W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Alba

From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:13:22 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <9701242313.ZM24243@grommit.inria.fr>
To: Michael Everson <everson@indigo.ie>, ietf-languages@uninett.no, www-international@www10.w3.org
Cc: iso10646@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu, ietf-types@uninett.no
On Jan 24,  8:53pm, Michael Everson wrote:

> >Ah. Now you paraphrase G. of <country> to <countries> G.
> >The inhabitants refer to themselves as the Scots, although
> >other people refer to them as Scottish or Scotch.
> To my certain knowledge "Scotch" refers in 1997 only to kinds of blended
> whisk(e)ys.

Good. We both agree that 'Scotch' is an anacronism. If you re-read my
earlier message you will see that I was emphatically not suggesting
'Scotch' Gaelic as a term; rather, pointing out that this was an adjective

> A Scot lives in Scotland.  Many Scots live in Scotland. They
> are Scottish (adj.)

My point was that 'Scots' is also used as an adjective. By the Scots.

> Some of them speak Gaelic (pronounced Gallic). That
> could be called Scottish Gaelic, or The Gaelic of Scotland.

Or the Gaelic of the Scots, perhaps.

> I do not think that calling it Scots Gaelic [...] is appropriate
> in 1997.

Nevertheless, the recent linguistics paper from University of Edinburgh,
which I cited in another message, used that precise term.

> It is more current and preferred by Gaelic speakers these days.

I would appreciate more evidence of that.

> And the generic adjective for Things Scottish in the late 20th century is
> Scottish, not Scots or Scotch. (Scotch is really antiquated by my feeling
> for English.)

Yes. Sigh. Please stop mixing in 'Scotch' when arguing against 'Scots'.
We agree about 'Scotch'.

You seem to feel that 'Scots' is not in general use this end of this
century. On the contrary, my experience whilst living there from 1972
to 1989 and on frequent subsequent visits was that the use of 'Scots'
as an adjective is current and is even increasing, being the adjective
favoured by the inhabitants rather than by those living outside.

> >The confusion argument I understand and agree with. On the correctness
> >argument, I remain unconvinced.
> Well, if this means that you support "Scottish Gaelic" in ISO 639, for
> whatever reason you like, then I am satisfied! :-)

I would be willing to let it pass if there is actual risk of confusion.

> "Scots, Scottish, Scotch. A. Forms. "Scots" is the usual form in Scottish
> Standard English

Thank you. It is indeed the usual form. My point exactly.

>>[cf. Scottish Gaelic]<<. except when referring to
> national or official matters, when "Scottish" is preferred >>[is Scottish
> Gaelic a national matter?]<<;

National, yes, if by nation is meant Scotland. If by nation is meant the
UK and by official is meant the London-based government, I can understand
that '"Scottish" is preferred' because those doing the preferring are

> I can't tell if we agree or not.

I can't tell if you misunderstood me to be proposing the awful
'Scotch' Gaelic.

Chris Lilley, W3C                          [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy            The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/              INRIA,  Projet W3C
chris@w3.org                       2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87       06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 24 January 1997 17:13:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:40 UTC