Reminder: Ulster Scots

Doug Ewell doug at
Wed Mar 31 19:21:59 CEST 2010

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> 2006ulst is going to mean Ulster Scots written in that particular orthography as defined in that particular book. I doubt that anyone is going to write any other language or dialect in that orthography.

Earlier Michael replied to Addison:

>> Is it necessary to distinguish between Ulster Scots and its orthography?
> It is necessary to distinguish Ulster Scots orthography from Scots orthography.

'ulster' would do that.

>> That is, is the description in The Hamely Tongue a subdivision of Ulster Scots?
> It is the current orthography used for Ulster Scots. This is supported by a range of *institutions* in Northern Ireland. 

'ulster' would be fine for that.

If this is an accepted orthography and there is no particular reason to
suspect it will be replaced or substantially amended any time soon,
compared to other orthographies, then attaching a date is what seems to
me like looking in a crystal ball.  It is like saying we expect another
revision in the future.  We don't write "be-tarask05" or "kw-ucrcor95"
in anticipation of future revisions to those orthographies.

> I am most comfortable with 2006ulst than with ulster at this point.

I suspect I am not going to win this argument.

Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list