It seems to me that the primary difference between Scots and standard English is a difference in pronounciation, with Scots' phonology heavily influenced by Gaelic, much the same way Scottish-English is. They're using the same bulk of words that I would use, only with a very thick, often unintelligable accent.
You seem to suggest that a word like "maist" (most) is merely a dialectal word spelled just like this solely because of an accent, thus supporting your argument that Scots is a dialect of English.
German and Dutch are not considered dialects of each other and yet they have many words that could be, according to your logic, argued as just variants of the same word just because of an accent.
Not specifically. Virtually all English dialects included a 'rolled R' until a few hundred years ago.
How would we know that, and if that was the case, then why do only the dialects of the "Celtic Fringe" preserve the rolled 'r'?
Daniel,
In another thread, you stated that Scots is rarely used in formal circumstances, and only used informally, exactly like all the other "dialects" in Britain, and very much unlike true languages. That is generally speaking. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
The study of historical linguistics, other records etc. — it actually wasn't all that long ago.
Porthos wrote:
and if that was the case, then why do only the dialects of the "Celtic Fringe" preserve the rolled 'r'?
Where has this assumption come from? Firstly, a 'rolled R' can be found in many other English dialects — Birmingham, for example, especially amongst older people. Also, a 'rolled R' of one form or another is found in some English dialects from New Zealand and South Africa.
On the other hand, a 'rolled R' is not entirely present in Irish English, as you seem to suggest.
Porthos wrote:
Daniel,
In another thread, you stated that Scots is rarely used in formal circumstances, and only used informally, exactly like all the other "dialects" in Britain, and very much unlike true languages.
Rather like Luxembourgish, actually, where speakers tend to speak French in formal circumstances — even though Luxembourgish is actually a Germanic language.
Daniel,
In another thread, you stated that Scots is rarely used in formal circumstances, and only used informally, exactly like all the other "dialects" in Britain, and very much unlike true languages.
Rather like Luxembourgish, actually, where speakers tend to speak French in formal circumstances — even though Luxembourgish is actually a Germanic language.
Exactly.
Scots, for historical reasons, is now seen as a language only spoken by the majority of the working class and so is perceived as a "bad" language. So that means, people don't use Scots in job interviews or in courts, for example. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject:
Benjamin wrote:
Porthos wrote:
and if that was the case, then why do only the dialects of the "Celtic Fringe" preserve the rolled 'r'?
Where has this assumption come from? Firstly, a 'rolled R' can be found in many other English dialects — Birmingham, for example, especially amongst older people. Also, a 'rolled R' of one form or another is found in some English dialects from New Zealand and South Africa.
Actor Timothy Dalton grew up near Manchester, and even though he learned to suppress his local accent when he attended the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (I learned this reading an interview), traces of his original accent come through sometimes (which I know from hearing interviews). One feature is that he has a rolled R when the R has a vowel on either side, and he often rolls it when it follows certain consonants (it happens regularly after B).
Scots, for historical reasons, is now seen as a language only spoken by the majority of the working class and so is perceived as a "bad" language. So that means, people don't use Scots in job interviews or in courts, for example.
So, in other words, it has the exact same situation as dialects of English in England do. And most people in society percieve it to be a stigmatized, dialect of English, and thus code-switch to standard English in professional settings. But it's not a dialect? If it walks like a dialect, and if it sounds like a dialect, then reason leads us to conclude that it is a dialect.
It's a dialect of the same language across national borders. If you were to take the same language, only have it spoken in England, then I seriously doubt there would be an argument as to its status as a dialect.
It's perceived as a dialect. It functions as a regional dialect. And there is no point along the dialect continuum, where one can clearly draw the line between English and Scots, thus once again leading us to believe, that the vernacular of the lowlands, is merely one among many dialects of English throughout the British Isles.
If the word "English" insults your national pride, then perhaps we should call it a local variety of "Anglic", since no one will argue against the fact that both Scots and standard English descend from Anglic. English of England, and Scots are both dialects of the same language, namely, "Anglic".
So, in other words, it has the exact same situation as dialects of English in England do.
I don't know, because there isn't just one situation in England either. But it's not unusual for people to speak different languages depending on whether they're in a formal or an informal situation. In Luxembourg, for example, although most daily conversation takes place in Luxembourgish, people switch to French (or sometimes German) in more formal situations — at secondary school, most lessons are taught in French, even though it is not the native/vernacular language of most of the students.
(Luxembourg is linguistically a fascinating situation, actually).
loic wrote:
It's a dialect of the same language across national borders. If you were to take the same language, only have it spoken in England, then I seriously doubt there would be an argument as to its status as a dialect.
The distinction between 'language' and 'dialect' is very arbitrary and highly political anyway, as has been explained on here many times.
loic wrote:
It's perceived as a dialect.
