Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!bhamcs!comlab.ox.ac.uk!gmb
From: gmb@natcorp.ox.ac.uk (Glynis Baguley)
Subject: Re: Scots and English (was: Re: Flemish and Dutch)
Message-ID: <1995Apr28.170853.14611@onionsnatcorp.ox.ac.uk>
Originator: gmb@onions.natcorp
Organization: British National Corpus, Oxford University, GB
References: <3noj3c$lcu@bertha.gssec.bt.co.uk> <3npbvt$ev5@giga.bga.com> <3nqtn1$b7v@bertha.gssec.bt.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:08:53 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <3nqtn1$b7v@bertha.gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:
> [snip]

> I invite you to consider the following four statements:
> 
>     (i) Scots is a dialect of English.
>     (ii) English is a dialect of Scots.
>     (iii) Scots and English are dialects of one language.
>     (iv) Scots and English are different languages.
> 
> I personally would consider (iv) to be nearest to the truth, although I
> accept that a reasonable case can be made for (iii). However, I regard both
> (i) and (ii) as having an unacceptable nationalistic bias, and I invite
> anyone who believes (i) rather than (ii) or (iii) to consider
> whether his or her belief originates less in linguistic fact, and more in 
> the present power relationship that exists between Scotland and England.

I like (iii), but what is that one language called? I think it has to
be called English, with acknowledgement that there is English (which
includes all varieties of English), and there is English English. So
(i) is also true if you make it clear that you don't mean English
English, which is itself a dialect of English.
-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{      Glynis.Baguley@oucs.ox.ac.uk     }
{  Oxford University Computing Services }
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
