The Celtic Roots Of English?

[Liffrea]

Anyone read this book?

http://www.joensuu.fi/fld/ecc/publications/celtic_roots.html

I recently got hold of an article by one of the contributors Theo Vennemann in which he argues that Celtic Brythonic has had a substantial grammatical impact on the structure of the English language.

In particular he focuses on something called external possessor construction, it’s quite a complex term to describe (I’m not a linguist but I can follow his argument). The EPC is common in all continental Indo-European languages but it is none existent in English, the only other languages that lack EPC are the insular Celtic tongues, Vennemann postulates that the Celtic population that survived and adopted the Old English tongue basically shaped it around this lack of EPC.

He also goes onto suggest that a lack of EPC in Celtic is a direct link to Semitic languages, not as barmy as it sounds given that one major IE origin theory places it in the Near East and Celtic languages may well be amongst the oldest IE branches.

I can’t comment on the accuracy of the conclusion, I’m not a linguist, but I find the possibility fascinating.

[Osweo]

Anyone read this book?
Nah, but the relevant details are online in various places. :p

Vennemann postulates that the Celtic population that survived and adopted the Old English tongue basically shaped it around this lack of EPC.
It's a good argument.

He also goes onto suggest that a lack of EPC in Celtic is a direct link to Semitic languages, not as barmy as it sounds
Really? :coffee:

given that one major IE origin theory places it in the Near East
Ah yes, the Idiot Archaeologist Who Should Mind His Own Business Theory. Damn Renfrew! It's bollocks, it really is! The region in question is FULL of older non-IE substrata! He should be ashamed of himself. :mad:

and Celtic languages may well be amongst the oldest IE branches.
THat's bollocks. No older than Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Italic... and much YOUNGER than the Anatolian family. :mad:

I can’t comment on the accuracy of the conclusion, I’m not a linguist, but I find the possibility fascinating.
The phenomenon, and the immediate cause, seem okay. It's his subsequent flights of fancy that annoy me. THe whole continent is in the way of Semitic - British Isles contacts. I'd look at something different, as an intermediary, or rather a chain of them.

Semitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic. There's Khemetic (Egyptian), and Hamitic (Berber) as you go westward. The old Atlantic marine highway is old hat, so it wouldn't be too daft to suppose some sort of continuum of substrate up and down this, from the Atlas Mountains to Albion.

Something I've never quite got my head round, is the age of Hamitic in that area. Was it a later diffusion from the east of North Africa, or has it been around Morocco for very long? THe Guanches seem to have been of allied speech, and archaic breed, so we might suppose some great age. (Semitic may have crossed to Asia - along Moses's route - pretty late in the day)
But what of Iberia? Was there another link in the chain there?

Something I've noticed that may be relevant, is commonality in naming practices:
Gos-Patrick, Gille-Bride, Mal-Colm, Mug-Nuadat, ... and ... Abd-Ullah :eek: The meaning is pretty much the same. I am not aware of this in other European languages, as such.

... and there IS an IBERIAN parallel for this 'Devotee of X' style too, to complete the chain of links! I can't remember exactly where I read about this idea, but it may have been inferred from the inscription below:


likine : abulor'aune : ekien : bilibiliar's on a mosaic ("Likinos" and "Abulo" are known Celtiberian personal names; "Bilbilis" is a town);
http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/ib11_en.htm

[Osweo]

... and there IS an IBERIAN parallel for this 'Devotee of X' style too, to complete the chain of links! I can't remember exactly where I read about this idea, but it may have been inferred from the inscription below:

http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/ib11_en.htm

Ah, I found THIS in my notes:

K.28.1: mosaic from Andelos:
likine : abulor'aune : ekien : bilbiliar's
Here likine and abulo are the iberizated forms of the well known Celtiberian peronal names likinos and abulu, and bilbili the town name of 'Bilbilis' (nowadays Calatayud). I have suggested that the two first segment are the iberization of a complete onomastic Celtiberian form "Likinos the launi of Abulo" (launi is a well attested word releting two persons in Celtiberian) and that ar's means something like 'castle'. Hence, as ekien is clearly a 'verbal' similar to "made", "work" or so, an approximated translation could be "Made (by) Likinos the servant (?) of Abulo, (office of) the Castle of Bilbilis"

:)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Really?

If you accept an Anatolian homeland (I know you don’t but bear with me:)) then why not? Given that the Indo-European and Semitic languages would have developed largely within the same area.


Ah yes, the Idiot Archaeologist Who Should Mind His Own Business Theory. Damn Renfrew! It's bollocks, it really is! The region in question is FULL of older non-IE substrata! He should be ashamed of himself.

I’ve not read Renfrew’s argument personally, I’m more inclined to the Ukraine theory myself anyway but I also find the theory of Iranian scholar Dr Kaveh Farrokh who has argued both for Armenia and the Ukraine steppe intriguing.


THat's bollocks. No older than Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Italic... and much YOUNGER than the Anatolian family.

Hmmm I’ve seen linguistic arguments that suggest otherwise (Forster and Toth have argued that the latest Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic diverged from a common ancestor was 5,200 years ago)…….when you think about it the suggestion of significant Celtic input into English would have been considered absurd not all that long ago……

[Osweo]

If you accept an Anatolian homeland (I know you don’t but bear with me:)) then why not? Given that the Indo-European and Semitic languages would have developed largely within the same area.
Phrygia and Edom are very far apart.

I’ve not read Renfrew’s argument personally, I’m more inclined to the Ukraine theory myself anyway but I also find the theory of Iranian scholar Dr Kaveh Farrokh who has argued both for Armenia and the Ukraine steppe intriguing.
I stand by the Danubian Urheimat! :p

Hmmm I’ve seen linguistic arguments that suggest otherwise (Forster and Toth have argued that the latest Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic diverged from a common ancestor was 5,200 years ago)…….when you think about it the suggestion of significant Celtic input into English would have been considered absurd not all that long ago……
That is idiocy!!!
I can half read some of Ogham Irish, from knowing something of Gaulish/British!
Pure nonsense!

[hereward]

I clicked the link, 7-10 seconds passed, I clicked off. Forgive me for my lack of interest, I am just so tired of the constant re-evaluation of the ethno-genesis of the English, everything seems to be based on an asumption based on an assumption, possible over probable. Here's a site for the 'proto English Language living side by side with the Brythonic Languages.
http://www.proto-english.org/sum.html
I apologise for this post.

[Wulfhere]

Ignoring the Semitic thing because it's clearly bollocks, the Celtic subtrate in English is certainly worthy of consideration as a theory. However, it's also wrong. The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. A glance at Welsh would indicate that it should be classed as a Romance language, being so full of Latin. Wherever the Romans went they took their language, and Britain was no exception.

[Treffie]

However, it's also wrong. The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

O rly? :D



A glance at Welsh would indicate that it should be classed as a Romance language, being so full of Latin. Wherever the Romans went they took their language, and Britain was no exception.

Of course, Welsh was highly diluted by Latin, but this doesn't mean that it's anything alike. You only need to look at the word order of the Celtic languages (VSO) to see that they're not Romance. Dah! :rolleyes:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
I can half read some of Ogham Irish, from knowing something of Gaulish/British!

The conclusion was reached using the “network method”.

It’s a complex process that I’m not going to go into detail here but it boils down to the degree of root word origins to borrowed words. Some scholars have argued that the similarity between Gaelic and Brythonic (whilst obvious when compared to continental Celtic languages) is substantially due more to proximity and borrowing than a recent ancestor….


Originally Posted by hereward
Forgive me for my lack of interest, I am just so tired of the constant re-evaluation of the ethno-genesis of the English, everything seems to be based on an asumption based on an assumption, possible over probable.

Naturally, hard facts are a rarity in early medieval English history, those who want certainty would be best advised not to study the period at all, as it is I welcome any new insight into the period, I tend to be more suspicious of extreme theories either way, people like Bryan Sykes with his theory that the English are “Celts” who forgot they were “Celts” is just as suspicious to my mind as the proponents of wipe out.


