Ideas of just what Kilt really means..

[sathor]

It seems that everyone here has their own definition of what kilt really means, threads going astray because of it.

I propose the following set of definitions, with which one might hope can bring unity to the masses. Or at least leave my mark on the range of arguments.

Kilt: (Capitalized) The family of male garment with the characteristics of a kilt, such as pleating, worn at or around the knees.

kilt: A male garment traditionally made of tartan fabric and pleated on the sides and back, with a flat apron in the front.

This is to be considered a living definition, as innovations of all sorts leave their mark on evolution. Any such change would still be part of the Kilt family, but may or may not be accepted as a kilt by the population at large.

kilt, traditional: understood to be tartan, pleated, and to stop at the knee.

kilt, modern: understood to be inspired by a traditional kilt, but with a more modern spin. This may include exotic design or materials, such as leather, pleather, or similar, narrower aprons, lower waist, etc.

kilt, hybrid: a more modern kilt designed to emulate a traditional kilt, but with modern features not considered to be on a normal kilt. Most hybrid kilts could pass as traditional kilts in most situations, as the differences range from imperceptible to somewhat obvious. The line between hybrid/traditional and hybrid/modern can be difficult to determine, and as such is subjective. Items that may make a kilt a hybrid vs a traditional may include construction such as lack of a stabilizer, non wool material, pockets, tweed or other non tartan material, snaps for closing, or even being machine sewn instead of hand sewn.

kilt, archaic: While by nature a traditional kilt, it is of a design that is no longer the normal or commonly accepted nature. These are still real kilts, though they vary from what most people would think of. This includes features such as box pleats, pleats in the front, or similar. this is also a living definition. As time marches on, some change may take off, and the categories will shift. 100 years from now, there may be a different fastening system, and leather straps will not be easy to come by. After all, early on, some people did use blanket pins to keep their kilts on.

________________________________________--



I realized that many try to force kilts into a very tight category, and give it an all or nothing for the definition. Look at other things, do you consider Dungarees and Overalls to be blue jeans? What about black jeans? Jean shorts? What about sandals. Do you count flip flops, or just 'thong' sandals, or the kind that lace onto the foot and onto the leg. Is a pith a hat? is a helmet a hat? Does a welders mask count as a mask in general? Do the double saloon doors count as doors? Bead curtains between rooms, are they doors?

My point is that we count all sorts of things as general classes of items. Except the kilt. Why is that? (Rhetorical!)

[Scotus]

Uh... I don't think so. Besides, making definitions like this has been tried and it doesn't bring unity, love and peace to a forum like this; that is, a forum with such a wide range of people and opinions.

[Scotus]

I might also add that capitalizing the word kilt is simply an abuse of the English language. One would not capitalize it unless one was referring to a place like the Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery.

Thus, not only will you not get people to agree with your definitions (I know Matt won't starting calling his wonderful kilts "archaic"), your use of a capital in "kilt" would not change the meaning of the word.

I know your heart is in the right place; however, there are just too many people here with very strong opinions about what a kilt is and isn't. Just one man's opinion here.

[Dall_Piobaire]

Comments out of left feild, my aplologies!

[bigdad1]

I don't see that we need someone or anyone locking us into a set definition of any words much less kilt. There are too many opinions out there about what is what and how it can or shouldn't be worn for one to be locked into anything. I strongly disagree. Next someone will be correcting our spelling of the various items of wear that go along with being kilted.
And kilt should not be capitalized in any instance unless discussing the proper name of a person, place or thing.

[Chas]

This is from the portal of this site (the emphasis is mine):

X Marks the Scot is an international community of kilt wearers and those who encourage the wearing of kilts. Kilts are a man's garment and it is our goal to promote the wearing of the kilt in more than just the "Highland Games" situation. This is not a forum for men looking to wear womens clothing nor is it a forum for other types of men's un-bifurbricated garments.

A Black Watch lava-lava, that's OK, it's a kilt isn't it. A nice sarong in tweed - need you ask. A loud McLeod kimono, of course it's a kilt - why are you asking these stupid questions?

Unless we define what a kilt is - everything is. I don't know what people are are so afraid of.

Regards

Chas

[ForresterModern]

I think this whole argument can be summed back to the old "lumpers" vs "splitters". There are some fairly well defined terms that relate to kilts and kit, but then there are also folks who like to push the envelope of any definition. Tartan is fairly well defined as a twill fabric with a set pattern of stripes of varying colors and widths in a repeating order that is identical in both warp and weft threads, with a defined thread count. Kilt has probably several definitions in most any dictionary, but the common thread is a garment that is pleated in some fashion and worn unbifurcated around the waist and upper half of the legs. That could be a great kilt handpleated differently each time it is put on, or a phillabeg with typical knife pleats, or box pleats or double box pleats, kingussie style pleating, reverse kingussie, modern pleating patterns, tartan or other material. Why must everything be defined and how far must each definition go? Is a PV kilt not a kilt but something else? Some things define themselves as the standards which most people think about, regardless of whether they are actually that original item. Think about Kleenex, a brand name for a type of facial tissue, now generically used for almost every brand of similar tissue out there. To some, kilt means only the 8 yard wool knifepleated tartan item of recent traditional scottish design, while others use the term more generically or broadly, sometimes broader than even the liberal non-trads among us might not agree with.

This whole topic seems irrelevant and nigh on ridiculous. And a particular waste of time and perfectly good wattage. And I for one will no longer read or contribute to this particular waste. Sorry for the rant.

[Big Mikey]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's untwist the knickers, take a deep breath and look at this again. As long time members (which we all are), we have seen our share of threads go astray when it came to kilt definitions.

Traditional versus modern, Utilikit brand, etc. have all been discussed and argued ad nauseum.

It is my belief that Sathor was merely offering a suggestion and opinion as to how to avoid future heated discussions while also giving advice to newcomers.

Every member undoubtedly has an opinion on something and is entitled to voice it hear.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a wrong opinion. You either agree or disagree.

If you disagree, make your point as succinctly and sincerely as possible and move on.

Suggestions, opinions and proposals are ideas that are meant to get us thinking. They are not laws that we must adhere to on penalty of death or imprisonment.

[Larry124]

My thoughts are that Celtic peoples (perhaps all peoples, non-hyphenated Americans not least of all) can be extraordinarily obedient and loyal to authority (Family, Church, Nation) -- as they choose and agree to be so.

When they do not choose or agree they can be just as dependably and sturdily defiant or rebellious.

This to me falls into the latter category.

[bigdad1]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's untwist the knickers, take a deep breath and look at this again. As long time members (which we all are), we have seen our share of threads go astray when it came to kilt definitions.
Suggestions, opinions and proposals are ideas that are meant to get us thinking. They are not laws that we must adhere to on penalty of death or imprisonment.

They way I read the original post Mikey it was posited as a rule which puts it into that category you say it wasn't. One of the main objects of this forum is that everyone should be able to post their own opinion and it is that give and take which makes the forum so much fun. To suggest that we must use certain rules when describing kilts or what someone wants to call a kilt is patently silly.