From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics thereof
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:35:05 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov3.090705.5752@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|> I am arguing that there is (or was) a continuum not only
|> between English and Scots, but also between English, Dutch and
|> German, because they had a common origin and evolved separately
|> through a process of spreading out. There is not a continuum
|> between English and Welsh - the relationship between the two is
|> very distant.
|>
Part of my argument has been all along that there is a discontinuity
between Scots and English along the border between Scotland and
England, and I have cited Billy Kay and Jack Aitken in support of that
assertion. If your argument rests on the premise that there is an
unbroken continuum between them, will you please substantiate it?

|> From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
|> >As an aside, it is worth pointing out that no-one questions the status of
|> >English as a language because it happens to be similar to Scots.
|> 
|> This is just being silly. The argument is whether standard
|> English and Scots are just two separate dialects of a common
|> language, or whether they have diverged to the point that they
|> should be considered separate languages, not over whether
|> English is a language and Scots is not.
|>
It's not being silly at all: whenever anyone suggests that greater use
should be made of Scots in broadcasting, education, or anything of that
kind, a frequent response is that it is unworthy of consideration
because it is not a language, but "a dialect" - whereas English, of
course, is a language. When I (on behalf of the Scots Language Society)
asked for the chance to speak on Channel 4's "Comment" regarding this
subject, the request was turned down on exactly those grounds.
 
|> I am neither asserting nor denying that we are dealing with
|> separate languages. I am suggesting that there are cases where
|> there is no clear distinction between separate languages and
|> dialects, and therefore it does not make sense to argue over it.
|> Had England and Scotland remained as entirely separate
|> political entities, it would have been more likely that a
|> distinct Scots language based on the speech of Edinburgh would
|> have been defined, that is what I meant by my obervation on
|> borders.
|> 
|> Matthew Huntbach

You may not be aware of it but by 1603 a distinct Scots language, whose
standard form was based on the speech of Edinburgh, had already been
established, and accepted elsewhere: ambassadors to the Scottish court
from the nations of Europe communicated in Scots, not English.

That language is still there, in official documents dating from that
time, and in an unbroken literary tradition ranging from medieval times
to the present day. Most importantly, a modern form of it survives in
the mouths of the people (or some of us, at least), even if the shift
in political power to England means that there is now no standard form
of Scots.

It may make no sense to you to argue over this as a purely academic
point, but to the speaker of Scots who wishes his language to be more
than a medium for poetry, stories and everyday conversation, the need
to argue with the establishment to restore the status of Scots as a
language in its own right is a crucial one.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban