[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Anyways, whether Alexander Warrack has an MA, an M.Phil., a PhD or a special award offered by God himself, still doesn't mean English speakers had half the "Scottish" population by any time before 1600.

Although given that he has an MA in linguistics and you don't you might forgive me if I tend to attach greater credibility to his arguments rather than yours as I would assume an individual with such a qualification might have taken the time to be fully informed of the matter he is discussing.

Having an MA in history I would think makes me more likely to be better qualified, but such things are not intrinsically relevant except for stifling debate. If you wish to cite authorities on a controversial issue, esp. one as obscure and low ranking as this chap, you'll get us nowhere unless you cite the evidence they use.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus


That argument has one flaw-it depends upon the spread of Inglis as being solely the result of the growth in burghs in lowland Scotland whereas in fact that is clearly not the case.Inglis spread throughout the middle ages as the Scottish crown and nobility consolidated their grip on the Lothians,Fife and as far north as Moray and as their influence spread so did their system of values and their language-Inglis which later became Scots.So we're not dealing specifically with a growth in towns and burghs we're talking about a culture and system of values gradually supplanting the existing Gaelic culture and outwith the area of the highlands that process was pretty much complete by the early modern period.

Clearly not the case? I'd suggest if you were to do some actual research on the matter, instead of relying on popular sources, you might find that more difficult to believe. Who else but burgers could have spoken it? The native mormaers, who take names like "Gartnait" "Donnchad" and "Máel Ísu" way into the 14th century? LOL. The french speaking warriors who settled on royal demesne in Anglian Lothian, Strathannan and upper Strathclyde in the 12th and 13th centuries, many of whom begin to take Gaelic names within a generation?

Besides, the argument of comparison between Scotland and Poland and Mazovia hardly rests on that, as we actually have evidence German was often used by Polish aristocrats. On the other hand, do you know how much evidence we have for the employment of English by Scottish aristocrats before the late 14th century? NONE. Yep, absolutely NONE.

NONE! Is that clear?

The only vague exception, which I wouldn't call it, is a reference to the "Frank" David I, brought up entirely at the Anglo-Norman court in England, who was said by a proud English chronicler to have been good in French and English.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.Obviously textual evidence from medieval Scotland is rare but it isn't non existent as there are documents such as charters,royal warrants etc. from the period showing that Inglis was in widespread usage throughout the lowlands.

There is evidence the language was used, which is hardly surprising, along with Gaelic, French and Latin. Of the four, English is the most badly attested.

Of course, that doesn't matter, does it? Because obviously ENglish was on a Pre-Destined Onward Triumphal March, and Gaelic and French were clearly doomed I'm sure.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Whenever I debate this question on these boards I'm always aware that I'm a historian solely interested in facts and evidence debating with people who tend to take a subjective view of Gaelic and its history.There was never any "pre-ordained,inevitable,onward,triumphal march of English".There was a gradual process of change whereby English spread and eventually developed into Scots a tongue which is every bit as much a part of our nation's culture and heritage as Gaelic is.

Listen, pretending you're more objective than me may be a comfortable vanity, but that's all.
As for points of modern cultural perspective, that's entirely subjective, and if you as a Scotsman see English as having the same importance as Gaelic, then that's up to you.

I'm not really fussed; but Gaels are the original Scots, and Scotland is historically meaningless and incoherent notion without them.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus

To be fair I haven't magnified any evidence out of proportion-I've only cited the objective and unbiased views of a professional linguist and one contemporary source which supports my argument.

That source you cited you treated rather naively if I may say so. I only see very limited uise for "a professional linguist" in and of himself, unless he is a Latinist and Medievalist too fully acquainted with the sources and arguments; and although I haven't been able to check him out though, I'd bet a fortune he hadn't done much more background research than you. :P

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
If the only source you have ever come across concerning the boundary of English by the wars of indepence is Barrow's "Ingliston map" I suggest you pay a visit to your local library where you may find ample evidence of contemporary texts confirming its widespread usage throughout the lowlands throughout the entirety of the middle ages and early modern period.

LOL. I see you have a high opinion of yourself. No matter, I'm fully acquainted with the literature on language change in medieval Scotland (at least up to June 2005). It doesn't take long, since the only scholars who've actually tried to discuss it "recently" are David Murison (who supports your view and whom you'd do much better to cite) and GWS Barrow. The rest just cite them, whinge about the lack of research, or BS about it.

Barrow's "Ingliston map" is not the only thing I've come across which tries to work out the boundary of English; it's just the only one which does so seriously, the best one I've come across for relating the boundary to historical evidence.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
I suggest you pay a visit to your local library where you may find ample evidence of contemporary texts

Are you trying to overcome me by making me die of laughter or something?. I've learned all that I've learned from many trips to much bigger libraries than any local library, as well as from direct purchases and scholarly consultation. "Ample evidence" frankly shows your naivety and underdeveloped knowledge of the subject. You might wanna stop BSing if you wanna have a proper debate.