Originally Posted by Wulfhere
The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

According to Oppenheimer, personally I found that argument of his to be pretty insubstantial, the lack of Celtic inscription in some parts of England is hardly conclusive evidence that Celtic wasn’t spoken in England…….his argument regarding the Belgae in south-east England being Germanic speakers might be worth looking into more….

[Wulfhere]

According to Oppenheimer, personally I found that argument of his to be pretty insubstantial, the lack of Celtic inscription in some parts of England is hardly conclusive evidence that Celtic wasn’t spoken in England…….his argument regarding the Belgae in south-east England being Germanic speakers might be worth looking into more….

The idea that the Belgae might have been Germanic is indeed an interesting one, but even if they were, their language cannot be ancestral to English. If English was descended from any language spoken in Roman Britain, it would be packed full of Latin words, just like Welsh is. In fact, more so, because we can assume that lowland Britain would be substantially more Romanised than mountainous Wales. Since Old English picked up no more than about half a dozen Celtic words (not counting place names), we must conclude that the English never lived within the confines of the Roman Empire.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
The idea that the Belgae might have been Germanic is indeed an interesting one, but even if they were, their language cannot be ancestral to English. If English was descended from any language spoken in Roman Britain, it would be packed full of Latin words, just like Welsh is. In fact, more so, because we can assume that lowland Britain would be substantially more Romanised than mountainous Wales. Since Old English picked up no more than about half a dozen Celtic words (not counting place names), we must conclude that the English never lived within the confines of the Roman Empire.

My mistake, I thought you were arguing for Oppenheimer’s theory that Germanic languages had been spoken widespread in England before the 5th century Germanic migrations……for him, and proponents of the theory, Old English was already developing in Britain from pre-Roman times.

As I understand it many of the Latin derived words in Welsh are for technical terms and the similarity between Welsh and Latin comes from the general Italic/Celtic language split compared to the Germanic/Slavic…….

[Osweo]

Some scholars have argued that the similarity between Gaelic and Brythonic (whilst obvious when compared to continental Celtic languages) is substantially due more to proximity and borrowing than a recent ancestor….
:tsk:
Gods save us from 'scholars'...

According to Oppenheimer, personally I found that argument of his to be pretty insubstantial,
CORRIGENDA
For 'insubstantial', read 'idiotic'.

the lack of Celtic inscription in some parts of England ….
Numismatics begs to differ.

his argument regarding the Belgae in south-east England being Germanic speakers might be worth looking into more….
Honestly, it would NOT!
Look at the names, look at the cultural links, look at the very name... These were Celts. It's so absurd that we're re-examining this! Oppenheimer's ideas receive FAR too much attention, and are worthy of none. :mad:

As I understand it many of the Latin derived words in Welsh are for technical terms
Not too different to the Romance impact on English, indeed.

[Wulfhere]

As I understand it many of the Latin derived words in Welsh are for technical terms and the similarity between Welsh and Latin comes from the general Italic/Celtic language split compared to the Germanic/Slavic…….

That's not the case. The Latin words in Welsh are for everyday things like window (off the top of my head) which is finnest in Welsh (sp - I know it more spoken than written), and are clearly nowhere near as old as the Italic/Celtic split.

[Osweo]

That's not the case. The Latin words in Welsh are for everyday things like window

http://www.aviewfromthehill.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/roundhouse.jpg

Keep trying... :rolleyes:


I can only think of pont for 'bridge' off the top of mine... Oh, and llifr for 'book'.


and are clearly nowhere near as old as the Italic/Celtic split.
Some yes, but not all. There are a few doubtful cases that could be either/or.

I've just ran through the first verses of Sosban fach and the anthem in my head, and found no Latin in the former (save the French derived sauce in the English borrowing saucepan). The latter's word for 'wall' seems Latin (again unsurprising, given the architecture of the preRoman period). 'Singer' also seems Latin. Yep, that seems to be about it.

In the comparable 'Land of Hope and Glory', I find two Latinisms too!

[Wulfhere]

http://www.aviewfromthehill.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/roundhouse.jpg

Keep trying... :rolleyes:


I can only think of pont for 'bridge' off the top of mine... Oh, and llifr for 'book'.