By whom? Not by the Scottish Parliament, at least officially. Not by the European Union either.
Scots is actually recognised officially as a language in its own right by the European Charter of Minority Languages.
Again, like Benjamin has already said, whether something is a 'language' or a 'dialect' is arbitrary.
Porthos wrote:
So, in other words, it has the exact same situation as dialects of English in England do.
Well, yes and no. But why does it make Scots a dialect? Because it was used in those situations?
In the Philippines, there are almost 200 languages of which Filipino (based on Tagalog) is the official language. Many Filipinos are bilingual or even trilingual or quadrilingual and they often treat their languages much like here or in Luxembourg.
My family in the Philippines speak Filipino, Bicolano and English, and depending on the situation they speak in any one of those languages. Filipino and Bicolano are as different as High German is from Icelandic or Low German. Bicolano, a regional language from Bicol (aka Bicolandia) is not a dialect in its native region where it is treated as if it was the official language, but in other areas it's treated as if it was a dialect. Even Filipino could be treated as a dialect in Bicolandia and not many people understand it. Because of its striking similarities with Bicolano, many Bicolano speakers often perceive Filipino as a dialect. Yet many Filipino speakers also often perceive Bicolano as a dialect!
This extreme linguistic diversity in the Philippines means that the situation is much more mind-numbingly complicated than it seems. In the same region of Bicolandia (about half the size of Denmark), the number of dialects are astronomical and linguists reckon that these dialects pertain solely to Bicolano! So much so that if my aunt goes from her native town of Oas to Ligao, maybe 2 or 3 kilometres away, to visit my other aunt, she'll have gone through 5 or 6 different mutually unintelligible dialects and by the time she reached Ligao she won't understand the completely unintelligible dialect of the neighbourhood at all. The disturbing thing is that those dialects are so different that to me they are different languages and yet Philippine language linguists consider them as dialects of Bicolano.
So this proves that calling something a dialect just because of certain situations just doesn't make sense and that it's entirely arbitrary.
I still don't get why "dialect" was coined in the first place. It should just be "language" no matter how uncannily similar or completely unintelligible those "speech forms" are! _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Seńora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject:
I don't know if this was ever posted before, but here's a fascinating, albeit incomplete, link to a site on the regional variants of the Scots language, with audio samples.
I just finished reading trainspotting in Scots, and I've seen the movie without subtitles. ;)
I have to say it's a different language, but very similar to English. Like Swedish and Norwegian perhaps, or Norwegian and Danish. _________________ My site:http://www.AntonKemmeren.com
I just finished reading trainspotting in Scots, and I've seen the movie without subtitles. ;)
I have to say it's a different language, but very similar to English. Like Swedish and Norwegian perhaps, or Norwegian and Danish.
Trainspotting is written in Scottish English (Edinburgh vernacular), not in Scots. (I might be wrong.) _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Highly anglicised Scots is often used in contemporary fiction, for example, the Edinburgh dialect of Scots in Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh (later made into a motion picture of the same name, though with language allegedly anglicised even more to make it suitable for an international audience).
Yes, the film Trainspotting made the language more anglicised to suit the audience. In reality, it is more Scots (particularly in vocabulary, syntax and accent) than in the film and it would be incomprehensible to the audience if the film did not "anglicise" the language, so the language used in that film isn't really realistic. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:22 am Post subject:
Daniel, how would you identify the language in Sweet Sixteen and Ratcatcher? Trainspotting was easy to understand, but the former two were nearly incomprehensible to me on first viewing.
Daniel, how would you identify the language in Sweet Sixteen and Ratcatcher? Trainspotting was easy to understand, but the former two were nearly incomprehensible to me on first viewing.
I can't say, as I have yet to see either film. I did see Trainspotting, though.
I actually saw brief clips of Sweet Sixteen and thought the language used by the teenage boys was more or less realistic. I'd need to watch the whole film before I can make such analysis, though. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
I still don't get why "dialect" was coined in the first place. It should just be "language" no matter how uncannily similar or completely unintelligible those "speech forms" are!
The only problem is that it gets somewhat silly to refer to, for example, a "Milwaukee language" and a "Chicago language" to refer to North American English dialects here in Milwaukee and Chicago, considering that the two are distinct but at the same time are awfully close to each other all things considered.
As a result, I just prefer to refer to dialects, varieties, or dialect continua and instead avoid the word language when I can. Likewise, when speaking in general terms, I would prefer to refer to dialects of some greater dialect group at some level, even though I often refer to languages for the sake of convenience and due to the most conventionally familiar terminology.
If Norwegian and Swedish qualify as separate languages then Scots and English are as well.
Though the issue would be what about the traditional dialects of Northern England. Perhaps "English" in the loose sense is better described as a dialect continuum (American English being related to the East Anglian and West Country dialects)
All times are GMT + 2 Hours Page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
