Talk:Scottish Borders

message: It also should be noted that even though there is a Gaelic name for the region, it has never been spoken in the area, and the traditional language of the area is Scots and its dialects.
:Perhaps, but isn't, uh, English, the language spoken there now?  My understanding was that genuine Scots is now only spoken in a few remote rural areas, and that most Scottish people speak a kind of Scots inflected form of standard English. john k 17:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you well know by now, and as place name evidence and history clearly shows, Gaelic was spoken in the Borders. How immune to facts and reason are you? siarach 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not being spiteful at all but do we have a ref for The Mairches? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than word-of-mouth, there doesn't seem to be one. I'd just call it "The Borders" in Scots (I'm from Hawick), but "The Mairches" does sound a bit more romantic... And as for the Gaelic thing, it seems a bit contentious because Roxburghshire and Selkirkshire are distinctly lacking in Gaelic-derived placenames (Berwickshire has Auchencrow, as mentioned earlier, and Peeblesshire has Innerleithen, and possibly a few others.) I think the Gaelic name for the Borders should still be included, but should be below the Scots name, even if the Scots name is the same as or similar to the English one, for symbolic reasons. 78.151.186.202 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't The Mairches just a dialect form of The Marches - which isn't just the Scottish Borders, it's more than that. Mannafredo (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Scots language isn't "just a dialect". ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it's a legitimate question of Mairches coincides with the borders... and if we have any written references for it. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Maunus. That's my very point. The two edits previous to mine seem to agree that there is no reference to show that this word is part of the Scots language at all, and therefore I am suggesting that perhaps it is part of local dialect and has been simply been misattributed to Scots. See it being used in such away here and here. Also, like the article says,  'there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects', and probably most of that so-called language is "just a dialect". Visit Hawick some day, and you'll see. Do you really think gettin stairtit isn't just a dialect for 'getting started'? Mannafredo (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say the same about the Norwegian "komme i gang" and the Swedish "komma igång"... 92.27.214.225 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the various local dialects spoken in Scotland are definitely part of the Scots language. I know the Borders dialects can sound a bit different from what Burns et al wrote, but they're generally regarded as being part of Scots.
Also, coming from Hawick, I probably wouldn't talk about "the Mairches" as an equivalent of "Scottish Borders", except perhaps when talking about the Border Reivers etc. But whatever. It depends if you regard the Scots translation as being 'classical' (west-central Scots from a few centuries ago), or 'modern' (in this case, what people from the Borders would say). 92.27.214.225 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic name for the region 

message: Is anyone able to help me get this to featured article status?? There are several reasons why this should be a featured article:
* It has been the setting for several battles between England and Scotland.
* It has many notable places of interest
* It has a fairly epic history.
Does anyone agree with my suggestions for this, and if so, how can we make this into a featured article?? This talk page is under-used for now. --SunStar Net 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status 

message: "Since Roman times, there has been evidence of three/four main languages in the area: Brythonic, Anglo-Saxon, English and Lowland Scots."
In other words 2 languages as Anglo-Saxon, Lowland Scots and English (as in English English) are all one and the same in this context - it makes no sense to regard the different historical stages of a single language as seperate when discussing the number of lanugages spoken in an area. Certainly Anglo-Saxon, as the direct ancestor to both Lowland Scots and English, should not be counted seperately. siarach 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3/4 languages

message: Since Roman times, there has been evidence of two main languages in the area: Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon,the latter of which developed into its modern forms of English and Lowland Scots. The local varieties of the latter displays some similarities with the dialects of Northumberland and Tyneside, although they preserved more older words and grammar better than their neighbours to the south.
I'm not questioning the content, but rather the grammar.
Using 'the latter' twice in sucession seems over the top to me, and the second sentence is pretty ropey to be honest.  I don't want to do a direct edit becuase I'm not even clear on the exact meaning to be conveyed, but I would be inclined to go with something like:
Since Roman times, there has been evidence of two main languages in the area: Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon,the latter of which developed into its modern forms of English and Lowland Scots. The local varieties of Lowland Scots display some similarities with the dialects of Northumberland and Tyneside, but have preserved older words and grammar better than their neighbours to the south.
I left in 'neighbours to the south', although I'm not sure it's necessary. --Worm 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages again... 

message: Who ever added the settlements map, well done. Devokewater 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlements map