On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:53 +0100, Harry Burt wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:45 PM, HJ Mitchell
<hjmitchell(a)ymail.com> wrote:
The same could be said of Welsh, or Latin, or a
handful of other languages
with a dedicated Wikipedia. I'm on the fence as to the usefulness of these
projects, but I thought I'd just point out that there are a few of them. ;)
Harry
(HJ Mitchell)
Oh, sure. But Scots is the most marginal case of the lot, I think,
which is why I was reminded of it by the original post.
I'm going to chime in here onHarry's post, as-opposed to getting further
down the rabbit hole on this discussion.
I live in Edinburgh. I am surrounded by people who speak Scots. They
don't even know they do so. If you mention Scots as a language to them,
they *might* think of the poetry of Rabbie Burns. If they're smart, they
may say they speak a Scottish dialect of English.
Personally, I would say the difference between Scots and British English
is more than the difference between Brit.Eng and U.S.Eng, but less than
the difference back to Shakespearean English.
I'd go as far as saying you can only call it a distinct language if
you're one of the people south of the border who demanded subtitles for
Rab C. Nesbitt.
Whether or not the sco language code is justified, is a point I'll defer
to linguists on. As I say, Burns is the best-known example of it, and
I've no passion to glorify the poetic musings of an ex-tax collector.
Brian McNeil.
--
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil - Accredited Reporter.
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.