This is one of those topics where the Hacker News take is unlikely to be correct. There's a lot of strong feeling here, and an outsider would need at least three books to understand the historical context (one of which, afaict, has not been written yet: it's oral tradition only).
People closer to the issue are better-placed to gather the necessary information, but again: strong feeling. Most people find it hard to get past that. The most informed person I know is so biased that I don't at all trust their conclusions.
Part of the issue some people take with Ulster-Scots is that the current official 21st century literature doesn't read anything like the historic literature, which English speakers can easily read and understand. It's often made up of slang terms and archaic spelling, in an attempt to be as different as possible to English. Native speakers have complained that official documents and signage in Ulster-Scots are incomprehensible to them.
> the current official 21st century literature doesn't read anything like the historic literature
Does modern English read like historical English?
> Native speakers have complained that official documents and signage in Ulster-Scots are incomprehensible to them.
Sure, there are tonnes of issues with the "officialisation" of any language but the fact that there are "native speakers" involved in the debate strongly suggests it wasn't all just made up for political reasons, which was the point I was responding to.
>Does modern English read like historical English?
If you can read and understand text from the 18th century, then yes. We're not talking about Middle English or Old English.
>but the fact that there are "native speakers" involved in the debate
I should have put native speakers in quotes as well. What counts as a native Ulster Scots speaker is someone who speaks English with an NI accent with some localisms thrown in.
Nobody speaks the official Ulster Scots that was invented because the Irish language was getting support and political leaders on the other side of the community felt they deserved something as well. The Protestant community in NI see it as a bit of an embarrassment.
> If you can read and understand text from the 18th century, then yes.
Yes, and I can read and understand historical Ulster Scots as well, but you were making a different point about codification/drift, no? The English I would find in those historical writings is quite different from what is being taught in schools today or recommended in style guides.
> What counts as a native Ulster Scots speaker is someone who speaks English with an NI accent with some localisms thrown in.
Then by your definition I am a native speaker. So how can we square it that you're telling me native speakers feel one way while I feel another way?
> Nobody speaks the official Ulster Scots
That's the nature of any newly codified minority language.
> The Protestant community in NI see it as a bit of an embarrassment.
There is no "protestant community" in Northern Ireland. A Dungannon farmer, an East Belfast loyalist and a BT9 lecturer will all give you very different views despite being of protestant background.
My point regarding the "official" language is that it bears little resemblance to the dialect that largely died out in the 20th century. i.e. it's a fabrication. Contrast that with the differing dialects of Irish where the grammar is identical with some variations in pronunciation.
I'm not entertaining the notion that I have to pretend you're a native speaker when you've made clear you're only identifying as such for the purpose of making an argument.
>There is no "protestant community" in Northern Ireland.
Anyone who applies for a job in NI fills out a form where they are asked if they are a member of "the Protestant community", "the Roman Catholic community" or neither. You're denying the factual existence of the different communities in NI for the purpose of winning an argument on the internet.
> My point regarding the "official" language is that it bears little resemblance to the dialect that largely died out in the 20th century i.e. it's a fabrication
Could you outline the key ways in which it differs? And say why that suggests the language was later "fabricated?"
> I'm not entertaining the notion that I have to pretend you're a native speaker when you've made clear you're only identifying as such for the purpose of making an argument.
If you won't entertain the notion that I'm a native speaker could you amend your definition of "native speaker" or explain what differentiates me from the native speakers whose complaints you referenced previously? And could you let us know where we can read about their complaints?
> Anyone who applies for a job in NI fills out a form where they are asked if they are a member of "the Protestant community", "the Roman Catholic community" or neither.
Of course you understand that the "protestant community" is not an homogenous group with shared views and opinions on these things. The reason that question is on the forms is because of historical discrimination against Catholics and the need to quantify heritage issues in order to avoid such discrimination forwards.
One protestant might feel embarrassment, another might feel pride, and another might not care at all. Suggesting there's a unified view from "the protestant community' is disingenuous.
>Suggesting there's a unified view from "the protestant community' is disingenuous.
I've yet to meet a member of that community in person (now you've decided they exist) who has any interest in Ulster Scots as a language, (even people who are quite opinionated and argumentative on other NI topics). This is evident in the lack of Ulster Scots language classes. There are more Irish classes running in East Belfast than for Ulster Scots.
Outside of the political class (who are only interested in it as a means to stifle support for the Irish language) Ulster Scots advocates are exclusively found online.
It doesn't. It's just an opinion piece about the use of neologisms in certain publications. It makes the same claim about incomprehensibility for native speakers but also fails to reference the voices of any actual native speakers. Who are they? Do they really complain about this as you said?
> I've yet to meet a member of that community in person who has any interest in Ulster Scots as a language
Well? I have met them. I've met lecturers at Queens such as Ivan Herbison studying the thing, I've met artists like Willie Drennan touring the country sharing contemporary poetry and song in Ulster Scots. I've met people in the countryside of Antrim not only with an interest in it, but speaking it day to day. Just because you haven't personally encountered these people doesn't mean they don't exist.
> now you've decided they exist
This is quite unfriendly. I made a clear distinction between what you were claiming--a single protestant community who are collectively embarrassed by Ulster Scots--and the collection of people with a shared background who identify as protestants for the sake of anti-discrimination laws, but who are otherwise diverse in their beliefs and opinions. To say that in so doing I somehow conceded your original claim is again disingenuous. It also seems absurd in relation to your broader point to now insist that just because some politician decided a form should say "protestant community" that that is necessarily reflective of an on-the-ground reality.
> There are more Irish classes running in East Belfast than for Ulster Scots.
By your definition of native speakers everyone in East Belfast is already brought up speaking Ulster Scots at home, so of course there's more interest in other languages. There are more people from East Belfast attending Irish classes than English classes too, it doesn't mean no one is interested in English.
You asked for opinions and you got opinions. I can't disprove your claims about who you've met and what language they were speaking. I can only say it's at odds with my experience.
>By your definition of native speakers everyone in East Belfast is already brought up speaking Ulster Scots at home
But reading and writing in it? And would they agree they're speaking Ulster Scots or would they say it's English?
>There are more people from East Belfast attending Irish classes than English classes too
Did you not learn English in school? I find it hard to believe English isn't taught in East Belfast schools. And that's not counting English as a second language classes for immigrant communities. What language is the signage in in East Belfast?
My comments are entirely aside from the dialect vs. language argument as a miniscule minority care about Ulster Scots in NI as a language in its own right - comparative even to say Cant or Shelta - versus the usual Stormont tomfoolery like 'cash for ash' scandals.
Simply put, Ulster Scots prominence in legislation is merely a reflection of bad-faith political negotiations by Unionists to degrade the status of the Irish Language Act by proxy. Anyone on the ground knows it for the dog-whistle that it is, used simply to curry favour with a particularly sectarian unionist base in as a counter to the Irish Language provisions outlined and agreed to in the Good Friday Agreement.
This has more or less been the case ever since the forced Ulster plantations lead to the development of Ulster Scots as a defined community with resilient Protestant and unionist ties. It'd be far more credible if Fingal tried to secede from Dublin and the Republic tomorrow morning using Yola as a justification.
In short, the ILA and promotion of Gaeilge in the north is about trying to make some small reparation at a state level for a cultural genocide perpetrated by our Colonists, and to help re-establish the oldest written vernacular language in western Europe, dating back over 2,500 years.
The promotion of Ulster Scots however... well the Commissioner is literally called 'Commissioner for Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition'. This is after DUP members removed themselves from the equality and good relations group after basically fillibustering for 5 years of discussions on bi-lingual signs to force a stalemate.
