Changes

[Steaphan]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Steaphan,
I'm well aware that no matter what evidence or arguments I put forward none of them will change your viewpoint.I mean I can include statements such as the following from a respected historian-



"The political centre of gravity of the Scottish state shifted away from the Gaelic areas towards the eastern Lowlands, where Old English was the dominant language.... Although some of the barons and prelates would have been French speakers, many of their followers were English, and a form of English became (ironically) the 'lingua franca' throughout the Lowlands. By the C15 the use of Gaelic was considered uncouth and old-fashioned, and Inglis (now significantly called Scottis) was recognised as the national language of Scotland.
The Scottish Tradition (ed. G. W. S. Barrow, 1974)"



And it will sway you not one iota but it is difficult for me to understand why you are so entrenched and insistent on defending a viewpoint that is completely at odds with statements such as the above which is the third I have cited from an authority on the subject challenging your point of view.Either there are a hell of a lot of biased amateur linguists and historians masquerading as scholars or you are wrong in your assumptions.Your stance is all the more difficult to understand because it is unnecessary-Gaelic's importance as a part of our country's heritage doesn't diminish regardless of whether it ceased to be the predominant tongue during the eighteenth or the fifteenth century.

I will not be swayed because that statement is irrelevant to the central issue we were debating, which is whether the majority of Scottish people spoke Gaelic or not in the 1600s. It is a personal statement from some Anglo trying to rewrite Scottish history, and there is nothing in it to contradict my claims.

The references I have included, are from authors who have actually calculated , yes, calculated not assumed, that the Gaelic percentage was 23% in 1746 based on actual figures from 1755.

I have decided that from that basis, it is extremely unlikely that Gaelic speaking Scots were in a minority before 1600.


There are numerous cases even now where an ethnic minority hold the balance of power when supported by outside interference from a powerful foreign state (or in that period, Kingdom). In Scotland's case, have a guess who that would be?

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Well if you have an MA in history (which I very much doubt given your subsequent arguments) you will have achieved it through the scholarly study of the subject which is why I attach a certain weight to the opinions of an MA in linguistics given that he can be expected to have devoted the time and effort to studying the matter he is writing about.If of course you don't have an MA in history you will be found out by the time this debate has finished because I have a BA in history and humanities and I can therefore easily tell if an individual has done any formal study of the subject.

A BA in history and humanities, and you hope to "find me out"? LOL. Well, you better hope I don't have any highers either.

Seriously though, it's a shame you like to make so much of this kind of thing. But, what is it they say about men with huge dogs and flashy cars ... haha.

Lighten up Andy.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus

Not the argument of a historian I'm afraid.

Oh stop BSing, it's tiresome.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus

For one thing a historian would be aware that Mormaer was an archaic term not in use after the early middle ages when the Earldom of Moray was created.

"Early Middle Ages," and you claim to be a "historian"? What period exactly do you think the Early MIddle Ages pertains to?

Mormaer was not an archaic term in the 13th century, it was the Gaelic term equivalent to Latin Comes. Historians who say so are always from the increasingly obsolete school of Scottish medievalists who never learn a word of Gaelic, and never consult Gaelic sources:

Annals of Ulster, s.a. 1301:

"Roibert a Briuis, mormaer, do ghabail righi n-Alban ar eigin i n-aghaidh righ Saxan."

I remember it also occuring in a north British source in the 14th century, but I can't remember where I read that.

In contrast, any use of the word "Earl" is inappropriate before the mid-14th century at least. The Gaelic term was Mormaer; the Latin term was Comes. Earl was fine in the old days when that was just an English word translating any comes-related word; but if you're gonna call Norwegian ones "Jarl", French (comes/comte) and German (comes/graf) "count," then there's no defence.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Perhaps you could state specifically to which Mormaers you are referring?As regards the French speaking warriors again could you be more specific?What about the Gordon,Menzies,Comyn and Fraser families.If there was as you imply, a general trend whereby these incomers adopted Gaelic names what happened to these families and the scores of other Anglo-Norman families.Why did they not adopt Gaelic names?

You're still ignoring the fact that French is much more adequately attested than English. I suggest you read the St. Andrews medievalist and French scholar DDR Owen's DDR William the Lion,1143-1214: Kingship & Culture. Why aren't you arguing that French was the predominant language, on an Onward Triumphal March?

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Perhaps you could state specifically to which Mormaers you are referring?.

With pleasure:

Here's a list of them from the Wars of Independence era- bold means area is traditionally of Scottish ethnicity:

LIST OF SCOTTISH "COUNTS" during the War of Independence Period:

Stayed in Scottish Hands:

Atholl: Donnchad (Duncan)
Dunbar: Patrick
Fife: Donnchad (Duncan)
Lennox: Máel Coluim (Malcolm)
Mar: Domnall (Donald)
Menteith: Muiredach (Murdoch)
Ross: Uilliam (William)
Strathearn: Máel Ísu (Malise)

Argyll (Lordship): Niall/Cuilén (Neil/Colin)
Hebrides (Lordship): Óengus -> Alexanndar (Alexander)

Passed to Incomers:

Angus: Gilbert de Umfraville (after death of Máel Coluim[1242], through heiress)
Buchan: Jean de Comyn (after death of Fergus [1244], through native heiress)
Carrick: Robert de Brus (after death of Niall [1255], through native heiress)
Sutherland: Guillaume

Galloway (Lordship): Heiress Derborgaill (Devorguilla) with Jean de Balliol


(NB: Caithness was under complicated lordship. The count was the Jarl of Orkney, the latter subject to Norway as well. During Wars of Independence they were ruled by Magnus IV, John III and Magnus V. The fact that a Máel Ísu ruled these Scotto-Scandinavian territories c.1329 to 1353 shows the Scotticization of the dynasty).

Just to clarify, French or Anglo-French nobility were only imported into royal demesne land only (or that which became royal) ... the native mormaers stayed in place, and only towards the end of the 13th century were a few of them taken over via marriage to a Scottish heiress (Robert de Brus' Carrick being one example, as is the de Balliol's Galloway).

Many incoming families did adopt Gaelic names. One example off the top of my head is Wallace's family, who had Máel Coluim for the father and eldest son in William Wallace's era. Another would be Bruce's family.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Again the MA in history myth is exploded-no historian would provide such a weak and fundamentally flawed argument.

LOL. This from the guy who cites any published writer he can find as if it were a primary source.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
.The comparison with Poland is of no relevance because the system of feudalism and the relationships between the social hierarchy which existed there differed markedly from that of medieval western Europe.Polish aristocrats adopted the dominant value system and language which was Germanic.In Scotland however due to the closer social relationships betwen the various strata of the feudal hierarchy the dominant value system,language and culture was absorbed by all classes of society hence English quickly established itself as the language of choice throughout lowland Scotland.Of course your final point is equally flawed and no one with a degree in history would make a statement like that.Tell me something-if the predominant language wasn't Inglis,then why after the wars of independence was Gaelic not adopted as the nation's official language,after all it would have reinforced Scotland's sense of independence if we spoke a diferent tongue from our southern neighbours.The only reason Gaelic wasn't chosen was that it couldn't have been in widespread usage otherwise it definitely would have become established as our national tongue.

The comparison has, of course, a great deal of relevance. Because of a backlash in the middle of the 14th century against German, where Casimir outlawed the language and ordered the Germans to start using Polish, the historical outcomes are different. Such things were possibly attempted in Scotland, as with the accusation aimed at William Wallace in his trial that he attacked all speakers of the English language. But in Scotland, of course, this came to nothing.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Of course your final point is equally flawed and no one with a degree in history would make a statement like that.

*SIGH*

Does this usually work or something? Interspersing weak arguments with "ad hominem" attacks to make them look stronger?

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Tell me something-if the predominant language wasn't Inglis,then why after the wars of independence was Gaelic not adopted as the nation's official language,after all it would have reinforced Scotland's sense of independence if we spoke a diferent tongue from our southern neighbours.The only reason Gaelic wasn't chosen was that it couldn't have been in widespread usage otherwise it definitely would have become established as our national tongue.

It was the language of the Scots, and hence it was the national tongue. It was, after all, the "Kingdom of the Scots" ... not the "Kingdom of the English." Regarding the status of Gaelic under RObert the Bruce. We do have some evidence on the point. Robert I's letter to the Irish chiefs, which you've seen before:


“Whereas we and you and our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom, we have sent you our beloved kinsman, the bearers of this letter, to negotiate with you in our name about permanently strengthening and maintaining inviolate the special friendship between us and you, so that with God’s will our nation (nostra nacio) may be able to recover her ancient liberty.”

Bruce elsewhere uses Scotia Majora to designate Ireland, and Scotia Minora to designate Scotland.

He is not using wild anachronisms, he using Scotia in its proper Latin sense. The correct English translation of Scotia is Gael-land, in the same way Angle-land is the correct translation of Anglia, Frank-land of Francia, Rus-land of Russia, etc. "Scot" has changed in meaning so much since the 14th century, that the translation "Scot" for Latin "Scot" is simply inaccurate. If this were more widely understood, we'd much have less popular confusion of the topic.

What language any noble spoke in a particular circumstance would be dependent on his upbringing a circumstance. Bruce, as a Celtic Mormaer, spoke Gaelic and, as of Norman origin and cirtcumstance, knew French. Since there were no burghs in Carrick, and no other obvious reason to use English, claiming Robert even knew English is quite a hopeful leap of faith.

And to speak of "national tongue" in the modern sense of official language is anachronistic.

French was the language of the aristocracy in England in the early 14th century also ... that didn't mean most people spoke it though,

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus

The problem with this argument however is that you clearly can't be questioning that the administrative language of the court and law by the time of James I was Scottis,you must accept that there is sufficient primary source material to prove that.So therefore the question that must be asked is why all of a sudden did English become adopted as the language of the Scottish court and aristocracy if it wasn't in widespread usage prior to that time?Can you provide some mechanism that would account for this sudden surge in the popularity of Inglis within such a short time frame as the closing few decades of the fourteenth century?Of course you can't and the reason you can't is because it didn't happen. Inglis was adopted by the court because it had through a natural process become established as the language of lowland Scotland throughout the middle ages.

NOpe. English was definitely the language of the court and much of the administration by James I.

There's absolutely no doubt about that!

Of course, the "adoption" was not sudden at all. There's a century between the Gaelic honeymoon of the War of Independence era and James I. The question you ask though is a very good one, and the one I'm currently working on answering.

Firstly, English had always been in use in the Kingdom of the King of Scots. Lothian was always English, excepting a period of Gaelicization in the north-west in the 11th and 12th centuries. Secondly, royal power in the Gaelic north and west collapsed in the period of the Bruces, both because of the anarchy caused by the attempted English takeover, and David's long exile and minority. It was that anarchy which led to the emergence of the Lordship of the Isles. Thirdly, burghs expanded (relative to the population at least) and north sea trade grew in importance up the east coast of Scotland, increasing the importance of English. Fourthly, the Black Death cleared many up-lying areas in and around the burghs. Lastly, perhaps most importantly of all, English became prestigious in England and was used much more commonly, both in communication and creative literature. It's no coincidence that Barbour's Brus comes just after and imitates a burst of similar literature south of the border. The cumulative result was that the Scottish Kings were more dependent on their English subjects, and had more incentive to use the language than their Canmore and Bruce predecessors.

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Vanity doesn't come into it-I've done the hard hours of study to earn a degree so I have confidence in my ability to debate my viewpoint without the use of ad hominem attacks.

*SIGH* The irony here is mind-blowing. You use both ad hominem attacks, and any secondary source you can find to advance your cause. Whereas lofty noble me regards secondary sources as irrelevant except for making available evidence to reintpret or agree with depending of the circumstance. This is medieval Scotland we're dealing with!!!

Serious question, did you do any non-modern history in your BA?

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Is there some reason perhaps why Inglis which developed into Scots and became established as a part of our nations's culture should be regarded as being of less worth than Gaelic?Should we ignore the fact that it was the language of law and education for much of our countries history and should we brush aside the wealth of literature written in Scots because it originated as a Teutonic tongue.I don't believe so and neither do a great many other Scots who see Gaelic and the Scots language as being equally important parts of our nation's cultural heritage.

It's a purely subjective matter. "Scots" has never had a standardized orthography or dialect, and is hence just a dialect of English (as far as I'm concerned), the literature of which I'm quite happy to celebrate as long as it isn't giving the inaccuarate and insulting name "Scots."

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
Ad hominem attacks don't wash-debate the issue in question.I have a high opinion of my ability to debate any given issue without getting involved in mud slinging.

