The Scots Gaelic Myth

[Allan Thomson]

Your first article names its sources as exclusively wikipedia - this would not be accepted as a reliable resource in an academic context. I'm a little dubious about some of the setup of the website.

The second article appears more objective & analytical but still does not name its siurces.

The final one is a BBC article - I've observed that the BBC has made many errors & ommissions in it's documentry programs. An example of this would be the programs by Dr Ramirez about Dark ages artwork - a program she ommitted to mention any of the outstanding & unique pieces of rk on the Isle of Man. So I am dubious about it too.

Besides this if you read the articles objectively with 2 & 3 you will note they support several things I have already said & which you don't seem to be seeing. For example they support that the Lowlands were already Saxon speaking when the Scots arrived being part of the Kingdom of Northumbria. They also comment that the Lowland Scots percieved themselves as English living in the Kingdom of the Scots & the Scots dialect was as accepted as Gaelic as a means of national identity.

When it comments about the Lowland areas it talks about Galloway & Ayrshire & as I've already pointed out this was from the sea going Norse Gaelic influences & does not imply a spread across the lowlands. It also mentions some places directly abbuting the Highlands, which have a strong history predating the Scottish invasion.

It also acknowledges that Gaelic placenames can come as loan words rather than implying that there was definitely Gaelic spoken in those areas. What it does seem to brush over except where it suits the article is where words are common to both P & Q Celts.

So I'm afraid you haven't really supported your statement that Gaelic is central to Scotland & Scottish identity or that it was spoken across all of the Lowlands.

My point remains & is supported by all of the articles that Gaelic is like Saxon an invading language and if you believe that the history of Scotland goes deeper than just the influx from Dalriada then you need to recognise it is no more right to put Gaelic on welcome to Scotland signs in the borders thanit is to put it in Brythonnic (infact less right if it is supposed to represent the language of the people of the surrounding areas.

[Father Bill]

Hi Patrick

In the fine lines of academia, it's all about peer-reviewed articles usually published by recognized scholars, in respected journals. None of the articles you cite come close to meeting those criteria.

It's unfortunate - the quality of the publicly available Internet doesn't come anywhere near the academic Internet that's available to university students in the specific disciplines and members only. I'm afraid I couldn't even point you to the journals you would need for the present discussion since although I have a deep interest and some skill as a linguist, my professional memberships are all theological rather than linguistic for obvious professional reasons. I give you one of my best links as an example so you get the idea of what I'm talking about here: https://www.atla.com/Pages/default.aspx As you see, it's for "members".

Sorry to disappoint.

Bill+

[PatrickHughes123]

Besides this if you read the articles objectively with 2 & 3 you will note they support several things I have already said & which you don't seem to be seeing. For example they support that the Lowlands were already Saxon speaking when the Scots arrived being part of the Kingdom of Northumbria. They also comment that the Lowland Scots percieved themselves as English living in the Kingdom of the Scots & the Scots dialect was as accepted as Gaelic as a means of national identity.

Yes in South-East Scotland. The South-West, and the North-East were Gaelic-speaking, except the extreme North-East. When Dal Riadia joined with Pictland to become Alba, the Pictish language and culture died out and they assimilated with the Gaels. The same for the Britons. The Angles, however, did not, they kept their English identity and the English language. Their assimilation into Scotland would not come until much later, even then, they kept the English tongue which would then become Scots. The earliest Gaelic writing was found in North-East Scotland. It was called the Book of Deer.

I don't have anything against earlier P-Celtic languages or the Scots language, I'm actually learning how to speak Scots right now. But again, Gaelic was spoken across most of Scotland, then it was replaced by Scots. Most sources I've read or videos I've watched have this view of history also.

To be honest, it annoys that defending my culture, and not letting people be brainwashed by the commonly believed myth that "Gaelic was only ever spoken in Highland Scotland." gets me labelled extremist. I support the preservation of Scots as well as Gaelic, I consider them both equal. There is a burgh in Scotland I live near to called Rutherglen, which has a possible Gaelic origin, from An Ruadh Gleann, meaning the red valley.

By the way, could you please send me links to articles 2 & 3? When ever I try to go to them on the website, it comes up 'Error 404'.

[Allan Thomson]

I just used the links you provided to access the sites? Am still able to access them at the moment.

I don't agree that Pictish language & culture died out in the true sense (ie ceased to exist) that doesn't happen even in a violent form of takeover. What happened is that the P Celtic Pictish Culture merged with Q Celtic Scottish culture in the places where Q Celt was the linguistic form & it evolved & combined to make a new culture which became considered as "Scottish". The articles you provided made comments about how P Celtic words could combine with Q Celt words to form placenames. Similarly if Pictish culture died out, why do we have words such as Aberdeen, &Aberfeldyremaining as Placenames? Likewish there was a merging of cultures between the P Celtic Picts & the Saxon Northumbrians to form a more uniquely Border Culture.

