How do you say Happy Birthday?

[ANDY-J2]

In the past Scots was a seperate and distinct language from English and must have been unintelligible to an English speaker.I read an account of the captivity of James I of Scotland where he spent several years of his childhood at the English court and it stated that he had tutors to teach him Latin,French and Scots which suggests that at that time (circa 1400) English and Scots were seperate languages.

[Monco]

James I would have been 11 or 12 when he was captured by the English, so he would probably have received some sort of education appropriate to his station before then. But I am not sure what status English had in England at that time. The nobility spoke French to each other, English to their serfs, and did business/official documents in Latin. They later stopped using French and started using English, but I would find it strange if James had to be taught the vernacular language by tutors who would be appointed by the English court.

As to Scots being a separate language, the historian Jenny Wormald say's "Middle Scots is very close to the language spoken in northern England; it derives substantially from Old English, although there are both Gaelic and French influences. But from the late fourteenth century it became increasingly a separate dialect with distinctive forms". So by the late 14 century it was becoming a separate dialect, though it was still called English (Iglis/Inglyshe etc), and wasn't called Scots until the middle of the 15th century. Scholars do agree that they derive from the same source, so I would assume they would be more similar in 1400 than in 1500.

this is a quote from a site on literary history:

It is unnecessary to point out the close kinship, in the fourteenth century, of the language of Barbour’s Bruce, written in Aberdeen, with that of the writings of Richard Rolle, the hermit of Hampole, near Doncaster. The likeness is the more remarkable, if we accept the opinion that Barbour’s text, in its extant form, was written out in the fifteenth century. It is, therefore, not only scientifically accurate to treat the language of the Bruce as northern English, but it is historically justifiable to call that language “English.”

http://www.bartleby.com/212/0401.html

[ANDY-J2]

Monco,
I think that English had become established as the universal language of both commons and nobility as early as the mid-fourteenth century.I believe that during the hundred years war the nobility adopted English as their preferred tongue in order to reinforce their "Englishness" and to distance themselves from their French enemies,which is in sharp contrast to their forebears who sought to remain aloof from their English subjects.Also I think the "Black death" played a significant role in breaking down firmly established social barriers.I recently read a work on the wars of the Roses which occured in the latter fifteenth century and by that time English was well established however interestingly enough southerners and northerners apparently had some difficulty understanding each other so perhaps local dialects were still in use at that time.

Originally posted by Monco

The above point about French and English is that an English person could go to Scotland and understand the natives without any need to learn a language (btw has anybody ever come across a 'Learn Scots' book?), which is not the case with France.

When my father moved from the English Midlands to North East Scotland in the 1950s he had to learn the local language. He wouldn't have stood a chance of understanding the cuddy loupit the dyke had he not done so. (For a start, a dyke in his part of the world is a drainage ditch.) It is just ridiculous to say that an English person can go to Scotland and understand the natives without learning the language (unless those natives address him in English, which is what tends to happen).

[Monco]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
It is just ridiculous to say that an English person can go to Scotland and understand the natives without learning the language (unless those natives address him in English, which is what tends to happen).

Neil, taking into account that I live in Glasgow, I have known many English people over the years, and I have never once came across someone who said they had learned Scots in order to live here. Indeed if I were to say to them that we didn't speak English they would probably be mystified and wonder what the hell I was on about. And that would likely be the same for most Scots people too.

[Steaphan]

Originally posted by Monco

I think you have hit the nail on the head here Steaphan, its about being different to the English. Some Americans use the term 'American English' to describe their language, and while there are some very minor differences, they do recognise that they speak English. But they Americans are not concerned with creating a distict identity as some Scots are.

I wouldn't say that Monco. I would say Americans are very concerned about their American identity, but most recognise the diversity within that identity and that it is artificially constructed. Scots have no need to construct a distinct identity because it is already there. Whether or not we believe that Scots English is a different language from the various dialects of England doesn't matter, it's still different and so is our identity. The part that Gaelic has played in their identity is vastly underestimated by most Scots because of their lack of knowledge of the language. An interesting book on that subject is by a William(or somebody-) Ferguson, called "The Identity of the Scottish NAtion". Well worth a read I think.

[Monco]

Originally posted by Steaphan
I wouldn't say that Monco. I would say Americans are very concerned about their American identity, but most recognise the diversity within that identity and that it is artificially constructed. Scots have no need to construct a distinct identity because it is already there.

Steaphan, sorry but I don't really follow your first sentence, the "but most recognise the diversity within that identity and that it is artificially constructed" bit. But I see what you are meaning by the rest of it. America is still a very young - though powerful - country, while we are a fairly old country.

Interesting question that is posed by national identities, but do you not think that all identities of that sort are constructed to some extent? Scottish identity is stronger because we are neighbours with a much bigger country, and in order to resist their gravitational pull, Scottish identity is stressed more vigorously. Pretty much the same story with Eire too. But sometimes we promote mediocre writers and artists because they are distinctively Scottish, and despite that when looked at dispassionately, they are not all that good.

Indeed was the Scottish Renaissance in the early 20th century not about reconstructing a Scottish identity which they thought had been lost? Though some thought it got lost in the Union, others blamed the reformation! It should be remembered that John Knox didn't object to pubs opening on the Sabbath, just as long as it wasn't during Church time. He didn't even object to dancing!