Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 4

Yes, and it would have to be a very serious linguistic source, because this is the kind of thing which people with no linguistic competence like to sound off about, especially after the third beer. You will certainly find journalistic sources, and they won't do. Personally, I doubt that any language is difficult, since any child can learn any language. But some are slightly easier for some learners in that elements of them are already familiar before they start. But quantifying that would be very difficult, and only a proper academic study would be citable. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What he said. At best, you might be able to find some data on the relative distance between languages but on the whole, linguists don't really entertain the concept of easy or hard languages. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article on any other language, you'll find that this information isn't listed there either. You could make a list of differences between language pairs, but if it wasn't exhaustive then it wouldn't be indicative of the full difficulty or otherwise of a given language. But if it was exhaustive, it would be the length of several books, and would hardly be suitable for wikipedia. Taking a list of differences and finding a weighting for each difference that gives a sum "difficulty" would be very difficult indeed, and as others have said, there is no objective standard to judge against. Furthermore, difficulties are often the teacher's fault, not the language's, so it would never really be correct anyway. :-) Prof Wrong (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was of the understanding that speakers of certain tongues could find it difficult to learn others. Is Japanese not incredibly difficult (compared to certain languages) for non-Japanese speakers to learn (especially speakers of Germanic/Romance languages) ? Scottish Gaelic could have a very different or similair structure to English that's all I was suggesting. Just adding in a few lines over wether native English speakers would find it easy or difficult to adapt to the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In basic terms I'm sure you're right. Some people with certain languages will find others easy to learn. Unfortunately, without

talk softly, please

23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Great I'll have a look around and see if I can come up with anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't worth your time. Myself, Doric Loon and Akerbeltz have all spent a lot of time working through the literature on this topic and I can tell you now that all you're going to find is opinion that will fail on grounds of the

reliability of the source. If any genuine expert had published any peer-reviewed data on the difficulty or otherwise of the language, I'm pretty certain I'd have heard about it, and I'm 100% sure Akerbeltz would be able to tell me about it if I hadn't. The data you're looking for simply doesn't exist. Prof Wrong (talk

) 15:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

While I accept that the 4th century invasion is the generally accepted theory, it could still be better attributed, couldn't it? I've heard it claimed that the only ancient source we have is Bede's chronicles. If this is true, I would have thought it worth including. Prof Wrong (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the generally accepted theory. Not amongst historians anyway. It's a completely ridiculous theory with no basis in historical or archaeological evidence. Sadly a creationist myth, fostered in the middle ages by Scottish kings to create closer ties with Ireland has become accepted historical fact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have always wondered this, why is it that Norman influence and the led to such permament Anglicization at the expense of Gaelic when:

The parts of Europe which participated in the Hanseatic League don't speak German Many countries that were influenced by forgeign languages didn't abandon their own languagues Wales which was under norman influence didn't have a linguistic divide at the expense of welsh like what happened in Scotland. And if Pictish died out so quickly why did it take Gaelic so long to decline in the higlands? Abrawak (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The last strongholds of the Picts were in the low-lying easily accessible East. The Highlands are just that, high - I suspect geography. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But why and how were the burghs able to lead to such anglicisation that even the national language was replaced as the national language and began it's decline. So many countries, like Scotland have been influenced by their neighbours (perhaps speaking more prestigious languages) but not at the expense of their native toungues. The countries that participated in the Hansiatic league for example,didn't become German speaking, the Baltic States and Finland aren't Swedish or Russian speaking and the norman influence in Wales and Ireland didn't erode their languages (offcourse it did but that was centuries later) But why was Scotland different? Abrawak (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How widely was Gaelic spoken during the wars of independence? Abrawak (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm we're sliding into a forum debate here, which is not encourage by Wikipedia. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see there is an edit war going on over the use of nor versus or. According to the rules of

Agreed, this edit warring has been annoying me. It's my belief that "nor" is more correct here and I think we should just leave it like that. I couldn't find a policy either, and English grammar means it should be "nor". Caledones ^{talk softly, please} 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. "Nor" is used correctly here and is a better choice than "or".--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the change is that the existing text had been in place for a year (it was initially added in early March 2011) and had gone unchallenged since then. With language you cannot argue that something is "more correct" than something else, and often there will be more than one correct way, and each should be considered theoretically equal. Given that the word "or" has been here a year without anyone batting an eyelid, at the very least it falls under

Whether this is one or not, there are doubtless thousands of long-term errors lurking to be discovered in Wikipedia. This is hardly a valid reason for retaining something. Your constant reversions of several other editors, supported by those above, is tedious and distracting from getting on with other matters. Per my edit summary, and Conjunction (grammar), "nor" indicates a "non-contrasting negative idea", "or" would indicate an "alternative item or idea". The former is the case here, the latter is not. The notion that such a commonplace word as "nor" is outmoded seems bizarre. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "outmoded" - I use the word nor in everyday english (and I'm only 20, hardly outmoded!) Anyway, I think we've had enough of this now. "nor" seems to be the consensus. It certainly is not distracting nor a marked difference. Also, WP:RETAIN is under the heading of "national varieties of english" and refers to the usage of British or American English in articles, not cases like this. It's definitely not a policy for keeping something just because it's been there a while. Caledones ^{talk softly, please} 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Care to share on what basis nor can be claimed to be outmoded? A quick trawl of bbc.co.uk lists 970,000 instances of nor. Hardly marginal I'd say. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it occurs so rarely in corpus materials that the Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English doesn't even bother to include an entry for it in its index. If you look up "or", you'll find "nor" described as its rather infrequently used negative counterpart. It's one of those things that don't even get taught actively to most learners any more, because so few natives use them (see also whom).

I'd never have taken you for a prescriptivist, a Mhìcheil, and the bane of every descriptivist is the overzealous editing of a minority of prescriptivists -- every day, teachers and editors take natural written English and destroy the evidence of change by imposing dead or dying rules on it.

Nor is outdated -- it is no longer a majority usage -- but concensus wins. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One other thought occurs to me -- it is ironic that prescriptivists fight so hard to preserve this double negative, when its death is a direct result of the self-same prescriptivists banning English's other historical double (and multiple) negatives -- I ain't never gone nowhere to say nothing to nobody. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because "nor" and "whom" are infrequently used does not make them any less correct. But anyway, we have consensus now and I think it's a good time to bring this discussion to an end. Caledones ^{talk softly, please} 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your "descriptive" analysis is predicated on the hypothesis that nor is obsolete in modern speech but it is that very hypothesis that we are challenging. This is not a debate between descriptivists and prescriptivists; it is an argument over your description of nor as archaic. It simply is not, and most English speakers I know use it and use it correctly. Also, your claim that both forms are equally correct is without merit, because even from a descriptive perspective nor and or are not at all interchangeable. I can say "I don't have a driver's license, nor do I want one" but I cannot say "I don't have a driver's license or do I want one". I can however say "I don't have a license and I don't want one", which shows that while or provides a list of mutually exclusive alternatives, nor is a way to and together negative statements. In fact, the more I examine it, the clearer it becomes that I was mistaken to call nor more correct; I should have left out the word more because or was just flat out wrong. Dave (

Please help!

15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a different structure, though, so irrelevant here. Prof Wrong (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I pick and chose between prescriptivism and descriptivism as I see fit, for I'm a practical linguist. Anyway. The consensus aside that has emerged, I punched various words into the Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2011) [1] and get 40,000 hits for nor. Rather more than for neither (33,000) and somewhat less than either (91,000). Taking that together with the bbc data, I'd say Longman's is guilty of a shortcoming, if anything. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I found this curious sentence in the opening: (The only language that is de jure official in any part of the United Kingdom is Welsh.) I'm not sure what de jure means, but isn't English an official language? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what it means is that English is the de facto official language (i.e. by default of being the majority/government language) but that no law was ever passed making English the official language. The Welsh Language Act on the other hand was an act of law which elevated Welsh to an official language. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The translation of Somherligh in the article is incorrect. The Geailge consonant 'mh' is properly translated into English as a V. This man's name therefore, in English, should be Soverley or Soverled, not Somerley nor Somerled (not unlike the proper pronounciation of Samhuinn). Glorious Goddess (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong on this. The name is originally Norse, not Irish. The original form has an M -- the lenition in the Scottish Gaelic was introduced by a process of assimilation and naturalisation (in the older Celtic tongues, lenition was a simple consequence of a consonant falling between two vowels). "Somerled" is a rendering of the original Norse, so it retains the M. Prof Wrong (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Somerled is just a very old spelling, GG, not a modern rendition of Somhairle into English. And besides, in Somhairle the mh does not represent /v/ but

hiatus. Akerbeltz (talk

) 11:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes from unlinked 'UK Government' to linked 'Her Majesty's Government'. There is already a link to the 'British government'. The changes made by the anon IP are spurious, and when seen together are clearly an example of british nationalism. The term 'UK Government' is used several times in this article and is quite common. The link to the Government of UK is already there. Check the edits of the anon IP. 'UK Government' is a common term and makes perfect sense, similar to 'US Government'. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk is known as 'UK Government Web Archive'. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I really do despair. "UK Government"? Really? "UK" is not an adjective, it's a noun. The term for something "of the United Kingdom" is British, just as "of Spain" is Spanish, "of the Netherlands" is Dutch, etc. Or fuck it, let's just do away with all demonyms altogether, shall we? Johan Cruyff can be a Netherlands (or Holland, your choice) footballer, Gandhi an India politican, Kaiser Bill a Germany king and

^ॐ

21:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, English has something called

attributive noun; for another, UK is not a noun but an abbreviation. You don't watch BBC programmes, you watch BBCish ones? --Thrissel (talk

) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, but it's an abbreviation for United Kingdom, which is also not a noun (even an attributive one). I watch BBC programmes because there is no adjective to describe something being BBC-like. —

^ॐ

21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about UK being a noun as such. It is also an adjective, at least in practice. The website for the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or whatever the name is) -> www.direct.gov.uk/ 'Website of the UK government' (Heey, look, the UK government does it wrong, too). We're all mistaken :p Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't vote for them. :) —

^ॐ

21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The same principle is true for the U.S. Government. The UK and the U.S. Governments have referred to themselves in said style for many years. There is nothing new about the term 'UK Government' or 'U.S. Government'. I voted for none of them, being Danish and all ;) Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the American influence creeping in on British English. "US Government" is and always has been nonsensical. (As would "Denmark Government" be.) —

^ॐ

22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense to everybody else, ain't dat shit rite? (oh, sowwy for þat). The Denmark Government sounds wrong, but the DK Government sounds okay. Anyway, English is not a real language; it's a norse-anglo-saxon-brythonic-gaelic-latin-norman french pidgin; that's why it's broken :p Dylansmrjones (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume that if you object to UK Government, US Government etc, then you don't have any bread knives at home, and you wouldn't ever wear a suit jacket...? The attributive noun (or as I learnt it the "classifier" noun) isn't some crazy neologism, it's a direct descendant of the classical genitive, but with its inflection lost. If you're into the preservation of traditional language, then "UK Government" is actually the best term, rather than these newfangled adjectival constructions, or the bastard "of" -- after all, "of" is used to denote a quantity, right? A pound of apples, a box of chocolates etc, and "government" isn't really a quantity or division, is it? Prof Wrong (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are "breadian" and "suitish" words, or have I missed something? —

^ॐ

08:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

UKish doesn't exist either. It's a defective form that doesn't inflect. You're trying to synthesise a suppletive form from another word. This is acceptable usage, but it's not obligatory.