You're deluded Andy. You were the only one mud-slinging. I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus
I don't believe I treated it naively-I do think however you naively resorted to questioning the integrity of the author rather than providing textual evidence to challenge the statements I

cited.As I'm a historian with over 30 years of experience in researching Scottish history I bet he hasn't done much more background research than me-and I would bet you haven't either.

#Yawn#
I've done and am doing plenty of research in this area, of which I do not need to boast nor inform you.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

"By the fourteenth century ... [Scots] had become the dominant spoken tongue of all ranks of Scots east and south of the Highland Line, except in Galloway". It also had become the language of the royal court. "From about this time, too, the same ... tongue was beginning to be used in Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland".
Http://www.medievalscotland.org/scot...anguages.shtml

That is the opinion of one linguist and it is an indisputable statement of fact.We have evidence furthermore,contrary to what another contributor to this thread has stated that Inglis was indeed the language spoken by the social elite.For one thing we have the Scots phrases interspersed into the Latin laws of David I-

If you like Ipse Dixit so much, then here you go:

"In the beginning of the fourteenth century ... Gaelic was still the language of the great bulk of the people outside English Lothians. North of the Forth English was hardly heard save in a few of the burghs; and in most of these, with perhaps the exception of the Flemish town of Aberdeen, Gaelic was familiar even to the English-speaking burgesses. South of the Forth the earldom of Lennox was still a Celtic earldom, as was Bruce's own earldom of Varrick, which he inherited from his Celtic mother; and throughout all the widespread district from the Forth and the Clyde to the English border, only in the conquered English Lothians was Gaelic a foreign tongue to the people "


Evan MacLeod Barron, The Scottish War of Independence: A Critical Study, 2nd Edition, pp. 212-13

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

"In the north of Aberdeenshire there is evidence that the harrying of Buchan, carried out by Robert the Bruce, in 1308, as part of his vengeance on his enemies the Comyns, introduced the English language to the inland districts, for in local documents the names of persons change speedily after that date from Gaelic to English."

Ibid.

There is a clear indication therefore that a systematic process of supplanting Gaelic with Inglis was underway very early in the fourteenth century and if the future King Robert the Bruce was the instigator of this process as the evidence indicates how can it be believed that he would not actively have promoted the Inglis language throughout his kingdom?It can't which is why it is not tenable to argue that Inglis was not firmly established as the language of all lowland Scotland by the fourteenth century.

This is simply hogwash. This was written in the 1920s, in the period after Skene but before Barron; and the scholarship is so whiggish and antiquated as to have be of no authority a century later. I'm surprised you even posted it, although I shouldn't be as it seems obvious how eager you are to promote your agenda.

The author cites no evidence of Bruce perpetrating it. It's just his intepretation of certain evidence which he doesn't even present. What's more, anyone with a knowledge of Bruce knows this kind of anti-Gaelic policy that our author has invented contradicts the parts of Bruce's character that we do know of. If you buy that, then ... well, no comment.

Moreover the author slavishly dates the Wyntoun passsage to 1296, which of course it could date to, but of which we have no evidence. As the authopr says " no doubt, are not far removed from the original form of a hundred and fifty years earlier." It's just pure conjecture, and no more firmly based than me or anyone else saying "this is obviously a translation of an earlier French form."

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

A mother tongue speaker?Is that another example of wordplay to convey the impression that Gaelic was his first tongue?I'm aware that Bruce spoke Gaelic,Inglis and Norman French and I wouldn't dispute that he saw Gaelic as well as the culture of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy as being important parts of his heritage.

Please do give us the evidence that Bruce spoke English. This fictional world is all very well for you an your agenda ... but looks more like a "piece of propaganda" than Bruce's letter, which at least confined itself to manipulating the "truth."

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Albanactus

A BA in history and humanities, and you hope to "find me out"? LOL. Well, you better hope I don't have any highers either.

Seriously though, it's a shame you like to make so much of this kind of thing. But, what is it they say about men with huge dogs and flashy cars ... haha.

Lighten up Andy.

I'm not making a big thing out of it but I think its important to challenge people who want to rewrite Scottish history to conform to their own prejudiced notions.



