Talk:Ulster Scots dialect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lowlands Scots derived from English?

Clicking on the link English produces: "The English language is a West Germanic language that originated in England from Old English (Anglo-Saxon)" Going by the previous edit Scots must be pretty young. Both Scots and English are derived from Anglo-Saxon. Thus Scots is closely related to 'Modern' English and not derived from it.

Jean Armour 19.06.05

Apr 7 2005:

Similarities to English are perfectly valid additions to the page and it is not POV. These words are used in Ulster Scots, and anyone in doubt is welcome to check www.ulsterscotsagency.com and get these words straight from the horse's "mooth."

Apr 8 2005

The article already makes it clear that many consider Ulster Scots to be a dialect of English. The Article Scots covers this in more detail. Badly formulated opinions masquerading as facts are not necessarry. A whole hoard of Scots words can be found at The Scots Language Dictionary

April 27th 2005

The article does not give examples of the similarities. Ulster Scots and English with the Ballymena accent are so similar that it requires examples to be given to show just how similar they are. What are you afraid of, people seeing the similarities and catching on that it's all a big scam? I can think of no other reason why you guys would be so dead set against having actual examples of Ulster Scots on a page about Ulster Scots.

There's nothing wrong with providing examples of the language. There's everything wrong with providing examples of the language as an explicit attempt to discredit the language (in violation of WP:NPOV), and with providing unverifiable examples (in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability). Unless linguistic comparisons of Ulster Scots and Ballymena English have been published, any attempt to compare them on this page amounts to original research and is in violation of WP:NOT.--Angr/_comhrá 05:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 28th 2005

Did you miss the bit above about www.ulsterscotsagency.com? I ask again, what are you afraid of? If these verifiable and verified examples of the 'language' only serve to discredit it, then that is hardly my fault.

I'm afraid of someone abusing Wikipedia to push their point of view. The examples (which incidentally are still not verified) do not discredit the language, but the paragraph claims they do. That is POV-pushing. If you want the paragraph in, rewrite it so that it sounds neither pro nor contra Ulster Scots, and include the sources from which the examples are quoted (URLs, published sources, perhaps a photograph of the fish and chips shop in question). --Angr/_comhrá 21:44, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

The article does illustrate similarities with English in the first few lines with the quote from the Ulster Scots poem by James Orr "To quat braid Scotch, a task that foils their art; For while they join his converse, vain though shy, They monie a lang learn'd word misca' an' misapply". Most people won't have difficulty making their minds up on that one.

Further more the second paragraph under History states 'Although it is usually treated as a variety of the Scots language or, along with all Lowland Scots varieties, as a dialect of English, some claim it to be a language in its own right; only the first two views are represented among academic linguists...' Further on it is pointed out 'Some confuse English spoken with a very broad Scottish or North Antrim accent with Lowland Scots proper.'

Many of the examples given could be justifiably criticised. Mostly on the grounds of authenticity. Criticising in such a way wouldn't demean Scots but those endulging in linguistic an orthographic dilettantism. Some of the examples given diverged from traditional practice. The vowel in "Faasch an Chups" would likely be the same in both words in Ulster Scots /ɪ~ʌ/ traditionally written <i>, the <sch> usually <sh>, interestingly no attempt was made to spell <ch> as <tch>. Both "heirskip"[1] and "cooncil"[2] are well attested Scots forms. "Febwarrie" may be an attempt at what is usually 'februar'[3]. "Faict-fynnin" isn't Scots at all since fact is /fak/ in Scots, usually spelt 'fact'[4]. The spelling "fynnin" would indicate a dipthong /əi/ whereas Scots has /ɪ/[5]. "heid yin"[6] is a Scots colloquialism, perhaps even slang, for a 'boss'. Certainly not appropriate for formal use - even in Scots. Note the <i> in 'yin' but not in "Faasch an Chups". "a brave wheen" may well be shared with Ulster English but that's not unusual with closely related varieties.

The 'big scam' is perhaps not the similarities with English but the dilettantish attemps by organisations such as www.ulsterscotsagency.com to reinvent the language instead of simply following the existing literary tradition. Nationalist need not discredit the language because over enthusiastc ideology driven amatures are managing that fine.

If you wish to illustrate criticisms do it properly and stop making an 'erse' of yourself (63.108.117.3).

Ken Mair 28.04.05

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

GrahamN 22:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC): Justifications for the edits I have just made:

• "The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter." (From the List of declarations made with respect to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on the web-site of the Council of Europe [7])

• It is meaningless to say that the claim of Ulster-Scots to be a language is "linguistically tenuous", because the difference between a dialect and a language is political, not linguistic. Before the break up of Yugoslavia, the people there spoke one language, Serbo-Croat. Now they speak three extremely closely related languages, Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian. I would be surprised if those languages didn't differ from each other a good deal less than Ulster-Scots differs from Scots. Similarly, I think I'm right in saying that the Norwegian language only came to be recognised as being distinct from Swedish when Norway gained its independence from Sweden. The Good Friday Agreement has established, for solid political reasons, that Ulster-Scots is a language. That agreement was approved by a majority of the population of the island of Ireland, and it is here to stay. The anonymous editor may wish that it was not so, but it is so.

• The two links to the web site that claims that Ulster-Scots is merely a poor country cousin of Scots will require heavy qualification if they are to be reinstated.

MacNab:

It is "linguistically tenuous" to claim that Ulster-Scots is a language other than Scots. It is often true that the difference between a dialect and a language is political, not linguistic. Perhaps the article should include why many linquists class Ulster Scots as a variety of Scots and not a seperate language (many consider them varieties of English!) and why for political reasons others consider it a separate language.

Serbian and croation from a linguistic point of view, the two variants are more or less mutually intelligible. The fact that the western variant is written in a version of the Latin alphabet while the eastern uses a version of the Cyrillic alphabet is of little linguistic - but of political - interest.

"I think I'm right in saying that the Norwegian language only came to be recognised as being distinct from Swedish when Norway gained its independence from Sweden."

It was Norway and Denmark!

"...Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language..."

A language i.e. the same language!

Separate recognition in the Eurpean Charter is because responsibility for Scots is devolved to Scotland and NI.

In the agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of Ireland establishing implementation bodies it says:

Annex 2, DEFINITIONS, Part 5, Language 1.7 "Ullans" is to be understood as the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal. "Ulster-Scots cultural issues" relate to the cultural traditions of the part of the population of Northern Ireland and the border counties which is of Scottish ancestry and the influence of their cultural traditions on others, both within the island of Ireland and in the rest of the world.

No mention of it being anything other than Scots. It is part of the Scots language and not a separate one. That would be like claiming that the English spoken in Liverpool is a different language than the English spoken in Leeds.

The linked website does not claim that Ulster-Scots is merely a poor country cousin of Scots. If it does where? It simply illustrates that Ulster Scots is part of the Scots linguistic system and thus a variety of Scots and not a different language

Phonetic description of Ulster Scots
Scots-Online

Your claim requires heavy qualification. Please add examples to the article of how Ulster Scots dialects are so different from the dialects of Scots in Scotland illustrating that they may be considered a seperate language.

http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/languageoverview.asp "Ulster-Scots, or Ullans is technically a variant of the lowland Scots language, or Lallans..."

http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/establishedfacts.asp "It is a regional type of Scots, which has a common source with English in the Anglo-Saxon language of a millennium ago."

Also: http://members.aol.com/rossarthur/ullans/ullans.doc

http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/creative/lang/lang3.htm "Moreover, the recognition of Ulster Scots, as the Scots language in Ulster, by the United Kingdom Committee of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages..."

http://www.scottish-and-irish-recipes.org.uk/ulster-scots.htm " Ulster-Scots is a variant of a language called Scots - the language used by Burns in many of his poems."

http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/siti_esterni/anglistica/slin/scotbiblio.htm "Ulster Modern Scots Dialects: Ulster (http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/siti_esterni/anglistica/slin/scotbiblio.htm#ulster)"

http://www.theulsterscots.com/speech%20print.htm "Ulster is the only area outside of Scotland where Scots has survived as a spoken language/dialect."

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Local_and_regional_Democracy/Regional_or_Minority_languages/Documentation/1_Periodical_reports/2002_5e_MIN-LANG_PR_UK.asp "Ulster-Scots is defined in legislation (The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999) as the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland."

Here Scots is 'classed' as "English" http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/history/stateapart/agreement/culture/support/cul2_c042.shtml

Montgomery, M. B. and Gregg, R. J. (1997) 'The Scots Language in Ulster', in Charles Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=SCO

It strikes me as less than honest to maintain that those who recognise Ulster-Scots as a language do so only for political reasons, but that people like yourself who seek to deny it that status have no political agenda. To reiterate - the difference between a dialect and a language is purely political - it has nothing to do with linguistics. To take your example, suppose Merseyside and Yorkshire both gained independence from the UK. Then the Scouse spoken in Liverpool without doubt would be regarded as different language from the Yorks spoken in Leeds. But that aside, there is a much wider point that I think you have missed. People have a naturally egocentric tendency to regard the way they themselves speak as being "correct", and to regard any similar but clearly different way of speaking as being merely a "heavily accented version" or "a dialect" of their own tongue. There is no logical justification for this; it is just egocentric prejudice. This prejudice is what underies the widespread idea that Scots is just a funny sort of English, and your notion that Ulster-Scots is just a funny sort of Scots. No doubt there are still Swedes who think of Norwegian as just a funny sort of Swedish (Norway gained its independence from Sweden in 1905). Why would Ulster-Scots be regarded as a variety of Lowland Scots, rather than Lowland Scots as a variety of Ulster-Scots? There is no logical or linguistic justification for it; it is just political and cultural prejudice. GrahamN 13:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MacNab: You obviously don't grasp the issue here. The examples I gave clearly show that the view that Ulster Scots is a variety of Scots is widespread. Ulster Scots is a variety of the Scots language in the same way as Ayrshire Scots, Fife Scots and Aberdeenshire Scots etc. are (Many consider them all varieties of English). The classification is linguistic because the varieties are phonologically, lexically and gramatically structurally close (see [8] part of [9]). As for political - varieties of English in many politically independent territories have differences but are still phonologically, lexically and gramatically structurally close and thus considered the same language. Many of the official i.e. political sources I listed cited Ulster Scots as a variety of Scots and fair eneugh this may be considered a political decision. All the same your insistence that Ulster Scots is a language other than Scots is also political (on an individual basis and somewhat disingenuous seeing that in the article you quote sources which themselves define Ulster Scots as a variety of the Scots language, though no doubt you are not alone with such an interpretation). Non-the-less this holds no basis linguistically. As to people regarding the way they speak as being "correct" I agree. All the same no claim is being made here about correctness or incorrectness but simply the point that Ulster Scots is a variety of Scots no more or no less "correct" than any other variety. Nowhere have I claimed that "Ulster-Scots is just a funny sort of Scots" once again: Ulster Scots is a variety of Scots no more or no less "correct" than any other variety. After being under Danish rule for some 400 years Norway had her own revolution in 1814. A very peaceful revolution, consisted of calling a constituonal convention which declared that Norway is a free and indivisable kingdom. After that Norway was part of a union with Sweden, this union lasted until 1905. The language issue was between "Danish" and "Norwegian" (Nynorsk and Bokmål). The reason why Ulster Scots is regarded as a variety of Lowland Scots, rather than Lowland Scots as a variety of Ulster Scots is because it originated in Scotland. Such a view has nothing to do with political and cultural prejudice and everything to do with linguistic "logic".

Official documents define Ulster Scots as a variety of the Scots Language.

"...Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language..."

A language i.e. the same language!

Annex 2, DEFINITIONS, Part 5, Language 1.7 "Ullans" is to be understood as the variety of the Scots language traditionally found in parts of Northern Ireland and Donegal.

http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/establishedfacts.asp "It is a regional type of Scots, which has a common source with English in the Anglo-Saxon language of a millennium ago."

http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/creative/lang/lang3.htm "Moreover, the recognition of Ulster Scots, as the Scots language in Ulster, by the United Kingdom Committee of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages..."

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Local_and_regional_Democracy/Regional_or_Minority_languages/Documentation/1_Periodical_reports/2002_5e_MIN-LANG_PR_UK.asp "Ulster-Scots is defined in legislation (The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999) as the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland."

Either all these people don't know what they are at or you insistence that Ulster Scots is not a variety of Scots but a language in its own right is wishful (politically motivated?) thinking.

I suggest:

Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans, is defined in legislation (The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999) as the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland. "[10]. The British Government also recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the European Charter for Regional or Minoity Languages' definition of a regional or minority language. [11]

According to some (who?), it should be considered to be a language in its own right; many linguists classify it as a variety of Scots; others regard it (along with Scots) as a variety of English. Ulster Scots is today spoken by about 100,000 people from both nationalist and unionist communities and in counties on both sides of the border.

Including the link to Phonetic description of Ulster Scots gives people an oportunty to learn about the phonology of Ulster Scots. Unfortunately this may lead them to consider it a variety of Scots since that website shows how phonologically, lexically and gramatically structurally close the varieties of Scots are. This may undermine your intention of presenting Ulster Scots as a language in its own right.

I'm not keen to get bogged down in a political debate of this kind. And it is political. You can pepper your prose all you like with talk of "phonological, lexical and gramatical structure", but this has no bearing on whether Ulster-Scots is a language, because that is purely a political and cultural judgement, not a linguistic one. I'm also not keen on using talk pages to suggest alternate versions of articles. If you want to change the article, feel free to do so. Personally, I can't see what's wrong with it as it stands. GrahamN 18:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I think before allowing it in the article we should insist on a reliable reference for this extraordinary assertion:

However, a recent European delegation investigating projects that were deemed worthy of receiving grant aid to sustain endangered European languages gave up on their search for Ulster Scots speakers after failing to find a single native speaker.

I don't have much time for Eurocrats, but I can't believe they could be quite that incompetent. All they would have had to have done was do a simple google search, to find this, for example.

GrahamN 24 October 2004 [not logged in as I can't remember my blasted password]

I think they did their search before that was available. There may have been an article at the time, whenever that was, in the Irish Times. How accurate it was I don't know.

I took this POV bit out "As soon as these people set foot off their boats their Scots suddenly mutated into a different language now known as Ulstèr-Scotch. Their writings (indistinguishable from those they wrote in Scotland) are now held up as examples of early written Ulstèr-Scotch - a different and distinct language."

Clearly the language spoken by these people didn't suddenly change into a different language. It obviously remained Scots. There will have been some changes over the last 300 years or so through contact with Irish and Ulster English. The language will still be identifyibly Scots much as English in the USA is identifyably English.

Ony Moose

I have also heard the European story, from a reputable source. Given the dialectalisation of all forms of Scots and the fact that, particularly in Ulster, where it is under severe threat from English, native users tend to speak it among themselves in limited, informal settings, I don't find it suprising. However, it may also reflect the fact that native users do not recognise the revived form as their own idiom and think that they speak something else or not the real thing, despite it being the revived form that diverges from their more authentic variety. This is exacerbated by the fact that both "Ulster-Scots" and "Ullans" are constructs used in place of plain old "Scotch", "Ullans" being particularly opaque.

Rumplefyke Ulster Scots is made up. Nobody speaks it. It is only used by unionists to differentiate themselves from the rest of Ireland. I have never heard a person speak Ulster Scots in everyday language because it doesn't exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.113.130 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Language qua language

Is it a language or a dialect? One question I might ask (as a linguist) is whether there are materials available for learners and any encouragement for people to learn it. There aren't. I'm a native speaker of Eastern American English, and am (now) a good speaker of Irish. But if I were to try to learn Ulster Scots? I would not be encouraged, I think. I would, rather, probably be reviled for taking the piss. Evertype 15:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Some courses have been offered by Dr. Robinson. As for taking the piss - Lairdie Lard seems to be managing finely without your help.

Ben Doun 03.01.05

There are no materials available for many languages. It's hardly much of a criterion. Generally, the distinction between a "language" and a "dialect" is very sketchy. A good rule of thumb is that people are speaking a different "language" if they think they are! Serbs and Croats think they speak different languages, so do Danes and Norwegians (far more complicated than the editor who mentioned them made out, because Norway is home to two languages -- one that is very similar to Danish, and one that is not so similar, so that some in Norway speak as their mother tongue a language more readily understood in Copenhagen than in some places in Norway!).

