Shaetlan (an wis) under attack
Co-author of Shaetlan – A young language wi aald røts, Roy Mullay, responds to a recent Sunday Times article which discusses his and professor Viveka Velupillai’s work without having spoken to either of them. This Viewpoint contribution is in Shaetlan and in English.
Dis piece comes in twa pairts:
1. Readers o The Sunday Times micht’ll a notticed a article published recently (Vikings and Scots lock horns over Shetland dialect – 22 August 2026 – ahint a paywall) claemin tae refer ti Prof. Viveka Velupillai’s wark on Shaetlan ithoot her input, bit in fact onnly maed comments aboot her as a body.
Photo: Shetland News
In short, hit’s utter bruck. Hit’s foo o mistaks fae tap ti boddam, an lists ignorant opinions fae dem at really süd ken better. Some parteeclarly disappointin aspects come fae da fact at naen o da fokk quotit criticisin wir wark seem tae hae ony understaandeen o whit we ir spent years tryin tae pit across – at Shaetlan canna be classified as purely Scots or purely Scandinavian, hit’s a Mixed Language wi a (maistly) Scots lexicon an a (maistly) Scandinavian grammar. Dis is a fundamental pairt o understaandin why we ir gotten Shaetlan recognised as a language in it’s ain richt – Shaetlan døsna sit neatly in ony idder category aless it’s ain. Wharas dis article seems tae mak oot at we tink at Shaetlan is purely Scandinavian an at Scots maks up little ti nae pairt o it. We ir nivver maed ony claim laek dat. Hit maks wis winder: whit pairt o blend is it at’s sae difficult tae understaand? Not wan o da idder fokk quotit or spokken til fir dis article (or da author o da article) is buddered tae read onythin on wir website, social media or in wir book afore makkin sicn heidstrong erguments firnenst wis. Hoo onybody considerin demsels a scholar can criticise a ergument whin dey dunna ken whit da ergument actually is, I dunna ken – hit døsna say muckle fir da quality o dir resaerch.
Bit whit wis maist shockin aboot yun article wis da xenophobic a misogynistic wye at Viveka wis describit. While ivvry idder white male linguist haed dir titles listit an dir sceptical opinions quotit directly, Viveka (wha haed nae chance tae respond tidda journalist afore da article wis published an in fact wisna even bøn maed awar at her name wis includit iti dis article till a freend shaaed it til her) wis describit as a “relatively recent migrant” (a deliberate charged term in dis days o smaa boat crosseens – compare wi idder equally valid terms laek “expat” or even jüst “someen at’s moved”), wha is “besotted” wi Shetland, an wis simply termed “a linguist”. I wid laek tae point oot at Viveka – da onnly wife an onnly person o colour oot o dem – is in fact da maist highly qualified o da eens spokken til fir yun article, an da body at haes da maist experience wi dis topic. An yit her (dooble) Prof. title didna even mak it in till I sent a very tirse complent. Dis biased traetment is appaallin, an I can onnly apoligise ti Viveka an ti onybody idder at’s haed tae pit up wi dis kind o behaviour.
2. Dis aafil article is maed me reflect on da wye at we dael wi things in Shetland. De’r ey dis social pressure tae no mak a wark ower injustices – it’s yun wye at a faaeen oot atween fokk is ey considered a waar ootcome as jüst nivver ansin, jüst bidin quiet, an keepin bein ill-plaised ti yirsel. In days geen by dat micht’ll a maed a sort o sense wi a island population at wis forced tae try an wirk tagidder wi een anidder tae survive. Native Shetlanders ken an understaand dis as a fundamental unwritten rule.
A extension o dat is da fact at erguin ower whit some micht consider “trivial maitters” – espeecially in public – is seen as cringey an aff-pittin. Fir mair on dis I wid direct fokk tae look back on Daniel Gear’s excellent piece o writeen on “Shetland Cringe” written no lang efter Nigel Farage’s veesit tae Shetland.