There are many things that language could do, there is nothing that language should do, and there are various things that language does do. What language does is what matters, not what you, or me*, or anyone thinks it should do.

(*) yes, you or me. I said it. If you want an explanation of why, just ask. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You may not like it but every living language changes by consensus. If enough people say it "wrong" it actually does become right. That's why you buy books, not beek. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm not pushing for an Académie anglaise to dictate usage. That's the beauty of the English language – its malleability. It doesn't mean I can't do my little bit to try and stop the likes of the above while they are still wrong, though. "UK Government"? Ugh. —

^ॐ

22:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There are 70 million hits for "US government". The boat on that one hasn't just left, it's left, rounded the cape, survived the freak wave and it way on its way to Flosston Paradise ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean the HMS Britain has to follow it! —

^ॐ

22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

10 million for "UK government" ... sorry, just as gone. You might as well crusade for re-introducing thou and thee. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Similarly common are UAE Government, PRC Government and NATO meeting. I would say that there's a perfectly acceptable rule that says an acronym can be used as an adj or noun. Neeeext. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-introducing 'thou' and 'thee' actually makes sense. About time those migrant anglo-saxons learn to speek properly ;) Dylansmrjones (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They're not actually great examples as "Emirati government", "Chinese government" and "Atlantic (?) meeting" could refer to other emirates, the Republic of China (

^ॐ

22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

'British government' is hardly correct, since any government on the British Isles can claim to be a british government. The Government of the United Kingdom of etc. is not the british government, but merely a british government. The term 'UK Government' makes it clear it is not the government of Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland, nor the government of the Republic of Ireland, but the government of UK. Otherwise we could refer to the Danish government as the government of Scandinavia ;) Dylansmrjones (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No point, as we've already innovated you vs youse :b Akerbeltz (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"sigh" Looks like we have to do the Lindisfarne expedition all over again... Mmmh... :D Dylansmrjones (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that, but I can't see the Scottish, Welsh, N. Irish (or, heaven forbid, (Republic of) Irish!) govts calling themselves a "British government". The term "British" in modern-day English almost universally refers to the UK. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with "government of the UK" or something similar, just using "UK" as the descriptor! —

^ॐ

08:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see why it should be problem for Wikipedia in 2012 when it wasn't problem for Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1938 [2]. --Thrissel (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it's an American thing (or US thing, if you'd prefer). The Britannica has been American-owned since 1901. —

^ॐ

17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia uses American servers. So what? --Thrissel (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait.... [direct.gov.uk] describes itself as.... "the official UK government website for citizens" and "website of the UK government". Their logo says "HMGovernment", right enough, but in continuous prose, it's "UK government" every time.Prof Wrong (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Scots lang-en.svg is a good idea and seems largely correct (or at least sensible), but the Isle of Man and some other coastal areas (especially Galway) should be marked as dark pink for mixed Norse-Gaelic as well, compare File:Kingdom of Mann and the Isles-en.svg (a political map) and especially File:Old norse, ca 900.PNG (a linguistic map). After all, the western isles are already labelled "Norse-Gaels"! In some coastal areas, especially towns, of Ireland on the opposite side, Norse may still have been spoken, too. I don't think that the areas in question were already all fully Gaelicised by the early 12th century – certainly what I've read does not suggest that. (According to my notes, Adolf Noreen does admittedly claim that Norse was spoken on Man only until about 1050, but Einar Haugen writes it survived until the 14th century. Noreen states that Norse was spoken in Ireland until about 1250 and Haugen says until the 13th century, so they agree in this case at least.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Some mention of pre-Union persecution by the Scottish government should be mentioned.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Statutes of Iona? There probably should be at least a link there from here. --Thrissel (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The current introduction includes the following phrase: "(The only language that is de jure official in any part of the UK is Welsh.)" Is this really true? Is not English also a de jure official language in the UK? Not trying to be funny, just wondering if this statement may need review/correction.

No, this oddity is indeed the case. English is de facto the working language of the UK but this has never been enshrined in law. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm imposing semiprotection on the article and talk page for one month due to POV-pushing and violation of

This map is sourced, based on the work of David R. Ross, but I have some serious concerns about its accuracy. Ross was not an academic and has ignored some basic facts we know about the spread of English into the Lowlands and the cultural divide that already existed in the 14th century. John of Fordun wrote in c1380:

An accurate map would surely have at least Lowland Perthshire, Angus and Aberdeenshire in yellow.

It's hard to tell. The most reliable collection of data on the topic I've seen to date is Withers Gaelic in Scotland. His map of the 1400-1500 period shows the various approximations of the Gaelic speaking area in the period and while this map is not identical to either, it's not wildly out of order either. Most of the disagreement seems to be around the in/exclusion of the "band" across Dumbarton-Stirling-Fife-Perth-Upland Abers-Nairn. I think two things are useful to note - Gaelic speaking isn't meant to mean 100% Gaelic speaking but "spoken by a % of the population". The second thing is that when we look at the first reliable "figures" (church records which state in which parishes ministers preached/had to preach in Gaelic), the data from the 1680s tells us that taking Angus for example, Lochlee, Lethnot, Navar, Glenisla, Strathardle, and Alyth are listed as "Gaelic" from a preaching point of view. If there were sufficient Gaelic speakers in Angus in the 1680s to require that, then it's highly unlikely that those areas weren't Gaelic speaking in 1400/1500. In Perthshire, Strathearn for example is still listed as Wholly Irish & Highland Countreys in the 1705 data.

I wish I was any good at doing maps, I'd love to recreate some of them. Akerbeltz (talk)

I think it's a given that the Angus Glens were Gaelic until relatively recently. Does Withers talk about Strathmore and the Mearns at all?

Jim

and the soapdish 20:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He says In the east-central and coastal parishes of Aberdeenshire, Gaelic probably ceased to be spoken 'some time between 1500 and 1600'. Neither Nicholson (for 1400s), Loch (~1500) or Smout ("Medieval") stretch the Gaelic speaking area to the coastal parishes. Loch's line is the furthest east, starting at Perth and more or less running a parallel course to the coast roughly as far east as Brechin, Laurencekirk, Methlick, Aberchirder up to the Moray Firth at Forres. 1705 has 6 Gaelic parishes in "Kincardina, Alford Fordice", 2 3/4 in Meigle and Forfar, 24 in Murray, and "parishes bordering ye Highlands" in Brechin, [upland Angus], Head of Soarn and Panadyce. I think unless someone digs up some really ancient manuscripts, we're left with the general view that Gaelic had it's maximum extent (with local Gaelic speakers, even if not necessarily solidly Gaelic speaking) down to the coastal plains around 11 cent and then fairly rapidly retreating from those "mixed" areas.

So coming back to the map, for the period in question it seems ... unrealistic. Are you any good with maps? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm particularly good with them, but I can make rudimentary maps... I managed to borrow a copy of Withers from the university library, so I've tried to redraw one of the maps based on the figure in question. I'll play about with all three and try to create a composite figure.

Hey that's great! Sorry I can't be of much help when it comes to drawing maps but glad I could point you at a good source. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

These are great. The only suggestion I have that the unclear Norse area applies to all 3 maps. Since it's in doubt, perhaps if you shaded the area in orange and yellow or blue? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that and combine them into a single figure. Do we include the Ross interpretation? My gut instinct is to reject it as he's a popular writer as opposed to an academic.

Jim

and the soapdish 18:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, on close inspection, Ross' map is problematic. What would also be good would be the 1705 map on page 56 as it's the first date with reliable data - though I would fill in the Easter and Wester Ross area in line with the 1765 map on page 70, that gap would be totally misleading. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The maps are great, any chance of making them in SVG format so that they can be edited further along the line? Thanks. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly... I'm using photoshop for the moment, which doesn't handle SVG files. I'll look into SVG editors.

Jim

and the soapdish 08:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left this stagnate slightly... I've replaced Ross' map on the article page with Nicholson's for the time being as it is more likely to be accurate.

The new Nicolaisen map is very inaccurate. Even for Nicolaisen, who argues that Gaelic was still the main language of Aberdeenshire c. 1500, and would hardly have it almost expunged from the shire in 1400! The map expunges Gaelic from Dunbartsonshire, Ayrshire, Angus, Easter Ross, Moray, southern Stirlingshire and eastern Perthshire, where it was still prevalent and in the case of Dunbartonshire, Moray and Easter Ross, totally dominant outside a few burghs. Cf. this page, though I doubt any map showing a line is accurate, since the eastern Lowland Scotland from Buchan to West Lothian was probably a linguistic transition zone rather than monolingual any way until around 1500. Perhaps a third colour indicating a transition zone is necessary. 138.251.250.200 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The map you linked to is actually the map I was attempting to reproduce, with the dashed line being Nicholson's map, the dotted line Smout's and the alternate dot and dashed line Loch's. Any difference between the two are entirely due to my own (lack of) skill level. I invite you to try for yourself.

Jim

and the soapdish 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And Ross' map is not an acceptable alternative, for the reasons given above.

Jim

and the soapdish 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You did a good execution, but per the link above the map said to be Nicolaisen's here relates to 1500 rather than 1400. The dotted Smout line is not a linguistic map, but a physical map disowned from any linguistic associations. There is no direct connection between physical zone and linguistic zones. Not even an early modernist would believe Gaelic unspoken in eastern Sutherland! The Ross map is not perfect, but the only academic map available relating to 1400 is very similar (the Loch map), but includes Fife in Gaeldom (it was clearly spoken in Fife c. 1400, but English was probably more prevalent, certainly in eastern Fife). 138.251.250.200 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Right enough... The legend on the original map reads:

Areas of Norse speech (After Nicholson, 1974)

The Boundary between Gaelic and English-speaking in 1400 (After Nicholson, 1974)

The Boundary between Gaelic and English-speaking in 1500 (After Loch, 1932)

The Highland Line in Medieval Scotland (After Smout, 1969)

Ross is not an academic source and is patently incorrect due to the lowland Angus/Mearns issue. Smout is, as you say, not a map of linguistic divide. The problem with Loch is Fife. The problem with Nicholson (not Nicolaisen) is he has exaggerated the level of incursion of English by 1400. How about this:

Two interpretations of the linguistic divide in the middle ages. On the left the divide in 1500 after Loch, 1932; On the right the divide in 1400 after Nicholson, 1974 Blue is Gaelic, yellow is Scots and orange is Norn (both reproduced from Withers, 1984)

But the left is an estimate for 1400, the right map is one for 1500. I think putting the left map next to Ross should be sufficient to illustrate controversy about Fife and Angus & Mearns. Alternatively, you could put the 1400 and 1500 maps next to each other in the correct order per the Atlas linked above. The 1500 map is much wronger than the 1400 map, since we know for a fact that Gaelic was still spoken in northern Carrick in c. 1600 and in places like Kirriemuir and Dunnichen in Angus, Dunkeld in Stormont, and so forth, even in the 18th century. I repeat my preference for a transitional colour. I suspect a linguistic line going through Scotland is precisely NOT what was happening in the late middle ages; places like Buchan, Fife and Nithsdale must have had both languages just like the Hebrides in the 20th century, or Atholl in the 19th. 138.251.250.200 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We can alter the order in which the maps appear.

Nicholson is preferable to Ross. I hate to appeal to authority but unless I'm mistaken, David Ross was not an academic. Rather he was an enthusiastic writer of books about his trips round Scotland on a motorbike visiting places connected to William Wallace, etc. Ranald Nicholson on the other hand was a Professor of Scottish Medieval History (read for his undergraduate degree at Edinburgh and his Phd/DPhil at Oxford University, lecturer at Edinburgh University, Chair at Guelph) and the work in question is Volume II of the Edinburgh History of Scotland. Whether we share his interpretation or not, it would be hard to argue that it is not a reliable source as demanded by

WP:RS

, whereas Ross is not, as well-written as his books may be from a popular viewpoint.

It would be useful to get some opinions from other editors here.

Jim

and the soapdish 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Ross doesn't come with the same general authority, but Ross's place-name work means he is probably more familiar with the linguistic evidence. We don't have to agree on that however, and others can have their say. In the mean time could you put the 1400 and 1500 maps with the correct order and annotation? As we both now acknowledge, the current map / annotation is not correct, and we agree that we need to be correct in reference to the attribution if not to the linguistic realities.138.251.250.200 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Competing interpretations of the linguistic divide in the middle ages. Left: the divide in 1400 after Loch, 1932; Right: the divide in 1500 after Nicholson, 1974. Blue is Gaelic, yellow is Scots and orange is Norn (both reproduced from Withers, 1984)

Just to check I understand, you want the Loch map (1500) on the right and the Nicholson map (1400) on the left? Would this edited annotation ("Competing interpretations...") be preferable?

Sorry, I've not communicated well. You had the dates the wrong way around. What you've called the Nicholson map with Gaelic-less north Carrick and Easter Ross relates to 1500 and not 1400, while the Loch map with fully Gaelic Fife is meant to relate to 1400 (again, check the Atlas link posted above to verify that). 138.251.250.200 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Withers has them the other way round in Gaelic in Scotland 1698–1981. I assume that's a typo as it would make more sense the other way round... consider it adjusted.

Jim

and the soapdish 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nicholson map seems fairly confusing, it suggests that Scots is the dominant language in parts of Sutherland, Rossshire and the Inverness area by the 15th century, although almost all sources point to the late 19th century as the transition period away from Gaelic? Especially in relation to a discussion on "defunct" dialects, surely it would be more relevant, accurate (and likely true) to refer to more recent sources? Hypertone (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible you're confusing the colours? Blue = Gaelic, Yellow = Scots. So that only makes the the crescent from the Black Isle to Nairn Scots speaking, which I'd say is right. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The map is correct in that eastern parts of the Black Isle spoke Scots and much of Nairn did aswell , but it also includes places such as the Tain area, Dornoch, western Black Isle (Knockbain and Kilmuir) Inverness (including Mackintosh lands), Petty etc none of which are places where Scots was dominant over Gaelic. Hypertone (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 1500 map in Wilson Macleod's Divided Gaels is better. I do agree it is inaccurate to depict Eastern Ross and eastern Sutherland as non-Gaelic speaking (indeed there is still as surviving local dialect in the latter). Incidentally, 'Scots' was used throughout the Highlands in 1500, but that does not mean locals didn't speak Gaelic. The two are not exclusive like these maps suggest. 138.251.229.191 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Einar Haugen, Scandinavian was still spoken on the (Outer) Hebrides as late as the 16th century. None of the maps take this into account, so none of them can claim any amount of accuracy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Escape Orbit for re-formatting the unorthodoxly-presented ref to MacBain in the Loanwords section. @Stoorybrig had been making some edits regarding the non-Gaelic forms of the loan words and I have been discussing (at my talk page) with them as to whether these additions are sourced from MacBain or otherwise. Overall, the content of this section has been edited quite extensively since the original ref/mention of MacBain was made, years ago, at the foot of the section, and probably implying that the entire section as it was then was sourced from it. Though the ref is now formatted correctly and with the evolution of the section it isn't clear which parts of the section are covered by the ref and it possibly implies it is only the preceding sentence or maybe paragraph. Is anyone, possibly @Stoorybrig, able to sift through the section and find which parts of its content are supported by MacBain and which not? I'm afraid I get errors if I try to search in http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130529065734/http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/papers/officialstatus.html to http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/papers/officialstatus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —