This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Scotland-stub or England-stub?
Forget it - this is an English related article, the forerunner of the
Geordie,
Mackem etc dialects of England (and according to the Northumbian language Association are dialects of a separate Nothumbian language
(!)). I see no reason why one of the most well known English dialects should be nabbed by the Scots and declared a "Scotland related article", it is relevant to both England and Scotland.
Izehar18:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
The two things are not mutually exclusive. Northumbrian Anglo-Saxon is both an English and a Scottish topic. The sad fact is that there is no such thing as an {{England-stub}}. Why?--
Mais oui!18:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I could start speculating why there is no England-stub, but I'll refrain. The main fact is that Northumbrian Anglo-Saxon is related to both England and Scotland - like I told you above. The article with the Scotland-stub is misleading, as it implies a relationship with Scotland alone, while leaving out the fact that the
Kingdom of Northumbria where this dialect was spoken was in the are which is now
England and has left a distinctive mark on the speech of the people living there ever since. I know that stub categories are a rather petty thing to be arguing over, but they cannot be misleading. How about using {{
Template:UK-stub}}? That's better that Scotland-stub alone or even worse: the Scotland-stub and the hypothetical England-stub - that would clutter the page. The UK-stub includes both.
Izehar19:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Ynglis language was redirecting to
Middle English which seemed less relevant, so I've changed it to redirect here. It might be worthwhile moving this article to the "Ynglis language" title. From other pages it seems that the invaders in this area were
Angles, and the idea of Anglo-Saxon is a later construct implying a unity with the language of Saxon areas which seems unsupported by the differences still preserved in Geordie and Lallans. ....
dave souza15:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah yeah and "Gaidhlig" just means "Gaeilge". Latina means Italiano and Dutch/Deutsch are all one thing. Give us a break and stop your double standards regarding language definitions
80.192.59.20203:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think David is disputing that, he was thinking of the
Mercian Language parallel (which ought to be moved in any case, as the "L" should not be capitalized). Certainly, these matters should be kept consistent. The Mercian language article was moved in November without explanation; maybe it ought to be reverted or something. -
Calgacus23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
In my view, the article Ynglis is worthless, even as a redirect. It was produced mainly because well intentioned, but misguided, supporters of "Scots" on wikipedia consistently wish to antedate the separate existence of the "Scots" dialect/language to as early a date as possible; although I'm sure that is not always the case. A link to Middle English would probably suffice. -
Calgacus23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You talk elsewhere of "spurious modern condstructs" yet use the modern construct "Middle English" and show disdain for the earlier "Ynglis"!?!? Please enlighten us as to why in the case of Scots (and not Gaelic rather than the term Middle Irish where you take the opposite stance without explanation for this reversed position seeing Gaelic as a non spurious term for the Goidelic language spoken at the same time as Ynglis, rather than the more modern "Middle Irish" its always spurious, despite your clear personal bias and lack of evidence for such "expert" analysis. The Gaelic language written in Scotland in the Middle Ages (another "spurious modern term" I take it?) was the same one as in Ireland at that time (as you you know very well despite remaining silent on this in comparison to your a historical attacks on Scots.) If modern terms are spurious because there modern, then please support the article "Ynglis" rather than "Middle English" and thus stay consistent in your criticisms. Otherwise, you are guilty of continued negative propoganda against a particular linguistic group and twisting "evidence" ("all but proven??? give us a break please!) to suit your apparently vindictive campaign.
82.41.4.6610:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Ynglish, Inglis, Anglish etc etc are all simply examples of the many ways in which the word 'English' was spelled before Standard English emerged. The earliest recorded spelling as E-N-G-L-I-S-H is not until the end of the 16th century (OED) Cassandra. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.105.247.153 (
talk)
09:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This all seems terribly confused. Having been investigating this and related subjects for a whole year now I offer the following:
Northumbrian English was one of the historical variants (a variant not a 'dialect') of Old English. It is not a term which refers to dialects of the area of northern England now commonly known as Northumbria. The term refers to the former Kingdom of Northumbria which extended from the Firth of Forth to the Humber. The term is 'relatively' new - an older technical term appears to have been Northern English. The language (or dialect group) spoken in lowland Scotland has been known by various names: until the last decade of the 15h century it was always called English (though most often spelled Inglis) from the mid 16th century it was commonly (but never exclusivley) called Scots. Tbe terms 'Lallans' (for 'lowlands') was coined in the late 18th century, and 'Doric' in the late 19th century. 'Modern' Northern English dialects and Scots dialects are both descended from Northumbrian English. Cassandra. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.2.26 (
talk •
contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2013
What distinction do you think there is between "variant" and "dialect"? I see no reason not to call Northumbrian Old English a dialect of Old English.
