Ideas of just what Kilt really means..

[Chas]

This is from the portal of this site (the emphasis is mine):

X Marks the Scot is an international community of kilt wearers and those who encourage the wearing of kilts. Kilts are a man's garment and it is our goal to promote the wearing of the kilt in more than just the "Highland Games" situation. This is not a forum for men looking to wear womens clothing nor is it a forum for other types of men's un-bifurbricated garments.

A Black Watch lava-lava, that's OK, it's a kilt isn't it. A nice sarong in tweed - need you ask. A loud McLeod kimono, of course it's a kilt - why are you asking these stupid questions?

Unless we define what a kilt is - everything is. I don't know what people are are so afraid of.

Regards

Chas

[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.