The difference between speakers of Scouse and speakers of Ulster Scots would seem to be that the former think they are speaking English, and consequently can be said to speak a dialect, while the latter think they are speaking a language distinct from Scots (which in turn does not think itself a dialect of English). Dr Zen 08:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But then again most of the latter are quite content in thinking they are speaking Scotch so what we have is the exactly the same thing being two languages at the same time.

Guy Thrawn 12.01.05

Well, no. You have what some think is different and some think is the same. It seems odd to speakers of standard English, because our language is spoken in so many different places without anyone's believing they speak a local version: no one claims to be speaking separate languages called American or Canadian. But then, there's no political advantage to doing so.Dr Zen 11:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looked pretty much like Guy was sayin "You have what some think is different and some think is the same." Though since, apparently, native speakers refer to it as Scotch the assumption would be they take it to be the same Languages as the one in Scotland. As for speakers of English, they certainly all think they speak the same language and I assume most are aware they are speaking a local version though this isn't usually referred to. They simply call what they speak English in the same way as most Scots speakers in Ulster refer to their language as Scotch. What would the political advantage be in claiming to speak separate languages?

Phil McCavetty 14.01.05

Alan: "...Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language..."

If you changed Scots to Welsh the sentence would still make sense but would clealry be refering to two languages.

Ulster-Scots and indeed Scots were classified as "bad English" by many teachers and the language was drilled out of people at school, only tobe used by rural people or at home. It is only now that the language is almost extinct that people are trying to preserve and promote it. Willie Drennan of the Ulster-Scots Folk Orchestra who hails from around the Ulster-Scots heartland of Ballymena testifies that even here the language is in danger. He also tells of teachers who formerly drilled Ulster-Scots out of them now realising the errors of their ways and are now encouraging children to find out Ulster-Scots words used by their parents and grandparents and bring them in to school. It is only now that the language is entering the schooling system and it will take some time to formalise any written form as Ulster-Scots / Scots was always more a spoken language rather than a written one. Clearly Ulster-Scots comes from the Scots language. It is either a regional dialect of Scots or becuase it is in a different country / legislative area a different language. That should not stop collaboration between the Scots language and Ulster-Scots movements. Indeed it has not - the Ulster-Scots Agency has worked on various projects in Scotland.

Daphne Brown:

"It is either a regional dialect of Scots or becuase it is in a different country / legislative area a different language."

Ah! Like those famous languages American, Mexican and Brazillian to name but a few.

Ulster is a political statement, it is common amongst a people with a weak or no culture to manufacture one, accents (or writing the spoken language) or writing or using colloquialisms as a distinct language is a weak attempt at establishing a national identity. Is it an attempt to create an identity. Ulster Scots is not a language, for example, I have never studied Ulster Scots or have never spoken it, yet when I recently heard it spoken at a poetry reading at the University of Ulster, I amazingly understood it completely. Perhaps I am a genius and literally learnt an entire language in a matter of seconds or maybe the speaker was just speaking plain old English in an Uster accent with a few local words. I fail to see the argument to have this article even in the category of a language. It is nice to hear people using their local accents, people should be proud of who they are, but is it simply an accent with a few local words. I could quite easily write this article in a Dublin accent, I wonder would that get me a GRANT? And if it is a language or even a dialect, where is the Ulster Scots Wikipedia, there is a scots one but not an ulster scots one, and amazingly I have the amazing talents to understand that too? Frainc 00:10 17 September 2006.

Merge with Hiberno-Scots and Ullans?

Right now there are, in addition to this article, separate articles on Hiberno-Scots and Ullans. Each is very short, and each is basically just a brief history of the term. What do people think of the idea of adding a section "Alternate names" to this page, and moving the information from Hiberno-Scots and Ullans here, leaving redirects? --Angr 10:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Best leave them separate incase the other articles are expanded. Merging will just clutter up this article. Jim Beam 15.05.05

There were only a couple of sentences in each of Ullans and Hiberno-Scots which were not already here, so I have merged them to show how easy it is. The suprisingly large number of anonymous users who want to stop the merger, or even have have merger tags on the articles suggest to me that they just want to mess up this and related articles. The three titles describe the same dialect of the same language and so should be in the same article. There is no clutter. --Henrygb 00:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. The other articles should not in fact expand independently of this one, because there is nothing one can say about "Ullans" or "Hiberno-Scots" that can't be said about Ulster Scots. --Angr 06:23, 30 March 2005 (UTC)

Examples

A few examples of Ulster-Scots a variety of the Scots language.

Tha Hamely Tongue:- Houl yer whist - keep quiet / don`t butt in Ye hallion - you tearaway Skreigh o day - crack of dawn / day Scundered - fed up

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughavey (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2005

or

Haud yer wheesht Scriech o day scunnert

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.249.250 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2005

My dad says 'hould yer whisht' (Roscommon not Ulster), which, as far as I can reacall comes froma Gaelic word 'fuist',are you sayin that the Gaeilgeoir in Co. na Gaillimhe is also speaking Scots? It isnt a language, sin deireadh leis an sceal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.70.137 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find where those phrases are discussed in the article: there are probably enough examples there.

My guess is these particular phrases are native to most speakers of Ulster English, Hiberno-English and Scottish English.

There are some Gaelic words that have Germanic/Anglic cognates. The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue traces this word to Middle English.[12] Hope that helps. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazing!

I may be from Dundalk, but I use all the above phrases as do my parents and grandparents. I had always assumed we were using slang, but now I realise im a polyglot! Now I speak English, Irish, German, AND Ulster-Scots! Overnight! Gae oot a that sheough or ye'll be covered in clobber an I'll have to give ye a skelp! Great... Dundalkireland 17:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Under the Good Friday agreement, you are not supposed to speak Ulster-Scots in Leinster. Wait for the knock on the door from the language guards. 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

An improvement?

Are these [13] changes by User:62.190.62.29 acually an improvement? Seems he/she has removed much material with no reason. chowells 19:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No! But it gets rid of a lot of stuff the editor in question may prefer people not to know about. The history of the plantation would be better placed o the plantation page.

OK, I have reverted those changes, it seems a lot of relavent information was removed with no attempt to justify. chowells 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Page title

User:Mais oui! moved the page from Ulster Scots language to Ulster Scots dialect without discussion. Assuming good faith, this may have involved a slip which led to a minor edit to the redirect which stopped it being moved back easily. I have undone the move to enable a discussion to take place. Note that the Anglo-Norman language is clearly also a dialect, either of the Norman language or of the French language. --Henrygb 12:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move: rename to Ulster Scots dialect

This article is mis-named. Ulster Scots is not a language, it is a dialect of a language. It says so in the very first sentence of the article.--Mais oui! 14:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support --Mais oui! 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose — for the reasons given below --Gareth Hughes 16:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose All languages are dialects by definition. The English language(s), Scots (all varieties}, Frisian etc. are all Germanic dialects in a linguistic sense; it doesn't stop them being languages in a encyclopaedic sense. Users can always follow the link for dialect for an in-depth discussion of the situation Man vyi 17:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose If the status of Ulster Scots as a separate language is disputed then we should probably try not to take sides in the article title. Failing that it is less offensive and less wrong to call a dialect a language than to call a language a dialect. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Every bit of unbiased information that I can see here suggests that Ulster Scots is a dialect of a language-I don't see why people think that this is somehow insulting to it-it's merely a fact.
• Oppose for the reasons above. Satyadasa 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This dialect has only come to prominence in recent years thanks to the work of people pushing a political agenda. By no stretch of the imagination is it a language. I could travel to the depths of rural Texas and find some yokels talking in as broad and distinctive a dialect as this, but that would not make their speech a language in its own right. Sorry if some people find this offensive, but just because the truth hurts does not make it less true. Quare Fella 23:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - As a language, it simply doesn't exist. I'm of the opinion that the entire collection of Ulster-Scot articles be moved to some fictional section Itsmjlynch 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Languages are languages not only because of linguistic differences but because of politics and Ulster Scots is a variety of lowland Scots that has fallen into this category of being classed as a language in its own right because of politics and not because of the differences in the language. It does not really matter if it is classed as a language in its own right or as a dialect. Many believe Czech and Slovak, two seperate languages to be dialects of oneanother but they are classed as languages. Lets look at it this way. If those who promote Ulster Scots are in favour of having it classified as a seperate language from Scots then let it be that way. In my opinion it does the board of Ulster Scots no good being seperated from those wanting to promote the Scots language but who can argue with the experts?

