Os is it just a heavy dialect spoken by working class Scottish peasants? However, if languages like Czech/Slovak, Indonesian/Malay, Afrikaans/Dutch or even Spanish/Portuguese are considered different, then I see no reason why Scots and English shouldn't be.
Is Scots its own language?
Scots was a dialect of English that Robert Burns used to speak. No-one speaks Scots any longer. If you're talking about the Scottish accent, it's not a different language, it's not a dialect, it's just a strong accent. The vocabulary is almost completely identical to the English of England, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, or South Africa. Those who would wish to illustrate different vocabulary examples (small/wee, loch/lake etc) would only be proving the point by creating a small list relative to the size of the language.
English spoken in Scotland and England are nowhere near as different as Spanish and Portuguese, or Afrikaans and Dutch, or Brazilian and European Portuguese.
One really remarkable thing about English is how surprisingly intelligible it is between different English-speaking countries, if you exclude the creole variants for example in Jamaica and Belize, which actually are true dialects.
English spoken in Scotland and England are nowhere near as different as Spanish and Portuguese, or Afrikaans and Dutch, or Brazilian and European Portuguese.
One really remarkable thing about English is how surprisingly intelligible it is between different English-speaking countries, if you exclude the creole variants for example in Jamaica and Belize, which actually are true dialects.
"One really remarkable thing about English is how surprisingly intelligible it is between different English-speaking countries..."
The same can be said about Spanish.
The same can be said about Spanish.
<<"One really remarkable thing about English is how surprisingly intelligible it is between different English-speaking countries..."
The same can be said about Spanish. >>
Not really. The number of localisms is astonishing. And the number of words with different meanings in different places. There are MANY MORE such cases than in English. It's just too common to see things like this in definitions:
cachar3.
(Del ingl. to catch).
1. tr. Am. Cen., Bol. y Col. En algunos juegos, agarrar al vuelo una pelota que un jugador lanza a otro.
2. tr. Am. Cen., Bol. y Col. Agarrar cualquier objeto pequeño que una persona arroja por el aire a otra.
3. tr. Am. Cen. hurtar.
4. tr. coloq. Am. Mer., Cuba, El Salv., Hond. y Méx. Sorprender a alguien, descubrirlo.
5. tr. coloq. Arg., Bol., Par. y Ur. Burlarse de alguien, hacerle objeto de una broma, tomarle el pelo.
6. tr. vulg. Arg., Hond., Méx., Nic., Perú y Ur. Agarrar, asir, tomar.
7. tr. Chile. sospechar.
8. tr. coloq. Chile. Entender, comprender.
9. tr. coloq. Cuba. Observar a alguien disimuladamente.
10. tr. El Salv., Nic., R. Dom. y Ven. En el béisbol, servir de receptor.
11. tr. El Salv. Conseguir algo o tratar de obtenerlo con diligencia y esmero.
12. intr. vulg. Perú. Practicar el coito.
It basically means something different in every country. There are so many cases like this it's uncountable.
The same can be said about Spanish. >>
Not really. The number of localisms is astonishing. And the number of words with different meanings in different places. There are MANY MORE such cases than in English. It's just too common to see things like this in definitions:
cachar3.
(Del ingl. to catch).
1. tr. Am. Cen., Bol. y Col. En algunos juegos, agarrar al vuelo una pelota que un jugador lanza a otro.
2. tr. Am. Cen., Bol. y Col. Agarrar cualquier objeto pequeño que una persona arroja por el aire a otra.
3. tr. Am. Cen. hurtar.
4. tr. coloq. Am. Mer., Cuba, El Salv., Hond. y Méx. Sorprender a alguien, descubrirlo.
5. tr. coloq. Arg., Bol., Par. y Ur. Burlarse de alguien, hacerle objeto de una broma, tomarle el pelo.
6. tr. vulg. Arg., Hond., Méx., Nic., Perú y Ur. Agarrar, asir, tomar.
7. tr. Chile. sospechar.
8. tr. coloq. Chile. Entender, comprender.
9. tr. coloq. Cuba. Observar a alguien disimuladamente.
10. tr. El Salv., Nic., R. Dom. y Ven. En el béisbol, servir de receptor.
11. tr. El Salv. Conseguir algo o tratar de obtenerlo con diligencia y esmero.
12. intr. vulg. Perú. Practicar el coito.
It basically means something different in every country. There are so many cases like this it's uncountable.
Colloquialisms and vulgarisms are the part of vocabulary that show the biggest degree of variation from country to country. The same happens in English
<<Not really. The number of localisms is astonishing. And the number of words with different meanings in different places. There are MANY MORE such cases than in English. It's just too common to see things like this in definitions: >>
I learnt Spanish from materials that dealt almost exclusively with Castillian Spanish, and whenever I listen to Colombian or Argentina radio, I actually find that easier to understand than listening to RNE.
I learnt Spanish from materials that dealt almost exclusively with Castillian Spanish, and whenever I listen to Colombian or Argentina radio, I actually find that easier to understand than listening to RNE.
<<"One really remarkable thing about English is how surprisingly intelligible it is between different English-speaking countries..."
The same can be said about Spanish. >>
"Not really. The number of localisms is astonishing. And the number of words with different meanings in different places. There are MANY MORE such cases than in English."
I'm not convinced of that. I think people usually underestimate the differences in their own language (in our case, English) because it's easier to figure out what they mean than the differences between dialects of other languages. I once read about a native English speaker who went to Newcastle, England, and listened to somebody talk. Not only could they not understand a single word, they didn't even though the person was speaking English! After a few days, however, they started to understand.
They are many surprising differences in the meanings of words and idioms in English too. For example, to "bomb" on a test means, in the U.S., to do terrible on it. Apparently in the U.K., it means the exact opposite.
The same can be said about Spanish. >>
"Not really. The number of localisms is astonishing. And the number of words with different meanings in different places. There are MANY MORE such cases than in English."
I'm not convinced of that. I think people usually underestimate the differences in their own language (in our case, English) because it's easier to figure out what they mean than the differences between dialects of other languages. I once read about a native English speaker who went to Newcastle, England, and listened to somebody talk. Not only could they not understand a single word, they didn't even though the person was speaking English! After a few days, however, they started to understand.
They are many surprising differences in the meanings of words and idioms in English too. For example, to "bomb" on a test means, in the U.S., to do terrible on it. Apparently in the U.K., it means the exact opposite.
<<
I think people usually underestimate the differences in their own language (in our case, English) because it's easier to figure out what they mean than the differences between dialects of other languages.>>
Well, maybe I'm underestimating English differences, but the fact is that ALL THE TIME I see NATIVE Spanish speakers asking eachother "what does that mean" or explaining to eachother "oh, in Colombia that means someone who is...." and the other person replies "oh right, here in Argentina it is more someone who ...", "I heard in Spain it means a type of..."...
<<I once read about a native English speaker who went to Newcastle, England, and listened to somebody talk. Not only could they not understand a single word, they didn't even though the person was speaking English!>>
Well, that's true. Maybe if there were as many people who spoke Newcastle English as American English more people would know about the differences that may or may not exist, we'd come across them much mroe. But American English and RPish dominate so no one even knows these other dialects exist, whereas Spanish dialects are all similarly common... But even so, even if theoretically the variation is the same, it is definitely not the same on a practical level.
<<I learnt Spanish from materials that dealt almost exclusively with Castillian Spanish, and whenever I listen to Colombian or Argentina radio, I actually find that easier to understand than listening to RNE.>>
That's just the accent that is easy to understand. We're talking about VOCABULARY. They don't use colloquial VOCABULARY on the radio...
<<Colloquialisms and vulgarisms are the part of vocabulary that show the biggest degree of variation from country to country. The same happens in English >>
It happens in English too, but to a lesser extent compared to Spanish.
I think people usually underestimate the differences in their own language (in our case, English) because it's easier to figure out what they mean than the differences between dialects of other languages.>>
Well, maybe I'm underestimating English differences, but the fact is that ALL THE TIME I see NATIVE Spanish speakers asking eachother "what does that mean" or explaining to eachother "oh, in Colombia that means someone who is...." and the other person replies "oh right, here in Argentina it is more someone who ...", "I heard in Spain it means a type of..."...
<<I once read about a native English speaker who went to Newcastle, England, and listened to somebody talk. Not only could they not understand a single word, they didn't even though the person was speaking English!>>
Well, that's true. Maybe if there were as many people who spoke Newcastle English as American English more people would know about the differences that may or may not exist, we'd come across them much mroe. But American English and RPish dominate so no one even knows these other dialects exist, whereas Spanish dialects are all similarly common... But even so, even if theoretically the variation is the same, it is definitely not the same on a practical level.
