Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2019-02/Treat Scots as English

Rationale

Scots exists on a spectrum with and cannot cleanly be distinguished from Scottish English and even from broader non-Scottish Northern English (e.g. Geordie), which shares much of its vocabulary and can be considered equally similar to/divergent from English. This leads to redundancy and also confusion when it is unclear whether a given text is ==Scots== or Scottish ==English==; it can even lead words to fail to meet CFI if they occur in e.g. two Scots texts and two (Scottish or Northern) English text. (Both languages are WT:WDLs and would require three cites to pass.) Major English dictionaries like the OED treat Scots as English. While some Scots texts and words are quite divergent and unfamiliar to speakers of "standard" English, this is also true of many dialects (including the aforementioned Geordie). - -sche (discuss) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't unique to Scots. The line between a language and a dialect has never been clear; the spectrum you're referring to is a dialect continuum, and these exist almost everywhere. You could say the exact same thing about Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish, that they exist on a spectrum and could easily just be seen as dialects of each other.

The fact that English dictionaries define Scots as a form of English doesn't make their opinion especially important. By this same logic we would have to fold Macedonian into Bulgarian, since Bulgarian linguists generally see Macedonian as a dialect of their language. Instead, why don't we just keep the languages separate the way they already have separate Wikipedias, and the way people are already contributing Scots content to Wiktionary because they clearly see it as something different from English? פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We might as well merge Spanish and Portuguese. I think because most English speakers aren't used to the idea of there being a language so similar to English, they think of different languages as being as distinct as English and German, whereas that's certainly not always the case. I can understand Italian decently well (about as well as I understand Scots, in fact) simply because I know French and Spanish. That doesn't mean they're the same language! It's normal to have dialect continuums which make it hard to draw an (admittedly artificial) line, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't draw a line somewhere.~

Please don't try to tell me that the following is English:

The tartan tred wad gar ye lauch;

nae problem is owre teuch.

Your surname needna end in –och;

they’ll cleik ye up the cleuch.

Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of note also may be that (at least according to Wikipedia), the view that Scots was not its own language has led to some degree of linguistic convergence, with Scots becoming more English over time (especially in its orthography). Thus, we shouldn't necessarily make a judgement based on how similar they are now, but should instead look at whether they have been distinct historically. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@פֿינצטערניש, Andrew Sheedy Grouping Scots with English does *not*, in my view, suggest that Scots isn't a distinct language, but is based on practical considerations that -sche has enumerated. IMO, simply arguing that "Scots is clearly distinct so we should treat it as a separate language" ignores the reality that there are very few if any active editors working on Scots entries, and the existing entries are largely stubs (cf. e.g. adverteese, affectionate, affuirdable, etc.) based on a single source. The practical effect of allowing a Scots L2 heading is that there's a lot of duplication between English and Scots entries with few clear criteria for knowing where to put a given term, quotation, etc. The result is a massive muddle that doesn't do our readers any favors. The situation with Macedonian/Bulgarian, Portuguese/Spanish, Norwegian/Danish, etc. is completely different in that all those languages have a standard literary form, which makes it easy to determine which language a given term belongs to, which isn't the case for Modern Scots. As for comparisons with Norman and Aragonese, keep in mind that this is the English Wiktionary, with a broad view of what "English" constitutes, significant coverage of English dialects, and consequent practical difficulties posed by Scots, and not the French or Spanish Wiktionary (this Wiktionary has very little coverage of French and Spanish dialects, for example). Note also that there's nothing to prevent us from making a Scots label that categorizes terms into e.g. "Scots lemmas". Benwing2 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet we distinguish Middle English, which is arguably just as close to English as Scots (and for that matter, dialects like Geordie). As for most entries being stubs, that applies to most non-English entries in general, including for major languages like German or Spanish.... I understand that there's a lot of reduplication, but that also applies to many other languages, so the situation doesn't seem particularly different to me.

