Talk:Scottish English/Archive 1

Doubt

"Doubt", in Scotland, means to think or suspect. Does it, and if so, which part of Scotland? SlimVirgin 04:58, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

My mum uses in sentences such as "I doubt it's going to rain again!" ممتاز 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Doubt" does not mean to think or suspect; it is likely your mother could be being sarcastic Rossco92 14:46, 19 Sep 2009

The only reference I can find refers to Elizabethan English: [1]. Giving the Scots fondness for archaisms, it seems quite plausible though. Mark¹ 05:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It comes from Scots dout [dut]. Ken Mair 12.01.05

Lanarkshire heavily uses it in this fashion.

Living in Lanarkshire, I have not once hear or seen this term being used. Rossco92 14:46, 19 Sep 2009

A doot ye'r haein a wee joke at oor expense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Lexical Scotticisms: the doubt example

"Often, lexical differences between Scottish English and Southern Standard English are simply differences in the distribution of shared lexis, such as [...] doubt for "think the worst"[citation needed] (I doubt it will rain meaning "I fear that it will rain" instead of the standard English meaning "I think it unlikely that it will rain")."

meaning "I fear that it will rain" instead of meaning "I think it unlikely that it will rain""

This not only makes no sense, it is neither true. People in Scotland do not say "I doubt it will rain" to mean it will rain. This is blatantly incorrect. I have never heard anyone in Scotland ever use doubt in the way the example puts it so I suggest it should be removed as it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.73.105 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"This not only makes no sense, it is neither true". If your powers of observation are as good as your command of English grammar, it might explain why you have never heard any Scots use "doubt that" to mean "fear that". Luckily many other people have, as you will discover if you read the comments above. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some twats on here, eh? I use doubt often in that sense too: "I doot it's gonnae rain" - it means "I think it's going to rain" - although this is more Scots than it is Scottish English. I think that may be the confusion here - although some Scottish English speakers may also use the phrase without realising its use is "foreign" to most standard English speakers. And some Scottish English speakers who have less contact with Scots may not recognise it at all.--81.147.177.209 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The realisation /x/ for "ch" in loch, technical, etc.

The latter's a new one on me. I'd have thought /x/ was only common in Scots (or Gaelic) words, rather than there being much prevalence of "Scouse k" in Standard vocab. Alai 08:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's inherited from Scots. More likely in particularly Scottish words like loch, recessive in other positions but usually never in SSE for gh as in night etc.

Ken Mair 23.02.05

"In some variaties, there's a contrast made between the diphthong /ɔɪ/ in boy and the diphthong /ʊɪ/ in buoy. See buoy-boy split."

/ʊ/ isn't a vowel that occurs is Scottish English. Have you a reference for this? Perhaps [bəɔɪ]?

Ken Mair 24.02.05

User 152.163.100.5 has been adding a lot of info on vowel length contrasts which seem to contradict the Scots Vowel Length Rule. Any references for this info?

I've not come accross such like in the literature about SSE I've read but perhaps it wasn't extensive enough.

Fay R. Doilt 28.02.05

Amn't and shew

Never heard anyone use "amn't", and "shew"? GB Shaw spelt the word that way, but I've never seen that in Scotland though.

My sister always used to say "amn't": mainly to annoy me, but it was definitely popular among a certain class in Aberdeen in the 1980s. I don't know of anything particularly Scottish about "shew",but some of us do like our archaisms. Mark¹ 06:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never thought of amn't as being archaic, or as being a product of the 1980s. I can assure everyone that I and the people who I met as I was growing up in Northeast Scotland during the 1960s and 1970s were certainly using it when speaking Scottish English rather than Scots. Mind you if you used it in written work at school, you were marked down for using an ungrammatical construction. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have added amn't into the syntax section. Not only is it characteristic of SSE, it can be used in declarative, not merely interrogative sentences, unlike aren't. Wiki_Scot | Talk 18 Nov 2005.

I note that someone has reglossed "Amn't I?" from "Aren't I?" to "Am I not?" which is perhaps replacing a Southern British biased gloss/transliteration with a North American one. I'll clarify the "Aren't I?" thing. Wiki Scot 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

who doesn't say amn't? i can't imagine people going around saying am i not, and even less likely aren't 81.129.169.166 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the contraction "amn't" is maybe the predecessor to the Southern American "ain't" (mostly considered slang, and improper, but there it is all the same) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.214.218 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We say "amn't I?" in Cumbria too. Barcud Coch (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:81.129.169.166|81.129.169.166 can't imagine anyone saying Am I not?, but I can assure him (or her) that in the form /um a no/ it's very commonly heard.

Nuttyskin (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also said by me as a native of Edinburgh. If it wasn't for Wikipedia, I'd have probably never realised that "amn't" isn't 'normal' English. It seems perfectly logical. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted and Reinserted

For some reason this was deleted. Anyone know why?

/x/ for <ch>

in school and scheme is definitely nonsense. Some of the others are dubious. A lot of the other descriptions in the phonology section are extremely dubious. Can the authors cite any literature to back up their edits? Why half in IPA and the other half in Sampa?

Noah Winner 07.02.05

Wells (1982:408) writes:

[Scottish English] retains the velar fricative, /x/, as a member; although in English (as opposed to Scots) /x/ is really restricted to proper names... and sometimes to Greek- or Hebrew-derived words spelt with ch (technical /ˈtɛx-/, patriarch /-rx/, epoch, parochial).

--Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not in technical. Never heard a Scot use /x/ in technical in my life. Charlie Tango 11:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Scot and I use it in "technical" (and in "technician", "polytechnic", and so forth) but then we've never met so that explains why you've never heard a Scot use it. I wouldn't use it in "school" or "scheme" though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll get round to adding some references, but in the meantime I tidied up /x/ a bit. You get it in Munich, van Gogh, Bach and other loan names, but I think all regular vocabulary with it in is borrowed from Scots or Gaelic. Of course, loch has a very special status. Wiki_Scot | Talk 18 Nov 2005.

most people would pronounce it mun-IK and van go-FF where i am 81.129.169.166 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is that, please? It seems like a tidbit we should know, don't you think? Cbdorsett 06:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vowels

Scottish English vowel chart at [2] ([3]). Contrasts and length [4] Length [5] [6] Vowel system with key words and sound files [7] Yasser Wull 08.02.05

152.163.100.69 added 'Some speakers, however, distinguish some pairs by vowel length' and gave examples Any references for this. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in standard reference works. See talk Phonology.

I've deleted it. Provide a reputable reference and I#ll be glad to have learned something new.

Murdoch Soulis 09.05.05

I've re-deleted the sentence "Some speakers, it is sometimes claimed, may distinguish some pairs by vowel length, for example leek /lik/ vs. leak /liːk/, vane /ven/ vs. vain /veːn/, creek /krik/ vs. creak /kriːk/, etc" until someone provides a specific reference. I don't think this is true of Scottish English at all, but perhaps some dialect of Scots, in which case it should go into that article. Wiki Scot 11:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Phonology

I've redone the phonology section using The entry "Scottish English" from The Oxford Companion to the English language and The English Language in Scotland by Charles Jones as references. I also compared with the links suggested above. I removed all that wasn't mentioned in the references as incorrect - why didn't the references mention it? If the originators have references for what I've deleted they would be much appreciated.

Ken Mair 10.03.05

Am I alone in absolutely hating the table inserted by Nogger on 7th April? It looks awful, is technical and opaque. Also, it is completely inappropriate for an article on Scottish English. It's about Scots.