Some yes, but not all. There are a few doubtful cases that could be either/or.

I've just ran through the first verses of Sosban fach and the anthem in my head, and found no Latin in the former (save the French derived sauce in the English borrowing saucepan). The latter's word for 'wall' seems Latin (again unsurprising, given the architecture of the preRoman period). 'Singer' also seems Latin. Yep, that seems to be about it.

In the comparable 'Land of Hope and Glory', I find two Latinisms too!

Okay then - and pardon the spelling as I know spoken Welsh far better then I can spell it - we have keffell for horse, finnest for window, dyew for god, all the days of the week, cagh for shit... I'm sure I could think of a lot more.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The Celts were largely pushed to the outskirts of Britain with the Anglo-Saxon invastion of 450. I just don't see how English would be influenced grammatically by the Celtic langauges, yet exhibit few loan words. I'm interested in reading this guy's ideas, but I'm very skeptical.

The most popular theory for the PIE homeland is the Kurgan Hypothesis which places them north of the Black Sea and as far east as the Caspian. I don't buy the Anatolian hypothesis.

As far as Semetic influence goes, that sounds to me like complete nonsense. From what I understand, the best guess for where PIE came from is an ancient split from a common Indo-European-Uralic language group.

[Osweo]

Okay then - and pardon the spelling as I know spoken Welsh far better then I can spell it - we have keffell for horse, finnest for window, dyew for god, all the days of the week, cagh for shit... I'm sure I could think of a lot more.
All nouns. The god word wasn't too different from the Latin anyway. See Irish De. English Tiw would look similar had it not been for Grimm's shift in consonants. Shit and horse are pretty fundamental, sure, but we're still not talking about serious reformation of the grammar and syntax. Indeed, British was far more Latinate from that point of view before the Romans came here.

I am not arguing against Welsh having lots of Latin in it, just your daft classification of it as 'as good as Romance'.

Oh, and our days fo the week are nothing but a calque from Latin themselves.

[Osweo]

The Celts were largely pushed to the outskirts of Britain with the Anglo-Saxon invastion of 450.
No.
Celtic political units were pushed there. Some (but not all!) members of elites from eastern polities fled west, no doubt taking a few dependents. There may have been a fair few refugees of lower classes too, but the mass of the population will have remained. Disruption of agriculture, violence, and social factors will not have been good for them demographically, but the British in the east did not disappear.

I just don't see how English would be influenced grammatically by the Celtic langauges, yet exhibit few loan words.
That's easy. I speak Russian. I'm not brilliant at it, but I don't slip English words into what i say. I probably DO however show by my grammar and word order that I am a native English speaker... It would have been possible for a Briton in the Seventh Century to have thought he was speaking perfect Englisc, and been perfectly understandable, but STILL revealing his origins through the manner in which he spoke the second language.

The most popular theory for the PIE homeland is the Kurgan Hypothesis which places them north of the Black Sea and as far east as the Caspian. I don't buy the Anatolian hypothesis.
I find both hard to believe. A Central European Urheimat makes most sense.

As far as Semetic influence goes, that sounds to me like complete nonsense.
It's badly named. He shouldn't have said 'Semitic' but 'Afro-Asiatic', or even 'Hamitic'. Perhaps 'Atlantic Littoral' would have been best of all, and would point to a not too unrealistic explanation behind the linguistics.

[Hrolf Kraki]

No.
Celtic political units were pushed there. Some (but not all!) members of elites from eastern polities fled west, no doubt taking a few dependents. There may have been a fair few refugees of lower classes too, but the mass of the population will have remained. Disruption of agriculture, violence, and social factors will not have been good for them demographically, but the British in the east did not disappear.

My professor of English history says otherwise. Else we'd have a hell of a lot more Celtic loan words.

[Wulfhere]

My professor of English history says otherwise. Else we'd have a hell of a lot more Celtic loan words.

The truth is that both things are correct. In some areas the Celtic population was displaced, in other areas assimilated.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The truth is that both things are correct. In some areas the Celtic population was displaced, in other areas assimilated.

