Ideas of just what Kilt really means..

[sathor]

It was a mix. I started out thinking it might actually be helpful, then I realized it for what it may really be. A display of the absurd. I broke it into at least 6 different types of kilts. Really, if we step back and just agree to say there are at least 4 types of kilts, and we all have our favorites, then 90% of the 'bantering' here about what is a kilt can be reduced to nothing more than the equivalent of which Baseball/Football/Hockey/Lacrosse/Rugby/Tiddlywinks or whatever team is better. Around here, there is a rivalry between Ohio State univ. and Univers. of Michigan. And the lines between can get ugly.

Maybe it's better that newcomers can easily see that there are many many many types of kilts, and that we all have our favorites, and like in sports, the ones we don't like, we like not liking. More or less.

[bigdad1]

Why do you insist there be a quantity assigned to how many sorts of kilts there are? Why not just say there are kilts and leave it at that. If someone wants to call a sarong a kilt then let them do that. You may think them a fool but at least they are a happy fool. What sense does it make to try and quantify an article of clothing that has been around for hundreds of years and has gone through countless permutations and will probably continue to do so. New tartans are introduced all the time. New types of pleats and kilt designs pop up regularly. Why don't we just leave it where it is? If it isn't broke done break it.

[hospitaller]

how about:

kilt: whatever the kilt wearer considers to be a kilt, without concerns of what other kilt wearers consider a kilt.

you say tomato, I say tomato
you say potato, I say potato

.

[CDNSushi]

A loud McLeod kimono,

Man! I want me one of them!!! That'd be the shiz!

I think that we are indeed delving into the depths of the redundant and unnecessary. In order to satisfy anywhere even close to 50% of this forum's members, any definition would have to be sufficiently broad to encompass all the various permutations of kilts that exist, may have existed, or might exist in the future. And yet, a definition so broad doesn't sit well with many members either.

What that leaves us with, are numerous dictionaries and encyclopedias that give an idea of what a kilt might be, in common parlance. My 2nd ed. OED (pub. 1989) (yeah, the huuuuuge one consisting of 20 x 2000pgs volumes) says this (in part -- at least a 1/4 page is dedicated just to the various meanings of the word):

A part of the modern Highland dress, consisting of a skirt or petticoat reaching from the waist to the knee: it is usually made of tartan cloth, and is deeply plaited round the back and sides; hence, any similar article of dress worn in other countries.

Now, personally, I have no pressing desire to improve on that particular definition. To me, it is sufficient. Beyond this point, whether or not any particular exemplar of an unbifurcated garment counts as a kilt is up to individual interpretation in much the same way as art. Does a heap of rusty iron welded together count as a sculpture? Does a cross in a jar of urine count as art? You are fighting the same battle in trying to define what a kilt is or isn't.

Really, it's best not to. Everyone, even as far-flung as here in Japan has SOME concept of what a kilt looks like in modern parlance, even though it may be broader or narrower a definition than what I would like. No one in their right mind would call a Loud MacLeod kimono a kilt. Why not? I vote for a common-sense, naturalistic, utilitarian explanation why not. Put 100 people from 100 countries into a room, read them a definition of a kilt (in their own language) and show them a Loud MacLeod kimono. Ask them whether or not that would qualify as a kilt. Now of course, my method is neither scientific nor pragmatic, but that is the spirit with which I think the kilt is best defined.

No disrespect to the OP -- it's a noble idea to define a kilt, but completely unnecessary, in my opinion.

[O'Callaghan]

We aren't likely to agree. We probably have as many definitions as members.

IMHO a kilt is a pleated wrap around skirt (yes, the S word), but if it's a mens' one it closes on the right (or left over right, however you wish to define the closing), and is somewhere vaguely near knee length.

[Bugbear]

I tried to find an answer and definition, tried to find a way to see it from both sides, and in the end, it doesn't help the rift. I do see for sure that the extremes of this issue need each other because they would turn on themselves if kept to their own.

[Stratherrick]

bigdad1

Next someone will be correcting our spelling of the various items of wear that go along with being kilted.

Or, like me, noting that it's sgians dubh not sgian dubhs!

As for kilts, I feel that there are characteristics that ADD UP to something becoming a kilt. For instance, for me, without pleats it's a female skirt. Without a sporran of some design, it's a skirt etc, etc. The material used is, well, immaterial!

What I'm saying is is that it's the overall design and accoutrements that both make it and set it off. If what you're wearing is missing one or more of these, to my mind anyway, you're wearing a 'kilt-like' creation. That ain't a problem as I'm a great fan of creativity and love looks back over our shoulder, for example I love steampunk's (do a Google) influence on fashion, or see here:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...a%3DN%26um%3D1

Steampunk band, Abney Park, has a kilt-wearing violinist:

http://content7.clipmarks.com/blog_c...3-64CAF98E2A37

So, there's no need to get all uppity, folks, or fall out. It's just clothing, man, just clothing.

Slainte

Bruce

[Phil]

But there are already informal definitions used frequently here so why all the heated argument? People talk about "tanks", "UK's" etc. which most seem to understand. Jock and myself know exactly what a kilt is - 6 yards + of tartan material, knife pleated at the back to the sett (sometimes to the line) which is high-waisted and touches your kneecap. It is not hemmed (unless made for a child) but has the selvedge from weaving and it wraps across the front with the open part to the right (for men) which usually has some form of pin near the lower right corner. That is what a kilt is. Anything else is simply a variation of this.

[Jock Scot]

I am not at all sure that we on Xmarks are even able to agree on what a traditional kilt is, never mind what any other version of a kilt is! Ask a Scot and on the whole there will be a reasonable chance of fairly consistant definition, ask the rest of the world and there will be not a hope.

[sathor]

Again, part of the point. In so many threads the rabble argues over the definitions, in this one the rabble argues against definitions. I really do find it funny.