Tempted to remove it forthwith, but will wait for a bit of a discussion.

Jun 20th 2006

The table illustrates that the vowels system of Scottish English originates in Scots thus illustrating the resulting compromises and lexical transfers some of which are often mistaken for mergers (see Cot-Caught merger). Of course all that is technical and opaque. Perhaps the table could be better explained, although Background seems to to that. Perhaps that is passing on too much knowledge for Wikipedia and the article should be dummed down? 84.135.247.81 09:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is problematic to suggest that Gaelic was spoken up until recently in Dumfries and Galloway as Gaelic has been out of use in this area of Scotland for a much longer period than more northern regions of the country. I believe this should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.133.45 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is stretching it a bit to describe the 18th century as recently. Have changed it to "relatively recently". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You should just put the date in, afterall 1100 can be relatively recently. Realtive to what? Gazh (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumfries and Galloway is just given as one example here. There's no implication that the date that Gaelic ceased to spoken in this one area is the cut-off point in the usage or otherwise of a velarized l, i.e. that if an area lost Gaelic later than this date it will feature a velarized l and if an area lost Gaelic earlier than this date it will feature a velarized l.

If there is demonstrably such a cut-off date/period, I don't know what it is so can't, myself, state it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntax section?

This doesn' seem too much like syntax to me. My hair needs washed could be, but some of the others, especially She's a bonnie lass seem to be a matter of diction. Also, I would like to meet this bonnie lass... :). Notthe9 18:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Items 1 & 2 and (perhaps item 3) surely don't belong in the Syntax sub-section.

1. She's a bonnie lass. for "She's a pretty girl."
2. A dinna ken for "I don't know"
3. D'you ken Ken kens Ken? for "Do you know Ken knows Ken?"

I'll move them when I have a moment to find their proper place, or perhaps someone else will help? Obiskobilob 12:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They're more examples of Scots than of Scottish English, so they'd be better removed altogether. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Legal Scots

I'm afraid I removed Sheriff-substitute as a peculiarly Scottish term, because it no longer exists, and never designated an acting Sheriff in any case (that would be a temporary Sheriff until recently, and a part-time Sheriff now). Sheriffs-substitute were the professional full-time judges who sat locally to hear cases, while the titular Sheriff would be an Edinburgh advocate who would hear appeals from his Sheriff-substitute. When reformed in the 1970's, Sheriffs-substitute became simply Sheriffs, and the appeal function went to the new Sheriff-Principal for each new Sheriffdom. I don't see that historically there was anything peculiarly Scottish about it: it merely designated the person who sat as substitute for the Sheriff.

There's a ton of legal stuff which could be added, but surely it's just examples of a technical vocabulary, in the same way that English and French both have technical legal vocabularies? Killiedaft 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Vowel Length Rule

The diphthong /ai/ and it's short variant are usually lumped together with the rest of the vowels when talking of the SVLR, meaning that the long version should be found before syllable margins, voiced fricatives, or /r/. I beg to disagree with respect to the latter. 'fire', 'hire' and 'tyre' are short, and are actually usually triphthongs, with an additional schwa. 'hire' and 'higher' are distinct, with 'higher' having the long diphthong.

Awan Bile Yerheid

Is the diphthong actually long or does it only occur in what are descibed as long environments? Agreed in 'fire', 'hire' and 'tyre' /ai/ before /ər/ but wouldn't 'high' + 'er' give /hai/ + /ər/ as well or /hai:/ + /ər/?

No doubt there will be people who differentiate though.

Any references for descriptions of this?

Byltheid

Lots of accents of English can distinguish hire and higher, if people want to do so enough. Usually they don't. This is NOT part of Scottish English. From the point of view of the SVLR hire and higher are homophonous, and please, unless you can provide a proper reference to the contrary, don't add this to the Phonology section.

Doric

Surely there should be a link to, and probably, for that matter, some mention of Doric[8] in this page. -- Anon user

There are a couple of links to Scots and you'll find a link to Doric from there. I don't think that there's a particular need for a Doric link directly from this article, although I wouldn't remove one if it already existed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since this article states "Here Lowland Scots is excluded and only what is known as Scottish Standard English considered" and Doric is a dialect of Scots a link to Doric would be more appropriate in the article Scots language where it is in fact mentioned.

cliver Lounie

Syntax / Vocabulary

With the exception of "bonnie lass" & "hair needs washed", all of the examples in the section on Syntax are standard colloquial British English. It mentions the lack of should / ought without mentioning what replaces it, ie "will". How about a list of other vocabulary differences such as juice/pop, stay/live?

/* Regional accents */

I removed the section about regional accents because it wasn't worthy of wiki. It was just a confused mixture of local accent and features from local Scots dialects etc. Which are covered better elsewhere and were already liked to in the existing page.

"Dinna ye ken? for Don't you know."

Other than Scotty in Star Trek, I don't know anybody that says "dinna", most would use "dinnae".

a) That shows your lack of experience of Scots accents around Scotland. Plenty folk would never use anything but "dinna", myself included.

b) The line as quoted is bad Scots grammar anyway. It should be "Dae ye nae ken" not "Dinnae ye ken". -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

All the na in dinna is, is the traditional way of writing the Scots negative particle. Its pronounciation varies from dialect to dialect.

Needs washed

The "needs washed" phenomenon is a standard example in US introductory linguistics textbooks of regional syntactic differences within that country, although I don't recall where it occurs. — Pekinensis 17:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Since so much of North America was settled by speakers of Scots or of Scottish English that doesn't surprise me. Many North Americans also pronounce "solder" as "sodder" which is the Scots (but not the Scottish English) pronunciation of the word. There is undoubtedly a lot of Scottish influence on the way many North Americans speak English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Inaccurate map

This discussion has been moved to [9]

Aye (meaning yes)

This was deleted. I strongly feel as a user of Scottish English that this belongs here; 'aye' meaning always is certainly Scots, but I think my example meets all the criteria for inclusion, as well as undoubtedly being the commonest example used where I live (Leith). Thoughts? Guinnog 19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ken", "canna" and "dinna" are Scots rather than Scottish English but I must admit that "aye" probably straddles the divide (just as "wee" does). "Aye" meaning "yes" is used by some non-Scots in phrases like "Aye aye, captain". -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Aye" and "nay" are used in American English, but only in the context of parliamentary votes - parliamentary in the sense of committees and social organizations as well as lawmaking institutions (Congress and state legislatures). Cbdorsett 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the section Lexis add a para. ... some Scots elements which are commonly used in Scottish English are ...

Aye is also used throughout Northern England, and 'Cannet' (for can't/cannot) 'Dinnit/Divint' (for don't/do not) are used in the NE of England, would appear to be a variation of Canna and Dinna, and i think it would be ludacrous to suggest the NE speaks a type of Scots. These word must be Scottish-English. Gazh 12:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is ludicrous. After all, both French and Spanish use the word "Si", meaning "yes". That doesn't mean that that we should call the word "Si", "French-Spanish" or claim that the Spanish speak a type of French. So why on Earth would anyone want to do the equivalent for the word "aye", meaning "yes", just because it exists in both Scots and in English ? The word is Scots, Scottish English, Northern English, and even (archaic) Southern English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your point, I'd like to correct you in that the French and Spanish word si means "if." For "yes", the Spanish word is sí and the French word is oui. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was taught that the word "si" has the meaning "yes" in French as well as the meaning "if" (and a few others see Si). It is used to mean "yes", in contexts where the questioner expected a "non" answer. Otherwise "oui" is used. For example "Les ours n'aiment pas le miel, n'est-ce pas ?". "Si, ils l'aiment beaucoup!" and "Les ours aiment le miel, n'est-ce pas ?". "Oui, ils l'aiment beaucoup!". -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sure if you want to talk about real French and not my crappy don't-look-at-the-second-entry-in-my-dictionary French then yeah that would be a correct description. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Here are some references for the discussion to add to Wells (1982). I'll try to select some good ones for the article - if "goodness" includes ease of accessibility.

