LL-L: "Statistics" LOWLANDS-L, 08.AUG.2001 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 08.AUG.2001 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachian, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Statistics"

Colin Wilson wrote:

>These are the first-language speaker figures given in the _Ethnologue_
>(http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/ethnologue.html), also to be taken with a
>couple of grains of salt:
>
>Scots:           100,000   (1999)
>        Lallans:        60,000
>        Doric:          30,000
>        Ulster Scots:   10,000

Yes, these seem ridiculous to me - I'd have thought the catchment area of my
high school alone would hold 10,000 to 20,000 first-language Scots speakers.

It may all be part of a larger phenomenon - I was dipping into a recent book
in
a bookshop recently on education in my county in the first few decades of the
20th century, and the writer seemed to think that only farm children spoke
Scots
- and that village children spoke English. This seems like total ignorance to
me. Even now large towns in our area such as Tranent are full of Scots
speakers.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Statistics

Sandy,

Actually, I was the one you quoted above, and Colin Wilson
<lcwilson at starmail.com> quoted me, further saying:

> I think that a grain or two of salt is the right thing to take with
> the figure of 30,000 for Doric! For anyone who doesn't know, that's
> a name often given to the variety of Scots spoken in north-east
> Scotland, an area with a population approaching half a million.
>
> About half the area's population lives in or around Aberdeen, where
> Scots is relatively weak, but the situation in the remainder of the
> area is better. Although I don't have an exact figure (no-one has)
> my impression from living here is that the figure of 30,000 is a
> major under-estimate.

I take it no more reliable figures for Scots are available, just as in the
case of Low Saxon (Low German), which should not come as a surprise, given
that these languages are not included in national census questions, and given
that there are forces that are all too keen to belittle them (also in the
original sense of the word "belittle") and see them disappear.

I have to admit that I was very surprised myself to read 100,000 as the
estimated number of Scots speakers.   I would have believed it if it were the
number of Scots speakers *outside* Scotland.  What is your estimate of the
*percentage* of native Scots speakers hidden in the figure of Scottish people
who are officially considered to have English as their first language?  The
total population of Scotland for 2001 was projected as 5,108,857
(http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/grosweb/grosweb.nsf/pages/pp96), thus a good 5
million (vs. 5,120,000 in 1998, thus a drop).  If (only?) 25% of those speak
Scots as a native language, then we would have one and a quarter million.  If
(only) 10% do, then we would still have a half million, still five times as
many as the given estimate.  100,000 would be 2% (unless I made a mathematical
error), and that seems rather low to me.

The folks that put together the _Ethnologue_ cannot be faulted, because they
rely on information they receive from consultants that are supposed
specialists.  In the case of Scots, the 1999 estimate comes from a certain
Billy Kay.  I have found Barbara Grimes, the editor, and others at the
_Ethnologue_ to be rather receptive and responsive.  They do the best they can
with what they have available.  So I strongly suggest you contact them (see
below) and share your bemusement regarding the low figure of speakers given
for Scots.  Even if you do not have an alternative, supposedly higher figure
and evidence to back it up, you might be able to persuade them to add a
disclaimer to the Scots entry, or they could do what they did with Low Saxon:
state that no reliable figures are available at this time.  In fact, I am
sending them a blind copy of this, so they are prepared to consider doing
something about it.

Editor, Ethnologue
c/o International Linguistics Center
7500 West Camp Wisdom Road
Dallas, Texas 75236
USA
Email: Editor.Ethnologue at sil.org
Web: http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/

Best regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================