Scotch missed

I do not know where Iain Forde gets his information about Scots in the 14th century (Letters, 5 January). Until about the beginning of the 17th century the lowland language was called Inglis and the writers frequently made fun of those "Scottis", (ie, Gaelic) speakers who "of Inglis had they nane".

If one compares Barbour's freedom section with the beginning of Chaucer's Prologue, Barbour sounds much more like the English of today than Chaucer.

"Scotish" appears about the time of the Union of the Crowns. By the middle of the 17th century we find "Scots", "Scottish" and "Scotch" all used. As time went on Scotch became the most used word, and from the 18th century through to the 20th it was pretty well universal with scholars and ordinary people.

About the middle of the 20th century, certain primsie preciosities declared the Scotch of the masses inferior to Scots. Now even people who should know better try to keep up with the Joneses. I know too much about my language to be guilty of that ridiculous position. By the way, all three can be correct.

ROBERT PATE

Old Edinburgh Road

Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire

If Iain Forde is so positive there is a Scottish "language" that all would understand, why doesn't he use it rather than standardised English?

There are many Anglo-Saxon dialectic words still in use in Scotland, just as there are in England, and all included in English dictionaries, but they do not amount to a separate language.

Would Mr Forde condone a compilation of Geordie, Tyke, Brummie, Scouse, and Cockney words being described as a separate language to English?

COLIN WILSON

Maggie Woods Loan

Falkirk