For what ever its worth, when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, he spoke such broad Scots that his couriers in London could hardly understand him. This with a bunch of people who talked as if they were in a Shakespearian play.
Quick snip from the front page of scots-online:
I had to check “ouk” (look, it’s beek ten years since i was last in Edinburgh), but everything else came through clear enough… so, from the point of view of my idiolect of Standard English, Scots would seem to be a dialect. (OK, I know that’s hardly scientific…)
Obvious points - lots of different vowel sounds, avoidance of Latinate roots (“sortit richt” vs. “remedied”, there are other examples around the site), and that odd reduplication “micht coud”. (Assuming that’s not a typo.)
I can understand, given history and politics and all, why people might want to call it a language, but for me, based solely on the inter-comprehensibility issue, my vote is still for “dialect”. (Actually, given that the scots-online site points out there’s no given “standard Scots”, it would seem to be several dialects. I wonder how inter-comprehensible they are with each other?)
(Note, this is based on vague recolections of an article read long ago. No cites, just rumours and loose threads.)
I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out that there are two scottish languages.
Scots (or Lallans), the language of the lowlands, which is closely related to English, and Gaelic which is a celtic tongue, more-or-less unrelated to English.
Scots was the language of the lowlanders. Before the act of the Union in 1707, they actively persecuted the highlanders, who spoke Gaelic. Afterwards the English continued to persecute the (mainly catholic?) highlanders.
Gaelic only survived in a few pockets in the remotest highlands and on the islands. I have not seen any estimate of the number of native Gaelic speakers, but I would believe that it is in the low thousands.
When people in this thread speak of a Scottish language that is/is-not a dialect of English, they mean Scots. I haven’t met anyone who would claim that Gaelic is an English dialect.
It is ironic that people like Burns, who romanticised about the highlands was a lowlander, and would probably not have understood a genuine highlander.
I found a nice text written in the three languages at a Scottish discussion Forum (It’s supposedly the same text in all three languages. The Scots is almost understandable to me, but the Gaelic is decidedly foreign.)
(The text goes on about what a pity it would be to lose any more languages.)
[sub]I hope this doesn’t go against TubaDiva’s latest ban on excessive quoting.[/sub]
In response to the far above, Americans do indeed meet a number of accents everyday, but probably not the ones your used to dealing with. Ever had to work Tech Support with a thinkly accented Indian (India, not AmerIndians) over a phone line? Ever chatted with a thickly-accented Southerner or Northerner depending on your origin? (twang) What about meeting Mexican immigrant grocery clerks? Thought not.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hazel-rah *
**
Perhaps, but those use to differing accents may be more skilled at ‘tuning-in’ to the accent. And less likely to consider that it was purely up to the speaker to change the way they speak to suit your ear (like make yourself understood why don’t you?), without making an attempt (or knowing how to begin to make an attempt) at understanding the accent.
It’s a simple case of relative sizes. Scotland is smaller and older, so we are exposed to accents from other than our own on a fairly regular basis. America is big and young, so regional accents cover large areas and don’t vary that much. An American can grow up without experiencing in real life an accent that differs markedly from their own. Hearing one really is a novelty. So their reaction is usually one of;
-Huh? (Total blank).
-Hey! That’s cool! Say something else!
(This isn’t taking a shot at 'merkins, BTW. I’m not suggesting they are stupider, lazier or more inconsiderate than anyone else. 
It’s just a question of exposure to accents.)
Well, Hemlock did mention it. But you’re right, there’s a big difference between Scots and (what we call) Scottish.
Okay, I’m in the fortunate position that I can read all three. Two things I notice:
- I don’t know if it’s a valid observation, given the absence of a standard for Scots, but the Scots version seems to have a different “register” (level of formality) than the other two.
The Scottish text and the English text would be quite at home in a letter or book, while the Scots seems very informal, as for example spoken in a chat between two friends.
e.g. English version: “there is plenty of misunderstanding about langauge death an revival”
direct English rendering of Scots version: “there are lots of people who don’t know anything about languages or keeping them going”.
- A lot of the meaning of the Scottish and English versions is changed or even missing from the Scots version. This leads me to a controversial speculation: by deliberately restricting the lexicon to exclude modern, technical or standard lexical items and thus emphasise the divergence from Standard English, the competence of the language has been seriously compromised.
It’s a bit more than the ‘low thousands’, although the numbers are comparatively small. The 1991 census found that there were 65,978 Gaelic speakers in Scotland, which worked out at 1.34% of the population. This site gives a regional breakdown of the figures.
http://www.siliconglen.com/scotfaq/7_14.html
The following webpage (which appears to be connected with a Danish radio programme) mentions ‘a government study conducted in 1996’ which apparently found that the number of Scots who speak Scots ‘may be as much as 30% of the population’.
http://www.olestig.dk/scotland/scottishlanguages.html
No doubt that figure depends on just how one frames one’s definitions, but it doesn’t sound wildly wrong. The page also makes the important point that many Scots who speak what some would classify as Scots just assume that they are speaking English with a Scottish accent.
The short answer to the OP is that it is clearly incorrect to say that the inhabitants of Scotland ‘only speak their own version of english’ because some, albeit a tiny minority, speak Gaelic, which everyone agrees is a separate language, while a substantial minority speak Scots, which many consider to be a separate language. Most Scots however speak English.
Or maybe just speaking English with a Scottish accent and think they are speaking Scots.
Here is the problem. Scots and English have so much in common that it has been impossible to draw a solid line between the two. Perhaps it was just about possible 250 years ago, but they intermingled so much in the intervening years that no-one is really in a position to define where the two diverge and who is a real Scots speaker and who is not. Equally, you can’t go comparing to Burns as some sort of absolute pure Scots, as that is an exercise in history, not an analysis of a living language. No-one uses Shakespeare as an example of modern day English.
This is a situation that isn’t going to get any easier. The languages/dialects/whatever-you-care-to-call-them are only going to continue to converge. It’s sad but inevitable.
hibernicus - could the apparent difference in register be due to the lack of Latinate roots? (Since Graeco-Latin derived words in English are often seen as a mark of education and refinement).
It might be interesting to look at “Pure English” in this regard; this being a spoof dialect (invented on several occasions by different writers) which omits as many Romance-derived words as possible from Standard English, substituting, where necessary, obscure but serviceable Anglo-Saxon derived words. One good example is SF writer Poul Anderson’s essay on “Uncleftish Beholding” (=“atomic theory”). The term “Pure English” I think originates with the British essayist and humourist Paul Jennings.
It just seems relevant to me, because the overall tone of the Scots vaguely recalls some of the “Pure English” pieces I’ve seen - old-fashioned, but informal at the same time.
GIYF: Uncleftish Beholding (only a fromtaken part)
Which of course overlooks the fact that two languages can be almost completely mutually comprehensible and still be considered two distinct, separate languages.
tc’s post is a good case in point. The (Scottish) Gaelic text would be comprehensible to an Irish speaker, yet there is no dispute that I am aware of that Gaelic is (now) its own language and not merely a dialect of Irish.
This thread gives me a chance to tell my Scotland story. We were in a small town waiting for the ferry to the Isle of Skye and needed to get some money. The man at the bank asked if we minded getting one pound notes. These are only issued by Scottish banks (England has one pound coins) and he warned us that in some parts of England people are reluctant to accept them. We asked if the reverse was true as well, and he said “This is Scotland, we’ll accept anything. Hell, we’ll take bus tickets”.
Well, yeah… I think the point was also raised with regard to Dutch and Flemish, which nobody could accuse of being separate languages in any purely linguistic sense. I think we’ve established that the line between “dialect” and “language” is an uncertain one, and there may be sound social reasons for choosing one term over the other. (As a Standard English speaking Briton living in Scotland during the Thatcher years, I learned to steer clear of discussions on such topics, as they sometimes led to me getting my head thumped…)