|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 27, 2023 8:26:35 GMT
Happy to have said my piece and don't need to say anything further.
Cheers, your English pal Dan. (BA Hons 1st in Modern European History)
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 27, 2023 13:49:35 GMT
Now we are in the realms of prehistory. The original 'native' language must be that spoken in the immediate post glacial or even the previous interglacial but then we move into the ridiculous and cave paintings. There is very much a move to separate 'the Scots' from 'the English' as much as possible and give them distinct cultural, language and historical differences yet both are intrinsically bound together in many ways. Gaelic is being used as this jemmy to prise apart this binding and being 'native Scots' is very much a mantle adopted that really has little to do with the current population. Even the first Minister has nothing to do with Gaeldom and eschewed the Bible on taking his seat. I do contend that the Eastern Lowlands were 'natively' Scots or Pictish Scots (whatever that is/was) and then had many influences including Gaelic. When the Scots regiments arrived in Crimea some rested at McKenzie's farm, that just means that a man owned a farm there who was, or at least descended from, Scots. The point being that place names can be misleading as individual items but I accept there is an overall picture. im afraid im going to have to multi quote you here.
no we arent in the realms of prehistory. Prehistory is regarded as the time before the era that shcolastic research can penetrate to . arguably pre roman . We are talking about scottish history , generally from the widely regarded foundation date of scotland in 845 ad , to the modern period. Regarded in hisotrical studies as medieval to modern.
Over that 1200 year period ,we are discussing the common language of scotland which has moved from gaelic , to modern english.
now you are being ridiculous. Beofre we delve into your ususal goal post moving and running off at a tangent lets remind ourselves of your original claim. You claimed gaelic was never spoken in the eastern lowlands......demonstrably false , and by implication was never scotlands native language , demonstrably false.
Scotland didnt exist in the immediate aftermath of the pre glacial period. We have no idea what language hunter gatherers spoke ,not just in what became scotland , but england and the whole european continent. The hypothesis is what they call an indo european language , which the majority of european languages including gaelic and english descend from.
However , in scotland (and the enitre british islands) the first identifiable culture was "celtic". the gaelic language and its ancestor could very well have been spoken in scotland and the entire british islands goping back something like 4500 thousand years.
If gaelic isnt scotland native language using your pre history rule , then that same rule applies to england france germany and every other coutnry oin the planet regarding their languages. Its a ridiculous assertion.
scots was a dialect of middle english that came into scotland post late 14th century. The original speakers of the language/dialcet called their language "inglis" and the native scots called it "beurla shassanch" ( literally saxon speech). it wasnt till the late 15th century that gavin douglas if first recorded as calling it "scots". Within less than a century , by the 16th century the scottish elite were again calling it english , and demanding a unifrom standard english be taught across scotland.
We are being gaslighted here. Since the reformation and there abouts , we have been told the scottish language is irish , and the english language is scottish.
gaelic pre dates both scots and english , was originally called the scottish language (albannach)and the majority of scots spoke gaelic , not scots or english , up till around the 16th century.
The spanish ambassador to the court of king james 4th in the early 16th century wrote to king ferdinand of spain that...
"the language of the scots is the same as the irish (gaelic) but some of the scots speak english very well as a result of the interaction they have on the border through war and commerce". I would say it has everything to do with our current popualtion in terms of it being scotland native heritage language.......no different to ireland and wales.
This is desperate. Dont you think thats because he is an urdu speaking muslim ?
ive just proved you wrong. Your original claim mind was that gaelic wasnt spoken in the eastern lowlands which is demonstably untrue. i have no idea what you are talking about pictish for in the south eastern lowlands of scotland. The picts were a people nicknamed the "picti" in the 3rd century ad by the romans , and by the 8th century they were starting to disaapear from recorded history as they became scots (fir albann). Their language by this stage was demonstrably gaelic , and as picts , pictland was to the north of the ochil hills and east of drum albann.
