John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Mon Aug 27 02:59:31 CEST 2007

Caoimhin O Donnaile scripsit:

> As Derrick McClure said:
>   "The question whether the urban basilect of Glasgow should be classed
>    as Scots has been argued for a long time, of course; but the old 
>    notion that it's neither good Scots nor good English and therefore
>    beyond the pale was really demolished in principle by Jack Aitken, 
>    and the scholarly work on it by Caroline Macafee, Ron MacAulay and 
>    others has put that notion out of court.  It IS a form of Scots, and 
>    therefore should be designated sco-glasgow as contrasted with 
>    sco-buchan, sco-borders and the like."
> So you can see that while he is emphatic that Glasgow dialect is "sco", 
> he is acknowledging that it is pretty unique.  

I don't quite read it that way: merely that Glasgow urban dialect is
unquestionably a dialect of Scots like any other.

> I would say that it is just a question of whether it is worth going to
> the trouble of registering "sco-glasgow" once ISO 639-3 is in place
> and "sco" is available.  

"sco" is in fact already available, since it's in 639-2.

We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
so very just.  --Gollum        cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list