Angr (
talk)
16:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, as I understand it a language variant is something larger than a dialect since it may have multiple related dialects, a group of dialects, within it; but it is in turn part of a larger language. Thus 'Northumbrian English', Southern English (of Wessex) and Midlands English are three distinct historical language variants of English which once existed side by side, each no doubt, even then, with numerous local dialects within those variants. As I undertand it southern English withered away, whilst modern standard English is, mainly, descended from the historic Midlands English variant originally associated with the Kingdom of Mercia. Inevitably since the distinction between a language, a variant and a dialect are imprecise, being 'man-made' categories, they can be(and are) argued over. From what I read however the Nortumbrian variant (or perhaps, and arguably, language; but not, I think, dialect) of English is the ancestor of all surviving, and related, dialects of English in Lowland Scotland, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire i.e. most of the area which once made up the Kingdom of Northumbria. Hope that makes sense. It's the best I can do, though others may explain it better. Cassandra
We actually have an article on
Variety (linguistics), according to which a variety is any specific form of a language, whether a language, a dialect, a subdialect, a dialect cluster, or whatever. So Northumbrian is definitely a variety of Old English, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a dialect. My definition of dialect may be different from yours, though; in fact, my feeling of what a dialect is is barely different from the definition of variety given in that article.
Angr (
talk)
19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes I agree. It's a tricky one. And I certainly don't claim to know the exact answer. Writers often seem to use the terms dialect and variant interchangably. In this context however I'd say a variant was a cluster of dialects of a single language which have more in common with each other than with one or more neighbouring variants/dialects of the same language. Old Northubrian was just such a large cluster (and as 'Northen English' still is). Confusion arises I think because there is a 'Northmbrian dialect' in existance today in North East England which is a different thing from (though historically a part of) the much, much larger 'Northumbrian' language variant of English. Distinguishing the two by the use of 'dialect' and 'variant' seems helpful in describing these two distinct things, the latter a once large, and diverse, entity, the former more or less a single dialect. Perhaps there ought to be two Wiki pages, one for each, in order to avoid confusion? Hope that makes sense. Cassandra — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.12.106.199 (
talk)
10:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I have just made some minor mechanical emendations to this article. I have introduced the term subdialect (based on the wiki entry for that term) for the northern and southern versions of Northumbrian. It's unclear to me whether Scots and Ulster Scots derive from the northern version or from Northumbrian in general (though I would guess it's the former). Would the author of this fine and useful article please check to make sure my changes don't alter the meaning in any way? S/he might also wish to insert "northern" in the attribution of Scots/Ulster if I'm correct about that.
Thanks to all who've contributed to this entry. KC 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Lord's Prayer
This section needs a topic sentence connecting the information about the Lord's Prayer to the rest of the discussion. As it stands, the statement about contemporary use comes out of the blue in an article that to this point has been clearly constructed and logically argued. I assume the opening sentence documents the survival of Northumbrian phrases and pronunciation because of the widespread influence of the Lord's Prayer. If so, that point should be articulated and the discussion should follow the prayer—which itself should be contextualized in the larger article and provided with some background. Where does it come from, to start? What's the justification for The Lord's Prayer as a separate category?
Thanks! KC 20:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 4 January 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support, clearly more concise, and there are far too many necessary variations in titles for languages for consistency to be a sticking point here.
bd2412T15:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I'd say a disambiguator is necessary. It is not clear that a search for the term refers to the language, rather than the people or anything else related to Northumbria. See many other language articles, usually called X-ian language rather than X-ian. A redirect to
Kingdom of Northumbria seems natural to me. Alternatively, a disambiguation page may be an option.
Renerpho (
talk)
02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is already a disambiguation page at
Northumbria (disambiguation), which covers both "Northumbria" and "Northumbrian" uses. But it gets less than 1% of the views of
Kingdom of Northumbria, which hatnotes it. The redirect gets about half the views that the Kingdom does. (
Page view stats here.)
So "Kingdom of Northumbria" is the primary topic for "Northumbria", but that does not imply that "Northumbria" is the best title for that topic. (I've checked on
Northumbrian (locomotive) and other candidates for the title, but none comes close.)
94.21.204.175 (
talk)
07:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.