Please explain...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan,

Would you define either of these two as "real kilt" by your definition?









And I must correct you on one small point. Here is your statement.

The "contemporary" is a recent phenomenon; the result of an enterprising guy modifying a pair of worn out cargo shorts. Like I've previously said, that doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by, or held to, the same standard as the traditional kilt. Likewise, they should not be compared to the traditional kilt because they have vastly different origins.

Two things:First, it's not my definition. I plucked it fromTHE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCOTLAND. Second, sure, those most definitely are kilts. From what I can see they appear to be shaped, and thickly pleated. That someone has added pockets (my 15 year old "Hill Walker" has concealed pockets) doesn't significantly alter the garment any more than box pleats would.

I used the word contemporay in quotes to denote any wrap around garment that did not meet the definition of a kilt. I see now that referring to wrap around cargo shorts, and their like, as "quasi-kilts" would have caused less confusion so I will amend my original posting to clarify this point.

As you can see from the examples above, a Contemporary Style Kilt can stand side by side with one of the finest examples of Traditional Style Kilts.

Absolutely. I never intended to imply otherwise. I don't think anyone would have a beef with a contemporay kilt being called, or thought of, as a real kilt. In fact, I think that the word "traditional" applies equally to a kilt whether or not it has concealed pockets, so long as it otherwise fits the general definition.

However, I do stand by my statement that the "quasi-kilt", by definition, isn't really a kilt.

[Makeitstop]

Two things:First, it's not my definition. I plucked it fromTHE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCOTLAND. Second, sure, those most definitely are kilts. From what I can see they appear to be shaped, and thickly pleated. That someone has added pockets (my 15 year old "Hill Walker" has concealed pockets) doesn't significantly alter the garment any more than box pleats would.

However, I do stand by my statement that the "quasi-kilt", by definition, isn't really a kilt.

I would argue with your definition of a kilt. You've taken a description of a kilt from an encyclopedia (one that is specifically about Scotland), and then added to it by describing some common features of traditional kilts, then declared those to be the criteria which determine whether or not a garment is a kilt. So yes, this is your definition of a kilt. And it is inherently flawed (at least, for the purposes of this discussion) because you defined a kilt with a description of a traditional kilt, and then said if it doesn't meet the definition, it isn't a kilt. You're defining kilts as being traditional kilts, then saying that non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, and pointing to your definition as evidence. It's a little circular, don't you think?

So, let's just check a dictionary for a definition. From websters:

1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

If you don't like that one, here's a whole bunch to choose from

I think this is a bit more usable as a definition. A pleated knee-length manskirt. Works for me.