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) suggests that 'X language' is used to distinguish from other uses of 'X', e.g. 'X people' or 'X music'. There is no clear consensus on the dividing line between a language and a dialect, so the guideline is that 'dialect' is not used in titles. All dialects are languages after all, they do not have to be so 'in their own right'. This last phrase is often produced to suggest that certain languages have or have not the right to this ill-defined status. Linguists generally do not use the term 'dialect' in an absolute sense (as is necessary in a page title). See dialect. --Gareth Hughes 16:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. In cases where it is disputed whether X is a dialect or a language there is a ready made compromise: Move it to X (linguistics). See Talk:Scanian (linguistics) for the latest round of debate on this. Personally I think this is a bit silly but there are people who insist on it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that the editors opposing the requested move are not contesting that Ulster Scots is a dialect. I understand that their reason for opposing the move is that they argue that "X language" is the Wikipedia conventional label for dialects. A quick browse will show that this is not the case: Mid Ulster English, Hiberno-English, Hawaiian English, Singlish, Jamaican English, West Country dialects, Yorkshire dialect and accent, African American Vernacular English, Central Pennsylvania accent, Newfoundland English, American English, Boston accent, List of dialects of the English language, Milanese, Warsaw dialect, Austro-Bavarian, Andalusian Spanish, Portuguese dialects, Cypriot Greek, Alemannic German, Irish dialects, Savo Finnish, Rioplatense Spanish, Norwegian dialects, Genoese dialect, Inuktitut, Catalan dialect examples, Korean dialects, Kajkavian dialect, Zürich German, Seoul dialect, Ancient Macedonian dialect, Northumbrian (Anglo-Saxon), Japanese dialects, Brigasc, Cieszyn Silesian dialect, Vietnamese French (dialect), ... and probably many other dialects. I note that none (other than Anglo-Norman language, which I have also nominated for a Requested move) are mis-labelled as a "language". So far as I am aware only two other dialects of the Scots language has a Wikipedia article thus far: Doric dialect (Scotland) and Glasgow patter. I note that neither uses the label "language". So why should the Ulster Scots dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mais oui! (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 November 2005

• In all of these cases you cite, discussion of whether the form of speech in question is a language, dialect, or accent, should be left to the article content, if it's even relevant. Usually it is a political yarn. Satyadasa 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of those opposing contest that all languages are by definition dialects. Where a dialect/language is in the legal position of being recognised as a regional language, as Ulster Scots is in Northern Ireland, it would seem sensible to leave it classified as a language for encyclopaedic purposes. Anyway the question is so political that my advice would be to leave well alone - the ongoing argument over whether Lowland Scots and Ulster Scots have been legally recognised as one regional language or two regional languages is unlikely to be helped by stirring a language/dialect argument into the mix. In many cases of the dialect articles quoted above, consensus is that speakers consider themselves dialectal speakers of common languages. No such consensus exists in the case of Ulster Scots. Man vyi 09:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The legal position seems to be perfectly clear: Ulster Scots is defined in legislation (The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999) as: the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland [14].

That definition was used in the 1 July 2005 Second Periodical Report by the United Kingdom to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe outlining how the UK meets its obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[15]

The only people who disagree are those who claim Ulster Scots is a language in its own right but their argument seems only to be based on "because we say so". For a linguistic perspective see this.

You're quite right: legally Ulster Scots is a language. Whether it is a separate language from Lowland Scots is, I'd suggest, a thing indifferent as regards renaming the article, but can therefore be discussed at length if necessary in the body of the article itself. Man vyi 11:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To respond to Mais oui! back there. The convention is not to use the style 'X language' blindly, but to drop the 'language' part where it is not needed to disambiguate the language from other things. The convention doesn't yet say that 'X dialect' ought not to be used, but I would argue that this style is wholly subjective. The article on dialect deals with issue quite well. --Gareth Hughes 13:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to Ulster Scots. As I've proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages), I favour the solution of not using either term language or dialect. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 14:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support a move to Ulster Scots, leaving the unnecessary term "dialect" out. Marco79 16:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support that too - except that there is already a page there so some disambiguation is needed. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support that too. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Result

page not moved; no consensus. Eugene van der Pijll 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this is the worst, most partisan, and most misleading article that I have yet come across on Wikipedia. I am horrified that it has been allowed to remain as it is.

I am a native Ulster-Scots speaker. Not only that, I come from a family that has always been proud of the dialect. I still have a recording of my grandfather, who was born in 1875 on the family farm in North Tyrone, a couple of miles from the Donegal border, giving a dramatic recitation of 'Stumpie's Brae', which had always been his party piece.

Yet among everyone I know, I have never met anyone (except for the preposterous Lord Laird, whose family used to farm land very close to mine) who believes that Ulster Scots is anything other a dialect. (I'm not sure that even he (who of course went to school in Belfast, a non-Ulster Scots area) seriously believes it).

In other words, virtually all native speakers believe, when they are speaking Ulster Scots, that they are talking in a dialect of English.

The notion that it is a discrete language is held only by a tiny, tiny proportion of native speakers, and by a tiny number of non-native people with axes to grind.

So most native speakers believe that it is a dialect of English, most non Ulster-Scots Ulster people, and most serious academics who study the area ( I myself did a post-graduate degree many years ago under Professor Breathwaite, who was one of the first serious academics to analyse Ulster dialects) - the vast proportion of all these groups believe it to be a dialect.

Yet here it is, marked as a language, because of the lobbying of a tiny number of interested parties. I despair! Cooke 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article is following general wikipedia practice. Misleading as it may be. The article clearly states Ulster Scots is a dialect -a dialect of Scots.

84.135.201.127 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Does Ulster Scots have any connections at all with either Norse or Irish? Just curious.Fergananim 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Scots and English have been affected by Norse and both kinds of Gaelic as well as Latin, French and the rest of the world, and Ulster Scots (if you think it is not identical to Scots) may have had an extra dose of Irish, but all three are basically still west Germanic. --Henrygb 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer is no. Scots is a dirivitive of Germanic Old english, while gaelic (Scotish gaelic and Irish) are from totally seperate celtic indo-european dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmjlynch (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me improve the Controversy section?

The current presentation of the Ulster-Scots Agency can attract criticism on WP:NPOV grounds. I have pulled together much of the material that others wrote about the debate, under the new Controversy heading. I think there is a bit more editing work to do.

Right now, the section seems to be a Neutral Point of View work-in-progress. An earlier edit has accidentally used some wordings that may appear to be hiding bias, such as 'some contend' 'many have derided' 'many users' and 'leading to complaints.' There a pieces of what sound like original research (though I imagine they aren't) such as 'Arguably ... indispensable' and 'While that may be motivation ...' I would like to re-write it myself, but I cannot do it alone, as (a) I have quite a strong personal bias that would inevitably creep in and (b) I am not familiar enough with the reliable sources.

I suggest that if you are unhappy about this section, that you dig in and work on it. Hopefully, with a few pairs of eyes, the section can be made both more informative and more encyclopedic.

By the way, do you think that section deserves an NPOV template while it is being worked on? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal status as a separate language from Scots?

I think the article (or another one) needs to explain the impact of this aspect of law, to give background to the following paragraphs that I cut and pasted here. Perhaps it is just me but I don't get it yet. Phrases like some debate and some argue also give us NPOV problems.

There is some debate as to whether this declaration recognises Ulster Scots as a separate language (although, given the lack of academic debate regarding its status as a dialect of Scots, perhaps "recognise" is the wrong word). Some argue that since the word "language" is in the singular, the charter recognises a single language given two names on a jurisdictional basis. Opponents of this view point out that the word "meet" is in the plural, and that the singular word "language" occurs as part of the phrase "definition of a ... language". Although would ...it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meets the Charter's definition... be considered correct English? However, the question would then arise of whether the charter declaration, which is not legally enforceable and was based on consultation with activists rather than academic linguists or a representative sample of ordinary speakers, amounts to a breach of the implemenation bodies legislation cited above, which has the status of a bilateral international treaty with the Irish Republic and may not be amended unilaterally. In any case, if Ulster Scots is structurally a form of Scots, even a right to separate development might not justify the act, since the gain in linguistic diversity effected thereby might be more than offset by the loss of speakers. What is certain is that in academic and popular use the word "Scots" includes "Ulster Scots" and that the charter declaration represents a departure in terminology through positing a divide.

