snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerBut we're not talking about the Romans but what happened after they
left.
So they had even less relevance to what is being said. Just what IS the
point you are disputing?
My claim is that the Romans did NOT affect the language spoken North of
Hadrian's Wall while they occupied, "Roman Britain". So what is your point?
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerAny decent history book. But for now, the first thing Google came up
http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/2_5.html
That, though is just another extension of people claiming, "English", as the
language spoken after the Romans left. It was NOT English. The Brythonic
language was very different in the various areas of the British Isles. The
fact that Northumbria, ( and Cumbria), eventually ended up as part of modern
England does mot make the languages spoken in them at that time, "English or
Scottish". It was but some derivative of Brythonic and that is associated
with Britain but NOT English. The word English is derived from Anglo-Saxon,
so it was not possible to have a language called English until after the
Anglo-Saxon, "invasion". Now why have I put, "invasion", within quotes? The
answer is that the actual invaders were not Anglo-Saxons for, by most
accounts, these, and their families, were fetched in and paid to repel the
actual invaders of that sub-Roman Britain.
When the first Germanic, "Invaders", arrived in Britain in the mid fifth
century it was by invitation as mercenary troops by the southern British
sub-Roman government. (Note:- Sun-Roman Britain not the British Isles). When
the southern government failed in their agreement to supply them, the
mercenary troops revolted. This revolt touched a significant part of the,
"country". (Note The Sub-Roman Britain - not the British Isles). The first
mercenary settlers invited their relatives from overseas to join them. By
the beginning of the sixth century, the Germanic peoples rapid spread
through the country but were checked then,for a time by the, "British", (But
what British)? By the mid sixth century they started to expand again. When
Augustine's arrival, they controlled much of the lowlands and were expanding
to the north and west. (Note:- The north and west of what, though)?
The Celtic peoples generically describe the Germanic people they met"Saxon"
. While probably meant a heavy proportion of Saxons in the early raids and
settlement, but many other tribes were involved. Significantly, Britain came
to be called England after the Angles rather than Saxony. Note, (what was
being described as England, though)?
So again we are being led to believe that this happened in the British Isles
but indications are that these tribes had no more success north of Hadrian's
wall than the Romans had. What we do know is that these Anglo-Saxon,
"Invaders", were mainly illiterate and this is the reason we have little
historic data on them.
So who were the real invaders and where were they invading?
Towards the end of the eight century, the Vikings, (Norwegians) and the
Danes changed their, pirate-type, sporadic raids into full-scale invasion.
The eastern coast of what became Ireland was subject to invasions. The Danes
focused on eastern areas of France, Normandy, and England. The Norwegians
hit the Shetlands, Hebrides, Isle of Man, Iceland, and Ireland. So, once
again the areas that became England had a different linguistic influance
from that of what became Scotland Ireland and Wales.
As the pressure on the area of Scotland intensified, the Dalradians, and the
Picts joined together to oppose the invasions. Kenneth MacAlpin of the line
Carbi Riada became the first king of the Picts and Scots. Some people say
this was the start of Scotland as such.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerSo in fact you are saying that Gaelic has been in Scotland for much
longer than 'Scots' yet still you cling to the term 'Erse'. It is
absolutely clear, after all, that whoever brought the language that led
to Scots to Scotland came after the Romans left.
I said no such thing. Don't put your words into my mouth and make a little
attempt to READ what I have said. See above.
So far I have shown that most linguistic historians have tended to make
sweeping generalisayions about England and Britain when in fact the Britain
they spoke of was Roman Britain, Anglo-Saxon Britain and so on. It most
certainly was not ALL of the British Isles.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerNobody did, as I clearly stated, I was extrapolating your use of the
term 'Erse', meaning Irish, as used for Gaelic to determine how you
ought to describe Scots.
The fact is that I never actually described Scots ather thab to say it was
NOT English but stemmed from some of the same roots.I also made a point of
explaining that throughout history there is much evidence that what became
England and what became Scotland was far from being the areas we call
Scotland and England today. I also made the point that many, perhaps even
most, historians made the same mistake as seems so prevelant even today.
They cannot differentiate between England and Britain, just listen to most
newscasts and weather reports to hear the truth.
So there it is - even up to the time of the Viking and Norsemen invasions,
(and thus the Anglo-Saxon mercenary invitations), the areas of the North and
South were being subjected to different linguistic influances. It is the
most obvious proof that Scotland never had anything like the same influance
from Anglo-Saxons as there are still areas of Scotland where the language is
NOT Anglo-Saxon based. Ergo - they still speak Gaelic.
Seems most of Scotland's present area was still speaking Gaelic until about
the 11th century and the main influance of Anglo-Saxon language came via
Cumbric and Northumbrian that had much more Brythonic influance than the
Southern Anglo-Saxon. Old English is though to run from 500-1100AD but we
have seen that Gaelic held sway in what was to become Scotland until 1100AD.
The Norman Conquest and Middle English from 1100 -1500 and we know that
Robert The Bruce was a Norman noble, so we can be sure that Scots was being
influance by those Normans in both Scotland and England. Perhaps this is the
first signs of real bringing together of the languages of southern Britain
and northern Britain. Really English did not become a, more or less,
standard English Language until William Caxton started printing books and to
make these printed books available to the greatest number of people the
literary language used started to become the first, more or less, English
wide English language.
The Dictes or Sayengis of the Philosophers_ (1477) was Caxton's first
printed book. The English first became that of the Canterbuty Tales style of
English and indeed Caxton printed them.
There was not even a England wide literary English languaage before that
time and by Shakespeares time we can almost see the emergence of modern
English.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerSo, in the interests of making this discussion fruitful, would you care
to inform me why you started talking about it. If anything, you've
brought in the Romans to show that, in fact, Gaelic is more Scottish
than Scots, no matter how you refer to it.
You do seem to have lost the place. The whole thing is really all about the
fact that Lowland Scots and Scots Gaelic are both Scottish Languages and
both should be treated as such by the Scottish parliament. Also that both
are languages in their own right and neither of them are English although
Lowland Scots shares some of the same roots as English. I was on about the
fact that the Scottsih Parliament are putting Gaelic before Lowland Scots
and have just instigated a Bill to recognise Gaelic that will have big
effects on every local authority in Scotland. Every authority will have to
provide Gaelic teachers, Gaelic translators and Gaelic leaflets and forms.
The will probably have to produce Gaelic road signs even when the vast
majority of their tax payers do not know a word of Gaelic but many of them
will be Lowland Scots speakers. The EU recognises both languages as Minority
Languages but Holyrood only supports Gaelic with money and legal support.
Dopes that make sense to you?
?
Post by the_tattie_howkerPost by Robert PeffersOf course it did, but that is not the point now is it?
It seems to be your point. Gaelic is referred to by you as 'Erse'
because it originates from the locality NOW known as Ireland. Yet you
don't apply the same logic to Scots which originates from Germany, not
Scotland. In fact, the irony is that the Scotti themselves were the
speakers of Gaelic and were of Ireland.
You are way off beam. I used the Lowland Scots word for the other Scots
Language, "The Erse", is the Gaelic, "The Inglis", is English and the
Lallans is the Lowland Scots language. There are also several words for
various dialects of Scots, just as the English have words for such as
Liverpuddlian or Cockney the Scots have The Doric, The Moray Claik and so
on. Just what you have been on about is way off beam from what I was saying.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerFine, I'm not disagreeing with that. But you would have to come to that
conclusion if you insist that Gaelic be properly known as 'of Ireland'.
I am insisting on nothing of the sort - I am using the words commonly used
in Lowland Scots to describe the language spoken by the Gaels. Why do the
English use the term Cockney? Don't bother - I actually know that it
started out as, "Cocks Egg", and was a jocular term for the ultimate townie.
Get the idea? I speak, in Scots, and use the tern, "Erse", as it has always
been used just as you might say that a particular English dialect is
Cockney. Again this is also the way a Gaelic speaker would use Sassenach to
describe those who spoke Saxon, (they also included Lowland Scots in that
description). Basically they meant a non-Gaelic speaker.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerThe modern form of it did not, no. Are you saying that Scots did not
originally come from Germany?
Never in my entire life. What makes you think I ever did?
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerBut Gaelic, as spoken in Scotland is no more like Irish Gaelic than
Scots is to German or English. But you insist on assuming Scots is more
indigenous in some way. Why?
Because, you nutter, I am doing nothing of the sort. I am just using the
Lowland Scots word that is used to describe Gaelic.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerPost by Robert PeffersGaelic Language is, "The Erse", which in English translates as, "The
Irish".
Now you contradict yourself. In the same paragraph you state that
'Erse' simply means 'Gaelic' yet you also say that it translates to
English as 'The Irish'.
Are you seriously lacking in common sense? "I", am claiming nothing of the
sort. I am just telling you that the Scots Lowland language uses that word
for the Gaelic Language. It is just a fact and I never made it so. I just
use the language. So how about you tell me why you might describe a East End
of Londoner as a Cockney when this word is derived from, "A Cocks Egg", and
was originally a derogatory term for a London Townie and that East Ender has
nothing to do with Cock's eggs. Are you really so stupid that you cannot
understand that the origins of the term have absolutly nothing to do with
me?
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkera differentiation is of course required - after all, it would be
confusing to name your own language after a people speaking a separate
language. But calling that separate language something else as if it
came from abroad doesn't help either. Don't you think it would be
better simply to use 'Gaelic' in Scots? Plenty of other Scots speakers
do. Languages are like that, they should develop to accomodate more
accurate descriptions of reality.
What rubbish! Not only do the Gaels still use the trem Sassanach but the
term was adopted and changed by the Lowland Scots to mean any English person
while the Gaels still use it to describe all non Gaelic speakers.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerBut you are implying that it is foreign, no matter how you try to
wriggle out of it.
No I'm not. Not any more than a Cockney is a Cocks Egg. Nor as a Gael uses,
"sasunnach", (Lowland Scots sassenach), to mean a non Gaelic speaking
lowlander and there is no differentiation in Gaelic between the English and
Lowland Scottish languages. Have the Gaels adapted that one?
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerBut Gaelic didn't come from Ireland any more than Scots came from
Scotland. Scots came from a language that came from Germany just as
Gaelic came from a language that itself came Ireland. Gaelic and Scots
have equally divereged from their geographic locality (for they weren't
countries then) of origin such that it makes no sense to refer to one
as if it still originates from there and is somehow less indigenous.
You certainly are persestent. That has absolutly no relevance as I could
quote you thousands of words that came from some other word and have
aquiared different meanings through time.
snip
Post by the_tattie_howkerI'm certainly not insulted as I was brought up on the northern Scots
dialect of Caithness and Orkney. However, I don't see it as reasonable
or useful to continue to refer to a language based on millenia old
origins.
So, tell me, why call the English language used in the USA after a long
dead, "Angle tribe", who were a Germanic people who originally lived
at the neck of the Jutland Peninsula and who were invited into the southern
part of what had once been Roman Britain. That is, whether you can see any
sense in it or not, the origins of Anglo-Saxons who gave their name to
England and who did not originally even come from Saxony. So, by your
reckoning they should rename American-English, Canadian-English,
Australian-English, New Zealand English and British-English just to please
you because, "I don't see it as reasonable
or useful to continue to refer to a language based on millenia old origins",
or are those not your own words?
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk