Talk:rickle

It can be hard to tell, but I'd just judge that fully a half of the citations are English, or at least Scottish English. Can somebody more knowledgeable try to split them and see if it deserves an English L2 header? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember that a while back I created another entry for a Scottish term (I can't remember which, unfortunately) that turned up on the "Wanted" list on Special:RecentChanges. I initially labelled it as English, with qualifiers placed on each sense, but it was later changed to Scots. It's been my practice since to label Scottish terms as Scots. Any guidance on telling Scots from Scottish English would be appreciated. Astral (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1816, 1836, 1885, 1898, and 1899 all look Scots, but I'm no expert. User:Widsith would be able to tell you better, but I'd say that use of auld: and apostrophes in place of non-omitted consonants in English (like ha' or ha'e or hae for English have) are good clues. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's a judgement call to a certain extent, since Scots and Scottish English are on a continuum and speakers shift between the two constantly. Personally when words are spelled according to their standard English forms and arranged according to familiar English grammar, I would classify them as Scottish English, which goes for all the quotations on this page (with the possible exception of Scott). But from the Citations page, 1885 and 1898 are clearly Scots. Ƿidsiþ 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC) With a lot of Scottish authors you'll find that the narrative voice is in (Scottish) English, but much of the reported speech is in ‘full-blown’ Scots. Ƿidsiþ 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. How should citations be categorized in cases where the narrative voice is Scottish English but the dialogue is Scots? Also, if the currently-listed citations were to be split between Scottish English and Scots, we would end up with duplicate definitions. Is there a way that usage in both Scottish English and Scots could be acknowledged in the entry while avoiding such redundancy? Astral (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the word in question appears in a section of Scots dialogue, then I would definitely count that as a Scots citation. As for duplication, it happens all the time, see peely-wally for instance. Some duplication is inevitable, but generally, Scots being considered a foreign language, its definitions are simply glosses and hence often simply refer up to the English section of the same word, if it exists. Ƿidsiþ 06:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Looks like splitting the cites and creating separate L2 headers is the best option, then. Astral (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1836 does look structurally like standard English, so is ettering of fash (a phrase wholly new to me) just put in to make a point, or is that a nstural way of speaking? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * fash: is pretty common in northern England (and Scotland too – my wife, who's Scottish, regularly says dinnae fash yersel’! = ‘don't worry!’) but I must confess ettering is new to me, I assumed it was a dialectal form of uttering: but not really sure. Ƿidsiþ 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)