DCAL [16] describes Ulster Scots as a Germanic language and the local variety of the Scots language.

End of cut and paste. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is a statement of intent and is not legally binding. The Northern Ireland Order 1999 is legislation and assumedly enforceable. It is certainly true that "there is some debate as to whether this declaration recognises Ulster Scots as a separate language". The Ulster Scots Agency seems to consider Ulster Scots an independent language, see [17][18]. Other's don't as the article clearly explains: "Although it is usually treated as a variety of the Scots language or, along with all Scots varieties, as a dialect of English, some claim it to be a language in its own right; only the first two views are represented among academic linguists, although at least one academic has argued for recognition on non-structural, apperceptional grounds. Dr. Caroline Macafee, the editor of The Concise Ulster Dictionary, has said that "Ulster Scots is [...] clearly a dialect of Central Scots (Mid Scots)..." making the following sentence in the part you deleted misleading: "(although, given the lack of academic debate regarding its status as a dialect of Scots, perhaps "recognise" is the wrong word)". The reason for the lack of academic debate is the result of there being nothing to debate. Ulster Scots is clearly a dialect of Scots.

What you deleted seems to be fine except for the sentence "(although, given the lack of academic debate regarding its status as a dialect of Scots, perhaps "recognise" is the wrong word)". Perhaps just delete the afore mentioned sentence.

Nogger 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nogger, I am not sure I agree with you. My concern in making the deletion was not about either the academic or administrative debates - purely about the legal debate. We are told there is some debate as to the declaration. We are not told who is debating, nor are we motivated by any documented impact on policy. If someone is reading a lot into the drafting of some civil servant at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,(the declaration) and that interpretation is making a difference to Ulster Scots or to Ulster people, then that is fine - but please explain in the article what the impact is. To me it seems much more important how people in the language promotion movement, including staff at the new agency, see Ulster Scots in its relation to Scots, and that has some coverage in the article. I am yet to be convinced it is important how the law treats the 'Ulster Scots is a variety of Scots' question, for one reason that this particular law seems to be unenforceable in the courts. Have I clouded the matter sufficiently?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Did you read the Dialects article? It is pretty cool.

p.p.s. I also have my own POV about the legal status - my POV is that the law implies that Scots is "a language used in identical or similar form" to Ulster-Scots. I don't think my POV is worthy of the article either.

I see what you mean Hroðulf, the legal debate, probably much the same as the academic or administrative debates. The Ulster-Scots Agency interpreting the Charter as recognising Scots and Ulster Scots as two separate languages and most everyone else interpreting the Charter as recognising one language Scots (in Scotland and Ulster) hence Ulster Scots in order to make it clear that Ulster is included. Who the others are I couldn't exactly say though assumedly the British and Irish Governments Ulster Scots is defined in legislation (The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999) as: the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland [19] and DCAL [20] describes Ulster Scots as a Germanic language and the local variety of the Scots language are amongst them. If they are in fact debating? Perhaps the Ulster-Scots Agency is simply making spurious claims? There was a lot of debate on this talk page – perhaps some of that may help answer your questions? How others and the staff at the new agency, see Ulster Scots in its relation to Scots I couldn't say. See the Agency Website, and those of others promoting Scots/Ulster Scots in Ulster. Such "debates" are unlikely to have legal consequences, the legal profession will no doubt have proper work to do.

Nogger 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My conclusions from the debate on Talk page:

• There is no academic debate on languagevs.dialect. Only one (uncited) academic seems to have bothered to mention the naming issue. It is very similar to the argument proposed by Wikipedians in the hundreds of other language/dialect page naming debates. The academic debate is profoundly uninteresting.
• What I call the administrative debate is indeed profoundly interesting. There seem to be several parties, and several topics. One of them is how the Ulster-Scots Agency funds should be spent (on culture or language.) Another is how the Board should be appointed, with the thorny issue that the agency seems to have been a bargaining counter in much wider political negotiations. A third is whether government should encourage Ulster Scots diverge with Scots used in Scotland. It is hard to present it NPOV, as it is always hard to do for current events, and I think this page, so far, has done a half decent job. I would like to see knowledgeable people write more here or at Ulster-Scots Agency.
• The legal debate is profoundly uninteresting to me, as no-one is going to get sued over whether a word is singular or plural in a particular document. Meanwhile, the Agency will get on with what all agencies do - trying to make all its stakeholders, including its own staff, happy. I am all for more content on what politicians and civil servants are doing. I have a strong opinion against explaining the microscopic details of government pronouncements in this article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. The "eccentric" spelling below...

“Tha bare facts er, that because o’ tha houl bak oan white fishin, an in tryin tae bring bak tha cod stocks, an tha cloasur an no bein alood tae fish in tha Irish Sea. Tha fishermen haeny much chance o’ feedin ther femilies wi’-oot help. Its no that ther lazy, er dinae want tae adapt. But its becaus tha EU er issuin seeminly impaosible tae meet directives. Directives whuch meen that fer 10 weeks tha boats er banned fae fishin, this is 10 weeks that tha femilies o’oor trawlers hae tae pit up wi’oot a wage. Hoo caun this be richt. Whun thes restrictions wur pit oan tha Scots: ther DARD gien theim tie-up packages tae enable theim tae survive. Sumthin whuch DARD did iver heer fer a wheen o’ yeers, an then they stapt daein it, fer they saed it wus rang an agin tha law, an it wusnae coast effective.”

Most of this spelling would be recognisable to Ulster-Scots speakers and indeed to Mid-Ulster English speakers. "Houl" or "howl" is the common Ulster-Scots term for "hold", not "hauld" as your "corrected" version states. "Iver" is a local (Ards Peninsula) pronunciation of "ower". Fer, stapt and tha are so spelled to better reflect pronounciation and also because "they" is often pronounced like "the" in Ulster.

I am perfectly happy with Ulster-Scots being classified as a dialect, perhaps then we can continue to spell words the way we actually say them without correction. (Stephen, May 2007.)

The "corrected" version seems to be using traditional Scots literary spellings not the pseudophonetic ones used by illiterates after the waning of interest in, and knowledge of, literary Scots just after the turn of the 20th century. 89.50.12.48 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I don't agree with this at all. I have never seen the words "hold" and "old" written "hauld" and "auld". They are written and pronounced by native Ulster-Scots speakers as "houl" and "oul"(ocasionally "aul") and have been since the 19th century at least. Ulster-Scots is a dialect of Scots and therefore the spelling and pronunciation is not exactly the same as "literary Scots".

Pronunciation section

the Ulster Scots revival has been promoting some changes to spelling

I like that;-), Who, or what is ''the Ulster Scots revival? Why change a perfectly good article? 84.135.249.77 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - "the Ulster Scots revival" is a movement embodied in the Ulster-Scots Language Society and the Ulster-Scots Agency. I did not invent the term - it was used by a previous editor who wrote the Modern orthography and language planning section. It seems to me a useful shorthand which refers to a range of organisations, writers and language planners. I only have a rudimentary knowledge of Scots, and my own personal competence to pronounce any variety of written Scots is very bad, so my own POV is quite sensitive, perhaps negatively, to more changes. Please keep an eye out for my POV clouding my edits and 'be bold'.

As for the Pronunciation section, it is common for an article on a language variety to include a pronunciation guide. The recent changes to spelling, even if controversial, make the cross-reference to the useful readers' guide in Scots language#Pronunciation insufficient. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW the Ulster Scots revival will include anyone currently writing Scots in Ulster - no matter what orthography they use. No one can impose anything, thus there are probably as many orthographies as there are writers. Nogger 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have convinced me, Nogger. I am sure that is a more sensible use of the phrase. Care to fix the page? (I am short of time and inspiration this morning, nor do I properly understand how contemporary writers are influencing orthography, compared to their counterparts in Scotland :)) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regulation?

The Ulster-Scots Agency promotes the language it does not regulate it, as these examples on their website show: [21] [22] [23] [24]. If that's regulating the language they are either very anarchically minded or failing miserably. Apart from that, their mission statement is to promote the study, conservation, development and use of Ulster Scots as a living language; to encourage and develop the full range of its attendant culture; and to promote an understanding of the history of the Ulster-Scots people. Nowhere does the word regulate occur. 84.135.224.114 23:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So the question boils down to what a language regulator is. If a language regulator is an official body charged with language planning, then, like the Académie française, the Ulster-Scots Agency would seem to fit the definition. Compare the functions of the Académie: The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language, although its recommendations carry no legal power. Sometimes, even governmental authorities disregard the Académie's rulings.

