Changes

[ANDY-J3]

Originally Posted by Albanactus

"Hector Boece (1465- 1536) writing at the beginning of the 16th century says half and half, but that most Scots were Gaelic speaking just a generation or so before. The poet Dunbar seems to confirm this."

If you wanna contradict Boece, then I suggest you come up with evidence. And if you do, you might wanna submit it to scholars. [/b]

Well what you do is go and find me a source that states verbatim what Hector Boece actually stated-paraphrasing his statement and placing it in inverted commas might impress some people but if I'm being asked to interpret a piece of textual evidence it is only fair that I am provided with a source detailing exactly what it says.

[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.


English is quite clearly in use throughout eastern and central Scotland by 1350 and earlier because of the spread of the burgh; but that means no more than the use of German throughout the burghs of Poland and Mazovia, or the use of French amongst the aristocracy of England and Scotland.

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.


It's one of the ironic facts of history that there is much more evidence for the use of French in pre-War of Independence Scotland than English,


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.




yet until recently no-one ever took any notice, anxious to focus on the badly testified, yet obviously Pre-Ordained, Inevitable Onward Triumphal March of English ...

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.






magnify the flimsy evidence out of all proportion (whilst ignoring contrary evidence) and back-date it as far as possible. If you wanna know the real boundary of the English language by the Wars of Independence, the only thing close to a guide I've ever come across is Barrow's "Ingilston map" in The Kingdom of the Scots .. which incidentally also suggests most Anglo-Gaelic population movement was focused on a failed attempt to anglicize Galloway.

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.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.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally Posted by Steaphan

If you look at many African countries now, for example, you will find that their leaders speak the language of the oppressor i.e. French/English/Dutch but the majority of the people still speak their own languages. Would you try to argue that the majority of Congolese were French speaking in the 19th century just because the "nobility" were?

So how relevant do you think it might be to compare a post imperial African state with a mediaeval feudal society-I think it would be a case of comparing chalk and cheese.In a feudal society the dominant social class provides the dominant value system,the dominant culture and the dominant language and this filters down through the various social classes.Thereby the values of the social elite are absorbed by the burghers and townspeople and subsequently by the poorer classes.That is what happened in lowland Scotland during the middle ages.If you accept therefore that that process was underway by the time of the wars of independence then it can hardly be questioned that a century later Inglis must have been firmly established in all of the burghs and townships of Fife,Lothians,the Borders and Tayside and into Grampian and Moray.Therefore you are really putting forward an argument that is impossible to support in stating that Gaelic speakers predominated in Scotland after the early modern period.Wikipedia states that Gaelic was supplanted by English by 1200-I would accept that is difficult to support however it wasn't too long after that date when Gaelic speakers ceased to be in the majority in Scotland.

[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.

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Wikipedia states that Gaelic was supplanted by English by 1200-I would accept that is difficult to support however it wasn't too long after that date when Gaelic speakers ceased to be in the majority in Scotland.

Tell me where it says that and I'll edit it out.

[Steaphan]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

So how relevant do you think it might be to compare a post imperial African state with a mediaeval feudal society-I think it would be a case of comparing chalk and cheese.In a feudal society the dominant social class provides the dominant value system,the dominant culture and the dominant language and this filters down through the various social classes.Thereby the values of the social elite are absorbed by the burghers and townspeople and subsequently by the poorer classes.That is what happened in lowland Scotland during the middle ages.If you accept therefore that that process was underway by the time of the wars of independence then it can hardly be questioned that a century later Inglis must have been firmly established in all of the burghs and townships of Fife,Lothians,the Borders and Tayside and into Grampian and Moray.Therefore you are really putting forward an argument that is impossible to support in stating that Gaelic speakers predominated in Scotland after the early modern period.Wikipedia states that Gaelic was supplanted by English by 1200-I would accept that is difficult to support however it wasn't too long after that date when Gaelic speakers ceased to be in the majority in Scotland.

I don't accept that the social elites' attempts to anglicise Scotland were successful in allowing English immigrants and English speakers to outnumber Scots in the country of Scotland until at least the 15/16th centuries, which you previously argued for Andy.
I do believe however, that the history of Gaelic in Scotland was re-written from the late 18th century onwards, after the battle of Culloden and once English control had been cemented following the continuous expulsions/emmigration since that fateful day.

Robert Chambers below is an example of the re-writing of history

RObert Chambers (in 1840) wrote about the year 1745 in "History of the Rebellion 1745-6" : " In numbers the Highlanders did not now exceed 100,000, or a twelfth of the whole population of Scotland."


However, according to Charles Withers, "Gaelic in Scotland 1698-1981", in 1808 John Walker calculated from Alexander Webster who used figures available in 1755 that 23% of the Scottish population were Gaelic speakers and to me, that was likely to be an under-estimate, since 1755 was after the new Government had stepped up official oppression.

They had decided that, in and around 1745/6, out of a population of
1, 200 000 around 300 000 had Gaelic as their first language, about a quarter of the total population of Scotland.


Now, if we accept that Gaelic speakers were around a quarter of the population in 1746, and I personally believe the numbers would have been higher, as these figures are based[ on figures supplied AFTER the hostile and victorious English government of the time had consolidated it's control, then it is certainly obvious that Gaelic speakers in Scotland were NOT in a minority around the 13th century or anytime soon after that.

What is very likely, is that they were in a majority until at least 1700, and that the English/British government only started to make real successes in reducing their number around the time that Cromwell was on his bloodletting in the 17th century.

I am grateful to Ronald Black of The Scotsman Newspaper for the above information regarding numbers and of course I am responsible for my own personal opinions.

[Steaphan]

[quote=ANDY-J3]Originally posted by Albanactus


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.

QUOTE]

If that "process" as you call it, was "complete" by the "early modern period", then how do you explain the Gaelic communities that existed until the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the Lennox and Menteith around Loch Lomond? eg Arrochar, Brig O'Turk, Callander which are part of the Lowlands or straddle the Highland/Lowland line.
Elderly native Gaelic speakers of that area were still around up until the 1970s/early 80s even after the community had ceased to be predominently Gaelic-speaking.

Michael Newton (MA) provides numerous evidence for Gaelic being spoken by the majority in these Lowland areas until at least the late 19th century and slightly beyond in his bilingual Gaelic-English book: "Bho Chluaidh gu Calasraid" "From the Clyde to Calander"