LeinsterDub wrote: » As I said it's understandable but there is are also a large amount of words not used in Standard English. Some have claimed Scots is language others a dialect . Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish? Scots Gaelic a dialect of Irish?
LeinsterDub wrote: » Some have claimed Scots is language others a dialect .
Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish?
Scots Gaelic a dialect of Irish?
blanch152 wrote: » Given the tiny numbers involved, any form of Language Act is a waste of money. It is 100% tied up in political symbolism with SF trying to get one-up on the Unionist community. It is quite frankly tiresome and tedious. If that part of the UK is ever to achieve normality it must be on the basis of mutual recognition of each others' heritage, however small or inconsequential the other side views the particular heritage. Ulster Scots has acquired cultural meaning for part of the Unionist community and therefore requires recognition on the same basis as Irish. Anything else is just a continuation of the endless getting one up on the other side nonsense.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » As I said it's more like a thick country accent in the north. I'm not sure what you'd call it but it's not a langauge. I don't know, thought they were different languages. Haven't a clue.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody objects to Ulster Scots being recognised though. Their heritage is therefore recognised. It can have it's own recognition if anyone wants to propose a Language act for it. And of course it is a 'political thing' as well as being a cultural thing to want a separate standalone Irish Language Act. One has to say to your objection on those grounds - so what? How much of what goes on in any normal society is 'political'? There is nothing abnormal about it, that is why it was agreed to at St. Andrews by the British. It is typical that somebody who is politically opposed to anything required by a section of society would raise that old chestnut...i.e. 'it's POLITICAL!! As to the money argument, you could have that objection to anything you are against or opposed to. It is of no significance really.
blanch152 wrote: » Equal and mutual recognition is the key. A Languages Act that mutually recognises the importance to each community of their traditional artificially created/imported language is the solution.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » However, in passing judgement, it is important that you understand the difference between a language and a dialect.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Is Portuguese just a dialect of Spanish?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fulfilling the terms of an agreement that has already been reached (without anybody mentioning Ulster Scots btw) is the 'solution'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As well as recognising all the other rights still blocked by the religious supremacy and cultural bigotry of the DUP. Ask any other party other than SF about that.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Considering this a language debate maybe you should form an opinion.
This video may help
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Nae, away up thon brae wi'ye ye thran skitter.
blanch152 wrote: » Except, as has been shown, no agreement was ever reached with the DUP. Understandably, having been left out of those negotiations, they are bringing their own take on it to the table which is fair enough.
Can you give me other examples of the cultural bigotry of the DUP? Are they selling terrorist badges on their website for example?http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/belfast-brigade-2nd-bn-d-company-badge/ Makes complaints about 12th of July bonfires look hypocritical to say the least.
Jep Gambardella wrote: » Oh I'm aware of the distinction alright. But given the tiny number of speakers of each, that distinction is academic in more ways than one
blanch152 wrote: » No, away........ the rest I don't understand.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Bergs, Alexander (2001). "Modern Scots". Languages of the World. Bow Historical Books. 242: 4. Scots developed out of a mixture of Scandinavianised Northern English during the early Middle English period Jump up ^ Bergs, Alexander (2001). "Modern Scots". Languages of the World. Bow Historical Books. 242: 50. Scots originated as one form of Northern Old English and quickly developed into a language in its own right up to the seventeenth century Jump up ^ Sandred, Karl Inge (1983). "Good or Bad Scots?: Attitudes to Optional Lexical and Grammatical Usages in Edinburgh". ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis. Ubsaliensis S. Academiae. 48: 13. ISBN 9789155414429. Whereas Modern Standard English is traced back to an East Midland dialect of Middle English, Modern Scots developed from a northern variety which goes back to Old Northumbrian Anyway I'm not here to defend (Ulster) Scots was just pointing out that what is and isn't a Language isn't clear .
blanch152 wrote: » Very good question. Most Spaniards can understand Catalan, does that make Catalan a dialect? It is very difficult to distinguish a dialect from a language. An interesting link I pointed out earlier in this thread was to the effect that Ulster Irish actually became extinct sometime in the 1970s.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Irish The Irish spoken today in Northern Ireland is a purely artificial importation of mostly Donegal Irish. In that way - being seen as an artificial resurrection of a dead language - it actually shares many characteristics of Ulster Scots.
steddyeddy wrote: » Apart from the fact it's not a language. Have you any papers detailing whether it's a language? I have a few.
LeinsterDub wrote: » There is an entire wiki article with references that call it a language
Rick Shaw wrote: » Wikipeida. You realise it's open to anyone to read, create and edit pages as they see fit. I think we can dismiss wikipeida as a reliable source.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Like I said, you do not believe in state intervention regarding endangered languages. So from your perspective they may both be irrelevant and with a wave of your hand dismiss them both as being one and the same. That's fine, but for those who disagree with your perspective, including the Irish government and the EU, it is far from being academic.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Just as night follows day. You mention Wikipedia and someone dismisses it out of hand. The article is full of references too which I was at pains to point out.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia the irony of using Wikipedia to prove how creditable Wikipedia is is not lost on me but if you're unwilling to accept that just pretend I posted nearly 300 references instead.
Rick Shaw wrote: » Wikipedia article about Ulster Scots claims it is a dialect.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots A dialect is not a language, it's as simple as that.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Maybe read past the first line it's a dialect of Scots . Which is a language
Rick Shaw wrote: » I am not too fussed about arguing this back and forth all night, but if you're now saying that Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots, then that answers your own argument, no?
Jep Gambardella wrote: » I don't think either party is genuinely interested in preserving endangered languages or dialects. Instead it's more about finding an issue to antagonise each other. Do you honestly think that if the positions were reversed (i.e. if the DUP were aligned with a language and SF with a dialect) they wouldn't be having the exact same row, the only difference being that the arguments would be made by opposite sides, with SF arguing for parity between the two and the DUP saying it isn't a real language etc.?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » No. In this instance I do believe that, rightly, SF are fighting to preserve the language. The whole Ulster Scots issue is a red herring. There are lots of other issues that each side can use to antagonise. This is simply petty malice on the part of the DUP. Even if you were right, and SF would do the same, it doesn't excuse what the DUP is doing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Correct, the old objection of unionists, that it would be a capitulation to SF and must be rejected for that reason shows anyone with their eyes open what this is.