Logically, if we classify Foras na Gaeilge as a language regulator, then its sister body is also a language regulator. If not, then surely neither are. Man vyi 05:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are interpreting to promote the study, conservation, development and use of Ulster Scots as a living language to mean language planning. The only thing in that mission statement that comes anywhere near to that is development, but that could mean any number of things. The agency cannot in any way be compared to the Académie française. Have they been charged with publishing an official dictionary of the language? If their decisions are not legally binding, and since all and sundry are free to write and use the language as they please, it is a bit silly to talk of the agency being a language regulator. The role of Foras na Gaeilge is irrelevant here. Its a separate and largely autonomous agency within The North/South Language Body. Its remit may well be different from that of the Ulster Scots Agency. You might as well start claiming that Scots is regulated by the Scots Language Resource Centre or any one else indulging in activities perceived to involve promoting the study, conservation, development and use of Scots. 84.135.215.39 08:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But the recommendations of the Académie française are not legally binding, either. Nor those of the Welsh Language Board. Are these therefore not language regulators? It's difficult to reconcile what you are apparently proposing as a strict definition of language regulator with the acceptance of, for example, Kesva an Taves Kernewek as such a body. I'm also confused by your apparent contention (as per your edits to the article) that the Board does not undertake language planning but "invents usage" - is that not per se language planning? Man vyi 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Inventing usage" is not language regulation, and other such activities undertaken my the Boord are generally met with derision and not taken seriously by anyone except those indulging in them. I am sure that the likes of the Académie française, Foras na Gaeilge and the Welsh Language Board command more respect in their their respective language communities. The efforts of the Agency are either riduculed, ignored or both. Where no one is willing to be regulated there can be no regulator. 84.135.215.39 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• EXAMPLES

• I've put in a few examples of Ulster-Scots, if anyone wants to sort them out a bit that's OK, I'm not that good at this editing stuff. (Stephen, May 2007)

• Personally, I believe that the idea of Ulster-Scots as a recognized language is complete and utter codswallop! My family are directly descended from five scottish clans and we still live in Ulster to this day. Never in my 32 years of living here have I ever heard Ulster-scots being spoken. I often hear the odd word for example, many people use the phrases 'cannae' or 'dinnae', but these are not recognized as words of another language, they are recognized as bad grammar and lazy speech! I have travelled throughtout Northern Ireland and have never heard 'Ulster-Scots' being spoken as it is portrayed in this article. I have also travelled around Scotland and have never heard words pronounced in this manner. For that reason, I find this article to be inaccurate.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ulster Scots language → Ulster Scots (linguistics) — Ulster Scots is apparently not generally considered to be a separate language. The (linguistics) modifier is already used elsewhere in cases where the dialect/language status is disputed, e.g. Cantonese (linguistics). —Ptcamn 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per nomination. — AjaxSmack 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Ulster Scots language to Ulster Scots (linguistics) as the result of a move request.

Incorrect

I still take exception to this quote...

Without the eccentric spelling (recently coined pseudophonetic spellings often used by enthusiasts),

Spellings such as "houl" and "wus" have been common in Ulster-Scots writing for hundreds of years. See Michael Montgomery's excellent book "From Ulster to America" for examples.

These forms represent both the historic written spellings and the modern (and presumably historic) pronounciatian.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.185.18 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007

rubbish :) They are orthographically egregious, generally madeup, neologistic, and, as I said, rubbish. But apart from that, I agree.--feline1 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For an overview of traditional Scots orthography see this.

Nogger (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of native speakers

Personal websites are not acceptable sources of information on wikipedia. Thus, unless a established academic source is found for the claim that Ulster Scots has 100,000 speakers, I propose to amend the numbers appropriately. 85.210.44.164 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Life and Times survey for 1999 (yes almost a decade old at this stage) puts the numbers at 2% of Northern Ireland population (source), so that would be about 34,000 in Northern Ireland. In the Republic, 100,000 are said to speak Scots - but note that that's the total for Scots, not all of those speak the Ulster Scots dialect (see source). That source, also from 1999, puts the number of Ulster Scots speakers in Ireland at 10,000. So the total for all Ireland would be circa. 44,000. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I support amending it. Cooke (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of those who speak Ulster Scots believe they speak English This is why self referentialism is inadequate. There are 500,000 Ulster Cots Speakers in Ireland! Mountainyman (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

deliberate misspelling "Ulster Scotch"

As the article stands, it states that "The deliberate misspelling "Ulster Scotch" is often used within Northern Ireland by those satirising the promotion of the "language"" (not, though, a statement supported by the cited source, more an interpretation of the significance of the source). On the other hand, the article gives the official Ulster Scots version of the Agency's name thus: "Ulster-Scots Agency (Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch)". Can Ulster Scotch therefore be described as a "deliberate misspelling" (unless omitting the diacritic is the misspelling referred to)? Man vyi (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it can. In English, the adjective "Scots" (Scottish) is often mispelled "Scotch" (whiskey), and sometimes this can be done deliberately as an insult or to be funny. The same mischief is sometimes played with "Ulster Scots" vs. "Ulster Scotch". The joke is played out in English, the claimed "Ulster Scots" spelling of the name of the dialect is at a tangent to this.--feline1 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the cited satirical letter to the Belfast Telegraph DOES support the statement - because, as that letter makes plain itself, the letter is NOT written in "Ulster Scots", but is merely some japester writing out made-up phonetic spellings of English spoken in a broad Antrim accent/colloquial dialect. Part of this pisstake (or should I say "pishtake") includes writing it as "Scotch".--feline1 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The writer of the letter could poke fun at the agency until the coos come home, as far as I'm concerned. But since the agency itself titles itself using the form Ulstèr-Scotch, can this be interpreted as a "deliberate misspelling"? And besides, the source doesn't support the statement that the alleged misspelling is "often used". But I think the contradiction needs sorting out or explaining somehow. Man vyi (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But the board of Ulster Scotch just made up that spelling themselves ANYWAYS lol. You know this to be true. There is no verifiable academic basis they could give for using that spelling.--feline1 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Scottish accent, etc.

"Some confuse English spoken with a very broad Ulster Scottish accent with Scots proper. ..."

What is an Ulster Scottish accent when it's at home?

"... This is because English-speakers familiar with the Scottish or Northern Irish accents of English find Scottish or Ulster English easy to understand ..."

So if I speak English, and hear somebody else speaking English, I can understand them? (Wow.)

"... and often assume this speech variety to be 'broad' Scots."

... but yet I don't recognise it as English?

Which is a bit like saying, "people think that Y is X because they think that Y is X."

What's trying to be said here? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is trying to be "said" (weazled) is that UlsterScotch is a language, when it isn't.--feline1 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"So if I speak English, and hear somebody else speaking English, I can understand them? (Wow.)" - obviously, this is because it is a dialect not a language, ther are some very deluded people out there if they think ulster scots is a language, maybe Poots should go back to college and study linguistics and find out the real unbiased version of ulster scots story and not go on that 'boor of ulster scotch' site that is clearly misleading in its' thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.219 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 March 2008

Controversy

Why was the controversy section removed? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of sorts, and therefore, as confirmed in writers' guidelines, must be neutral, which means keeping the controversy section if important, and there has indeed been controversy that ell editing this page should know of. I find this absolutely appalling and disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.45.169 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a real language. Social bigotted construct.

The Ulster-Scots language was manufactured in the '90s with the biggoted motive of preventing all minority language funding going to the Irish language. FACT! 30,000 people speak it??? Where the hell are they? Having an accent is does not create a language. Phelim77 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Phelim77

I think the article already covers these criticisms that have appeared in the editorial columns of some local papers. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

move

This title is incorrect, or at best amateurish, and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Ulster Scots is not a linguistic topic, like register (linguistics). It is a dialect of Scots. I don't think that's contested by anyone. Even the disambig page defines it as "a Scots dialect spoken in Northern Ireland". If this is debated in the lit, then "Ulster Scots" would also be acceptable, with the current title there moved to a redirect, or simply reduced to a 'See also' tag at the top of the page. kwami (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think Ulster Scots' status as "dialect" or "language" is not contested by anyone, then you obviously can't have interpreted the heated discussions on this talk page as others have (never mind participated in discussions in Northern Ireland itself!). There's also a wrangle over the legal status as to whether legislation has or has not defined Ulster Scots as a language different from (Lowland) Scots. At least the "(linguistics)" sidesteps the arguments. Of course en: has got itself into this whole problem of prejudging linguistic classification in titles that, for example, fr: hasn't. Man vyi (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

French Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article for Ulster Scots people, as far as I know.