Abercrombie, D. (1979). The accents of Standard English in Scotland. In Languages of Scotland, eds. Aitken A. J. & McArthur, T., pp. 65-84. Chambers, Edinburgh.

Foulkes, P. & Docherty, G. J. (Eds.) (1999) Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. Arnold, London.

Hewlett, N., Matthews, B. M., & Scobbie, J. M. (1999). Vowel Duration in Scottish English Speaking Children. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 2157-2160. San Francisco.

Hughes, A., Trudgill, P. & Watt, D. (2005) English Accents and Dialects (4th Ed.) Arnold, London.

Johnston, P. (1997) Regional Variation. In The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language ed. C. Jones. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Jones, C. (1997) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Lawson, E. & Stuart-Smith, J. (1999). A sociophonetic investigation of the “Scottish” consonants (/x/ and /hw/), in the speech of Glaswegian children. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 2541-2544. San Francisco.

Macafee,C. (1983). Varieties of English around the world: Glasgow. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

Macafee, C. (1994) Traditional dialect in the modern world: a Glasgow case study. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.

Marshall, J. (2004). Language change and sociolinguistics: Rethinking social networks. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Robinson, C. & Crawford, C. A. (2001). Scotspeak: a guide to the pronunciation of modern urban Scots. Scots Language Resource Centre, Perth.

Scobbie, J. M., Hewlett, N., & Turk, A. (1999a). Standard English in Edinburgh and Glasgow: the Scottish Vowel Length Rule revealed. In Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles, eds. P.Foulkes & G.Docherty, pp. 230-245. Arnold, London.

Stuart-Smith, J. (1999). Glasgow: accent and voice quality. In Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles, eds. P.Foulkes & G.Docherty, pp. 203-222. Arnold, London.

Stuart-Smith, J. (2003) The phonology of modern urban Scots. In eds. Corbett, J., McClure, J. D., & Stuart-Smith. pp. 110-137. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Wiki Scot 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sound Files

What format is that soundfile? My computer can't do anything with it. I bet I'm not alone. Seems to have been a bit of a pointless excercise.

Technotwat

Hi Technotwat, the file is in .ogg format which is the only permitted sound format on wikipedia. Believe me, I'd rather use MP3 but it's not allowed. There's a page here: Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg) which should help you play them. By the way, I won't take it personally if someone can find a better representative accent than mine, but I do think there should be one! Thparkth 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cot-Caught merger

"Essentially the Scots vowel system [10] has been applied to English lexical incidence (Macafee 2002). [...] The case of LOT and THOUGHT is complicated, in that Scots speakers did not have to split one phoneme into two similar ones, but had to transfer part of the inventory to a completely different sound not corresponding to anything existing in the Scots system. Vowel 5+18 had to be split between /o/ and RP LOT /ɑ/, to which the nearest sound was Vowel 12 /ɔ/, and LOT words accordingly went to /ɔ/ together with THOUGHT words. The resulting impression of a merger is illusory. (The FOOT/GOOSE case is exactly the same.)" (Macafee 2004: 74)

Scottish vowel system

I'm not a dab hand with Wells' lexical sets. The table may need correcting/adjusting or adding to. Nogger 19:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't make any sense out of it and I'm usually pretty good with phonology stuff. I'm tempted to take it out. What is it supposed to illustrate? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an answer to that above. 84.135.216.17 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for directing me to that. I stand by my deletion, but if someone cares to restore it please also make it less confusing. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction paragraph to this article:

Scottish English is taken by some to include Scots and by others to exclude it. In this article, however, Scots is excluded and only what is known as Scottish Standard English (SSE) is considered. There is a separate article on Scottish Highland English.

Is very confusing and doesn't actually state simply what Scottish English is as it should do. Canderra 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then enlighten us and rewrite it so that we are all is a position to know what Scottish English is.

84.135.213.97 12:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have re-phrased the introduction to place the definition of Scottish English in the first sentance where it belongs, and to make it generally clearer to the casual reader. The only sentance I removed was the short one which reads: "Phonetics are in IPA.", which I placed in the Phonology section.

I do not know much about Scottish English (and more specifically, about it's relationship with Scottish Gaelic language and Scots), so please change it if I have made any mistakes or if you feel you can make it better in any way. Canderra 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when has Scottish English had an official form?

84.135.213.97 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The original paragraph reads: "It is the language normally used in formal, non-fictional written texts in Scotland.". I think this and the fact it is what is predominantly taught in schools, qualifies it's "official" status. Maybe it's not the best word to use though. Can you think of anything better? Canderra 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Other forms of the English language in Scotland are Scottish Gaelic language and Scots. Some people consider Scottish English to include Scots language."

Since when has Scottish Gaelic been a form o English?

84.135.216.23 08:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Scottish colloquial terms

At this AFD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish colloquial terms - it has been proposed that the Scottish colloquial terms article be merged into this one (after cleanup). What do other Users think? --Mais oui! 05:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Scottish colloquial terms article is a mixture of Scots, Glaswegian slang, and phonetically spelled English. It's frankly off-topic for this article besides being a list of dicdefs more suited to wiktionary. . -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Why spoil a good article by adding a load of confused crap?

172.189.39.27 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Peeve meaning alcoholic drink

I've never heard of this in any part of Scotland. The Urban Dictionary suggests it might be Cumbrian. Devilgate 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

never heard it either 81.129.169.166 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, but it does resemble Russian, as in Ya hachu piva. "I want beer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.173.228 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE...IN CAITHNESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.193.33 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Intrusive R

Is the intrusive R commonly used in Scotland? --The Lazar 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Scottish accents are all rhotic -- although a few use back-R instead of front-R -- which means that our pronunciation differentiates between long vowels and vowels followed by R. Hence we never add non-existent "R"s to long vowels as speakers with non-rhotic accents (like RP) often do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's called hypercorrection, I think. Cbdorsett 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear?

