While I don't disagree with the opening paragraphs of this blog, the conclusion is utter utter rubbish.

"A lot of Scots call this slang "Scots" and claim that it's a language. But it's not a language: it's just English, with a few quirky words and expressions thrown in"

Firstly, Scots is not English, it is true to say that both Scots and English come from similar sources (primarily Old Norse) however they both evolved over time as two separate and distinct languages, it is only since the union of the parliments in 1707 when the Scottish Parliment was dissolved and moved to England that Scots stopped being used as the official language of Government in Scotland. It was also at around this time that printing presses came to be widely used (mainly in the centres of leanring in Oxford, Cambridge and London) and therefore it was the version of English that was used in that area (for at that time someone coming from the south of England, and someone from the North would have had great difficulty in communicating) that became the dominant form.

Whilst I agree that Scots, Ulster-Scots, Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Manx and Cornish have little relevance to the overwhelming majority of the population in the UK, to dismiss any of them as "very bad spelling", shows a breathtaking ignorance and arrogance.

> ... Scots is not English ...
> ... it was the version of English that was used in that area ... that became the dominant form

So which is it? Scots is not English or Scots is a non-dominant form of English?


> Scots, Ulster-Scots, Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Manx and Cornish

Gaelic is a separate, non-English language, of which Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are two distinct dialects. Scots Gaelic is not a separate language from Irish Gaelic — see how that works? Cornish is not related to English; it is related to Breton and (I think) Welsh. Manx I admit I know sod all about, but I'm pretty sure it's a separate language from English. I can't imagine why you brought these languages up.


> it is only since the union of the parliments in 1707 when the Scottish Parliment was dissolved and moved to England that Scots stopped being used as the official language of Government in Scotland.

The official language of the English Parliament in 1707 was very different and was spelt differently from modern English. So what? It was still English. There are probably more differences between Chaucer's language and modern English than between modern Scots and modern English, but Chaucer still wrote in English.

Everything you've said about the difference between Scots and English also applies to the difference between Lancastrian and Devonian dialects — as you say yourself. They're both still English. Yes, Scots has some different words from English, just as Cockney has different words from Jamaican patois. They're both English too. Most of Scots's supposedly different words are in fact the same words spelt differently: "aw" for "all"; "fitba" for "football". Again, this is something that used to apply to English dialects from different parts of Britain before spelling standardisation — and still applies to American English. Using a different spelling standard doesn't make it a different language.

Spelling standardisation is a good idea. It makes life easier for people. Look at Swabish and High German: just as different from each other to listen to as Scots and English are, but spelt identically so that Bavarians can communicate with Hamburgers with no difficulty. And Swabish is German. It's hardly surprising that a language as globe-spanning as English has more than one set of spelling standards, and that's fair enough, but those separate standards are not separate languages. I didn't say that Scots is very bad spelling; I said that any English person taking the Scots approach to spelling — for instance, if a Cockney were to spell "all" as "aw", which is after all how they pronounce it — would be accused of bad spelling. The reason that Scots isn't regarded by the Scots as bad spelling is that most Scots accept two spelling standards. That doesn't make Scots a separate language.

Since you believe that Scots is a separate language, please do explain why Geordie isn't.

Firstly, you claim that "Scots Gaelic is not a separate language from Irish Gaelic", I'm sorry, but I rather suspect that the Gaelic speaking regions of both Scotland and Ireland would disagree with you on this point.

Secondly, in response to what you have said in regards to the differences of English dialects, the simple answer is that these regions are within the geographical boundaries of England, therefore they are generally considered to be part of the English Language. I disagree with your use of the words 'Language' and 'dialect' as these two words mean pretty much the same thing, the only recognised difference between a language and a dialect is that a language has a flag attached, so basically, if Newcastle were to declare itself an independant state, with its own government, flag, army etc Geordie would in time become recognised as the Language of that state.

I agree with you completely on the issue of standardisation, it makes life easier for people, I'm not for a second suggesting that we abandon the use of standard english as the language of primary communication, however, I am suggesting that minority languages should be given the respect they deserve- my point with Welsh, Manx, Cornish etc is that they are all languages unique to these Isles, as are Scots and Ulster-Scots, and while Standard English is the dominant form, there is no reason why minority languages can't have their place as well.

Just to be clear, then, you think Australian English and British English are two different languages? And Indian and Bangladeshi English? If you do, then I doubt we're ever going to agree on this. But no, I certainly don't think that what defines a language is a nationality. I think the Kurds would disagree with you on that as well.

I've met plenty of Scots Gaelic speakers who regard Irish Gaelic as the same language as theirs.

There are grey areas, such as Swedish and Norwegian, which were one language until quite recently. But the thing about Swedish and Norwegian is the direction they're going in: they're diverging. Scots and English are converging and conjoining -- witness the recent introduction of "minging" to mainstream Southern English.

Australian Standard English, English Standard English, Scottish Standard English, Northern Irish Standard English etc etc etc, are considered to be separate langauges by the vast majority of linguists.

Only when using the word "language" in a highly technical sense which has little to do with this argument. I can assure you that most linguists don't regard the sentence "Australians speak the same language as the English" to be a lie.

It just occurred to me that you think that most British adults understand at least eighteen languages. I put it to you that (a) that's not how many people use the word "language" and (b) that includes the vast majority of linguists.

First of all i need to take my hat off to you.
it must have taken guts.

However, that does not mean i agree.

I think that your attitude towards this matter is slightly offensive and not entirely truthful.

"Because the English, like the Northern Irish, don't have a giant chip on their shoulder."

i will have you know that the northern Irish DO NOT have a "giant" chip on their shoulder! And many other countries have dialects, slightly difficult to understand. i would know. i am a linguist studying no less than nine languages, all with different dialects included, is no easy matter. And if for your/everyones benefit they decide a translator/interpreter would be useful, then be greatful. i am northern irish myself, and i still dont understand half the things my family say! (especially over a guiness)
so i do not know how, you, our goverment, and the english can fully translate what they are saying,when i know so many people that don't!

oh. and i agree with andrew smyth. most of my linguistic friends do consider them seperate languages. all the more studying!

Roisin, if you're studying liguistics, might I recommend that you take the sentence

"Because the English, like the Northern Irish, don't have a giant chip on their shoulder."

to one of your professors and ask them what it means?

Do you believe that most British people understand over eighteen different languages? Really?

distinct between language and dialect is a political distinction.

Yeah, well, the difference between "British education standards have been flushed down the pan" and "We have the best educated generation in history" appears to be a political distinction, too, but that doesn't mean that neither sentence is correct and neither is bollocks.

- Linguistically speaking, the difference between a language and a dialect is political. That simply means that the difference isn't to be found in the language itself.

- Do not confuse Scots with Scottish english. Scots has different conugations, different historical developments of phonemes, different lexicon and a bit of different syntax. Scottish english, otoh, is an english dialect with some Scots influence.

- Scots is a language from the moment that it has historically been considered as such. Scots can be considered one more dialect of a global enlgish language, but that would be a very different dialect from the rest.

- The idea that Scots is 'just English' comes in part from english using a very archaic spelling system and the same system having been usually employed for Scots. If neither language were written, alien linguists would hardly consider Scots the same language as English, as their structures are somewhat different. Otoh, all the dialects of English from Seattle to Auckland share pretty much the same structure - even if surface differences exist, those are seldom functional.

- 'Gaelic' was a dialect continuum covering Ireland, Man and Scotland. Each of these regions has been maintaining its own varieties independently, and the result is that they are usually considered 3 languages. Linguistically speaking, Scotland and Man are an extension of Ulster. The Ulster dialect has almost disappeared, hence the past tense when mentioning the continuum.

- Welsh, Cornish and Breton are the 'other three' modern celtic languages. However, they separated about the year 500, which is a 1000 years before the gaelics did, and are not in a continuum, which pretty much thwarts any attempt at describing them as one language only, even if they're still similar.

> Linguistically speaking, the difference between a language and a dialect is political.

No, it really isn't. Look, here's an analogy for you.

In philosophy, experts have been arguing for centuries about what exactly a person is. No-one can really figure it out. And here's the problem. Some philosopher comes up with what they think is a brilliant, detailed, technical definition of what a person is, which seems to work at all levels, and then they try the common-sense test: if you ask an ordinary person "How many people are in this room?" they will give you an answer. That answer has to be considered as correct, because understanding of it predates the philosophical argument. People have understood perfectly well what a person is (even if they haven't been able to technically define it) since... well, since we were chimps, pretty much. If you come up with a new technical definition of personhood that fails to match up with that old human instinctive understanding, it is your definition that is at fault. Philosophers understand this, which is why they have to keep abandoning definitions of personhood when they fail the common-sense test.

As far as I can see, linguists appear not to have come to the same understanding. There is a simple question you can ask anyone and they'll be able to answer it: "How many languages can you understand?" Ask anyone that question, and their answer will be correct. Humanity's understanding of the question and its answer predates the study of linguistics. If a linguist comes up with a technical definition of language which fails to predict anyone's answer to that question, it is the linguist who is wrong.

Now, my answer to the question is "Three". I understand three languages. That is a correct answer, not a "political" one.

If you claim that there is no difference between a language and a dialect, then, after considering the facts of the matter, you would say that I understand at least twenty languages. You would be dead wrong. Therefore, your definition of language is wrong. Please inform your linguistics professor.