Trilingual Scotland into the 20th century

Abdominalz

1400.gif
Here is a linguistic map of Scotland from the year 1400. As you can see, the Scandinavian language, Norn, was spoken in Orkney, Sheltand, and Caithness. Norn would linger on until the 18th century.
The ATL in this scenario is that Norn manages to survive intact at 'commoner level' until at least 1914 and that Gaelic manages to keep its whole 1800 territory intact at commoner level until at least 1914 also. Question, how does this effect Scotland?

Btw, I see this as perfectly feasible given that the regional languages of France managed to survive largely intact among the peasants until the 20th century, and even more can be said for Spain.
 

kratostatic

I like the concept and I agree that it is doable but I think you've got to consider how this happened in the first place, and that this will have at least as big an effect. I don't know much at all about Norn (although weren't Orkney and Shetland part of Norway in 1400?), but Gaelic probably was the primary language in the whole highlands until the clearances started to hit. I think that to keep Gaelic you need to stop those happening and that would have far greater implications on Scottish history than having several languages spoken within it, particularly as "commoner" level languages.
 

Monter

The Highlander's support from the Jacobites (particularly the '45s) did create a big backlash against Highlander culture (and consequently, their language), with stuff like the disbanding of the clan system, even outlawing the kilt in the 1746's Dress Act, that was the beginning of the end.

The later one was during the 1800s, when Scotland passed the Education Act that made English the sole language of education, it for example caused the percentage of Gaelic-speaking in Inverness to plummet from around 100% in 1800 to 4% today.

So you need either no Jacobites or less association with the Highlanders (though the British government didn't had a good opinion on the highlanders, which was one reason they went for the Jacobites) and a British government that is less interested in Scottish affairs with education being more of a local/private matter, though it may still decline/die out as result of (eventual) mass education and mass media.

Dunno about norn.
 

Lalli

Would keeping Scotland as independent nation help? Altough probably Scotland ends still being dominated by one language. It is just too small country for three strong language.
 
fluttersky

fluttersky

Lalli said:
Although probably Scotland ends still being dominated by one language. It is just too small country for three strong language.
Click to expand...

One could say the same thing about Belgium, or Switzerland, or Wales, or Luxembourg, or Andorra.

A small country size doesn't necessarily prevent multilingualism.
 

Arkenfolm

If Norn is still spoken, then it's not part of Scotland. Because the trends that made Norn decline (islands being inherited by Scottish nobility whilst still part of Norway) only accelerated when Scotland gained the islands.

Although I suppose on some isolated island in Shetland/Orkney you could have a few of the elderly (who might make up half the population of less than 100) still speaking Norn in 1914. But it's probably fated to go extinct by the 19th century if it's part of Scotland.
 

Abdominalz

6371459.jpg
The reality is that for me, the decline of Irish, Norn and Cornish before 1800/1850 makes no sense. Here is a map of all the regional languages of France. Nearly all of these were still the norm at 'commoner level' as late as 1914, and in many cases later on in that century too. A similar story can be said about the Italian dialects and regional languages of Spain - their decline was a late 19th and 20th century phenomenon - not a pre-1800 phenomenon. It would be interesting to think what may have happened if the British Isles had been more like the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top