It would be nice if the "Syntax" section were elaborated on, since the given examples are not actually explained (like hair needs washed) from a grammatical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.131.152 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 November 2006

Or, oar and awe

I was once told that most Scottish accents differentiated from English accents by having distinct pronunciations for or, oar and awe. If this is true, it would be a good example to list in this article. --ML5 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They do have different pronunciations. That's why they have different spellings. In fact from the Scottish point of view, there is a fourth member of the group, 'owe', which is 'oar' without the 'r', just as 'awe' is 'or' without the 'r'. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

yup standard english pronounces -aw- as -or- the dafties 81.129.169.166 10:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How come

in the article we are told "How?" is used to replace "Why?" surely it would be "how come?" Davidb90 10:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Typical usage might be "How are you not coming to the party tonight?" or "How does he get an ice-cream but I don't?". In both of these the questioner wants to know the reason, not the method. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've heard this usage of "how" in American English as well; it gives the utterance a bit of a poetic quality. "How come" is of course more common, and often used by children. I would note that in the right context, "how" is understood to mean "why", but it is not 100% fully interchangeable. I think it may have to do with whether or not the usual "how" meaning makes any sense in the sentence. Consider the two examples given by Derek Ross. The word could not possibly mean "how" in that context, so we understand it to mean "why". Cbdorsett 05:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

American English has quite a lot of Scottish influence. I didn't know about the "How" one but another one that I was aware of was the American use of the Scots pronunciation of "solder" (to rhyme with "fodder") in place of the English pronunciation (to rhyme with "boulder"). -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, plenty of Scottish influence. Someone once called me on using the word "stymie" - I thought it was perfectly acceptable American English, and this other person thought it was obscure slang. Go figure. Cbdorsett 06:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

from personal experience people also say 'how come you're not coming to the party?' and 'how come he got an ice cream?', i would never say 'how no' but i frequently use 'how come', 'how no' is what a ned would say not a scottish person 86.146.54.184 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How not?:}82.41.4.66 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how does 86.146.54.184 not think that neds can be Scottish persons ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The unstoppable desire of the Scots to become English results in the avoidanace of Scotticisms and the adoption of the much more civilised English practices. It is no wonder that many people rarely experience such Scotticisms they are dying out. As 86.146.54.184 points out, only neds are too stupid to be able to ape their English betters.

84.135.206.220 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for venting here and not on the main article page. Sounds a bit POV, eh? Cbdorsett 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when has well researched anthropology been POV?

84.135.206.220 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tight" long 'i' sound, and short 'i' becomes short 'e'

I was wondering if someone skilled with phonetics could add to the page an explanation of how long 'i' in Scottish English is a mix of long 'i' plus a bit of a long 'e' at the end (e.g. in the words fight, light, right). Just a suggestion, unless it's already there and I somehow missed it. Also, in many cases, short 'i' becomes short 'e'. "Fifty" is pronounced close to "fefty," for example.

Depends upon the part of the country that the speaker's from. In the North-east, we'd say techt, fecht, recht and fefty. without even thinking about it but in other parts of the country that might not be so true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple a Questions

I'm from Sunderland in the NE of England, and while on holiday last summer i shouted to a mate (while he downed a pint) "Dee it for England son!" (do it for england son). We were then approached by a few Scots lads who asked us where we were from, we had a bit craic and they were generally top blokes - they called us 'Southern Jocks' in a jokingly positive manner, i never asked outright, but do the Scots also use 'dee' ?

Also, I recently said the word 'Heed' on the internet and was once again called a 'Southern Jock' albeit this time in a negative manner, so Scots use 'Heed' anarl then? Gazh 10:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Yes", to both questions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "Whey/Why" instead of "Well".

Used in a sentance like; "Whey i wadn't dee that like" (well, i would not do that like). 194.193.170.84 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they pronounce it more like "day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.69.150 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scots speakers (as opposed to Scottish English speakers) are unlikely to use "why" in that manner. They're more likely to use "Weel", or "Ach". And as for the pronunciation of "dee", that's oversimplifying. Some Scots dialects pronounce it "dee", others pronounce it "day", it depends which part of the country you are in. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. There seems to be lots of similarities between NE English and the Scottish dialects.

I have another, do yous tend to substitute a 't' for an 'r' in some cases, example; "Shurrup" for "Shut up"? Gazh 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Scotland, I can say that most younger Scots avoid the letter T when they can. "See ya la'er pal". Certain dialects of English miss the T in other places such as the word little which looses it's Ts and gains a W on the end. Also, the word Tae instead of To and other substitutions of AE for OO and other sounds is more common the closer you get to Glasgow. I have often heard the word Gae for Get for example. You will also find that the word house is pronounced almost English like in Edinburgh but is pronounced literally as hoose in some other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.173.228 (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The similarities shouldnt really be surprising given that both Northern English and Scottish English/Scots have a common ancestry. 132.185.240.124 14:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a W, it's a dark (or velarised) L - very typical of Scots, and some English accents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.244 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes for speakers of Scottish English

A while back I created a set of Userboxes for speakers of Scottish English:

{{Language table|en-sc}}

Another user then created a duplicate set of boxes and their associated cats, the only difference being that they renamed them from "en-sc" to "en-gb-sct". Which do you prefer? Please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Scottish_English

-Mais oui! 07:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Scottish English categories, we now use the following userboxes.

{{Language table|en-sco}}

Cheers! Taric25 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean Connery

I can't find anything about his accent anywhere online. I can't find anything about how he changes his "s" sounds to "sh" sounds. Maybe that's unique to him. 208.104.45.20 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess he has some sort of speech impediment. Digsdirt (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh alright. I thought it was a Scottish dialect feature. Thegryseone (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's his wallies (false teeth) they don't seem to fit him properly...77.99.98.37 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ken" and Scandinavian Connection

My friend uses "ken" the way standard English speakers use "ya know;" that is, as a kind of attention and agreement confirming mechanism. She also uses it in place of the present tense of the verb "to know." This makes sense to me, as I speak Norwegian and the verb "kjenne" means to know in the sense of being familiar with something or someone. It is one of many, many examples I can think of where Scottish English shows its strong Scandinavian connection. Other examples include "kirk" for church and "flittin" (not sure if it's spelled that way or "flyttin") for moving house. The use of the negative participle is also completely consistent with the way things are done in Scandinavian languages. --Ejwagneresq (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The verb kennen in German means to know about or to be familiar with. I believe that there is definitely a link or at least influece between Germanic language and Scottish. Currently, students are taught not to use the term ken which is quite sad.

Ken is northern English also.--Him and a dog 12:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All these languages are Germanic so it's not too surprising that they share some basic vocabulary. But Scots almost certainly inherited the use of "ken" from its Northumbrian roots. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And no doubt Germany got it from Northumbria too...get a grip----Stephencdickson (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Northern English and Scottish dialect verb 'to ken' and the standard verb 'to know' both have the same ancestor - the Old English verb 'cnawan' (spellings vary). Both dialect and standard versions are thus different shortened forms of the earlier form. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.108.45 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, ken is from Old English cennan not cnāwan. See Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bit and Rid

Why is it that words like "bit" and "rid" come to sound like "bet" and "red" respectively, in (at least some) dialects of Scottish English? Why isn't that in this article? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In my accent, red sounds more like "rid", so...77.99.98.37 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a north-east Scottish thing, isn't it? It's still relevant, though, so I guess it could be added somewhere. Nowtynowt (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Scots in England

I have never heard the term Scottish English used for Scots living in England! Isn't the term used Anglo-Scots?--Jack forbes (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lexis

This was Included:

In some areas there is a substantial non-standard lexis (shared with Scots) apparently acquired from the Romany language and from Eastern European languages

Then the following was added months later:

examples include shan (harsh, unfair), gadge (lad, chap) and peeve (alcoholic drink), hoose (house, legal home), oxters (armpits)

Non-standard vocab. would normally be attributed to Scots. The above reference to Romany language and from Eastern European languages:

shan very likely from Gaelic sean

gadge from gadgie from Romany

peeve likely Romany

hoose from Anglo-Saxon

Oxters from Anglo-Saxon

We'll have to do better than that to make claims of substantial non-standard lexis apparently acquired from the Romany language and from Eastern European languages. 84.134.248.194 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt...