From a usability perspective, however, I can sympathize with your point of view. I imagine most English speakers haven't heard of the existence of Scots, never mind thinking to look under a Scots heading for a word they might encounter in what looks to them like an English text. If Scots is subsumed under English, but is clearly marked as Scots, I could live with that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, Modern English has always seemed like nothing more than a standardised form of Middle English, with evolved pronunciation. But we distinguish it because everyone else does. I am a staunch supporter of Scots as its own language...however I too see the logic in placing it as a sub-language of English only for the purpose of a dictionary. Do I still consider Scots a separate language ? Yes. But there's too much back and forth and in and out between English and Scots that it's not feasible to think of them separately. Like MLE is not separate from English, but is a form of it, so too is Scots. Leasnam (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone else does; the OED doesn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English. I'm curious if you can find a dictionary that clearly covers Scots, but treats it as English, and treats Middle English differently. I'm also curious if you can find a dictionary besides the OED that covers Scots solidly but as a part of English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this will start in a couple days. @Benwing2, if there are any changes to the wording etc you would like to make, please feel free to make them. :) - -sche (discuss) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Qupte: "it can even lead words to fail to meet CFI if they occur in e.g. two Scots texts and two (Scottish or Northern) English text. (Both languages are WT:WDLs and would require three cites to pass.)"

Scots probably ain't a WDL but is an LDL, hence a better vote could be to classify it correctly... --Brown*Toad (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of Scots and English

Looking at a text in Scots, I have trouble thinking of it as the same language as English. I'll compare a passage from the Gospel of Matthew in Scots (William Laughton Lorimer's translation) to an English translation (heavily modified from the RSV to more closely resemble the Scots):

1983, Gospel of Mathew:

This is the storie o the birth o Jesus Christ. His mither Mary wis trystit til Joseph, but afore they war mairriet she wis fund tae be wi bairn bi the Halie Spírit.

This is an account of the birth of Jesus Christ. His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, but before they were married, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Her husband Joseph, honest man, hed nae mind tae affront her afore the warld an wis for brakkin aff their tryst hidlinweys;

Her husband Joseph, being an honest man and unwilling to put her to public disgrace, resolved to divorce her secretly;

an sae he wis een ettlin tae dae, whan an angel o the Lord kythed til him in a draim an said til him,

and this he was resolved to do, when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said to him,

“Joseph, son o Dauvit, be nane feared tae tak Mary your trystit wife intil your hame; the bairn she is cairrein is o the Halie Spírit.

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary, your betrothed, into your home; the child within her is of the Holy Spirit.

She will beir a son, an the name ye ar tae gíe him is Jesus, for he will sauf his fowk frae their sins.”

She will bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Now compare that with a French and Norman version of the same passage:

1863, Gospel of Matthew:

Pour chu qui' est d' la naîssànce de Jésus‐Christ, v'chìn coumme alle avìnt.

Pour ce qui est de la naissance de Jésus-Christ, voici comment elle advint.

Coumme Marie sa mére avait étaï fiànchie à Jôseph, a' s' trouvit enchâinte, parç qu'alle avait conchu en ielle, par la vertu du Sâint‐Esprit, d'vànt qu' il aeussent étaï ensemblle.

Marie, sa mère, ayant été fiancée à Joseph, fut trouvée enceinte, parce qu'elle avait conçu par la vertu du Saint-Esprit, avant qu'il eussent été ensemble.

Ho Jôseph, sĕn houmme, parç' qu' il 'tait juste et qu' i n' voulait pas l' escllàndraïr, résolut d' la rènvyaïr en d'muchon.

Joseph, son mari, parce qu'il était juste et qu'il ne voulait pas la diffamer, résolut de la renvoyer secrètement.

Mais, coumme il ŷ pensait, ùn ànge du Signeur lli' apparut en songe, et lli dît: Jôseph, fis d' Dâvi, n' cragniz pas d' prendre ôve vous Marie vote fâme, car chu qui' est naï en ielle a étaï formaï par le Sâint‐Esprit.

Mais, comme il y pensait, un ange du Seigneur lui apparut en songe, et lui dit: « Joseph, fils de David, ne craignez pas de prendre chez vous Marie votre femme, car ce qui est conçu en elle a été formé par le Saint-Esprit.

Et a' mettra au monde ùn fiss, à qui vous doûraïz l' nom d' Jésus, chu qui sinifie Saûveur; car che s'ra li qui saûv'ra sen peuplle, et qui l' déliver'ra d' ses péchês.