<<I learnt Spanish from materials that dealt almost exclusively with Castillian Spanish, and whenever I listen to Colombian or Argentina radio, I actually find that easier to understand than listening to RNE.>>
That's just the accent that is easy to understand. We're talking about VOCABULARY. They don't use colloquial VOCABULARY on the radio...
<<Colloquialisms and vulgarisms are the part of vocabulary that show the biggest degree of variation from country to country. The same happens in English >>
It happens in English too, but to a lesser extent compared to Spanish.
<<Colloquialisms and vulgarisms are the part of vocabulary that show the biggest degree of variation from country to country. The same happens in English >>
It happens in English too, but to a lesser extent compared to Spanish.
Can you prove? it?
It happens in English too, but to a lesser extent compared to Spanish.
Can you prove? it?
"It happens in English too, but to a lesser extent compared to Spanish."
Again, I don't think it's possible to make a conclusive statement about this. I've heard other people with experience with speakers of both languages say that the believe there's more variation within English than Spanish. One thing I've learned in studying languages is that comments on issues such as these are extremely subjective and need to be taken not merely with a grain of salt, but a ton of salt. Witness the debates over the mutual intelligibility of the French of France versus that of Quebec, with some people passionately asserting that they're easily intelligible and others saying the opposite just as adamantly.
I think what is clear is that most speakers of both English and Spanish can adequately communicate with each other, notwithstanding the differences. The differences aren't comparable to, for example, those between Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, which are for practical purposes different languages, at least in their spoken forms.
Again, I don't think it's possible to make a conclusive statement about this. I've heard other people with experience with speakers of both languages say that the believe there's more variation within English than Spanish. One thing I've learned in studying languages is that comments on issues such as these are extremely subjective and need to be taken not merely with a grain of salt, but a ton of salt. Witness the debates over the mutual intelligibility of the French of France versus that of Quebec, with some people passionately asserting that they're easily intelligible and others saying the opposite just as adamantly.
I think what is clear is that most speakers of both English and Spanish can adequately communicate with each other, notwithstanding the differences. The differences aren't comparable to, for example, those between Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, which are for practical purposes different languages, at least in their spoken forms.
"That's just the accent that is easy to understand. We're talking about VOCABULARY. They don't use colloquial VOCABULARY on the radio..."
That's not always true. It depends on the type of radio program.
It's definitely not true that everything on the radio sounds formal.
That's not always true. It depends on the type of radio program.
It's definitely not true that everything on the radio sounds formal.
Desintegration,
Your little example just proves that the RAE online dictionary is way better than the online English dictionaries.
Your little example just proves that the RAE online dictionary is way better than the online English dictionaries.
Is Scots its own language?
I tend to agree with the linguists who say it is.
But people tend to confuse heavily-regional accented English in Scotland (even Glaswegian brogue), which itself is simply English spoken over a Scots substratum, with the Scots language (a West Germanic language). Scots was still considered a literary language inside of Scotland up until the 1600s but English began to make inroads into Scottish courtly life and officialdom following King James accession to the "One Ruler, Two Kingdoms" arrangement.
I tend to agree with the linguists who say it is.
But people tend to confuse heavily-regional accented English in Scotland (even Glaswegian brogue), which itself is simply English spoken over a Scots substratum, with the Scots language (a West Germanic language). Scots was still considered a literary language inside of Scotland up until the 1600s but English began to make inroads into Scottish courtly life and officialdom following King James accession to the "One Ruler, Two Kingdoms" arrangement.
Depends if you're talking about the auld Scots language or modern Scottish English.
Even today, many Scots terms are used in everyday speech. However, a large number of words are also dying out. I remember my granny using vocabulary that is rarely heard among younger people today.
Even today, many Scots terms are used in everyday speech. However, a large number of words are also dying out. I remember my granny using vocabulary that is rarely heard among younger people today.
Auld Scots used by Burns is definitely a separate but closely related leid. However, it seems that as English encroaches more and more upon Scots that the two languages may end up blending back into one another.
This raises an interesting fraign: Have languages ever split, but then coalsced back into one another as a true merger? Of course, I am referring only to languages that have diverged, yet were still extremely close. Perhaps that's a new thread...
This raises an interesting fraign: Have languages ever split, but then coalsced back into one another as a true merger? Of course, I am referring only to languages that have diverged, yet were still extremely close. Perhaps that's a new thread...