Since when is "I doubt something" a primarily Scottish construction? I live in Cambridge and use and hear "doubt" used as a verb all the time. I didn't even have a clue that it was linked to Scotland in any way. Hpesoj00 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! The construction I doubt it will rain meaning "I think it's unlikely it will rain" is commonly used wherever English is spoken *except* in parts of Scotland, where the meaning may be quite different: "I fear that it will rain." That's exactly what the article used to say, before an anon screwed it up--again, thank you. (And I apologize for editing the article without checking the history first.) Jack^(Lumber) 13:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this limited to a specific area of Scotland? I've lived pretty much my whole life in and around Glasgow and have never heard "doubt" used except in the sense of "unlikely". I note this particular line has a "citation needed" on it, so I would presume that somebody else had the same doubts about this being true. Reveilled (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the culprit here: it was deleted here without explanation, so I returned it, adding the {cn} because I've only encountered this use in old texts - but then, I don't live in Scotland, so for all I know it may be an archaism or it may be absolutely common. --Thrissel (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The point

I must ask- what is the point in this article?

Scottish standard English as taught in schools...Isn't that just standard English? Its the same English all across the country. In the Republic of Ireland too. Its only the common dialects that are not taught that have the local varieties and this is covered in Scots..--Him and a dog 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget about the "taught in schools" part--that doesn't mean a thing. (And Scots is not a dialect of English.) Yes, English as taught in schools is mostly the same in England as in Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa, with minor differences. But that's not the point. Dialects of English (or any language, for that matter) are distinguished by 1) pronunciation 2) grammar 3) vocabulary. The grammar of standard English is largely the same throughout the English-speaking world (including North America, of course); nevertheless, some differences exist--between the U.S. and England, or the U.S. and Canada, or Scotland and England, or North America and Britain, or North America and England, etc. In Scotland, people might say the car needs washed; this would be considered ungrammatical in England. And a Scot is much more likely than a Londoner to use constructions like He'll not come, or Had you a good time?. As for vocabulary, Scottish English is not Scots, but "the differences [between Scottish English and other varieties] are numerous enough" (Peter Trudgill, International English, p. 96). But the most distinctive aspect is, undoubtedly, pronunciation, i.e. the "accent." Phonology-wise, Scottish English is quite different from most other dialects of English.

Apparently, you are questioning the legitimacy of this article--and you even tried to put it up for deletion!--without even reading it in the first place. How about the other dialects, then? Should we just scrap them all because standard English is the same English all across the United Kingdom anyway? Jack^(Lumber) 13:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation please!

"In colloquial speech shall and ought are wanting, must is marginal for obligation and may is rare."

What does this mean? Does it mean that "shall" and "ought" are missing? or that "shall" and "ought" mean "wanting"? Or is it some technical linguistic term that I'm just ignorant of? What is "marginal for obligation"?

Is this sentence an example of Scottish English or just linguistic jargon? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's not the clearest sentence. Simply put, in common speech shall and ought are used by few; respectively, will and should are used in their place by most. Must and may are generally not used, though most people might occasionally use them, generally using need to and might, respectively, in their place..Mnealon (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no noticeable lack of these words in Scotland more than any other part of the country... I think this is a class difference not a locational difference----Stephencdickson (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Wells have cloth ears?

Thanks for the citations for "Cot and caught are not differentiated in most Central Scottish dialects" and "cat and cart are distinguished only by means of the r; and marry rhymes with starry". I don't have the text of the citation so don't know exactly what is said therein, but if that's what Wells says, I can't dispute its inclusion. That said, as a native speaker, there are subtle but clear distinctions in both cases. Caught is slightly longer and more dipthongised (if that's a word(?)) compared to cot. Cat and marry are short compared to cart and starry. In each of these cases the distinction may be less marked than in other forms of English but it is still present nonetheless. Not sure how to proceed though as it would be difficult to cite that these words are in fact differentiated... Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification re the citation and the removal Jack. Does Wells claim there is no differentiation between "cot and caught" though? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

He says that some speakers do make a distinction, but it's apparently a difference in quality rather than in length (pp. 402-403). I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

100% Rhotic?

Are all dialects and accents in Scotland rhotic? Gazh (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes really. The only exceptions would be nobility and the upper classes who tend to speak with a Received Pronunciation accent, or people with family connections or who have lived in non rhotic-accented countries or areas, largely in England in Scotland's case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Scots do not drop their H's or their R's. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Gordon Ramsay and this guy? Thegryseone (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Gordon Ramsay speak Scottish English ? I think not. He may well be as Scottish as Haggis but long years of living in southern England have changed his accent completely. As for Random-Guy-On-YouTube, you should listen to how he speaks, not what he says. It's pretty clear that he's talking about Scots, not Scottish English when he mentions "hings", "wullnae", dropping all the consonants and so on. However he doesn't drop any H's nor R's when he's demonstrating the two Scots accents in his repertoire, just T's, TH's and NG's. Thus demonstrating that the two Scots accents he uses (out of the many which exist) are Rhotic through and through. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Glasweigon? I'm quite sure i've heard some Glasweigons miss the 'R' in some words such as 'Heart' or 'Start'? 81.97.8.242 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when they're appearing as Bert, the lovable Cockney jack-of-all trades, in stage productions of Mary Poppins, or poking fun at the way the upper-class speak, otherwise no. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Derek, you should listen to the "Random-Guy-On-YouTube". You need to watch more of his videos in their entirety. I'm actually a big fan of his, and if you would actually take the time to watch more of his videos in their entirety, you would find that his natural accent is one that sounds like a southeastern English one despite the fact that he is Scottish. As for Gordon Ramsey, I've never heard of someone's accent "changing" mysteriously when they turn 10 (he was ten years old when he moved to southern England). You really need to stop being so patronizing, Derek. Thegryseone (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Random-Guy-On-You-Tube is pretty good. I enjoyed listening to him in his entirety. And people's accents often change, no matter what their age. It's not just our Gordon (who probably changed his accent to fit in with his schoolmates -- peer pressure is a very strong force in the teenage years); Sheena Easton's accent changed amazingly too and she didn't move to the US until she was over 20. Most Scots do it so that non-Scots find it easier to understand us (or so that we fit in better). But just because we are good at faking non-Scottish accents doesn't prove anything about the rhoticity of Scottish accents. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually linguists have discovered that people's accents tend not to change. This has been proven through research. Adopting a few new words into one's lexicon is one thing, but completely changing one's accent is quite a different thing altogether. Linguists have shown that people tend to pick up new words when moving to a different dialect region, rather than changing their accent (a difficult feat, as you can imagine). Remember, original research doesn't work on Wikipedia. Thegryseone (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Accents can change, I have quite a few relatives born and raised in Glasgow who emigrated as adults to the US in the 60's and 70's. I wouldn't say they now sounded completely American but certainly their accents are now only very subtly Scottish. I have a fairly soft Glaswegian accent and lived in Aberdeen for three years while attending university, now over a decade later I am still asked occasionally if I'm Aberdonian by fellow Scots as they can occasionally hear elements of Aberdonian in my accent, I should clarify that I do not use Doric / Aberdonian words so that would not be an influencing factor. (92.41.221.202 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)).

