are both
equally valid?
They are used thus throuout literary Scots.
> My own experience is that if you come from Glasgow or nearby you use
'Wean'
> whereas
> 'Bairn' is used in other places including Northern England (Geordie Land)
and
> Aberdeen
> amonst others. I have never heard anyone using both.
>
> Tom
>
> ps is boggin Scottish or uk as i think? What about boachin - is that
Glasgow or
> all Scotland.
All Scotland - I grew up with the word 'boak' and only found out recently
that it was not a standard English word. I used o think 'pus' was English
as well.
> In Doric we never boached - but I do not have a word for it. We used
English
> Puked!
Well it comes back to that debate about whether all Scots is Scots. If you
believe as I do that this is so then every Scots speaker is entitled to
every word which is used by Scots speakers, and whilst they're at it they
should be continually making up new words as humanity has done ever since
the dawn of vocalcords.
I think I mentioned before that there needs to be wideranging neologizing in
Scots because at present we have a lnaguge that relies on a foreign language
for all its 20th century technical vocabulary.
Hwit's thi Scots wird fir aen o thae 'neologizms', 'newwird' wirks brah bot
ye'll no finnd it nae diectiounar bot stillanon we maun ey caa awa makkin
newwirds sic as thon, stertin wi wirds fir siccan newfangils as 'computers'
an 'calculators' an raxin out wir vocabular tae bigg wirds fir thins adae wi
thi ermie, hwilk we divna hae mukkil wirds fir, fir ensampil thi'r nae wird
fir a "ballistic missile" nor onie fir a "atomic bomb" yitt we noat siccan
wirds, speschiallie thaim hwilk is geyan uissfu. It's aelie throch thi
nitherin o Inglifiein that siccan wirds disna exist ivnou, mind on that;
bakk i thi eild Scots haed thi wirds fir aathin that wes waantin descryven,
uizin wirds that fircommon's no uizt inower your airt juist ae pairt o
makkin siccar thi leid disna juist dwyne awa.
Hwiloms Ah trew summ fowk's juist waantin thi leid tae wizzen an dei, bot
siccan fowk sall hae tae drei thi dirdums gin thon happens fir hwit will
thai pitt fornent OUR LANGAGE thi wersch keich o 'International' geir,
aareddies bein uizt athout stent athort thi braid o wir Kinrik.
Tartan Haggis and the funny poems and other nonesense that nobody
understands, I sincerely hope not.
>
> Alan Hardie wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:12:36 -0000, "Nick-Durie"
> > <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That dirty babies got a miserable/crying face, but my little toddler
is
> > >> no bother at all...
> > >
> > >You fell for it!
> > >
> > >'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in
Scots
> > >means handicapped or disabled.
> > >
> >
Nick-Durie
>
> mdthorpe <mdth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:JnVT5.10722$ea7.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
> > news:3a200...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> > >
> > bather
> > > iva
> > > >
> > > >
> is
> > > > no bother at all...
> > >
> > > You fell for it!
> > >
> > > 'Mankie' in English is a Brit colloquialism for dirty, but 'mankie' in
> > Scots
> > > means handicapped or disabled.
> > >
would
> be
> > correct, which I think just shows that, like English, Scots language
> > meanings vary from area to area and/or evolve.
>
> As far as I can see it means basically the same in English and Scots
> [faulty, deficient, wanting, defective, botched, ill-made - in the Scots
> dictionaries; bad, inferior, defective, dirty, mutilated - in the Concise
> Oxford] Only the English dictionary gives the form "manky" though, the
> Scots ones use "mank" or "mankit" with mankie actually being a type of
> woolen material.
>
Ay it did seem rather odd, my mother always refers to people as being
'mankit'.
> Allan
>
>
mdthorpe
words that Scots speakers actually use at the present time. Mankie may
indeed have meant handicapped or disabled, but has anyone here actually ever
heard it used in that context? I'd bet that today's Scots speakers - and
certainly those in the Dundee area - would use mankie or manky to mean
filthy or dirty. In so doing they may have kept the old word but drifted
towards the English meaning. That, of course, is how language evolves, and
it doesn't make it any less Scots.
And would the phrase "wee wean" be used? I've certainly never heard it but
I come from the east where, as someone else pointed out, "wean" is not in
particularly common usage. Reminds me of the rather old story of the woman
who was walking down Sauchiehall Street with one breast exposed. Eventually
a rather embarrassed man approached her to advise her of her state of
undress. Horrified, she looked down at herself. "Gawd, Ah must hae left the
wean oan the bus!"
(Apologies to those of you who have heard that one)
David.