Mormaer was not an archaic term in the 13th century, it was the Gaelic term equivalent to Latin Comes. Historians who say so are always from the increasingly obsolete school of Scottish medievalists who never learn a word of Gaelic, and never consult Gaelic sources:

Annals of Ulster, s.a. 1301:

"Roibert a Briuis, mormaer, do ghabail righi n-Alban ar eigin i n-aghaidh righ Saxan."


Well that is a subtly different thing because you are quoting a Gaelic source which would obviously use the Celtic term Mormaer however the term Mormaer was not the title adopted by the Earls of Moray.Moray is an Earldom because it came under the control of an Anglo-Norman baronial family.I think it's significant that the decline in Gaelic occured far more rapidly and completely in the area of Moray and Tayside than it did further south given that they were former Pictish speaking areas where Gaelic culture and language had never become firmly established.




In contrast, any use of the word "Earl" is inappropriate before the mid-14th century at least. The Gaelic term was Mormaer; the Latin term was Comes. Earl was fine in the old days when that was just an English word translating any comes-related word; but if you're gonna call Norwegian ones "Jarl", French (comes/comte) and German (comes/graf) "count," then there's no defence.


This is just a straightforward falsehood.Did Robert the Bruce not have the title "Earl of Carrick"-I haven't seen any sources referring to him as Mormaer of Carrick and he was himself a Gaelic speaker.In the light of that fact would you care to reconsider your assertion?From the reign of David I English aristocratic titles were employed by the incoming Anglo-Norman aristocracy,none of whom adopted the title Mormaer.


You're still ignoring the fact that French is much more adequately attested than English. I suggest you read the St. Andrews medievalist and French scholar DDR Owen's DDR William the Lion,1143-1214: Kingship & Culture. Why aren't you arguing that French was the predominant language, on an Onward Triumphal March?

There is a scarcity of medieval textual sources available however those written in French are no more prevalent than those written entirely in English or containing English words.There are however some Inglis sources available from as early as the 14th century such as the rolls of the Great seal register and the burgh records of Aberdeen which pre-date 1400,and it is also found in personal and place names and legal documents written in Latin from as early as the twelfth century.

p.311 -The Oxford companion to Scottish history-2001

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Albanactus


With pleasure:

Here's a list of them from the Wars of Independence era- bold means area is traditionally of Scottish ethnicity:

LIST OF SCOTTISH "COUNTS" during the War of Independence Period:

Stayed in Scottish Hands:

Atholl: Donnchad (Duncan)
Dunbar: Patrick
Fife: Donnchad (Duncan)
Lennox: Máel Coluim (Malcolm)
Mar: Domnall (Donald)
Menteith: Muiredach (Murdoch)
Ross: Uilliam (William)
Strathearn: Máel Ísu (Malise)

Argyll (Lordship): Niall/Cuilén (Neil/Colin)
Hebrides (Lordship): Óengus -> Alexanndar (Alexander)

Passed to Incomers:

Angus: Gilbert de Umfraville (after death of Máel Coluim[1242], through heiress)
Buchan: Jean de Comyn (after death of Fergus [1244], through native heiress)
Carrick: Robert de Brus (after death of Niall [1255], through native heiress)
Sutherland: Guillaume

Galloway (Lordship): Heiress Derborgaill (Devorguilla) with Jean de Balliol



Actually you have proved my point.If you look at the first name on your list,Atholl,and examine the family lineage as detailed in the following source you find that this "Scottish ethnicity" was in fact a mixture of Scottish and Anglo-Norman ethnicity.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....s/ATHOLL.shtml


I suggest you examine the names on the list many of which are clearly of English origin and then tell me if you still wish to argue that these nobles were of entirely Scottish ethnic origin.Furthermore the Earldom of Menteith was bestowed upon Sir John Menteith in 1296 as the following source indicates therefore it was not in the hands of Malcolm as you claim and given that the said John Menteith was a willing supporter of Edward I and the betrayer of William Wallace perhaps his Scottish ethnicity wasn't a matter of great importance to him.Just how appropriate is it anyway to talk of traditionally Scottish ethnicity amongst the Scottish social elite of the period-even the highland chieftan MacDougall of Lorne was part of the Anglo Norman aristocracy given that he was related through marriage to the Comyns and the same was true of almost all other "highland" chieftans.

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/L/LE/LENNOX.htm





[/quote]