My wife was brought up in Canada but moved to Scotland in 1970 as a young adult. By 1985 only traces of her Canadian accent were left and by 2000, nothing. She moved back to Canada with me in 2003 but her adult Scottish accent shows no sign of reverting to her childhood Canadian accent. Her slightly older sister who moved to Scotland at the same time and stayed there, still has a blended Canadian/Scottish accent. It seems that the factors motivating accent change are pretty complex. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research ? Well luckily there's no need to take my word for it. Here's what Anthea Fraser Gupta of the School of English at Leeds University has to say about it. Her sections on rhoticity and on changing ones accent are particularly relevant to the discussion so far and represent a pretty mainstream view. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bert? Derek why the sarcasm, this is a dead honest serious question, i am a fan of British Hip-Hop, especially certain regional varieties which include my own region and Scottish Hip-Hop among some others, with Scottish stuff - epsecially the dominant Glasgow scene in which the most solid material comes from;

If you're interested: http://www.myspace.com/djinntruf

This is the myspace of Borders born rapper (atleast i think he's borders judging by the accent) Respec' BA who is, like most Scottish rappers, based in Glasgow.

The track "Glasgow Is Dead" (track number 6 on the little box on the right) at the point 1:10 the featuring rapper The Being uses the line A hole in the heart.., the reason i noticed this is because it sounds particularly north-east England in accent, he clearly uses both rhotic and non-rhotic R's throughout his verse, for example he rolls the R in Everglades just a few seconds before.

Now before someone trys to say this is orginal research or some crap, i am not saying this should be in the article, but i would - in my limited experience - suggest that Scottish accents are not all 100% rhotic, so i would contest that for one, finding a source would be a big challenge, but i'd atleast like everyone to explore that not every Scottish accent is not 100% rhotic. Gazh (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'm coming across as sarcastic. That's not what I was aiming for. I was just trying to be humorous -- and failing miserably it seems. So I'll forget the humour and just answer your question as best I can.

I recognise that you've brought up an example that needs explaining but I think that it's pretty straightforward to explain. This guy wants to sound like a rapper, not like a folkie or a rocker. As a result he pronounces certain words in a "rap/HipHop" fashion. For words like November, truth, hardcore, morning, or heart that means pronouncing them as Noavembuh, twoof, hardcoah, moanin, or haat. I note that he also says "dat" for "that" whereas Glaswegians normally say "at". Basically he's mixing his normal rhotic accent with the non-rhotic HipHop accent. It reminds me of those rockers who sound American when they're singing and English when they aren't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but i'd be suprised - during the 80's there was a tendancy in British Hip-Hop to use an American accent, an act which is thoroughly not accepted today, if anything theres a tendancy to ham-up regional accents or conform to a London sound (though this only seems to happen south of the Tees and east of the Welsh border), so im not sure if you're right or not, but i think it might be worth exploring beyond just a few scenesters. Gazh (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Corrine McCarthy, PhD in Linguistics from McGill University, has to say about it. Thegryseone (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're disputing Thegryseone, i'm quite sure Gordon Ramsey does not speak Scottish English in any form - despite being born there, i do believe however that their is a trend in the younger generations (30 and under) of urban Glasgow to use a non-rhotic R in some instances, i also believe that Glasgow English has more and more incommon with some Northern varieties of English English all the time, more-so than Edinburgh for example. Gazh (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, maybe some of the Glasweigons can confirm, i'm sure i've heard Rangers being pronounced as Rain-jus or Rain-jas. Gazh (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the last syllable is prounounced more quickly than the first? I see where you're coming from with this one, but I'm tempted to lean towards there being an audible 'R' at the end of Rangers chants. I'll listen out for it next time I hear some fans. 80.189.126.211 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Film, Worm, Etc

I don't really know that much about the linguistics side of this, but I've always noticed that Scots pronounce words that end in a consonant and then an "m" with an additional syllable. While I, in California, would say "worm" or "film," Scots would say "wor-m" or "fil-m." Should this included in this article, and how would it fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digsdirt (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. We do. Not just "m" words either. "Wor-ld" and "Wor-n" spring to mind. It carries over from Scots and Gaelic, both of which have that same feature. Probably should be in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Its known as Epenthesis. 84.134.210.207 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all of us do. Some of us just go slowly mental listening to people say fillum and wurrum.

Nuttyskin (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How No

""Why not?" is often rendered as "How not?"." Or more likely "How no?"77.99.98.37 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Herd-bird-curd distinction

I noticed the article said that the vowels in "herd", "bird" (or rather "third", because "bird" is often pronounced "burd", as I'm sure a lot of you will be aware) and "curd" were always distinguished in Scottish English, but I don't (not now; I used to, I'm sure, but don't seem to distinguish them now). I also know a fair few speakers here in Aberdeen who are much the same, but are definitely Scottish and speak with an otherwise normal Scottish accent. Could this be noted, or is a reliable academic source required? Even better, has anyone else noticed this? 92.27.214.225 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More details needed for the McClure (1994) reference

The surname and year wasn't enough for me to find it. Meanwhile, I'm removing a sentence from the history section: "the mother tongues of Scottish people remained overwhelmingly Gaelic and Scots". This could use a time-period - for how long did they remain so? Also, the fuzzy distinction between Scots and Scottish English makes this claim problematic, so more details would help. --winterstein (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Caledonian English cf. Scottish English

Has any consideration been given to using the label "Caledonian English" instead of "Scottish English". The latter presents a problem in being descriptive of all sorts of national traditions, not just language; thus, "Scottish English" is or can be very confusing (among other things, it could refer to some thing or trend that is simultaneous Scottish and English). Conversely, the label "Caledonian English" is much clearer - like saying Canadian English, American English, Hiberno-English (or Hibernian English), etc.

A thought for Scottish and English linguists to contemplate, eh? 71.198.146.98 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Where would I, born and bred in Lothian, fit into this new Caledonian vision, I wonder? Kim Traynor (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Aye, right!

Does "Aye, right!" really mean "Definitely not"? It looks like it means its exact opposite. Is this simply a case of sarcasm or something? JIP | Talk 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I can see where the "Definitely not" comes from but to be more precise, it generally means "I don't believe you/it" or "Pull the other one, it's got bells on". So yes, I suppose that it is sarcasm. I might well say "aye, right" with a different intonation to mean "yes, I completely agree". -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone once wrote that sarcasm is the basis of all Scottish humour, and there's an old joke that Scots is the only language where two positives make up a negative. I posted this phrase (since removed) in the (perhaps mistaken) belief that one would hear it from the mouth of a Scottish English speaker but not from the mouth of an English speaker south of the border. It therefore seemed to me to be a Scotticism, regardless of whether sarcasm is involved. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This certainly seems a case of confusing sarcasm (which is evident in any part of English or Scots) with linguistics.... and points to some of the issues with the article as a whole....it confuses issues peculiar to Scotland with issues common to the whole use of the language----Stephencdickson (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We're all Anglish

It seems to me that the Scots nationalists have got hold of this topic and distorted history, as they so often do. Variants of what I call 'Anglish' were spoken throughout the whole of Britain from the Dark Ages onwards. And different 'Anglish' kingdoms existed throughout the length of Britain. One such kingdom Northumbria stretched from Edinburgh to Hull. 'Scotland' the kingdom of the Scots tribe was then just one small kingdom in the west of today's Scotland. The many kingdoms in Britain then began a series of mergers. In what is now England the Kingdom of Wessex gained the ascendancy. Somewhat later, in what is now Scotland, the kingdom of the Scots took over the other northern kingdoms. But here's the rub: the most impportant and most populous of those northern, henceforth 'Scottish', kingdoms was the upper half of Northumbria - an Anglish kingdom, inhabited by Anglish speakers. The idea that Scottishness is somehow totally distinct from Englishness is more about political nationalism than any real cultural differences (All that Disneyfied kilt and bagpipes imagery was never mainstream Scottishness, but rather a minority Highland culture exploited for nationalistic purposes) . Most Scots are and were really just as 'English' as most Englishmen - not least as English as the English who live in Nothumberland, Durham and Yorkshire. So called Scots English is and was simply another Anglish dialect, spoken by Anglish people just like Yorkshire dialect , or Wessex dialect - and indeed, just like all of them, it has been superceeded by standard English. Politicians, and warriors like King Robert the Bruce (himself Norman French), have always tried to emphasise differences in order to establish their own self-centred conception of 'Freedom!' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.26 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong article. This is the Scottish English article. Your comments would be more appropriate for the Scots Language article since you appear to be talking about the descendant of Northumbrian English rather than the descendant of Wessex English which this article covers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Normans and their linguistic imperialism imposed on the men of Wessex. Isn't that one of the main reasons for the divergence, historically speaking, of English south and north of the Humber? Kim Traynor (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No Scots Bible? Not so.

