3 added 211 characters in body
source | link

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

So, to answer the question: Scots language questions should be either separated from English language community, or the name of the community should change to be inclusive of related-but-separate languages.

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

So, to answer the question: Scots language questions should be either separated from English language community, or the name of the community should change to be inclusive of related-but-separate languages.

2 added 1 character in body
source | link

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.

1
source | link

Technically it might be an ethnolect, but it is just a word that was coined to avoid too heated political discussions. While ultimately I believe the decision is for people using it to make.

A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".

Now, aside of the fact that this kind of studies should be treated rather advisory, it unveils the most important aspect of the issue.

I, as a non-native English speaker, have been taught standard British English. That education allowed me to interact with people from variety of countries and consume media created in even bigger number of places. Plethora of American accents and dialects came quite naturally to me, as did South African and Australian. Back then, however, there's no hope I would be able to understand Scots, neither spoken nor written. And on that note: the aforementioned study shows that 72% of Scottish non-Scots speakers think of it as a language, and that is most likely because they cannot understand it!

Finally there is the aspect of cultural identity. From my own backyard the Kashubian and Silesian languages are also topics of heated discussion - members of those communities believe those are languages, and yet that status is not granted them, despite there being only very limited mutual intelligibility, and the reasons are strictly political, verging on unhealthy understanding of "national unity".

The only fair assumption is to treat Scots as a separate language, at least until there is a referendum that would Scottish people determine democratically their stance. I guess we might actually see it happen, should Scotland become independent and be given a chance to legally sort out variety of topics concerning its own identity.