-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Brian Bóruma said:For starters, the Lowlands version of John was "Ihon", Call a guy named "Gawter" 'Walter' and see if you get a response.
.
That's just orthographic differences. Ihon, Iohann, etc, are just various ways of spelling the name in absence of a standardized spelling system in either England or Lothian. Dowglaß and Ferguß are just Gaelic names in English orthography BTW.
You're kinda in trouble if you try to prove that "Scottish English" differed significantly from "English English" for most of the CK period, cause no English text actually comes from Scotland until the middle of the 1300s (i.e. Barbour), whereas we've got loads of Gaelic, French and Norse texts written in languages almost identical to that spoken in other areas.
...Obviously they were names of Gaelic origin, but they were Lowland forms.Calgacus said:
Dubhghlas and Dowglass are obviously different, though. So are Jean and John, but you don't see people suggesting we merge French and English.
Brian Bóruma said:
These are not particularly "Lowland" forms, these are just ways of rendering the sounds of these names in the Latin alphabet without reference to idiosyncratic Gaelic spelling conventions: Hence the bh in Dubh is rendered with a u/v. These spelling could easily have been written by a French-speaker or an Italian. Maybe you'll just have to trust me on this, I've done some work on Scottish Latin charters, and I can assure you that there is rarely a standardized form of any name. If you posted your source, I could probably tell you if the scribe was English or French.
The Phoenix said:
Bretons aren't "dark". They're celts with norman and frank lords.
I think he was referring to using Scottish as a Breton culture. I think Celtic is being used to fill that gap, though.jordarkelf said:
Okey dokey then, let's have Geoffreys, Fulks Eustaces and Nicholases in Scotland.Calgacus said:
Brian Bóruma said:
That has nothing to do with giving Scottish English its own tag - and Geoffrey is hardly an out of place name BTW - but is related to the generality of the names list. So, it's rather disingenuous to link it to Scotland in particular. At any rate, throughout the CK period, most Scots are Gaels with Gaelic names; the Kings are Norman - or Scoto-Norman - in culture after David I, not English, so the "Lowland" culture is rather irrelevant to gameplay purposes anyway, save only perhaps in 1337 and I say only perhaps, because there is little evidence for aristocratic usage of the English language in Scotland until the Stewart period.
Then post a suitable list for Scottish culture.
The Scots gaels and Irish go into the Irish list as 'Gaelic'
And the Scottish list is altered to a mix of Anglicised Scots, French and Norman names that are suitable for Scotland.
In this manner both arguments are addressed to some degree.
Ayeshteni
The Scots gaels and Irish go into the Irish list as 'Gaelic'
And the Scottish list is altered to a mix of Anglicised Scots, French and Norman names that are suitable for Scotland.
In this manner both arguments are addressed to some degree.
Ayeshteni
Yes and no. I was under the impression that a new culture tag would be used for a minor culture somewhere in the British isles, and was suggesting that it would be better used elsewhere.Brian Bóruma said:
o
Well, it's attached to the Celtic unit sprite.The Phoenix said:Yes and no. I was under the impression that a new culture tag would be used for a minor culture somewhere in the British isles, and was suggesting that it would be better used elsewhere.
The Phoenix said:Yes and no. I was under the impression that a new culture tag would be used for a minor culture somewhere in the British isles, and was suggesting that it would be better used elsewhere.
The Scottish tag is not to be pilfered. It will be used in Scotland in one way or the other, if I have to take a hissy fit, pout like a schoolgirl and scream like a toddler.
The problem is two-fold. (and two is the magic/tragic number here).
Gaelic HAS to be represented in Scotland. It can be done by:
a) merging Irish and Scots Gaelic
OR
b) making the Scottish tag actual Scots Gaelic.
however option b means that the latter lords and nobles in the scenarios have to be something else. And then we have a problem of those 'cultures' name lists not being completely perfect for Scotland.
Option a) means altering the Scottish list to a representative list (which includes Frankish, norman and anglocised-Gaels and English names) that IS suitable while combining the Irish and Scots Gaels.
neither is perfect but option a allows more representation (by allowing Scotland to have its Gaelic representation while having a distinct 'Scots' culture. To merge Scots Gael and Irish and then use the 'English', 'Frankish' or 'Norman' culture for the later scenarios is in fact diluting the Scottish question in EVERY regard. Something I am not fond of doing, you understand.
Ayeshteni
Ayeshteni said:
I've already posts loads of revised Scottish lists.
Ayeshteni said:
Yep; if you're gonna merge Scottish and Irish, Lothian and Berwick changed to English, not be left Scottish, which would just be silly.
Ayeshteni said:
It's funny, I've already done all these changes (more completely) in GCM. Martachus is Muirchertach; Gratnach is Gartnait. Rhuadri should be Ruadri. I don't wanna spend ages correcting these forms; I'd suggest you look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mormaers
Most of the Earls of this period are listed there.
In general, people are being thrown off by lenition, a complex topic indeed. For instance, you can't have Domnall but Aedh, Mael Coluim but Gruaidh; see this guide:
http://medievalscotland.org/scotlang/lenition.shtml
Ayeshteni said:
How have Galloway and Fife come to lose their Gaelic culture? Fife retained Gaelic lords until the end of the 1300s; and, moreover, there is little evidence that English was spoken north of the Forth until the 13th century.
Ayeshteni said:
This is reasonable. I dunno about Fife though, again; for some reason, there is popular conception that it was the first place to go English; in the reality, it was one of the last places in the Lowlands, although small bits of it on the eastern and southern coasts (i.e. those bits of Fife not controlled by the Gaelic earl) had probably goine English.
Look at this map of Baile (with Achadd) settlement names, names formulated 1000-1600, showing the concentration and distribution of Gaelic settlement in CK Scotland:
Take a look at the late medieval linguistic map in the Atlas of Scottish History
For clarity, this means this map for 1400:
Calgacus said:
In this thread? This is the thread that needs to have those changes mentioned if they are to be implemented.
Saxon, not English. England is not yet English, it would be even sillier to have English start in the Scottish lowlands. And I am not a fan of scrapping Saxon culture.
I have not looked at the GCM and so am not aware of the changes made there.
o Ah, I accidently missed out Galloway.
Ayeshteni
Ayeshteni said:
In lots of places, for instance, here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4332330&postcount=188
A thread you've already posted on.
Ayeshteni said:
This is a CK thing. The distinction between Saxon and English was invented by CK. If you wanna make your changes accurately, then a Scottish melting pot event turning Saxon into English should be used just as it is in England. But to have Lothian and Berwick as "Scottish", but Scotland-proper not is just silly. The makers totally messed Scottish culture up when they were doing it. Rendering Scottish culture accurately simply means having this Scottish melting pot.
Ayeshteni said:The Scottish tag is not to be pilfered. It will be used in Scotland in one way or the other, if I have to take a hissy fit, pout like a schoolgirl and scream like a toddler.
The problem is two-fold. (and two is the magic/tragic number here).
Gaelic HAS to be represented in Scotland. It can be done by:
a) merging Irish and Scots Gaelic
OR
b) making the Scottish tag actual Scots Gaelic.
however option b means that the latter lords and nobles in the scenarios have to be something else. And then we have a problem of those 'cultures' name lists not being completely perfect for Scotland.
Option a) means altering the Scottish list to a representative list (which includes Frankish, norman and anglocised-Gaels and English names) that IS suitable while combining the Irish and Scots Gaels.
neither is perfect but option a allows more representation (by allowing Scotland to have its Gaelic representation while having a distinct 'Scots' culture. To merge Scots Gael and Irish and then use the 'English', 'Frankish' or 'Norman' culture for the later scenarios is in fact diluting the Scottish question in EVERY regard. Something I am not fond of doing, you understand.
Ayeshteni
Maybe it just makes little sense to merge Scottish and Irish; the Norman and English/Saxon tags are as useful as they could be. The French tag is most adequate, but people will be thrown off since, although William I's actually name was Guillaume, unless one reads actually texts or Norman Davies, these will be unfamiliar. Merging Scottish and Irish creates a free Celtic tag that is of no use to anyone, unless one plans to introduce one-province Cornish or Manx culture, or a Norse-Gaelic culture.
Don't knock Norse Gaelic. I got overruled, but I always had a sore spot for Man, Orkney, Dublin and the rest of them being separate.
Brian Bóruma said:Don't knock Norse Gaelic. I got overruled, but I always had a sore spot for Man, Orkney, Dublin and the rest of them being separate.
Well, I'd have no problem with Norse-Gaelic culture being used in the place of Scottish; and if you're gonna merge the Scots and Irish, it's prolly the only option.