This article states there was no Scots Bible. Not so.

In the 1520s, a century before the King James Bible helped standardise spelling across Britain part of a 'Scots language' bible was published in Scotland by Nisbet. The English translation (from Latin and Greek) of the Bible was published in England by Purvey.

Ignore the unfamiliar spelling, and what is blindingly obvious is that they are both written in exactly the same language. There seems to have been no truly distinct 'Scots English'.

(Purvey - English) And he gaderide to gidre alle the prynces of prestis, and scribis of the puple, and enqueride of hem, where Crist shulde be borun. And thei seiden to hym, In Bethleem of Juda…Thanne Eroude clepide pryueli the astromyens, and lernyde bisili of hem the tyme of the sterre that apperide to hem. And he sente hem in to Bethleem, and seide, Go ye, and axe ye bisili of the child, and whanne yee han foundun, teel ye it to me, that Y also come, and worschipe hym.

(Nisbet -Scots) And he gaderit togiddir al the princes of prestis and scribis of the pepile, and inquirit of thame quhar Crist suld be born. And thai said to him, In Bethlem of Juda…Than Erode callit priuelie the astronomyers, and leirit besilie of thame the tyme of the stern that apperit to thame. And he send thame into Bethelem, and said, Ga ye and ask ye besilie of the child: and quhen ye haue fundin, tel ye to me, that alsa I cum and wirschip him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.78 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Nisbet was translating not from the original Greek or Latin but from an English version originally made by John Wycliff in the 14th century and revised by Purvey in the 1520’s." [11] I doubt he would "translate to the same language" just for the sake of an unfamiliar spelling. --Thrissel (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nisbet's "Bible" is just the New Testament anyway. It's not a complete translation of the Bible and it may have existed as a manuscript but it certainly wasn't published in the sense of being printed and distributed, so the article is correct. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not totally true,,,http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/virtualexhibitions/divinewritethekingjamesbibleandscotland/thebibleingaelicandscots/ ,,,,plus some late 20th century translations ----Stephencdickson (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why Not English-English? Or British-English.

If there can be a Wiki page Scottish-English then why no page on English-English, or even British-English? Discussion would be so much easier if the English language had been called 'British' rather than 'English', which misleadingly frequently conflates it solely with England and the people of England. The 'British language' is however the historical name given to Welsh, so it can't be used - otherwise we would be able to happliy talk about the various dialects of British spoken in Great Britain without having to sort of pretend there is a special Scots version of English, but not any equally distinct English varieties in England (or in Wales for that matter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.141 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you are: English language in England, British English. And for good measure: Welsh English. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish English is just one of a large number of similar articles. For a list see List of dialects of the English language. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

'sudden and total eclipse of Scots... '

The idea of a sudden and total eclipse of Scots is highly misleading. As is the idea that printing or the King James Bible created a sudden change. Scots began life as Northern English and though the two variants, English and Scots, seem to have begun to diverge somewhat in medieval times, they no doubt began to slowly (re)converge partly as a result of printing beginning in 1476. But that process of (re)convergance and the emergence of Modern English/Scottish English, seems to have been an evolutionary process. If one looks at an original copy of the King James Bible (1611) for example you can see that it is certainly not written in Modern English, indeed if you were told it was written in 'Scots' you might well believe it. One of the other issues is the assumption of a false dichotomy between English and Scots, the presumed existence of a standard Scots and a standard English, and the cultural 'imposition' of the latter on the former. The truth seems to be that there were many 'Englishes' in England and several 'Scots' in Scotland. A standard written language was equally novel to England as to Scotland, and it took a couple of hundred years or more for spelling for example to become standardised throughout all Britain. The process of introducing a standard English to both the English and the Scots seems to have orginally been osmotic, and only much later was it encouraged, and indeed imposed, in both countries, through formal education. By then however, say in 1800, neither language variant could be said to be the same language they had been two hundred or more years earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.66 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Scots but "Scots as a literary language" and, correct or not, we have a citation for McClure saying this in the Cambridge History; if the above is even in contradiction to this, who notably says so? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Scotticisms should be in Scots English examples, not Scots

The examples given of Scotticisms in Scottish English ought to be shown as they would be used in Scottish English, not rendered fully into Scots. Yes, it's a dialect continuum and there is no hard line drawn between the two but the examples are shifting right over to the Scots end.

Idiomatic examples may contain words that wouldn't be otherwise used in Scottish English but if they are used in SE, they should be shown in this article in a Scots English context, not a Scots one. The use of e.g "ye" would be seen as Scots and not as Scots English.

Many Scotticisms would only be likely to be used in a Scots context, rather than Scottish English one in which case they are unsuitable examples for this article (hence my removal of "cried", unlikely to be used in English).

To "learn" someone is poor English (or Scots), not a Scotticism. I've left in "shy" but I have doubts that this is a Scotticism (cf. coconut shy). Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matt. I have only just seen your comments here. I'll take them on board and will amend or delete the list as inappropriate to the page. I cannot agree, however, that "to learn somebody something" is "poor English". I'm afraid that is just a fallacy. I have seen this in print. I believe James Boswell uses it in his journals and I shall now look out for it and record any occurrences. This is an idiom with a good historical pedigree, but because it is no longer used by Standard Scottish English speech, but only by dialect speakers, it is thought to be somehow incorrect English. The same goes for the Scots plural noun followed by a singular verb, as in "There was twa kye in the field" - fine in French and German equivalents il y'a and es gibt, fine also in Scots, said by Boswell, Hume and others, but now disparaged as "poor English" - which, of course, simply means schools don't teach it. It has to be "There were..." Kim Traynor (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether "to learn somebody" is poor English or not, it is only relevant here in the Scotticisms section if it is a Scotticism. I have heard it in use in England, the US and Australia so believe it is not. If you believe it is and wish to include it, the onus is on you to demonstrate it is a Scotticism and one which would be regarded as correct in Scottish English. What on earth has "There was twa kye in the field" to do with the matter? It has not been discussed, is not in contention and the expression of the equivalent in other languages is utterly irrelvant. Most importantly it is a usage in Scots and not Scots English, the latter being the topic of this talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, e.g. Merriam Webster says "learn" in this sense is "nonstandard" and "Learn in the sense of “teach” dates from the 13th century and was standard until at least the early 19th". So nonstandard rather than poor, but not a Scotticism, far from being one standard in Scots English. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I only gave the 'kye' example as another case of grammar used historically in Scotland which is now thought to be incorrect English. For all Webster knows "learning somebody something" could have travelled from Scotland (and Northern England) to those other places you mentioned; not that anyone can verify that if its currency hasn't been traced through time. Doesn;t it count as a Scotticism if it is still in everyday use by Scottish speakers, but not elsewhere? It is universally used by young people in Midlothian before it withers away during their schooling. Kim Traynor (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now redone the list to include what might be said by Scottish lawyers, civil servants and educational professionals who normally speak standard English. I don't know about Scottish doctors, as they all seem to be down south (=sarcasm). I've put in 'stock phrase' to indicate (hopefully) that these are clearly what the paragraph describes as overt Scotticisms, i.e. self-consciously chosen for stylistic effect. Let me know if anything on the list doesn't seem appropriate. Kim Traynor (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're being intentionally restrictive to make a spurious point in only referring to how lawyers etc. use Scottish English when the article makes it clear that it is referring to the form used at the formal end of a bipolar linguistic continuum from Scots to English, "the accepted norm in schools" indeed, being used not just by the teacher but by the wee laddie of any social class or background who knows to say "yes" in class but knows he can say "aye" in the playground (with the teachers probably also saying "aye" in the staff room). All social classes code switch to multiple points on the Scots to Scots English spectrum without thinking about it, dependent on situation or company and on a daily basis. It's not just for the nobs. My granny could turn pan loafy in a blink if she felt the need - she was no lawyer or doctor.

Of course I know very well you thought you were giving me an (additional) lesson in something people think is bad English but is good Scots. As it had no connection with the term actually in question, you are either making condescending presumptions about my general ability to speak Scots or you are saying all examples of what people think of as bad English, expressed (arguably) widely in Scotland are not just good Scots but good Scottish English as well. The latter is clearly nonsense. This article is about speech used at the formal end of the continuum and whether "learning somebody" is a Scotticism or not, no-one would say that in a more formal setting without it inviting comment or raised eybrows - and I mean in the classroom, the local paper, the t.v. interview of a football manager as well as a court of law. As I've said before, only Scotticisms that are credibly used at the more formal end of the continuum have a place in the Scotticisms section of the Scottish English article. The scope of the Scotticisms article itself is wider. What's more, as I've already said, "to learn" is also used in this fashion in, at the least, the U.S., England and Australia so claiming it as a Scotticism needs backing. Speculating what route the term may have taken is idle: if you know the facts and have a citation, include them, if you don't, WP:NOTFORUM.

Without the full context of your paraphrasing of Professor John Lyons, "the only real expert is a native speaker" doesn't really add anything but if you mean that it gives any native speaker free rein to lay out their own personal views, scholarly or otherwise, well not in a Wikpedia article it doesn't. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of Scottish Scots lawyers as the representative sub-group is dangerous ground... not that I am one but many of my former school friends and peers are,,,, invariably they went to "good Scots schools" (as I did) but does that mean they are representative? Not of the "common man"... yes they have their own particular legal Scots language, which is accepted 100% BECAUSE it is legal but does that make it any more correct than for instance the building industry which has a plethora of terms peculiar to Scotland???? And the building industry IS more representative of the common man----Stephencdickson (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reduced vowels table in phonology section missing Scottish variety of ɨ

The "Reduced vowels" subtable is missing an entry for the Scottish respresentation of ɨ. Is it supposed to be missing or is it ɨ, too? Buriaku (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "stookie"

According to The Concise Scots Dictionary (1985) "stookie" is from "stucco" (plaster of Paris). While a "stookie" refers specifically to "a plaster-cast encasing a broken limb", it also means a stucco figure, and by extension "a slow-witted, dull or shy person". "Stookies" in the plural is "a children's game in which the players try to remain motionless as long as possible"; ergo, "to stand like a stookie" is more likely to mean to stand motionless rather than resemble a plaster-cast! Kim Traynor | Talk 20:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref'd. --Thrissel (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an unconvincing list of examples. A derivation from the English and Scots "stook" in the sense of "a number of sheaves of grain stacked upright in a field for drying" seems a more likely origin than "stucco." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.98.247 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The CSD is a reliable source and its explanation seems considerably more convincing than a corn stook connection, the latter never being referred to as "stookies" to my knowledge. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Caledonian English

Rather than the potentially confusing "Scottish English" (which also is arguably a contradiction in terms, viz. since when has something Scottish been 'English'?), it might make more sense to title this article "Caledonian English" or, alternatively, "Scottish Varieties of English". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Scottish English" is what it is referred to as, the term is no more a contradiction than e.g. "American English", it is never referred to as "Caledonian English" and if there were an issue with contradiction, which there isn't, the latter term would be no better or worse in that respect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks to be a confusion over grammar. 'Scottish' in the term 'Scottish English' is being used as an Adjective or modifier and 'English' in this context is a Proper Noun or name. Historically the English language, wherever it was spoken in Britain, was sometimes also called 'Saxon' or 'Teutonic'. Understanding might have been easier if either of those names had caught on, but they didn't, so we're stuck with the sometimes confusing names we have. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.55.45 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyperforeignism

Quote from [x]-section: "Some Scottish speakers use it in words of Greek origin as well, such as technical, patriarch, etc.;(Wells 1982, 408) that is not precisely a hyperforeignism, because the chi represented by the "ch" in these words is in fact pronounced /x/ in Modern Greek and even in Late Koine Greek, but was pronounced /kʰ/ in the Ancient Greek from which the words or their roots are borrowed."

I agree that this is not a "hyperforeignism", but for a very different reason. Namely, that [x] is simply not a foreign sound in Scots and Scottish English. The same Greek words are pronounced with [x] or [ç] in languages like German, Dutch or Polish. But nobody would call that a "hyperforeignism". Again: because the sound isn't foreign to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.133.57 (talk) 22:16, July 27, 2015‎

The fact that it is not a foreign sound doesn't mean it is a historically valid sound in those words. I don't know whether it's really a hyperforeignism or not, but your reasoning is invalid. What you should do is find out whether the historical pronunciation was with [x] or [k] (for example), and if it was [k] and only changed into [x] later, that might signal hyperforeignism. LjL (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It was pronounced [kʰ] in Ancient Greek but had changed into [x] by the Medieval Greek period, just like Ancient Greek [pʰ] had changed into [f] and Ancient Greek [tʰ] into [θ]. (See Koine Greek phonology#Consonants.) Usually, the pronunciation of Greek-derived words is not based on the Classical Greek norm (as it has been reconstructed by scholars only in the 20th century) and the only reason that ch in technical is usually pronounced as [k] rather than [x] is no doubt the lack of [x] as a phoneme or even (allo-)phone in English outside Scotland, where [x] is present as a phoneme and usually spelt ‹ch›, so it makes sense to pronounce technical with [x]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I suspect the original sound in patriarch, etc. was a [k], because the words were probably borrowed from Greek through Latin or the Romance languages, which merged the non-native /kʰ/ of learned Koine with the native Latin /k/. If this is correct, it makes more sense to call patriarch with [x] hypercorrection, or spelling pronunciation, since the word never really had [x]. It doesn't make sense to call it hyperforeignism. For it to be hyperforeignism, Scots speakers would have to have heard Greek spoken, but I doubt there's been any significant amount of contact between Scotland or Scotsmen and Greece or Greeks. Spelling pronunciation, on the other hand, is where a Scotsman thinks, Oh, ch usually is pronounced [x] in words that I know, and therefore patriarch should be pronounced with [x]. Technically, patriarch never had a [k] sound in Latin, so it's a spelling pronunciation. — Eru·tuon 03:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)