Is Ulster Scots language variety too clumsy?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fr: generally uses language name by default and disambigs homonymous peoples where necessary. This has some logic in that there's usually little debate about whether people are people but frequently great debate about whether linguistic varieties are languages. However, en: has gone down this road and I expect we're stuck with it (although if all linguistic varieties were titled as "dialect" it would solve a lot of problems). I suppose I should get working on an Ulster Scots article for nrm: (where we also sidestep the issue, partly because there's no agreement as to how many Norman languages there are!) And yes, Ulster Scots language variety is a trifle on the clumsy side. Man vyi (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)}

I agree that we should avoid pre-judging the issue in article titles. Frisian was the first time I came across the debate about what constitutes a language, what a family, and what a dialect: it even led to confusion among the official language databases about the ISO codes to use.

[off-topic] I didn't know there is a Norman Wikipedia! Will check it out. No matter how many Norman languages there are, I bet the Duke of Normandy can't speak any of them.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what about moving this to Ulster Scots, which is what it's normally called anyway, and placing a tag

This page is about the language. For the people, see Ulster Scots people.

at the top? kwami (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a language, it's a sociolect. Donek (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Ulster Scots would avoid the controversy, I'd have thought, but any tag might better read something like

This page is about the linguistic variety. For the people, see Ulster Scots people.

. Man vyi (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

People say "the American language", and no-one thinks that's a claim that American English is a separate language. But a 'See also' tag would avoid the problem altogether. kwami (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The move to Ulster Scots with the hat note, is not bad. I fear readers may not notice that most Ulster Scots people don't speak Ulster Scots, and that many Ulster Scots speakers are not Ulster Scots people. Perhaps a simple explanation of that can be worked into the lead section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. kwami (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Six counties of.." versus "Northern Ireland"

To be honest, I see no reason to include the count of the counties of Northern Ireland in this article. I can certainly see the need to include the number of counties of the Republic which are part of Ulster, but I don't understand how adding "the six counties of" in any way "shows balance". Balance to what? --Setanta747 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Its consistency. You either mention the number of counties in both or otherwise indicate that Ulster is split between the two states. I am sure your didn't intend a political slant to the edit, but it could be interpreted in that way. --Snowded TALK 04:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting a sinking feeling that you are starting to follow my edit contributions a little too closely for comfort - I'm only just after leaving you a message on my talk page about this and yet here you are - quick as lightening - already responding. I'm not happy about it - and not only because all this replying back and forth to you is both keeping me back from actual decent editing and keeping me awake waaaay beyond my natural bedtime! Please stop.

As for the "political slant" - I have no idea what you are on about, to be honest. I see no reason in having to mention the number of counties in one and also in the other. In the edit I had made, it was still perfectly clear that the province is split between the two states.

(with this, I am going to bid you good night/morning, as I don't like being followed around) --Setanta747 (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Try not to be paranoid. If I put a page on watch I get to any comments or changes very quickly. Yes I did check your edits (normal practice) to see if you were making other move or edits without telling the broader community of editors (which is how I found this one). Will take your statement on politics in good faith and maintain my position on consistency. I am overseas at the moment (Singapore) so on a different time zone from normal, with a morning free hence the fast response. --Snowded TALK 04:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see no reason to include the number of counties in reference to Northern Ireland. Why is there a need for "consistency" when, on the one hand the whole territory is included (no county or counties are excluded with regard to Northern Ireland), yet on the other hand only three of the counties from the Republic are included. So far as I can see, there is nothing consistent about the whole of one and part of another in the first place. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we could delete the whole of ", which spans the six counties of Northern Ireland and three of the Republic of Ireland" as its covered by the pipelink anyway. That would make sense. We could delete both the six and the three (although that is less useful) but to delete six countires and not three is the inconsistent element. --Snowded TALK 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbering the counties of Northern Ireland is extraneous. Quite simply, there is no need for "the six counties of" to be in the sentence. If you can't come up with a reason to keep it in the sentence, I intend to reinstate my edit. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You of course being the arbiter of right and wrong? I suggest the best way forward is to delete the whole sentence, it only needs to reference the Province of Ulster. In the mean time you do not have agreement to your edit and the prior consensus stands until agreement is reached here. --Snowded TALK 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded: you seem to be the only editor contesting Setanta747's suggestion. Consistency does not exist in the real world. So I support Setanta747's version of the sentence, because it is shorter. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well until you popped in he was the only one supporting it! This is part of a mass of edits carried out by this editor on ROI/Ireland issues over many articles which is probably why I reacted. Looking it, the shortest solution is just to get rid of the whole sentence after Ulster. --Snowded TALK 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was watching quietly, hoping that you would both learn to get on. Deleting the phrase altogether doesn't help. The blue link to Ulster only helps if you are online or have a local copy of that article. An article should be understandable on its own, and the lead section should define the subject: defining Ulster is a key part of defining Ulster Scots. Please agree with Setanta747 to restore something. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

i just restored the status quo, as part of a series of actions dealing with a mass of edits by Setanta to various pages which appeared to be a strong POV push. This is a minor issue to be honest. Most people are on line when they access the article so the pipelink works, the other option is a footnote which states the balance of counties. If Sentanta really feels strongly about his edit then I'll let it go. In the grand scheme of things its a minor point and his/her disruptive edits elsewhere are a more significant issue but those appear to have been handled --Snowded TALK 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: James Orr quote

It's all well and good but who from ulster can understand "To quat braid Scotch," or "They monie a lang learn'd word misca' an' misapply"? Is that meant to be "Mosie along"? Does anyone know that Northern Irish don't say stuff like "Braid" or "heed"? Any attempts to "promote" those pronuciations would get a good laugh (no disrespect) anywhere in Northern Ireland. Those quotes are more "akin" to the stuff Shakespeare wrote than the kind of thing spoken in Northern Ireland. Sad thing is you wont find so much of it written down and to see stuff like "rimate" is even alien to the fella who says it to his buddies every day. Funny enough the "eccentricities" in Jim Shannons statement which were translated had just as bad new eccentricities in the translation. What about the way they speak in Belfast and Donegal? Is that not Ulster speaking? Is this a Colraine-Derry club or what? Idnowachoosns finks. Here's me wa? Braid? Here's me auy yo! Thenda theday themns is hoisht up, bt themns th'ones shud have th'menshin cos thuerridg'nl and thuers more of'm. Wursitchy'seen all at stuff? Thuris'n nun. Soll heed'n braid noll at ballix noll en dov, a well. ~ R.T.G 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Go, who's Nor'n Irish'n'I'd no? No. Snat heed'n breed noll. Ats it. Sno good ifsnat publeisht, a well. No in ondurstuddgies ahnyways. Soll Scatties'n Gaelics. ~ R.T.G 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact, I'd read a bookie at. Any leads? ~ R.T.G 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Scots/Ullans disambiguation?

I feel that this article is weighed down by trying to cover two totally different subects - viz:-

1. the distinct dialect of English or Scots spoken for the past four hundred years in parts of Ulster by a few people (including me and my ancestors)
2. the new language created for political reasons as a counterbalance to the Irish language around the end of the recent peace process.

I believe it would make everything clearer if we could separate these. Any thoughts?Cooke (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are separated in real life. The learned language as used by some political advocates (and some translators) seems to arise from attempts to use the authentic Ulster variety of Scots, but with a poor grasp of the language. Some people both for and against Ulster Scots seem to be unaware that it is spoken by both Catholics and Protestants.

