Re: The whole dialect business
- From: "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Dec 2005 12:31:55 -0800
allan connochie wrote:
> "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133513975.098890.5850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > allan connochie wrote:
> > > "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1133350275.897627.92440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Robert Peffers wrote:
> > > > > "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > You can only claim that "Scots has a larger vocabulary than English"
> by
> > > > allowing for the fact that all of English can be validly inserted into
> > > > a Scots sentence, rendering the word potential of a Scots sentence
> > > > greater than Standard English alone.
> > > >
> > > > But this is true of all dialects.
> > >
> > > I actually agree with you on that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Try this for example, "Ah'll awa ben the hoose fir ma jaikit an
> cosie,
> > > > > aiblins Ah'll mibbie gae ben the yett til the causey an ower the
> gate
> > > til
> > > > > the howf fir ae hauf an a hauf.
> > > > > That is Scots. Can you see the difference?
> > > > > Ah'll awa ben fir ma jaikit an scarf an mibbie gae through the gate
> tae
> > > the
> > > > > fitpath and doon the road tae the pub fir a hauf an a hauf. That's
> Scots
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course there's a difference. English is a many splendid thing.
> Scots
> > > > is part of this rich tapestry. "Fitpath"? Come on.
> > > >
> > > > It's Scots, and also English Language.
> > >
> > > Fitpath of course is simply the Scots equivilent of the English
> footpath.
> > > No-one has denied the close relationship between Scots and English.
> However
> > > there are also many words which have no presence in an English form or
> words
> > > which look the same as English words but have a totally unrelated
> meaning to
> > > the English definitions. A common example for the former would be the
> Scots
> > > word 'gey' meaning 'very' or 'quite' and an example for the latter would
> be
> > > the Scots word 'or' with the English meaning 'until'.
> >
> > Uhuh, but how is that different from other localised vocaularies?
>
> The difference are
>
> a. The sheer scale of the different word stock. The Scottish National
> Dictionary states there are 50,000 words,
Balderdash -- This is boosted by orthographical bias and historical
scope.
When a Scotsman says "jaiket" and a Welshman and Londoner say "jacket"
-- Is that one, two or three words? It's certainly two spellings. It's
one word, surely.
Scotland does have unique words, but I very much doubt any one person
has anything approaching 50 000 such unique words (not like fitba, etc)
in their vocabulary.
> current or archaic, not found in
> the closely related English language. No dialect of English has such a
> differing word stock. Likewise there is not a set written standard but there
> are conventions, traditional spellings and of course there recognised
> grammatical differences from English. On a personal level, having been
> married to a Norfolk lass for 17 years I still regularly come out with new
> words she doesn't know.
>
> b. Scots was historically the language of State of the Scottish kingdom. No
> dialect of English, bar SE itself, can claim to have been the language of
> state.
I don't think most people consider this trivia when deciding whether
they name Scots a "language". Moreover, English was declared the
official language of English parliament in the 1400s IIRC.
> c. Scots has a far larger literary canon than any of the dialects of English
> bar SE itself.
That's true.
> d. Scots is recognised and given a measure of protection as a lanaugae by
> all the relevant authorities. The Scottish Educational Establishment; the
> Scottish Executive; the UK government and the European Parliament. In this
> matter Scots is equivilent to the likes of Welsh, Gaelic and Irish. What are
> regarded as dialects are not given such protection. That is Border Scots and
> the Doric are officially recognised as dialects of Scots, whilst Scouse and
> Geordie are officially recognised as dialects of English. That is the state
> of play. Why you have such a problem with it bemuses me!
Scots is viewed as a dialect. Burns is internationally remembered as
"the second most famous English language poet ever".
> All you have done throughout this thread is suggest that because Scots is so
> closely related to English then it shouldn't be regarded as a seperate
> language. However it's probably the norm for most languages to have close
> relatives. On occassions you have veered towards the idea that Scots 'was' a
> language but that no-one now speaks undiluted Scots. That idea is simply
> wrong. There are people still speaking Scots. Just because they don't live
> down your street doesn't mean they don't exist.
Scots does not resemble what people normally think of when they say
"language" -- That is all my point is, and it's a very easy one to
justify.
~Iain
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The whole dialect business
- From: AlanEdgey
- Re: The whole dialect business
- References:
- Re: The whole dialect business
- From: allan connochie
- Re: The whole dialect business
- From: Iain
- Re: The whole dialect business
- From: allan connochie
- Re: The whole dialect business
- Prev by Date: Re: Where is d@ve?
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Previous by thread: Re: The whole dialect business
- Next by thread: Re: The whole dialect business
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|