Scots

Larry Trask larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk
Wed Oct 6 09:33:17 UTC 1999


On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Robert Orr wrote:

> I've only just read the first part of Larry Trask's posting, so this
> is a bit impertinent, but there is a comment that can be made right
> away on one of his points.

>> Is Scots a variety of English or a separate language?  Well, a number of
>> Scots have argued that it is a separate language, and, if it had not
>> been for the Act of Union in 1707, we might all recognie Scots as a
>> distinct language today.  But, because of that Act, we don't.  There are
>> no linguistic considerations here: just political ones.

> Actually, there is a linguistic consideration.  Scots used to have a
> large number of distinctive lexical items, differentiating it from
> "English". Many of these are now rare in everyday speech, thus
> reducing the amount of differentation.

Yes, but I think the linguistic consequences have largely followed the
political ones.

Before the union of England and Scotland, many Scots were deeply
sympathetic to the idea that Scots was, or should be, a distinct
language from English.  If Scotland had remained independent, it is
possible that a standard form of Scots might have emerged, quite
different from standard English.  But the Act of Union put paid to these
ideas, as ambitious Scots moved south, with the result that the Scots
came to accept the standard language of England as their own standard.
I think the gradual disappearance of specifically Scots forms is mostly
a consequence of the political union.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk



More information about the Indo-european mailing list