Just to twist the tiger's tail....

[Katia]

On your first question, I would say that yes, it ceases to be a kilt if it's too short or too long. How much is too much? That's debatable just like everything else. A traditional kilt should be worn at the top of the knee, down to mid-knee at most. A little leeway beyond that is understandable, so I'd say anywhere from an inch above the top of knee to the bottom of the knee. Shorter or longer than that, and it just looks odd. But of course, there are historical depictions of kilts being worn much shorter than that and a bit longer as well. So nothing is set in stone.

If we had to always consider an ill-fitting item of clothing to be not that item of clothing because of the fact that it's ill-fitting, there wouldn't be much "genuine" attire out there! I mean, if you took that same garment that is too long on Person A and hence not a kilt, and put it on Person B, who is taller and who it would fit correctly, would it turn into a kilt again? If we took Person B's perfectly-fitting kilt, and lent it to Person C, who is even taller yet and so it would be too short on them, does that turn into not-a-kilt?

I might say someone is committing the crime of not wearing the garment correctly, but that doesn't mean it's not actually the garment. I could wear my kilt on my head and it would still be a kilt... You would say, "why does that idiot have a kilt on her head?" not "Oh what an interesting hat."