Actually what I said was that Gaelic was not the native language in Eastern Lowland Scotland, it influenced it as all did but it was not the 'native language. I think we may have to disagree as it seems we can each quote historical evidence that backs up our case. The whole point however is that England and Scotland were inextricably bound in many ways, as well as having many differences. The problem is that in trying to separate from the Union it is necessary for those to show how bad England and the English were to the Scots and quite often. like much of modern history (especially England's), that degree of badness and risibility is manufactured. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 29, 2023 6:53:47 GMT
Happy to have said my piece and don't need to say anything further. Cheers, your English pal Dan. (BA Hons 1st in Modern European History) Dan , ive been on the phone to the principals office in charge of glasgow university , one of the worlds top presitgious universities some 600 years old , with students from as far as beijing and new york , to tell him he must immediately close down the centre for scottish and celtic historical studies , pending investigation , as dan dare , an obscure individual on an obscure predominantly english political forum in the dark recesses of the interwebb , tells me scottish history doesnt exist.
Thanks for your input fellow european.
Postgraduate Studies
Glasgow University’s internationally acknowledged strengths across Scottish and Celtic Studies offer you the exciting opportunity to engage in advanced study of Scotland’s history, culture and languages, as well as Celtic studies more broadly, in a vibrant city boasting unrivalled access to Scottish historical and cultural resources.
We offer the following taught degree programmes:
Celtic Studies
Medieval & Renaissance Studies
Scottish History
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 29, 2023 7:35:24 GMT
im afraid im going to have to multi quote you here.
no we arent in the realms of prehistory. Prehistory is regarded as the time before the era that shcolastic research can penetrate to . arguably pre roman . We are talking about scottish history , generally from the widely regarded foundation date of scotland in 845 ad , to the modern period. Regarded in hisotrical studies as medieval to modern.
Over that 1200 year period ,we are discussing the common language of scotland which has moved from gaelic , to modern english.
now you are being ridiculous. Beofre we delve into your ususal goal post moving and running off at a tangent lets remind ourselves of your original claim. You claimed gaelic was never spoken in the eastern lowlands......demonstrably false , and by implication was never scotlands native language , demonstrably false.
Scotland didnt exist in the immediate aftermath of the pre glacial period. We have no idea what language hunter gatherers spoke ,not just in what became scotland , but england and the whole european continent. The hypothesis is what they call an indo european language , which the majority of european languages including gaelic and english descend from.
However , in scotland (and the enitre british islands) the first identifiable culture was "celtic". the gaelic language and its ancestor could very well have been spoken in scotland and the entire british islands goping back something like 4500 thousand years.
If gaelic isnt scotland native language using your pre history rule , then that same rule applies to england france germany and every other coutnry oin the planet regarding their languages. Its a ridiculous assertion.
scots was a dialect of middle english that came into scotland post late 14th century. The original speakers of the language/dialcet called their language "inglis" and the native scots called it "beurla shassanch" ( literally saxon speech). it wasnt till the late 15th century that gavin douglas if first recorded as calling it "scots". Within less than a century , by the 16th century the scottish elite were again calling it english , and demanding a unifrom standard english be taught across scotland.
We are being gaslighted here. Since the reformation and there abouts , we have been told the scottish language is irish , and the english language is scottish.
gaelic pre dates both scots and english , was originally called the scottish language (albannach)and the majority of scots spoke gaelic , not scots or english , up till around the 16th century.
The spanish ambassador to the court of king james 4th in the early 16th century wrote to king ferdinand of spain that...
"the language of the scots is the same as the irish (gaelic) but some of the scots speak english very well as a result of the interaction they have on the border through war and commerce". I would say it has everything to do with our current popualtion in terms of it being scotland native heritage language.......no different to ireland and wales.
This is desperate. Dont you think thats because he is an urdu speaking muslim ?
ive just proved you wrong. Your original claim mind was that gaelic wasnt spoken in the eastern lowlands which is demonstably untrue. i have no idea what you are talking about pictish for in the south eastern lowlands of scotland. The picts were a people nicknamed the "picti" in the 3rd century ad by the romans , and by the 8th century they were starting to disaapear from recorded history as they became scots (fir albann). Their language by this stage was demonstrably gaelic , and as picts , pictland was to the north of the ochil hills and east of drum albann.
Actually what I said was that Gaelic was not the native language in Eastern Lowland Scotland, it influenced it as all did but it was not the 'native language. I think we may have to disagree as it seems we can each quote historical evidence that backs up our case. The whole point however is that England and Scotland were inextricably bound in many ways, as well as having many differences. The problem is that in trying to separate from the Union it is necessary for those to show how bad England and the English were to the Scots and quite often. like much of modern history (especially England's), that degree of badness and risibility is manufactured. you move goalposts yet again.