My point remains that Saxon was in Scotland before the Scots even arrived. Therefore as some 'Gaelic Fanatics' regard English as a language of an oppressor because it has eventually lead to the reduction of Gaelic as a true Language except for in a minority of places & they see Gaelic as more original to the Landmass we see as Scotland & therefore deserving of bilingual status, if we reconsider things in these terms of Saxon having been at a significant level of use in the Lowlands prior to the Dalriadic influx then the idea that Gaelic is any more 'Scottish' than Scots English is is called into highly questionable ground...

Do I think Gaelic was spoken more widely than it was? Yes but in different forms and from different influences & not just as one form comingvfrom Central and Highland Scotland like you seem to suggest & rather than a spreading band across land it was pocketting in from the sea. I also think loan words spread across cultures but not necessarily indicating that those languages were spoken widely in that area.

Do I think Gaelic is any more indigenous to the Landmass of Scotland than Scots English - not really both are languages which have come in from outside, but evolvedi nto a different form distictive to the region.

Do I think Gaelic is worthy of support? Yes I think it is, however as a tool to preserve the culture of the Highlands & Island & help them identify their roots. However it should not be made to look like this is the indigenous culture of the Lowland Scotland as the picture is more complex than that. And it should never ever be allowed to obliterate or call into question the preexisting cultures which were already there when the Scots arrived & this includes the Kingdom of Northumbria. But I also think where relevant P Celtic languages should also be incorporated in some way to the curriculum at least to facilitate an understanding of placenames.

Do I think any of your sources are reliable? Well I'd definitely say that map you provided was highly unreliable given the linguistiplacenames.it suggests as Being Wholly Irish Gaelic when in fact they were Norse Gaelic. I've discussed the reliability of the websites & have struggled to see the background of the people writing the pieces so one has to question what was their agenda. I also think in some cases you're putting an interpretation on things even the original author hasn't tried to do - ie the link you posted said it was a myth that Gaelic has nothing to do with the Lowlands, which is very different to saying that Gaelic is THE true language of the Lowlands like you are making out.

[PatrickHughes123]

I just used the links you provided to access the sites? Am still able to access them at the moment.

I don't agree that Pictish language & culture died out in the true sense (ie ceased to exist) that doesn't happen even in a violent form of takeover. What happened is that the P Celtic Pictish Culture merged with Q Celtic Scottish culture in the places where Q Celt was the linguistic form & it evolved & combined to make a new culture which became considered as "Scottish". The articles you provided made comments about how P Celtic words could combine with Q Celt words to form placenames. Similarly if Pictish culture died out, why do we have words such as Aberdeen, &Aberfeldyremaining as Placenames? Likewish there was a merging of cultures between the P Celtic Picts & the Saxon Northumbrians to form a more uniquely Border Culture.

My point remains that Saxon was in Scotland before the Scots even arrived. Therefore as some 'Gaelic Fanatics' regard English as a language of an oppressor because it has eventually lead to the reduction of Gaelic as a true Language except for in a minority of places & they see Gaelic as more original to the Landmass we see as Scotland & therefore deserving of bilingual status, if we reconsider things in these terms of Saxon having been at a significant level of use in the Lowlands prior to the Dalriadic influx then the idea that Gaelic is any more 'Scottish' than Scots English is is called into highly questionable ground...

Do I think Gaelic was spoken more widely than it was? Yes but in different forms and from different influences & not just as one form comingvfrom Central and Highland Scotland like you seem to suggest & rather than a spreading band across land it was pocketting in from the sea. I also think loan words spread across cultures but not necessarily indicating that those languages were spoken widely in that area.

Do I think Gaelic is any more indigenous to the Landmass of Scotland than Scots English - not really both are languages which have come in from outside, but evolvedi nto a different form distictive to the region.

Do I think Gaelic is worthy of support? Yes I think it is, however as a tool to preserve the culture of the Highlands & Island & help them identify their roots. However it should not be made to look like this is the indigenous culture of the Lowland Scotland as the picture is more complex than that. And it should never ever be allowed to obliterate or call into question the preexisting cultures which were already there when the Scots arrived & this includes the Kingdom of Northumbria. But I also think where relevant P Celtic languages should also be incorporated in some way to the curriculum at least to facilitate an understanding of placenames.

Do I think any of your sources are reliable? Well I'd definitely say that map you provided was highly unreliable given the linguistiplacenames.it suggests as Being Wholly Irish Gaelic when in fact they were Norse Gaelic. I've discussed the reliability of the websites & have struggled to see the background of the people writing the pieces so one has to question what was their agenda. I also think in some cases you're putting an interpretation on things even the original author hasn't tried to do - ie the link you posted said it was a myth that Gaelic has nothing to do with the Lowlands, which is very different to saying that Gaelic is THE true language of the Lowlands like you are making out.

Okay, this is what I'm talking about, Gaelic came to Scotland from Ireland. It then spread to Pictland where as well as replacing the Pictish language, Gaelicized many Pictish names. Same with the Cumbric people. As Alba grew, Gaelic spread. Even before the Norse Gael culture, there were pure Gaels that settled in the South-West about the 6th Century. I've even heard that Dalriada originally existed from Northern Ireland across to South-West Scotland. I know it was the Western Isles, but I've heard that the South-West was also a part of Dalriada.

I may have misrepresented myself, what I meant was, Gaelic shouldn't be treated as a regional language of the Highlands when in fact, long ago in Scotland's history, it was spoken over most of Scotland. It may not be relevant to the Lowlands today, but it was and is historically speaking.

Would Southern Gaelic have been different from Highland Gaelic? Yes. Was Galwegian Gaelic more Norse than the Gaelic of the Highlands? Yes. If it had survived, would Galwegian Gaelic be a different language? Possibly. But the point is, all of these possible historical dialects were all Gaelic ones.

No, Gaelic is not the only true language of Scotland. Scots is another true language and the only other as Gaelic and Scots are the only ones that have survived into the 21st Century.

[neloon]

Not sure that peer-reviewed articles end the debate about Q- versus P-.
Dr. Ewan Campbell suggested that Q-Celts were in Scotland prior to any Irish in-migration and that some Picts may have spoken Q-Celtic
https://www.electricscotland.com/his...scotsirish.htm
(originally published in Antiquity 75)
Bridget Brennan, on the other hand, disputes his analysis
http://www.academia.edu/7174193/A_cr...e_Scots_Irish_

Alan

[Father Bill]

Not sure that peer-reviewed articles end the debate about Q- versus P-.
Dr. Ewan Campbell suggested that Q-Celts were in Scotland prior to any Irish in-migration and that some Picts may have spoken Q-Celtic
https://www.electricscotland.com/his...scotsirish.htm
(originally published in Antiquity 75)
Bridget Brennan, on the other hand, disputes his analysis
http://www.academia.edu/7174193/A_cr...e_Scots_Irish_

Alan

Oh, it doesn’t end the debate, it just raises it considerably.

[Allan Thomson]

Not sure that peer-reviewed articles end the debate about Q- versus P-.
Dr. Ewan Campbell suggested that Q-Celts were in Scotland prior to any Irish in-migration and that some Picts may have spoken Q-Celtic
https://www.electricscotland.com/his...scotsirish.htm
(originally published in Antiquity 75)
Bridget Brennan, on the other hand, disputes his analysis
http://www.academia.edu/7174193/A_cr...e_Scots_Irish_

Alan

Further to this I was watching a documentry on Roman Britain & another hypothesis for the appearance of Gaelic in Galloway was that mercenaries could have been employed from Ireland either towards the end of the Roman period or after the end of the Roman occupation in a similar way to the Saxons. So possibly another source for the appearance of Gaelic in Lowland areas - payment would have most likely in land and therefore this could have lead to the introduction of Gaelic placenames even though the language of the majority of Scotland at that point would definitely have been a Brythonnic possibly with element of Latin influences remaining.

[Damion]

Further to this I was watching a documentry on Roman Britain & another hypothesis for the appearance of Gaelic in Galloway was that mercenaries could have been employed from Ireland either towards the end of the Roman period or after the end of the Roman occupation in a similar way to the Saxons.

That would be very convenient if true as it might solve the mystery of who the Attecotti were. The name possibly derives from Aithechthuatha, which referred to vassal people in Ireland. Attecotti units did exist in the Roman army.

That only accounts for the first Irish settlers, obviously they kept coming over the centuries including the Norse Gaels. The Irish colonised much of the western seaboard of Britain during this time though only the ones in what became Scotland were successful.

[OC Richard]

Not sure that peer-reviewed articles end the debate about Q- versus P-.

Yes no matter what the topic, once you delve into the published articles of intrenched professors in the field you find the same thing: at least two camps which derive opposite conclusions from the same material, each camp lead by one or more academics, each professor supported by a number of grad student sycophants, the two camps often indulging in childish mudslinging at each other within the pages of these respectable academic journals.

The level of debate often gets lower rather than higher as you ascend the ladder.