In parallel, there has been spelling reform and neologisms (which started well before the Good Friday Agreement.) Changing the spelling doesn't create a new language. Inventing new words, or borrowing them from other varieties, doesn't make a new language that can be described in a different Wikipedia article. However, I agree that along with poor fluency in the old tongue, these 2 factors have sadly made some modern Ulster Scots unrecognisable to those who have used it all their lives.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an unfamiliar situation in cases of language revival - tension between partisans of reinvigorated/modernised/unified varieties and those of traditional/status quo varieties. For comparison, much the same debates occur in Brittany with Breton and Gallo and are reflected in the arguments over edits to e.g. fr:Controverses sur le breton/néo-breton and fr:Gallo. Man vyi (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is actually an article called Mid Ulster English which describes the sort of dialect usual in NIreland. Is that actually called "Ullans" as well? It is much easier (i would think) to find the Ulster Scots, maybe after looking at Scots language or Scots English article making it seem to represent everyone. I didnt look now at how Mid Ulster is represented on those pages but I mixed them up a couple weeks ago myself after reading some about Scots language. The more I think about it I am sure the is or was some real Scotty sounding dialect. As for balancing out, the regular Ulster talk does that but the only people who represent our wee place as its own seem to be mad UFF death squad supporters which is a big pity because as Cooke says it is very disinct but it isn't represented or promoted as such by official or culture bodies (is it?). People in Northern Ireland don't say stuff like "Braw bricht micht licht nicht the nicht" but they do sound a bit Scottish around Derry and Coleraine. Ye ha :D ~ R.T.G 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

replied at RTG's talk page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotch Irish

The term "Scotch Irish" redirects here, where it is not treated at all. Does anyone have any knowledge of the immigrants to the US who settled in the mountains in NC and elsewhere? All I know is that they were called Scotch Irish. Anyone? 71.50.134.186 (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to look at Ulster Scots people. Man vyi (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A moment ago, I fixed the redirect Scotch Irish -> Ulster Scots people. Thanks for bringing it to attention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Scots/English

84.135.197.240 has edited the statement that "Ulster Scots is a dialect of English or Scots" to read "is a dialect of Scots", without any explanation. It is clearly controversial which it is a dialect of, but the balance of academic opinion (for example the one major study of ulster dialects, the Oxford "Concise Ulster Dictionary" of 1996) leans towards it being a dialect of English. ( I don't say that this is my view. To be honest I'm on the edge as to whether Scots is a language or not. Ulster Scots, however, is much, much closer to standard English than is Lowland Scots). So, 84.135.197.240 , unless you convincingly defend your excision, I shall revert these reversions .Cooke (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as an encyclopedia is concerned, Scots is both a variety of English and an Anglic language, since academic and official sources say both.

Therefore Ulster Scots is a dialect (or dialects) of both English and Scots. There is no particular uncertainty or contradiction—our readers have the choice of how to describe it.

It will be expensive for me to borrow the "Concise Ulster Dictionary", so perhaps I can ask you: in suggesting it is a dialect of English, is it using a very broad (and perfectly respectable) definition of English that would also include middle English, and modern lowland Scots, for example? Alternatively, is it more decisive, suggesting (perhaps surprisingly) that Ulster Scots is so similar to modern English as to be better described as a dialect of modern English, as opposed to a dialect of Lowland Scots?

(To add a complication for later discussion, this article is about Ulster Scots over its 400 year or more history. I think we will find academics who have read the literature from the 19th century and earlier, and consider Ulster Scots of those periods to be identical to Lowland Scots. Did Oxford (1996) only study late 20th century language?)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ulster Scots is one dialect of Scots, now officially regarded as a language by the European Bureau for Lesser-used languages."

The Oxford "Concise Ulster Dictionary" of 1996 p. xxxvii

The issue of status (English/Scots) is dealt with further down the article. 84.135.237.6 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hroðulf.

I find it odd that you've made major cuts to articles on this area, but you appear not to have read, or to have any intention of reading, the most basic and widely-accessible texts on the subject. I grew up speaking Ulster Scots, read English Language at Oxford, and did a post-graduate degree at Queens, Belfast under Prof. J. Braidwood, probably the founder of the serious study of Ulster Scots in recent times (and a Scot, a Scots speaker, and a Scots scholar to boot).

To answer your question, however, the CUD doesn't distinguish - it treats Ulster Scots throughout as one of a number of interleaved dialects of English spoken in the North of Ireland, and makes it clear that a number of US usages (eg wee) spread outside the immediate US area to become part of Ulster dialect of English in general, and that there are no decisive boundaries between US and the other Ulster dialects of English. It also makes it clear that many of the characteristics of 'Ulster Scots' are found not only in Scots but also in the dialects of English spoken in the north of England.

The sentence misquoted above by 84.135.237.6 is followed by the sentence: But we should not forget the other Ulster dialects, the Mid-Ulster speech forms that have been described in the past, somewhat fancifully, as Shakespearian English. In context, it is clear that dialects does not refer to dialects of Scots. And remember that the book is only twelve years old.

Cooke (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that your native tongue was Scots-influenced Tyrone English so I am delighted to hear of your more intimate connection with US. (I learned Lowland Scots as a second language / second dialect.) Never mind: I am not 84.135.197.240, and I only intended to make a tentative reversion of what seemed to be incompletely justified new edits. You have since made a better case. It is frustrating to see quotes and allegations of misquotes traded.

As you point out, the relevant books are expensive to access where I currently live, so I have to defer to others. I see that my reversion has caused tensions that I did not intend.

Having said that:

1. Your emphasis on the close relationship between US and other Ulster Englishes is well worth retaining
2. My expectation is that the majority academic opinion (on the relationship to Scots and other Englishes), as well as any minority academic opinions, should one day be made crystal clear in the body of the article, and then summarised in the lead section.

I still think that the entire article deserves a complete rewrite, but with neither the time nor the books, I can't offer it.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scots is ultimately a variety of English in the wider sense of the word - ultimately being derived from Old English, in particular northern Middle English. From what the likes of R.J. Gregg and Dr. Caroline Macafee write the impression seems to be that Ulster Scots has it origin in Scots dialects, it has been influenced to varying degrees by adjacent varieties usually known as Mid Ulster English, themselves influenced by the Scots varieties. The introduction: Ulster Scots, ... , refers to varieties of English or Scots, dialects of Lowland Scots, spoken in parts of the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland is a bit of a mouthful, and, if Scots is English, Scots and dialects of Lowland Scots are arguably redundant, although describing Ulster Scots as a variety of Scots and linking it to said article provides more information about its nature that linking it to English would. That may all of course depend on how US is being defined. The traditional speech of the 'core areas' described by R.J. Gregg, or Ulster speech in general. Which is the article intending to describe? 84.135.210.17 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cooke. The deletion of the link Scots_language#Sounds with the comment: which contains nothing but a reference to an article on the pronunciation of Scots, which is different, was an interesting edit. The linked description includes Ulster Scots, but if it is infact (substantially?) different could you write something about the pronunciation of Ulster Scots here? In the Section Linguistic status it reads: Dr. Caroline Macafee, the editor of The Concise Ulster Dictionary, has said that "Ulster Scots is [...] clearly a dialect of Central Scots (Mid Scots).",... Surely if Scots is different Dr. Caroline Macafee is perhaps mistaken and a comment by someone knowlegeable on the subject should be added to that effect. 84.135.210.17 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the point made by 84.135. about the redundancy of stating that it is a considered a dialect of both Scots and English, since, I would assume (though perhaps wrongly), that anyone who views US as a dialect of English would think that Scots is just a sub-set of English. So, I would suggest that calling it a dialect of Scots would be sufficient, without any mention of whether Scots itself refers to a group of English dialects or a separate language. Scroggie (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

84 I note that you've just made an edit on this subject. It would have been nice if you'd discussed it here first.

Do you honestly believe that this is a literate encyclopedia entry?

I don't.

I can see no way that your cumbersome alteration increases knowledge against the previous entry. Its only qualities seem to be to promote a suggestion that Scots is a language separate from English (which, as I've said before, I think is a quite reasonable argument, but one among others.)

Please justify your alteration or I shall revert it.Cooke (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anglic

Can anyone justify the use of ths obscure term in the intro? It is not listed in the COD. Does it have any substantial academic foundation? Cooke (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a commonly used word when discussing Scots et al. There are articles on Anglic (re-direct to next link), Anglic languages and it's mentioned on Anglo-Frisian languages. Scroggie (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but a few references on the www don't mean it should be used in an encyclopedia. Are there any substantial academic uses of it, is it an acceptable useage in peer-reviewed academic journals? Cooke (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)