| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RadgeJougal
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 977
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Don't think it will become poor. |
It could be as rich as the Faroes, but it isn't right now. And it's perfectly possible it could lose it all, particularly if much of its wealth was in the stock market before it crashed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mairead wrote: | It matters not a jot what dialect people speak. I am sure we have all met idiots who speak with 'Cultured English,, accents, and highly intelligent folk who use the tongue they were brought up with.
How you speak is not so important as the ability to communicate. |
Very true.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mairead wrote: | | Slang is nothing more than a dialect which some folk do not like or encourage, |
Yes. But 'Scots' enthusiasts are often bizarrely dismissive of Glaswegian dialect, despite the fact that it has more speakers than any other Scottish dialect of English and is the most familiar to non-Scots. Pure snobbery.
| Quote: | | but that is just down to years of being told how to speak by those who don't understand dialects and by the advent of 'proper English' pronunciation, most of which is pronounced wrongly anyway. |
Isn't that self-contradicting?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mairead
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3091
Location: Argyll, Alba
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agent,
I probably phrased that badly and didn't mean in to be self contradicting.
I Agree with what you say about the Glasgow dialect or slang or whatever but I have often heard children being chastised by adults for using it which is what I meant by some folks not encouraging it.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 777
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Yes. But 'Scots' enthusiasts are often bizarrely dismissive of Glaswegian dialect, despite the fact that it has more speakers than any other Scottish dialect of English and is the most familiar to non-Scots. |
Well that is the point isn't it. It can rather easily be viewed as a Scottish dialect of English and can't sensibly be viewed as Braid Scots so if you are primarily interested in the latter as a separate living language you are unlikely to focus on promoting Glaswegian dialect for reasons that have nothing to do with social class based snobbery and everything to do with actually wanting to maintain a separate language. No different from Ukrainian language enthusiasts focusing very much on the traditional Ukrainian spoken in rural western areas rather than the surzhyk spoken in the cities and rural eastern areas because they don't want their traditional language to ultimately evolve into being a set of regional Russian dialects:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surzhyk
If Glaswegian dialect speakers want to promote their speech then all power to them, in my opinion. I have no problem with that at all. At no point in this thread have I called for the linguistic changes of the last 300+ years to be reversed by yet another bout of politically motivated social engineering from on high driven by a desire for a culturally homogeneous 19th century style nation state. As someone who is uncomfortable with nationalism in both its British and Scottish guises the last thing I would want Scottish society to go through is a tartan clad blast of enforced linguistic conformity whether it be with Gaelic or Braid Scots or a combination of the two as a backlash to what happened from the Victorian era onwards.
I think Braid Scots is now in terminal irreversible decline and have stated so repeatedly in this thread but hypothetically speaking if there had been more interest in promoting it in literary terms a couple of generations ago in the context of a more favourable environment politically for doing so (e.g. if the Scottish Home Rule Bill of 1913 that had passed its second reading at Westminster pre-WWI had actually been implemented) then a scenario similar to Nynorsk in Norway could easily have developed with the rural NE being our version of the the Nynorsk heartland in the Sogne fjord region to the north of Bergen:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynorsk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogn_og_Fjordane
Scottish Standard English could have wound up being roughly the equivalent of Bokmål (a.k.a Dano-Norwegian) if there had been an attempt to move it closer to Glaswegian dialect as happened with the Norwegian variant of literary Danish and Oslo dialect in a Norwegian context:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokmal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inga
Nationalist
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | agentmancuso wrote: | | Yes. But 'Scots' enthusiasts are often bizarrely dismissive of Glaswegian dialect, despite the fact that it has more speakers than any other Scottish dialect of English and is the most familiar to non-Scots. |
Well that is the point isn't it. It can rather easily be viewed as a Scottish dialect of English and can't sensibly be viewed as Braid Scots so if you are primarily interested in the latter as a separate living language you are unlikely to focus on promoting Glaswegian dialect for reasons that have nothing to do with social class based snobbery and everything to do with actually wanting to maintain a separate language. No different from Ukrainian language enthusiasts focusing very much on the traditional Ukrainian spoken in rural western areas rather than the surzhyk spoken in the cities and rural eastern areas because they don't want their traditional language to ultimately evolve into being a set of regional Russian dialects:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surzhyk
If Glaswegian dialect speakers want to promote their speech then all power to them, in my opinion. I have no problem with that at all. At no point in this thread have I called for the linguistic changes of the last 300+ years to be reversed by yet another bout of politically motivated social engineering from on high driven by a desire for a culturally homogeneous 19th century style nation state. As someone who is uncomfortable with nationalism in both its British and Scottish guises the last thing I would want Scottish society to go through is a tartan clad blast of enforced linguistic conformity whether it be with Gaelic or Braid Scots or a combination of the two as a backlash to what happened from the Victorian era onwards.
