Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Numbers | |
Author: Ed Harris (London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:21:55 01/06/05 Thu In reply to: Andrew 's message, "What about the other language?" on 15:51:55 01/06/05 Thu I am somewhat sceptical about the claim that "millions of Scots speak Lallands as their first language rather than English." If you mean that they all speak like Billy Connolly, then (a) that is not a separate language, although a certain degree of regional ignorance on the part of English people make make it appear so to their parochial minds; (b) Scots don't all speak like that anyway - try visiting the place; and (c) how many people do you imagine there are in Scotland? Can't be more than 7 million, so 'millions of Scots' speaking Lallands would make English a minority language up there, which, I think I am right in saying, is not the case. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 5 Million... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:25:41 01/06/05 Thu Of which 4,934,022 speak English, albeit in a various different accents from the Home Counties. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: langwedges iii | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:29:38 01/06/05 Thu "that is not a separate language" Based on what? You'll actually find that many linguists DO class it as a separate language based on various criteria. And if it was, why the big problem? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:37:43 01/06/05 Thu And many linguists wear sandals and socks and don't get out much. It flatters their intellectual snobbery to see a different language where in fact there is only a funny accent and some slang words. I suppose that, left to them, Yorkshire and Somerset would be defined as speaking totally different languages, and we should lobby the Oxford University Press to bring out separate dictionaries with "Eh oop" in the former and "Orroit moi lover" in the latter, and they could write smarmy little treatises tracing the etymology of the Yorkshire usage of "while five o'clock" to indicate "by five o'clock", and suggesting that an Academie Somersetaise be established to preserve the purity of their unique and ancient language. Daft bat. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Languages... | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:47 01/06/05 Thu It isn't just some of the linguists who think so. Many of the speakers do. Unlike the dialects of Yorkshire etc in England, Lowland Scots was used as a higher register for court records, law, ecclesiastical matters. Even in the case of the various English dialects (of which Standard English is one), there is no reason to look down on "regional" ones. If a Yorkshireman speaks to me in a broad accent, I prefer to hear what he has to say, than how he says it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, but... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:52:07 01/06/05 Thu There is nothing that you have said here with which I disagree, but I do feel that you are arguing from a misapprehension: Glaswegian accents are not Lallands Scots. Yes, it was and still is a separate language with a fine and legitimate tradition, but when you ask for directions to the pub in Paisley and can't understand the response, this is not because they are speaking this Grand Auld Language, but because of the strong accent. Now, you can call this a dialect, and quite legitimately so. We should take the example of Italy, where each region has a stronger variation in dialect even than between Surrey and Skye. But it never occurs to the speakers of these dialects - say, a Piedmontese and a Calabrian - that they are not speaking Italian. Indeed, they laugh at the poor fools in the other region for not speaking Italian properly, rather than saying, "well, clearly, since they sound so odd to us then we must be speaking a different language. How about that, eh, Georgio, all this time we've been speaking a foreign language and never even knew it! We must be genii!" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Italians etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:20:53 01/06/05 Thu "We should take the example of Italy, where each region has a stronger variation in dialect even than between Surrey and Skye" That's a bad choice Ed, because Highlanders have never really had very broad accents only having learnt English recently. Half the people in Skye probably have settled from Surrey these days anyway! "Glaswegian accents are not Lallands Scots" Some are. "But it never occurs to the speakers of these dialects - say, a Piedmontese and a Calabrian - that they are not speaking Italian" Unlike the UK no stigma is attached to these though. But there are strong language movements especially amongst the Friulians. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fiulians? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:25:54 01/06/05 Thu Aren't they the ones generally acknowledged by scholars to speak the purest and best Italians? They sound odd to me, now you come to mention it, but I always thought that this was because I learned Eye-Tie in Venice, where the blighters sound half Spanish and half-German, and throw in occasional defunct Kaverathousa words to confuse us. L'azento venessiano, indeed! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: attitudes | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:49 01/06/05 Thu Dave, I hate to say it, but if you speak to your "pals" in Scotland like this all the time, no wonder they're hardly queuing up to join the FCS. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:36:55 01/06/05 Thu Speak to them like what? I am merely pointing out the factual errors you have made about the language Scots speak. I'm sorry you find that offensive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:26:01 01/06/05 Thu "Speak to them like what?" The way you do about the languages etc... nto to mention that you seem to think there is no national football side in your country (which isn't a country). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ?? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:43:09 01/06/05 Thu I am very well aware of the Scottish football team. I do not believe that the UN defines nationhood on the basis of football teams. I prefer to go by what it says on my passport. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: nations iii | |
|
Author: andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:05 01/06/05 Thu "I am very well aware of the Scottish football team. I do not believe that the UN defines nationhood on the basis of football teams. I prefer to go by what it says on my passport." Tibet is a nation. The UN doesn't recognise it. The Kurds are too. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:53:29 01/06/05 Thu Andrew, I am quite happy to debate with you on the issues raised here, but I am not going to be drawn on a debate as to whether the UK is a nation or not. This is rediculous. I don't know where you are from, but you should be aware of an act of Parliament called the Act of Union, that effectively dissolved the Scottish state, and formed the United Kingdom in 1707. It exists, honest. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maastricht etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:55:26 01/06/05 Thu "I don't know where you are from, but you should be aware of an act of Parliament called the Act of Union, that effectively dissolved the Scottish state, and formed the United Kingdom in 1707. It exists, honest." I know all about the treaty of union, but a piece of paper doesn't change people. Anymore than the Maastricht treaty stopped you being British. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |