> well, maybe, I must admit I didn't know of a canonical written form of modern Scots.
Modren Scots, unfortunately, disna hae ae orthography, altho it haes a wheen o credible an similar yins. We'd probably hae a mair official orthography gin Scots hidna been surpressed for hunners o year, an insteid we lairnt it proper in the scuil.
> It still looks an awful lot like sco.wikipedia.org, which is a grotesque parody written from the US. You'll forgive some suspicion.
This is a pish opinion. Firefox wis owerset intil Scots by twa talentit fowk.
Unfortunately, the Scots tongue haes ower monie gowks that leuk doun upo it. Either they cry that Scots is ‘no a real language’ or somehou that Scots spikkars are no spikkin ‘real’ Scots.
Re:Firefox 91
by yodelshady on Tuesday August 17, 2021 @07:20AM
(#28208649)
All those words are in the OED, so take the spelling up with Sir James Murray.
No, the Scots language, which is indeed part of a rich cultural history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
Scottish Gaelic would be "gla".
> "We've added a new locale: SCO"
That could be quite cool. So, Scots Gaelic, yes? Preserving a rich cultural history?
You have to read it with the voice of Groundskeeper Willie.
That could be quite cool. So, Scots Gaelic, yes? Preserving a rich cultural history?
From https://www.mozilla.org/sco/
"We mak the internet saufer, soonder, and faster fur guid"
What the actual arsing F, Mozilla?
edit: well, maybe, I must admit I didn't know of a canonical written form of modern Scots. It still looks an awful lot like sco.wikipedia.org, which is a grotesque parody written from the US. You'll forgive some suspicion.