Neither was scots or english.
The earliest language of the eastern lowlands , if by native you mean first recorded , was welsh. The oldest literature in the welsh language comes from what is now south east scotland in the seventh century. We know the area came under anglo saxon rule for 200 odd years , essentially an anglo saxon elite , army and merchant class ruling over welsh speaking celts. After the fall of northumbria in the 9th century , the danes swallowed the south , the gaelic speaking scots took the north , and what is now south eastern scotland became gaelic speaking for many centuries. So once again sandy you arent quite correct , you spin part truths , and seem determined for some strange reason to denigrate , or at least diminish gaelic .
You are being deliberately amibiguos. i have given you many place names that show gaelic was the language at one point of not just south east scotland , but in northern cumbria and northumberland , we have refences to gaelic speaking communities and place names from our friends in england. Clearly at one point gaelic was the common tongue.
From throughout the medieval period , we have references in scottish documents from the eastern lowlands of the persistence of gaelic marriage customs , the gaelic law of indemnification in sharp contrast to england at the time , from the old gaelic slan......indemnity , evidence from legal circles of a time when scotland was a uniform gaelic speaking society , or "tocher" , gaelic for a marriage portion , or colpindach , a fee for an official or chief.
So not just in many place names , in south east scotland , are gaelic in origin , with the vast majority celtic not "scots" or englsih , but in customs , laws and the general society of the so called scottish lowlands we see evidence of gaelic persist right down to the modern era. So what are you talking about?
im waiting for you ti give me any evidence sandy , so far , you are offering up into the debate nothing more than easily dismissed conjecture at best , or fantasy at worst .
You say you are in south west scotland. South western scotland itself was still gaelic speaking in part until the late 18th century.
..and now we come to the nub of your denial....your unionism , which appears to obscure all reality. Thats whay in general unionists have great difficulty with celtic languages in general , but especially gaelic.We see the same denial in northern ireland , and of course on this very forum , our welsh unionist john of gwent similarly denies monmouthire is welsh.
To adress your sentence though , the same can be said of england and many independent countires, from ireland , to denmanrk , france , germany and much more. We can share links , culture , languages and much else , as most of europe does with each other. That doesnt mean we all have to hand our soveriengty over to london. Just as the english , despite being key proponents of the european project , and having cultural and historical links with europe , decided to leave the EU.
dont talk rubbish sandy. In terms of the english language , i have tried to explain to you that the english language wasnt forced on gaelic scotland by the english people , but was rather as a result of the norman french. Being offended on behalf of the english does you no favour. The english are big boys and girls , can defend themselves , and i certainly arent blaming them , but instead blame the london elite.
Its clear you really are largely ignorant of your own countries history and language/culture. Try and expand your mind and learn something without retreating into siege mentality and denial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 29, 2023 8:14:46 GMT
Celtic Studies my arse.
Any university course with 'studies' in the title is a prime candidate for the chop in my view, whether gender studies, ethnic, womyns, Africa or even bloody Celtic.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 29, 2023 8:28:37 GMT
Celtic Studies my arse. Any university course with 'studies' in the title is a prime candidate for the chop in my view, whether gender studies, ethnic, womyns, Africa or even bloody Celtic. irrelevant. You claim scottish history doesnt exist , and im giving you irrefutable evidence one of the most distinguished universities in the world teaches scottish history. Im sure the 600 year old university of glasgow though , will bow to your intellectual pressure and cease all mention of scottish history immediately dan , in light of your offended british sensibilities.
better tell cambidge university how mortified you are as well dan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 29, 2023 8:55:23 GMT
Celtic in that context refers to its cultural and linguistic aspects in the time period concerned e.g. 'Dark Ages' and prior. Nothing at all wrong with that.
It's a far cry from the perpetual whingeing about how hard done by they are from the present-day so-called Celtic Fringe which I'm sure is what 'Celtic Studies' is all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2023 15:16:09 GMT
I can't believe that any credible university would promote anti-English bigotry to their students or support a shameless and racist political campaign by a bunch of Hitler-mimicking SNPers. It's just another attempt by the SNP to hijack the education system and rewrite history.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 29, 2023 23:04:01 GMT
I can't believe that any credible university would promote anti-English bigotry to their students or support a shameless and racist political campaign by a bunch of Hitler-mimicking SNPers. It's just another attempt by the SNP to hijack the education system and rewrite history. You've got to admit, it's the way you tell them... |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 30, 2023 10:38:20 GMT
Celtic in that context refers to its cultural and linguistic aspects in the time period concerned e.g. 'Dark Ages' and prior. Nothing at all wrong with that. It's a far cry from the perpetual whingeing about how hard done by they are from the present-day so-called Celtic Fringe which I'm sure is what 'Celtic Studies' is all about. For someone who claims to have some sort of degree in history , you dont half talk out of your backside on a regular basis dan. You claimed scottish history doesnt exist , ive given you irrefutable evidence of its teaching at a world renowned university.
you mocked "celtic " , and i pointed out the world famous english university cambridge offers studies on celtic history. Obviously , when compared to your vast knowledge and towering intellect , these insignificant universities , however world famous they may be , and the professors and teachers who have spent their lives reaserching and providing tuition on these subjects , pale into insignificance and ridicule when some vague bloke on some obscure interwebby forum mocks their existence and value.
Is it?
So we get to the nub of the issue. Dan dare , a non entity posting guff on the outer reaches of the interwebby doesnt like scottish or celtic studies as he is in terror it might be used as a vehicle to promote scottish independence?
wow. You really are a fragile wee thing danny arent you?
imagine being in terror of a few daft history books.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 30, 2023 10:40:41 GMT
I can't believe that any credible university would promote anti-English bigotry to their students or support a shameless and racist political campaign by a bunch of Hitler-mimicking SNPers. It's just another attempt by the SNP to hijack the education system and rewrite history.
"sometimes its better to remain silent and be thought stupid ,than open your mouth to confirm it"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2023 18:32:53 GMT
Speak for yourself, Thomas. You're the one trying to hijack the history of this island whilst claiming it to be Scottish history. The fact that you ignore what other Scottish people are telling you only sums up your desperation. I stand by my claim that no credible university would spout the BS you're relying on. In fact, I doubt you even looked into it.
Stick to spamming memes for your regime of anti-English bigots.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Sept 30, 2023 20:16:50 GMT
Speak for yourself, Thomas. You're the one trying to hijack the history of this island whilst claiming it to be Scottish history. The fact that you ignore what other Scottish people are telling you only sums up your desperation. I stand by my claim that no credible university would spout the BS you're relying on. In fact, I doubt you even looked into it. Stick to spamming memes for your regime of anti-English bigots. Why is it wrong to teach Scottish history? I shouldn't ask because I really think you should stop posting on Scottish issues. Issues you obviously know nothing about. It is getting rather embarrassing!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 30, 2023 20:41:14 GMT
There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching Scottish history as long as it's made clear to the bairns on the receiving end that in the grand scheme of things it's about as important on a European level as Moldovan history.
Scottish issues are just that, Scottish. Nobody else gives a fuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Sept 30, 2023 21:43:26 GMT
There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching Scottish history as long as it's made clear to the bairns on the receiving end that in the grand scheme of things it's about as important on a European level as Moldovan history. Scottish issues are just that, Scottish. Nobody else gives a fuck. Now you accept that Scottish history exists and that it should be taught, what was your problem? "The thinnest book in the world" has many more, very interesting pages, than you have any idea about. In addition to T mentioning Glasgow University's Scottish history degree course, and me pointing you to Dundee University's online Masters course, I also bring into evidence that most anglified of Scottish Universities, St Andrews. It offers students an MA (Hons) degree in Scottish History. And we don't give a fuck that nobody else cares (if that is the case and not one of your rather forlorn hopes). But people maybe do care: the countries that the dispossessed were forced to migrate to. The many Northern European countries which traded with Scotland, the auld alliance and so on. Now Scotland maybe but a footnote in any history taught in foreign climes but those footnotes exist. It is the teaching of English History in Scotland, to the extent it is that annoys me. I accept that our paths crossed numerous times but, to take a rather innocuous example - The 6 wives of Henry VIII: Why should it be so important to know who the women were. It is not our history, yet we were taught about them. |
|
