[Rex H. McTyeire wrote]
> Looking for any appropriate comments and corrections from this group
(particularly Chris Gwinn) on the following joint input from several people.
[I reply] [English follows]
A wad be a Scots taakar bidean in Norlin Airlann an cudna say but thon's a
gey fair review o the wey leids in the Britis Isles is cum on. Ye ar aiblans
juist richt pittan the quaiston owre nummer 12, we canna juist be richtlie
shuir yet whit wey fowk cam tae Scotlann an the north o Airlann.
A wad say juist at Scots *wis* thocht on as a saiprit leid frae the Inglis
(or 'Sudron') whaniver Scotlann wis a saiprit kintra. The'r records o fowk
taakan o differ leids. In Airlann, clerks wis taen on at Dublin Castle in
the 16t centurie for tae gie repones tae screeds frae the north, for thay
cudna unnerstannd the langage thay war writ in.
[English]
I'm a Scots speaker living in Northern Ireland and would be of the view that
is a fair summary of the way languages in the British Isles developed. You
are perhaps correct to question number 12, we still cannot be quite sure how
people arrived in Scotland and the north of Ireland.
I would say only that Scots *was* considered a separate language from
English (or 'Sudron') when Scotland was a separate country. There are
records of people talking of different languages. In Ireland, clerks were
appointed at Dublin Castle in the 16th century to reply to documents from
the north, because they could not understand the language they were written
in.
Aefauldlie / Sincerely,
Ian J. Parsley