Look, I have a master’s degree in linguistics. If I’d wanted to blow away mangeorge with technical terminology, I would have done so. I was trying to explain why Scots and standard English are further away than what are usually considered different dialects but closer than what are usually considered different languages.
You write:
> Well, your use of the words “dialect” and “language” is
> controversial. I meant that most linguists have stopped
> trying to classify speech that way. Related languages
> meld into one another, and the best you can do is try to
> quantify degrees of similarity in vocabulary or grammar
> at various points in the continuum.
If your point is that the distinct between dialect and language is a continuous thing rather than a sharp break, I agree with you. I know the concept of a linguistic continuum and I’ve tried myself at times to explain it to people when talking about things like the difference between Scots and English. If your point though is that because of this linguists no longer use the terms “language” and “dialect” because the division between them isn’t precise, you’re wrong. People in linguistics still use the terms even though in some sense they are somewhat deceptive.
> Someone once said “A language is a dialect with an army”.
It was Max Weinreich who orginally said it, although the exact quote is that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. It’s also not quite true. All the English-speaking countries have their own armies and navies, and yet they don’t choose to call their dialects separate languages. All the Spanish-speaking countries have their own armies and navies, and they don’t call their dialects languages either. Yes, it’s vaguely true that political boundaries tend to increase the chances that different dialects are called separate languages, but that’s only a vague rule of thumb, not a hard and fast law.
> Linguistically, Scots is not a subsidiary or offshoot of
> what we call standard English. Both are descended from
> anglo-saxon. If one is a “dialect”, so is the other.
So when did I ever say anything different from that? I used the term “standard English” because that’s what it’s usually called. I know perfectly well that linguistically it’s as much of a dialect as Scots is.
Wendell, though I would not care to argue the point with a Scot or a linguist, my impression of the use of the term “separate language” in developed countries was that it was the speech of an independent nation, with its own literature, and some unique vocabulary. This distinguishes Slovak (language akin to Czech) from Polabian (dialect of Polish) to give two examples from West Slavic.
Under those rules, Scots would be considered a distinct language, separately evolved from Bernician Anglo-Saxon and convergent with English.
I’d welcome your expertise clarifying, refuting, or confirming that, since it’s from decades-old studies and my fondness for reading almost anything and retaining it.
just a small point but Ewan McGregor did not do those films on his own.
also, Doric imho is absolutely horrible. i lived in Aberdeen for 4 years i really cant stand it. all those daft words like “quine”, “fit?” blah blah blah…
Well, no one argues that Basque (Spain and France) or Rhaeto-Romanic (Switzerland and Italy) or Saami (Finland and Russia) or Ainu (Japan) or Chukchi (Russia), for instance, aren’t all separate, distinct languages (from Spanish, French, Finnish, Russian, and Japanese) just because they don’t have a separate country, let alone an army and a navy. Some of them have a fair amount of literature and some don’t. They all have their own vocabulary and grammar.
My point was that you can’t accurately make so simple a statement as “Any dialect becomes a language if and only if it has its own army and navy.” The implication doesn’t work either way. It’s true that people are more likely to consider dialects as separate languages if there are political divisions between the dialects, but that’s just a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast division.
Wow, a fact. Kind of vague though, not to mention questionable. Gaelic’s strongholds are in the Western Isles, but due to way the population is distributed just as many Gaelic speakers are in the central belt.
Care to define ‘normal’ for us? Or do you mean ‘normal’ like you?
Opinion, opinion, opinion. The majority of Shallow Grave, for your information, was filmed in Glasgow. And Doric has no ‘k’.
In the book Family Words, the verb fash appears. It seems that there was a translation of the Bible into Scottish dialect.
The phrase in English (King James Version) was: Fret not thyself because of evildoers.
In the Scottish dialect this was rendered: Dinna fash yersel because of evil doers.
That’s a little ironic, really, since James I of England had been James VI of Scotland!
A good book for non-linguists if you’re interested in the concept of a linguistic continuum is “Word on the Street” by John McWhorter. He even uses Scots in a couple of examples, but it’s primarily concerned with Black English.
The first third of the book, which is very well-written, will give you a solid framework for discussions along the lines of this thread.
This presumably refers to the Lorimer translation of the New Testament into Scots which wasn’t compiled until the twentieth century and which some would see as part of an artifical attempt to provide the Scots language/dialect (delete according to one’s preconceptions) with a written literature. Nor is it ironic that the KJV uses English as it was compiled for use by the Church of England.
The Lorimer translation contains what is often considered the best example of that rare form of humour, jokes by Biblical translators - the only character to speak standard English is the Devil.
IANAL (I Am Not a Linguist), but it’s obvious tio me that Scots is a dialect. The sentence structure and the verb conjugation is exactly as in English, but the words run on a scale from identical to “standard” english to slightly different to differently spelled to vastly different to completely alien. If you don’t think so, try reading and fully comprehending the Poetry of Robert Burns, or works such as Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Thrawn Janet” without footnotes or a glossary to help you along. Every edition of these I’ve seen has such aids. If you need them, then it’s not the same dialect as the one you seek.
Thanks, Wendell. I didn’t mean a restrictive if-and-only-if definition, though, but that one standard for classifying a quasi-mutually-intelligible speech-continuum as a separate language from the “standard” was that it showed those characteristics. I.e., applying this “rule,” Flemish, mutually intelligible with Dutch, is the speech of the separate nation of Belgium with a distinct literature, and as such is generally considered a separate language, whereas Calabrian, with no distinct nation and no distinct literature, is merely a dialect of Italian.
I beg to differ. Flemish people are “generally considered” to speak Dutch. In any event, the “army and a navy” quote is pretty worthless: most languages have neither.
As someone who did his linguistics degree at the University of Edinburgh… my marginally informed opinion is that the Scots dialect is still sufficiently inter-comprehensible with Standard English to be considered just that: a dialect. On my rough and ready “making myself understood on a daily basis” scale, it’s about as divergent as, say, the Geordie dialect (with which it has a certain amount in common, for fairly obvious geographical reasons). Yes, I have to look up a few words when reading Rabbie Burns, but that’s not enough to convince me he’s writing in a different language - after all, people have to look up some of the sesquipedalianisms I perpetrate in written language, but I’m still writing in English. (The fact that Burns’ “difficult” words have Anglo-Saxon roots, while mine have Graeco-Latinate roots, merely suggest that I’m a lot more pretentious than Burns was…)
Pardon me if I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying the only differences between Scots and English are lexical. That isn’t true. The page I linked to earlier provides some examples of grammatical differences between the two, including differences in tense, word order, and conjugations.
You’re not misunderstanding me – I’m just wrong (apparently). All I was saying was that in my limited experience, I hadn’t seen any grammatical differences. I hadn’t checked out your reference, but I’ll take your word for it.
Years ago a friend and I had to take a bus from Athens to Munich, and we sat next to a Scottish guy and his Irish girlfriend.
We (Americans) did not understand 10% of what he said, and his girlfriend had to translate - (her accent was strong, but we were able to understand her.)
I remember the Scottish guy was really getting pissed off that we could not understand him.
I remembering thinking how odd it was that he could understand us perfectly, yet could not make himself understood.
So it never crossed your mind that the problem lay with you?
Seriously, in my experience Americans are very poor with accents. They hear so few of them in day to day life that when they come across a novel one they just don’t know how to handle it.
Here in Austin I encountered a couple of Australians who couldn’t understand the heavily-accented English of a lady who was obviously a native Spanish speaker. Having grown up talking to, for example, many mothers of friends who sounded similar to that woman, I could understand her without much trouble.
Furthermore, when I went to Britian last year, there were plenty of occasions where the locals couldn’t understand me and my English is barely marked at all… just Standard American English, pretty much.
I wonder how much benefit the knowledge of a wide range of English dialects is to somebody when they are confronted with a truly novel one.
How good would a Scottish person with an excellent understanding of all the English dialects in Scotland be at understanding someone speaking Jamaican Patois? I’m sure not they would have any particular advantage over an American in the same situation.
Then again, using Jamaican as a contrasting example to Scots English will probably further confuse the issue of what a dialect is.