Et elle mettra au monde un fils, à qui vous lui donneriez le nom de Jésus, ce qui signifie Sauveur, car ce sera lui qui sauvera son peuple, et qui le délivrera de ses péchés. »

I think it would be very inconsistent of us to call Scots the same as English, but to continue to distinguish Norman and French, or Aragonese and Spanish, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I would say that the Scots version is written to be more plain, ex. you could write "an ye shall name him Jesus". --{{victar|talk}} 06:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of Scots to Dialectal English

The comparison above is Scots to Standard English. However, the original proposal includes the relation of Scots to dialects of Northern English, like Geordie. I've collected a few examples of Geordie below:

I went doon the toon and bought a shirt. (I went to the centre of town and bought a shirt. )

Gey it some welly! (Put [i.e. "give"] some effort into it. )

A ye gannen the match? (Are you going to the match? )

A divven knaw. (I don’t know. )

Wor lass is a bonny bairn. (Our daughter is a pretty child.)

Gan canny or we'll dunsh summick. (Drive carefully or we’ll crash into something. )

Me da's in good fettle today, like. (My father’s in a good mood today. )

As you can see, the similarities between Geordie and Scots are apparent. Yet Geordie is not regularly viewed as a separate language from English. It's a dialect of English. With modern Scots being so close to Geordie, how then can it also be viewed as a separate language ? That distinction might have been easier to make in the case of Old Scots, which was quite different, but as time goes on, modern Scots is becoming more and more like English, instead of becoming more divergent to it. Leasnam (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you ignored all the discussion about dialect continuums, and about how the boundary between languages and dialects is never clear. A language is often very close to what can be considered a dialect of another language; this isn't something that only happens with Scots and Geordie. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But you've already made it up in your mind that Scots is a separate language...perhaps it's still only a dialect, just further out from Geordie... :) Leasnam (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Made up my mind" has nothing to do with it, as you'd realize if you read a single word I wrote. There are no objective criteria for determining the difference between a language and a dialect, so all we really have to go on is tradition, culture, political history. What are distinctions between dialects in China or the Arab world are distinctions between separate languages in Europe. Unless we come up with better objective criteria for defining what is a language and what is a dialect, we might as well just go with whether something has its own ISO code. Folding Scots into English is arbitrary in the absence of clear criteria. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You've already made it up in your mind that Geordie is a dialect of English. It could also be considered a dialect of Scots. We know about dialect continuums. We've already made it up in our minds that we will accept the general divisions of language, to the point of separating Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just following the rationale put forth in the OP's introduction above. Despite the fact that I personally believe that Scots diverged as a separate language in its early days, today it is becoming folded back into English as a dialect. It would be redundant to treat it as a separate language. The majority of the vocabulary is the same as English, and becoming more so each day. No comment on Bokmål and Nynorsk (or Serbian and Croatian) at this time. This is about Scots. Leasnam (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have native Scots speakers to ask: How do you regard Scots ? From what I've read and heard, most Scots speakers don't consider Scots to be a language. Perhaps that is an important aspect (?) Leasnam (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Scottish Government published a study in 2010. Quoting from the Executive Summary, section "Perceptions of Scots as a language":

There is widespread agreement (64%) that, "I don't really think of Scots as a language - it's more just a way of speaking" suggesting that for most adults in Scotland, Scots is not considered a language. However a substantial minority did disagree with this statement (29%) highlighting that there is no consensus on this issue. Likewise two thirds (67%) agree, "I probably do use Scots, but am not really aware of it" with just over a quarter disagreeing (27%). Opinion is, however, even more divided on whether hearing Scots spoken more would encourage greater use: 43% agree with the statement "If I heard Scots spoken more I would be more likely to speak it myself", with the substantial remainder (21%) not sure either way and 35% disagreeing. Notably, those already speaking Scots frequently were more likely to agree with this statement than those who do not speak Scots. This suggests that increasing the profile and usage of spoken Scots is more likely to encourage it further amongst those already speaking it rather than persuade non- speakers to start.

-Stelio (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I think there is a good argument to me made that Early Scots was its own language, but the Scots spoken today is a dialect of English with influence from the now defunct Scots. --{{victar|talk}} 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Verb inflections

Something nobody has remarked upon is that our sco-verb template gives inflections like walkin instead of walking. How would such inflections be resolved if we merged the languages? Equinox ◑ 19:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this an issue? Just give it its own template, or better yet, add a |sco=1 parameter. --{{victar|talk}} 03:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how this would work. Would an English verb entry like walk include "walkin'": if so, where? Which template would the English entry use? If we include walkin under the English infinitive, it's misleading: almost no English speaker would use that. If we omit it, then we are punishing the Scots usage, which can no longer be found linked from the infinitive. Equinox ◑ 03:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Meh, we don't lend the same courtesy to Geordie or Jamaican English either. --{{victar|talk}} 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)