I think Braid Scots is now in terminal irreversible decline and have stated so repeatedly in this thread but hypothetically speaking if there had been more interest in promoting it in literary terms a couple of generations ago in the context of a more favourable environment politically for doing so (e.g. if the Scottish Home Rule Bill of 1913 that had passed its second reading at Westminster pre-WWI had actually been implemented) then a scenario similar to Nynorsk in Norway could easily have developed with the rural NE being our version of the the Nynorsk heartland in the Sogne fjord region to the north of Bergen:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynorsk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogn_og_Fjordane
Scottish Standard English could have wound up being roughly the equivalent of Bokmål (a.k.a Dano-Norwegian) if there had been an attempt to move it closer to Glaswegian dialect as happened with the Norwegian variant of literary Danish and Oslo dialect in a Norwegian context:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokmal |
I and three others have been working on an English equivilent of the French's attempts to ethnically cleanse their language. The best part is, we do it almost without inventing words. Non-Romance English has almost all the words you need for non-specialist use.
So, for example:
Ovology = Egg-lore.
Cause = Gar
Blemish = Mar
Papacy = Popedom
Clarify = Clearen
etc.
~Inga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | hypothetically speaking if there had been more interest in promoting it in literary terms a couple of generations ago in the context of a more favourable environment politically for doing so (e.g. if the Scottish Home Rule Bill of 1913 that had passed its second reading at Westminster pre-WWI had actually been implemented) then a scenario similar to Nynorsk in Norway could easily have developed |
That's some impressive Norwegian stuff there alright, but I think the scenario is unlikely.
Even if we assume the hypothetical starting point that 'Scots' existed as anything like a separate living language at the turn of the century, the pressure of English broadcast media would have made its survival highly improbable. Nynorsk doesn't have anything like that sort of pressure to contend with, yet:
| Quote: | | There is a general trend over the years that the number of schools and pupils selecting Nynorsk decreases, even in Nynorsk municipalities. At present (2006), fewer than 14% of pupils in primary school are taught in Nynorsk |
(Wiki)
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inga
Nationalist
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | agentmancuso wrote: | | Yes. But 'Scots' enthusiasts are often bizarrely dismissive of Glaswegian dialect, despite the fact that it has more speakers than any other Scottish dialect of English and is the most familiar to non-Scots. |
Well that is the point isn't it. It can rather easily be viewed as a Scottish dialect of English |
Yet Glaswegian speech has been the example given to me in this thread.
~Inga |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadgeJougal
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 977
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Glaswegian speech"
Govan or Kelvinside? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mairead
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3091
Location: Argyll, Alba
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL. When I hear the twee Kelvinside accent, it makes me smile, just like the Edinburgh Morningside does. Toffee bools in their mouths springs to mind. 
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadgeJougal
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 977
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mind, hardly anyone speaks Morningside these days. The only guy I know who does, goes on about speaking "Scots as a child"/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mairead wrote: | | LOL. When I hear the twee Kelvinside accent, it makes me smile, just like the Edinburgh Morningside does. |
Really? Why?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 777
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
For Inga's benefit. This Andy Stewart song is more what I had in mind when I was talking about Braid Scots than the dialogue in Still Game:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XgMxKP_Jcs
I used to spend weeks on end in an environment where people if anything spoke broader than that pretty much all the time and have mucked oot a byre or two in my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthropos wrote: |
The Treaty of Union left the 3 pillars of Scottish life (Church, Law and Education) in the hands of Scots, which would not have been so in a conquered country |
The Church was kept to help keep the "lower orders" in their place. Look at its role in the Clearances.
The Law is there to protect the interests of the ruling class.
Education is there to make give the majority just enough skill and knowledge to enrich the minority and to instill in them the mythology and ethos of the bourgeois state.
The fact that these institutions were left intact is not unique in history. Every imperialist power from Rome through the Moorish Caliphate in Granada, the Moguls and the Ottomans to the English have left such national institutions largely untouched in the subjected countries. This does not mean that these same countries were not colonies.
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthropos
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jimtrot wrote: | | Anthropos wrote: |
The Treaty of Union left the 3 pillars of Scottish life (Church, Law and Education) in the hands of Scots, which would not have been so in a conquered country |
The Church was kept to help keep the "lower orders" in their place. Look at its role in the Clearances.
The Law is there to protect the interests of the ruling class.
Education is there to make give the majority just enough skill and knowledge to enrich the minority and to instill in them the mythology and ethos of the bourgeois state.
The fact that these institutions were left intact is not unique in history. Every imperialist power from Rome through the Moorish Caliphate in Granada, the Moguls and the Ottomans to the English have left such national institutions largely untouched in the subjected countries. This does not mean that these same countries were not colonies. |
I would not entirely disagree with your view of Church, Law and Education; nevertheless your ahistorical ramblings do not refute my assertion, they are in fact beside the point.
Whether there had been a union with England or not the Church would have been keeping the lower orders in their place, the Law would have been protecting the law makers and education would have severed the same purpose it does in any other country. Your points are therefore not valid.
_________________
Anthropos ikane prophasis eis to dustukhein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | jimtrot wrote: | | Anthropos wrote: |
The Treaty of Union left the 3 pillars of Scottish life (Church, Law and Education) in the hands of Scots, which would not have been so in a conquered country |
The Church was kept to help keep the "lower orders" in their place. Look at its role in the Clearances.
The Law is there to protect the interests of the ruling class.
Education is there to make give the majority just enough skill and knowledge to enrich the minority and to instill in them the mythology and ethos of the bourgeois state.
The fact that these institutions were left intact is not unique in history. Every imperialist power from Rome through the Moorish Caliphate in Granada, the Moguls and the Ottomans to the English have left such national institutions largely untouched in the subjected countries. This does not mean that these same countries were not colonies. |
I would not entirely disagree with your view of Church, Law and Education; nevertheless your ahistorical ramblings do not refute my assertion, they are in fact beside the point.
Whether there had been a union with England or not the Church would have been keeping the lower orders in their place, the Law would have been protecting the law makers and education would have severed the same purpose it does in any other country. Your points are therefore not valid. |
Eh....? Didn't you offer the above institutions as proof that Scotland was not a "conquered country"?
I merely pointed out that the practice of most, if not all imperialist powers, has been to practice this method of "laissez faire" colonial government and so your argument doesn't hold water. But what happens if these institutions become a threat to the imperial power? Three examples off the top of my head, namely the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the persecution of Irish Catholics and the suppression of the Covenanters in Scotland, give you the answer. Perhaps my ramblings seem ahistorical to you because of an ignorance of history on your part.
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthropos
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jimtrot wrote: | | Eh....? Didn't you offer the above institutions as proof that Scotland was not a "conquered country"? |
Yes and you tried to refute it with criticism of how the named institutions functioned, and as I pointed out, they would have functioned just the same whether there was a union or not and therefore “your ahistorical ramblings do not refute my assertion, they are in fact beside the point”. Really, not difficult to understand.
| jimtrot wrote: | | I merely pointed out that the practice of most, if not all imperialist powers, has been to practice this method of "laissez faire" colonial government and so your argument doesn't hold water. |
Yes your first three paragraphs were actually irrelevant to your own argument.
You merely pointed out some examples convenient to your position, but you did not offer any arguments as to why it is necessarily so, and none that even related to Scotland. When trying to argue that Scotland was a conquered country you are reduced to ahistorical babblings about Moguls and the Ottomans because you cannot find any Scottish related facts to serve the purpose.
| jimtrot wrote: | | But what happens if these institutions become a threat to the imperial power? |
We are not talking about ‘what if’s’.
| jimtrot wrote: | | Three examples off the top of my head, namely the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the persecution of Irish Catholics and the suppression of the Covenanters in Scotland, give you the answer. |
No you give three disparate examples which merely display your ineptness in dealing with history, you clearly don't understand much about the Covenanters, nor Irish History and you certainly understanding nothing about context.
| jimtrot wrote: | | Perhaps my ramblings seem ahistorical to you because of an ignorance of history on your part. |
Your ramblings are an example of ahistorical stupidity, you clearly cannot interpret history in an intelligent way.
_________________
Anthropos ikane prophasis eis to dustukhein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