Noo, whin you wade intil a spaess whar da laeks o Viveka an mesel contest a set wye o tinkin (“wir wye o spaekin is a dialect”) wi new information (“Shaetlan is in fact a language”), even if it is baessed on empirical data gaddered, analysed an quantified wi testit and established scientific statistical methods an distance calculatin tools, I can understaand scepticism, pushback, questionin, no understaandin, an da laek. Aa o dat is lippent an raisonable if fokk gings aboot it in a ceevilised wye. I wid nivver laek tae suggest we südna be oppen tae scrutiny – bit dat scrutiny süd ey be ceevil, an it süd shaa effort tae try an understaand da erguments we mak wirsels, an try tae mak legitimate linguistic erguments fir why we ir wrang. Aa da sam dis süd be baessed on data gaddered an analysed rigorously, no jüst impressions an anecdotes.
Bit de ir a leemit ti dis, an whit Viveka an me is aft experienced is geen weel by dat. De ir a point whar criticism turns inti harassment. I wid hoop at ivvrybody wid agree at eventually you win til a point whar you hae tae quet wi da stiff upper lip traetment an you dø hae tae spaek up fir yirsel whin things is unacceptable.
In licht o dis Times article an various idder bruck fae we lanched wir I Hear Dee social media campaign, I wid laek tae mak fokk awar o da kinds o harassment at Viveka (an tae a lesser extent me an aa) is bøn subjict til trowe wir wark wi Shaetlan. Dis includes:
- Persistent unsolicitit sexual messages sent ti Viveka.
- Racist an profanity-ridden phonecaals caain Viveka “a P*ki b*stard”.
- Viveka bein shouted at caain her weird an a imposeetion.
- Bein harangued ower da brucks o a ooer on a locally attendit video caal fir bein “divisive” ithoot evidence o hoo or why.·
- Hael families gangin up an targetin me on social media tae ridicule wir wark.
- A body messigin wis leepin mad accusin wis o spreidin linguistic misinfirmation in wir social media possts whin dey wir misunderstüd dem.
- Me an Viveka genuinely bein compared ti organised crime on social media.
We südna hae tae pit up wi ony wan o dis. Aa o yun tagidder is unacceptable. Dis haes tae stop.
We ir gotten messages fae linguists wirkin in some o da maist linguistically oppressed plaesses idda wirld whar physical violence is a real factor – an dey tell wis at dey ir nivver seen da laek o dis kind o pushback as whit w’ir seen firnenst wirsels. Tankfilly we irna haed physical violence directit at wis, bit wid it be a million mile awa fae whit wir seen sae far?
I wid laek tae remind fokk at we ir døin whit we ir tae bigg up wir language so it can be seen tae be valid fir onythin at fokk wants tae øse it fir – no jüst poyetry an bairns stories, bit textbooks, news, yir business’s social media, yir cooncil tax letters – onythin! We ir as bold tae say at Shaetlan süd be a language at bairns is baith lairned aboot an lairned in at da skül trowe a formal curriculum designed wi dat exact language in mind.
An fir darin tae shaa Shaetlan as wirt takkin seriously, we git traetit as abün.
Onybody is welcome tae hae opinions aboot me an my writeen in Shaetlan. Bit onnly a fül wid tink at a body laek Viveka at’s willin tae up an move dir hael life here, spend ower eleeven year studyin an describin wir variety o speech an git it recognised on da international stage as a language in it’s ain richt – dat body is at laest wirdy o basic common decency fae da Shetland public, an südna hae tae pit up wi da laek o da harassment shø is pitten up wi.
A’m wrocht wi Viveka fir maist o dat eleeven year, an nivver im I met someen sae dedicatit til her wark as her. Shetlanders owe her a debt o gratitude fir da wye shø is abün aa pitten Shaetlan first – an very affen afore even hersel.
Fae noo an on, A’m demaandin basic courtesy an decorum whin eens comment on wir wark. An if fokk want tae criticise whit we dø, at da very laest dey need tae mak demsels familiar wi whit we actually staand fir. We ir pitten in da herd wark tae prove at, on a linguistic basis (linguistics bein a science, an follooin da principles o da scientific method), why Shaetlan süd be considered a language ridder as a dialect. If you ir determined tae prove wis wrang, da onus is on you tae shaa øsin linguistic science why no (wi statistics an data, or wi idderwise genuinely rigourous historical evidence or solid linguistic theory) an prove why we ir wrang. Until we see dat quality o debaet, fokk hae mair readeen tae dø.
An wan last tocht: da perverse thing is at I tink a portion o dis fokk harassin wis dunna actually want tae see Shaetlan deein oot. If aa dis fokk at we (fir some raison) mak sae mad wid insteid direct dir efforts tae tryin tae bigg up Shaetlan in whitivver wye dey see fit, we wid hae less wark tae dø, an dey wid hae less tae be mad at wis aboot. Pit a grain o effort in yirsels an stop shergin at wis pittin in effort in a wye you disagree wi!
Hit’s come ti dat at if dis harrassin behaviour gings on ony langer, whit I tink is da best linguistic mind Shetland is seen fae Jakob Jakobsen wis here will loss da hert tae keepin wirkin on Shaetlan.
Dis is up ti you. Behave yirsels.
English:
This piece comes in two parts:
1. Readers of The Sunday Times may have noticed an article published recently (Vikings and Scots lock horns over Shetland dialect – 22 August 2026 – behind a paywall) claiming to discuss Prof. Viveka Velupillai’s work on Shaetlan without her input, but in fact only making comments about her as a person.
Photo: Shetland News
In short, it’s utter rubbish. It’s full of mistakes from top to bottom, and lists ignorant opinions from people who really ought to know better. Some particularly disappointing aspects come from the fact that none of the people quoted criticising our work seem to have understood what we have spent years trying to get across – that Shaetlan cannot be classified as purely Scots or purely Scandinavian; it is a Mixed Language with a (mostly) Scots lexicon and a (mostly) Scandinavian grammar. This is a fundamental part of understanding why we have got Shaetlan recognised as a language in its own right – Shaetlan does not fit neatly into any other category except as its own. Whereas this article seems to make out that we think Shaetlan is purely Scandinavian and that Scots makes up little to no part of it. We have never made any claim like that. It makes us wonder: what part of blend is it that is so difficult to understand? Not one of the other people quoted or spoken to for this article (or the author of the article) seems to have bothered to read anything on our website, social media or in our book before making such headstrong arguments about us. How anybody considering themselves a scholar can criticise an argument when they do not know what the argument actually is, I don’t know – it does not say much for the quality of their research.
But what was most shocking about that article was the xenophobic and misogynistic way in which Viveka was described. While every other white male linguist had their titles listed and their sceptical opinions quoted directly, Viveka (who had no chance to respond to the journalist before the article was published and who in fact hadn’t even been made aware that her name had been included in the article until a friend showed it to her) was described as a “relatively recent migrant” (a deliberately charged term in these days of small-boat crossings – compare with other equally valid terms like “expat” or even just “someone who’s moved”), who is “besotted” with Shetland, and was simply termed “a linguist”. I would like to point out that Viveka – the only woman and only person of colour among them – is in fact the most highly qualified of the people spoken to for that article, and the person with the most experience of this topic. And yet even her (double) Prof. title did not make it in until I sent a very strong complaint. This biased treatment is appalling, and I can only apologise to Viveka and to anybody else who has had to put up with this kind of behaviour.
2. This awful article has made me reflect on the way that we deal with things in Shetland. There is always this social pressure not to make a fuss over injustices – it is the idea that a conflict between people is always considered a worse outcome than just not bothering, just keeping quiet, and bottling up your frustration. In days gone by that might have made a sort of sense with an island population that was forced to try to work together with one another to survive. Native Shetlanders know and understand this as a fundamental unwritten rule.
An extension of that is the fact that arguing over what some might consider “trivial matters” – especially in public – is seen as cringey and off-putting. For more on this I would recommend people to look back on Daniel Gear’s excellent written piece on “Shetland Cringe”, written not long after Nigel Farage’s visit to Shetland.
Now, when you enter a space where people like Viveka and myself challenge an established way of thinking (“our way of speaking is a dialect”) with new information (“Shaetlan is in fact a language”), even if it is based on empirical data gathered, analysed and quantified using tested and established scientific statistical methods and distance-calculation tools, I can understand scepticism, pushback, questioning, lack of understanding, and the like. All of that is valid and reasonable if people go about it in a civilised way. I would never want to suggest that we should not be open to scrutiny – but that scrutiny should always be civil, and it should show an effort to try to understand the arguments we make ourselves, and try to make legitimate linguistic arguments, for why we are wrong. This should be based on equally rigorous data gathering and analysis, not mere impressions and anecdotes.
But there is a limit to this, and what Viveka and I have often experienced goes well beyond that. There is a point where criticism turns into harassment. I hope that everybody would agree that eventually you reach a point where you have to stop with the stiff-upper-lip treatment and you do have to speak up for yourself when things are unacceptable.
In light of this Times article and various other abuse since we launched our I Hear Dee social-media campaign, I would like to make people aware of the kinds of harassment that Viveka (and to a lesser extent me as well) has been subjected to because of our work on Shaetlan. This includes:
- Persistent unsolicited sexual messages sent to Viveka.
- Racist and profanity-ridden phone calls calling Viveka “a P*ki b*stard”.
- Viveka being shouted at calling her weird and an imposition.
- Being harangued over the course of an hour on a locally attendid video call for being “divisive” without evidence of how or why.
- Whole families ganging up and targeting me on social media to ridicule our work.
- One person messaging us in a rage, accusing us of spreading linguistic misinformation in our social-media posts when they had simply misunderstood them.
- Me and Viveka genuinely being compared to organised crime on social media.
We should not have to put up with any one of these things. All of them together are unacceptable. This has to stop.
We have received messages from linguists working in some of the most linguistically oppressed places in the world, where physical violence is a real factor – and they tell us that they have never seen the kind of pushback that we are receiving here. Thankfully, we have not had physical violence directed at us, but would it be a million miles away from what we have seen so far?
I would like to remind people that we are doing what we can to build up our language so that it can be seen to be valid for anything people want to use it for – not just poetry and children’s stories, but also for textbooks, news, your business’s social media, your council tax letters – anything! We are as bold as to say that Shaetlan should be a language that children both learn about and learn in at school through a formal curriculum designed with that exact language in mind.
And for daring to show Shaetlan as worth taking seriously, we get treated as listed above.
Anybody is welcome to have opinions about me and my writing in Shaetlan. But only a fool would think that someone like Viveka, who was willing to up and move her whole life here, spend over eleven years studying and describing our variety of speech and get it recognised on the international stage as a language in its own right – that person is at least worthy of basic common decency from the Shetland public, and should not have to put up with the kind of harassment she is subjected to.
I have worked with Viveka for most of those eleven years, and never have I met someone so dedicated to her work as she is. Shetlanders owe her a debt of gratitude for the way she has above all put Shaetlan first – and very often even before herself.
From now on, I am demanding basic courtesy and decorum when people comment on our work. And if people want to criticise what we do, then at the very least they need to make themselves familiar with what we actually stand for. We are putting in the hard work to prove, on a linguistic basis (linguistics being a science, and following the principles of the scientific method), why Shaetlan should be considered a language rather than a dialect. If you are determined to prove us wrong, the onus is on you to show, using linguistic science, why not (with statistics and data, or otherwise with genuinely rigorous historical evidence or solid linguistic theory) and prove why we are wrong. Until we see that quality of debate, people have more reading to do.
And one last thought: the perverse thing is that I think a portion of the people harassing us do not actually want to see Shaetlan die out. If all these people whom we (for some reason) make so angry would instead direct their efforts towards trying to build up Shaetlan in whatever way they see fit, we would have less work to do, and they would have less to be angry with us about. Put a bit of effort in yourselves and stop complaining at us for putting in effort in a way you disagree with!
It has come to this: if this harassing behaviour goes on any longer, what I think is the best linguistic mind Shetland has seen since Jakob Jakobsen was here will lose heart in continuing to work on Shaetlan.
This is up to you. Behave yourselves.
