| |
|
I recently read a review of this book - A Scots Parliament.
I find this part interesting:
"he has not "Scotticised" certain words. "The first time people see Scots on the page it looks too dense, like a foreign language, but it’s not impossible once your eye gets used to it. I swithered quite hard over some words - like committee, which you spell ‘comatee’ in Scots - but decided to take it one step at a time."
So it seems like this is a history of the Scottish parliament written in a language partially created by the author. One of the main points seems to be that:
Scots is not about bad English or slang. Scots has status and it’s perfectly valid that we should read and write in it.
So what does everyone think of this use of Scots? I can appreciate it when used in fiction, Irvine Welsh or James Kelman, as a depiction of how people speak but when used in a history text..well, it seems artificial. In order to make it at all acceptable Robertson has invented a whole new version of modern Scots, not west coast not east, so as to be understood. Apart from an interesting project what exactly is the point? It seems to be cod nationalism wishing a language into being to prop up an idea of culture.
Who defines the correct use of language and is there a need for academic texts in regional language/dialect? Is Robertson correct when he states : "Our children should not be brought up with an imaginary scold’s bridle on their mouths - they should just be able to let go and to use their own tongue." |
|
|
