Changes

[Steaphan]

Hello, do any of the moderators know who might be responsible for the recent changes masquerading as factual information regarding "Scottish culture" and in the "languages" section.

For "gaelic was the spoken by the majority of Scotland's population over a thousand years ago", why not expand a bit.

Gaelic was spoken by the majority of Scotland's population less than 400 years ago. It ceased to be spoken by the majority sometime after the battle of Culloden in 1745/46.

"Gaelic is part of the romantic Scottish myth. " What is that supposed to mean?

This could only have been written by ignorant anglophiles.

[Albanactus]

I'd personally regard 1600 as the last point where Gaelic was probably the majority language of Scotland, certainly no earlier than 1500. 1746 is a bit late.

I haven't been able to find the section you're talking about. But I did find this amusing:

" The Normans conquered England in 1066, and then many Anglo-Saxons from England settled in the Lowlands of Scotland. This is when the Scots gradually adopted the English ways. Feudalism was established, and the chiefs of the clans became nobles. This is when Scottish town began to grow, trades were increased, and Scotland thrived."

The sense of "many Anglo-Saxons from England settled in the Lowlands of Scotland ... and Scotland thrived" certainly reveals an undeniable amount of Anglophilia, which is not surprising as it's very common amongst the Scots.

But rehashing the silly old "refugee thesis" for the anglicization of "the lowlands" - which never happened in any part of the Norman period anyway, so doesn't need to be explained - is rather embarrassing.

[Polwarth]

So 'Edwinsburgh' (amongst others) wasn't a town until the English/Normans came?

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by Polwarth

So 'Edwinsburgh' (amongst others) wasn't a town until the English/Normans came?

The "Edin" part of Edinburgh has nothing to do with Edwin. Otherwise, I don't understand what point you're making.

[Polwarth]

From Wikipedia

"The origin of the city's name is understood to come from the Brythonic Din Eidyn (Fort of Eidyn) from the time when it was a Gododdin hillfort, perhaps, as David Nash Ford suggests, when it was the home of the mid-6th century King Clinog Eitin whose epithet records the place name.

After it was besieged by the Bernician Angles the name changed to Edin-burh, which some have argued derives from the Anglo-Saxon for Edwin's fort, possibly derived from the 7th century Northumbrian king Edwin. However, since the name apparently predates King Edwin, this is highly unlikely. "

I note the final sentence in the above quote - but when I was a girl, way back about the time of Culloden, the history of Edinburgh was taught in Edinburgh Schools that It was Dun Edin, then EdWins Borough then Edinburgh - I take on board that later historical research has meant that may no longer be taught or may be qualified as shown above.

[ANDY-J3]

I think we can state that anyone who wished to argue that a majority of Scots spoke Gaelic in the mid-eighteenth century would be struggling to provide even a shred of credible evidence to support that,which is why no linguist would ever make such an argument.Unless you have some reliable evidence detailing the demographics of Scotland during the latter middle ages you are only dealing in conjecture as to whether Gaelic was spoken by a majority of Scots.I take the view that by the mid fifteenth century there must have been about an equal number of Scots and Gaelic speakers because around 1400 john of Fordoun stated "the people occupying the coast and the lowlands speak a Teutonic tongue,and the people of the Highlands and islands use the Scottish language (Gaelic)".On the basis of that evidence from a contemporary it would be difficult to believe that within the nation as a whole Gaelic was any more widely spoken that Scots,or Inglis as it was termed at that time,and given that the fifteenth century was a period of consolidation for the nobility and crown when their influence spread throughout Scotland it is probable that the high water mark of Gaelic had passed.

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by Polwarth

From Wikipedia

"The origin of the city's name is understood to come from the Brythonic Din Eidyn (Fort of Eidyn) from the time when it was a Gododdin hillfort, perhaps, as David Nash Ford suggests, when it was the home of the mid-6th century King Clinog Eitin whose epithet records the place name.

After it was besieged by the Bernician Angles the name changed to Edin-burh, which some have argued derives from the Anglo-Saxon for Edwin's fort, possibly derived from the 7th century Northumbrian king Edwin. However, since the name apparently predates King Edwin, this is highly unlikely. "

I note the final sentence in the above quote - but when I was a girl, way back about the time of Culloden, the history of Edinburgh was taught in Edinburgh Schools that It was Dun Edin, then EdWins Borough then Edinburgh - I take on board that later historical research has meant that may no longer be taught or may be qualified as shown above.

As well as the Brythonic "Din Eidyn" predating the King Edwin, which destroys the "Edwin's Burgh" theory anyway; but there are also lingustic reason's to doubt it, in that no form of Edinburgh ever recorded bares any resemblance to to what it would be if it were "Edwin's Burgh." "Din Eidyn" probably means "Fortress on a Slope" ... and the Din part was translated by the Saxons. Nevertheless, I've read historians such Toynbee and more recently Norman Davies perpetuating it because they have never bothered to check it out.