|
I studied early Modern Scots for a while and I was intensely happy that saying yer ma's a huir is an ancient tradition going back centuries, and has an established spelling.
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I think the issue I have is that Gaelic, like Welsh, is very clearly its own language with its own vocabulary, grammar, etc. Scots, on the other hand, follows the general rules of English with variations of spelling and a few unique words. I'm sure 1707 did go some way towards making 'proper' London English the 'standard', but the Lowland areas had been dominated by the Anglo-Saxons long before that, and England and Scotland as a rule had significant links as far back as the middle ages. It stands to reason they'd have spoken a variation of English, and the fact that Gaelic was pushed to the periphery as Anglo-Saxon influence expanded seems to confirm this. If Scots was a fully fledged language in its own right, it should have become less common far earlier than it did in much the same way. What about the Scandinavian languages though? They are mutually intelligible and come from a common source, yet they are always referred to as languages rather than dialects.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I think the issue I have is that Gaelic, like Welsh, is very clearly its own language with its own vocabulary, grammar, etc. Scots, on the other hand, follows the general rules of English with variations of spelling and a few unique words. I'm sure 1707 did go some way towards making 'proper' London English the 'standard', but the Lowland areas had been dominated by the Anglo-Saxons long before that, and England and Scotland as a rule had significant links as far back as the middle ages. It stands to reason they'd have spoken a variation of English, and the fact that Gaelic was pushed to the periphery as Anglo-Saxon influence expanded seems to confirm this. If Scots was a fully fledged language in its own right, it should have become less common far earlier than it did in much the same way. Gaelic was spoken in the lowlands until the 14th century and (I'm pretty sure) the lowlands were never "dominated" by the Anglo-Saxons as such (I think the main contention over land between England and Scotland was over Cumbria/Northumbria and that was in the 14th century, but correct me with sources if I'm wrong). Danish and Swedish are, for the most part, mutually intelligible (they even have ingredients/instructions together on the backs of packets and stuff). That doesn't mean they are the same language. They have a distant roots, but because they have a shared history, they've had similar influences upon the language. Why are Swedish and Danish distinct languages, but after the Treaty of Union, Scots was no longer seen as one by the typical Brit, although is currently defined as a language by the Scottish, UK and European groups who deal with such definitions. Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are different languages. They are partially mutually intelligible, but they are distinct as languages. As far as I can find, Austrian German is officially defined as a dialect (or variety) of German. QuantumCrayons fucked around with this message at 22:55 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Yeah, fair enough. I guess I'd just draw the line differently and say that the Norse languages are pretty much dialects based on what you say (though I have no idea about them so god knows). Anyway it's not a particularly important issue. If you want to consider it a language that's cool but very few people would write a job application in it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah, fair enough. I guess I'd just draw the line differently and say that the Norse languages are pretty much dialects based on what you say (though I have no idea about them so god knows). Anyway it's not a particularly important issue. If you want to consider it a language that's cool but very few people would write a job application in it. Basically I think we can agree the distinction between a dialect and a language is often fuzzy and highly politicised.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Basically I think we can agree the distinction between a dialect and a language is often fuzzy and highly politicised. That's a fair conclusion I think
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
QuantumCrayons posted:Danish and Swedish are, for the most part, mutually intelligible (they even have ingredients/instructions together on the backs of packets and stuff).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Another example is the Serbo-Croat language. Or possibly the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin languages, depending on who you ask.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Relatively mutually intelligible in writing, but that's only really because Danish sticks to a pretty archaic spelling considering the rapid shift in pronunciation it went through in the last century. Spoken Danish is a completely different thing from the written form, and it makes communication with Swedes pretty difficult. Basically, we just speak English with each other. This explains why sources talk about them being so similar, but every Swede and Dane I've asked has denied it fervently.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
People who post condescending suggestions to "write properly" need to check their privilege.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
return0 posted:People who post condescending suggestions to "write properly" need to check their privilege. talk proper hen. ye'll no get a jobe if ye gau intae the interview speakin yon wae.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Watching the UKIP gains in local councils in England is probably enough at this point to make me vote in favour of Scottish independence.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Watching the UKIP gains in local councils in England is probably enough at this point to make me vote in favour of Scottish independence. Yup. Regardless of what you're all going to say about FPTP making this irrelevant, this'll swing Britain further to the right than it was before and that'll drag Scotland with it. Get independence and it'll only be England and Wales that burn.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Scotland will burn later when the "immergrents!" arrive.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Watching the UKIP gains in local councils in England is probably enough at this point to make me vote in favour of Scottish independence. You're being facetious, but could this actually play a role? I am assuming UKIP is not popular in most of Scotland.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:See? This is exactly what I was saying. This man doesn't understand the difference between taxonomy and reality. If he doesn't even understand the significantly simpler conceptual foundation and purpose of biological taxonomy, how is he going to understand linguistic taxonomy? Oh no I do, I just find you don't understand how silly your statement about taxonomy is. But maybe science is out your depth? Unless now science is "man made"? marktheando posted:Fluo All you're doing is cheerleading in this thread, maybe you should add something.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:You're being facetious, but could this actually play a role? I am assuming UKIP is not popular in most of Scotland. UKIP are not as unpopular in Scotland as some would claim.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:You're being facetious, but could this actually play a role? I am assuming UKIP is not popular in most of Scotland. We shall find out on Sunday with the Euro results, there were a few worrying polls showing UKIP support creeping up. Hopefully the SNP and Greens have done enough to get their vote out, as there is the potential risk of UKIP picking up the final EP seat.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:We shall find out on Sunday with the Euro results, there were a few worrying polls showing UKIP support creeping up. Hopefully the SNP and Greens have done enough to get their vote out, as there is the potential risk of UKIP picking up the final EP seat. I was going to say this. Smug complacency about how the English council election results will help the Yes movement is premature. Even if the Kippers don't get one of Scotland's MEPs, if their percentage of the Scottish vote has risen markedly then the Yes cause will not be helped. In fact it may even be harmed.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Interesting that so many unionists desperately want UKIP to do well, hatred of the SNP runs deep.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Fluo posted:All you're doing is cheerleading in this thread, maybe you should add something. I was participating in the discussion in the post you are quoting! Jedit posted:I was going to say this. Smug complacency about how the English council election results will help the Yes movement is premature. Even if the Kippers don't get one of Scotland's MEPs, if their percentage of the Scottish vote has risen markedly then the Yes cause will not be helped. In fact it may even be harmed. That's a fair point. And if UKIP look certain to split the tory vote and put Labour in power in 2015 I can see that being bad for the Yes campaign. Independence does seem much more attractive with the tories in power.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I was going to say this. Smug complacency about how the English council election results will help the Yes movement is premature. Even if the Kippers don't get one of Scotland's MEPs, if their percentage of the Scottish vote has risen markedly then the Yes cause will not be helped. In fact it may even be harmed. Complacency is generally bad, yes. We learned this through watching Westminster's approach to the No campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Can't be that bad as most people intend to vote No?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
If the SNP (or at a push the Greens) increase support in the Euro elections, the Yes campaign will portray it as vindication of support for independence, while the No campaign will write it off as irrelevant because the election is not about independence. If UKIP increase support the No campaign will portray it as vindication of the support for the union, while the Yes campaign will write it off as irrelevant because the election is not about independence. These are my predictions for Monday's newspapers.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Can't be that bad as most people intend to vote No? They managed to piss away a lot of the lead they had before.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
marktheando posted:They managed to piss away a lot of the lead they had before. It's only 'pissing away' if you believe the Yes campaign to be entirely unpersuasive and ineffective.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's only 'pissing away' if you believe the Yes campaign to be entirely unpersuasive and ineffective. You don't think the No campaign has performed badly?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
marktheando posted:You don't think the No campaign has performed badly? You're suggesting the only reason somebody might decide to vote Yes is because of how ineffective the No campaign is, rather than being persuaded by Yes. It must be worrying for Yes if a badly performing No is able to maintain and even increase its lead in the polls.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're suggesting the only reason somebody might decide to vote Yes is because of how ineffective the No campaign is, rather than being persuaded by Yes. I'm not suggesting that at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I'm not suggesting that at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion. marktheando posted:They managed to piss away a lot of the lead they had before.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Yeah still not seeing it. The No campaign pissing away their lead doesn't preclude the Yes campaign making gains from persuading people.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Maybe this is a language thing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:Interesting that so many unionists desperately want UKIP to do well, hatred of the SNP runs deep. Something I never said or even implied at any point. Take your blatant ad hominem and gently caress yourself with it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Maybe this is a language thing. That's one possible explanation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
marktheando posted:That's one possible explanation. marktheando posted:You are out of your depth here Fluo.  In other news SNP uses majority to stifle criticism of Alex Salmond's EU membership stance.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
marktheando posted:That's one possible explanation. You used the term 'pissed away' which suggests the drop in lead is the No campaign's fault, not that the Yes campaign improved. I'm sure you realise it's probably a little of both.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:You used the term 'pissed away' which suggests the drop in lead is the No campaign's fault, not that the Yes campaign improved. I'm sure you realise it's probably a little of both. Yes it is both, as I said- marktheando posted:Yeah still not seeing it. The No campaign pissing away their lead doesn't preclude the Yes campaign making gains from persuading people.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Fluo posted:
That's loaded phraseology. The SNP used their majority to add things that were left out. Whether they were trying to skew the report or unskew it is ambiguous unless you have the two versions to compare and know what the differences mean.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Something I never said or even implied at any point. Take your blatant ad hominem and gently caress yourself with it. Oh please. Plenty of tunnel-visioned unionists at this stage would love to see 1 UKIP/2 SNP rather than 3 SNP. I just thought this was worth pointing out, or have we moved on from snide one-liners?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Jedit posted:I was going to say this. Smug complacency about how the English council election results will help the Yes movement is premature. Even if the Kippers don't get one of Scotland's MEPs, if their percentage of the Scottish vote has risen markedly then the Yes cause will not be helped. In fact it may even be harmed. On the other hand you have a poll released just recently that suggests that as many as 1/5th of potential No voters would seriously consider voting Yes in September if UKIP top the UK Euro election polls. So it could be positive for Yes. It might not be. Lets actually see what happens to polls after the results come out on Sunday night/Monday morning.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:03
|
|