This makes sense. It's difficult to know how many actually did assimilate, but the ones that did had very little influence on the Anglo-Saxons.

[Wulfhere]

This makes sense. It's difficult to know how many actually did assimilate, but the ones that did had very little influence on the Anglo-Saxons.

Scholars have always been baffled at how little Celtic influence ended up in Old English (in marked contrast to the Franks and other Germanic tribes who adopted the local lingo within decades). I think it was literally half a dozen words.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Scholars have always been baffled at how little Celtic influence ended up in Old English (in marked contrast to the Franks and other Germanic tribes who adopted the local lingo within decades). I think it was literally half a dozen words.

I always wondered that too. I asked my English history professor about that one day and he said it was due to the Celts being pushed to the outskirts of Britain. That's why I'm hesitant to believe that there were very many Celts assimilated, else they'd have had a bigger influence on the language.

[Wulfhere]

I always wondered that too. I asked my English history professor about that one day and he said it was due to the Celts being pushed to the outskirts of Britain. That's why I'm hesitant to believe that there were very many Celts assimilated, else they'd have had a bigger influence on the language.

The historical record gives us the locations of a number of areas where Celts survived, including London, which remained Celtic for some time after its hinterlands were settled by the English.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The historical record gives us the locations of a number of areas where Celts survived, including London, which remained Celtic for some time after its hinterlands were settled by the English.

There are Celtic place names all over Europe. This is due to the Celts being widely distributed across Gaul for some time before the Germanic tribes pushed them westward.

[Treffie]

My professor of English history says otherwise. Else we'd have a hell of a lot more Celtic loan words.

Not necessarily.

[Osweo]

I asked my English history professor about that one day and he said it was due to the Celts being pushed to the outskirts of Britain.
I hope that his saying that didn't occur in a settled and professional atmosphere, otherwise I despair that such men get to the rank of 'professor'! Perhaps this was at the end of a lecture, and he was packing his bag and thinking about having to go to the shops to buy dinner or whatever? :p

That's why I'm hesitant to believe that there were very many Celts assimilated, else they'd have had a bigger influence on the language.
Hmmm.... How to explain it? There are a few ways. Off the top of my head, here's a few things to consider;

1. There was a big influence but this was later obscured.
- Perhaps a lot was picked up locally, but in a rather haphazard way, that didn't allow for such words to enter later standardised literary speech? I have actually seen lists of potential borrowings in early poetry, that well outnumber the handful that have made it to modern English.
- Perhaps a lot survived in local dialects till the the late mediaeval period but were never recorded?
- Toponymy witnesses a greater adoption of Celtic terminology, at least for landscape features, than the written records would indicate.

2. The stigma attached to such borrowing was such as to eliminate it after a few generations, as bilingual folks died out. Various 'apartheid' theories for the early settlements and conquests could be cited to support this.

3. Some languages just don't gel together very well. The difference in accent and rhythm could have been such that Welsh words were uncomfortable to put into an English sentence.

4. There was little need to borrow. There were few things in Britain that the English needed to adopt a new word for. What did they come across that was different? In Russia, with other expats, I used Russian words often in English when there was no such English term that came readily to mind, mostly for different foods. Decades of turmoil might not have left the British with much to impress the Anglo-Saxons, in this respect.

5. I don't know. I feel like the hypothetical tired Prof. at the end of a lecture. :D Perhaps others can come up with some other theories?

[Hrolf Kraki]

If you're challenging what my professor says, please cite some reputable sources.

[Osweo]

If you're challenging what my professor says, please cite some reputable sources.

I don't need to. The contemporary stuff is enough.

Caedmon's existence, for example, is surely enough to smash this nonsense in one go.

But see Bede, Nennius and Gildas, if you must. They all agree that the Britons were either killed, driven west, or enslaved. By saying that, they're being rather simplistic, as there were free Britons around still, and even high class ones. See the lord in Kent... What was his name? Had a very Welsh name, anyroad. And the Northumbrian place-name Branxton - after a man named Branoc. You don't get villages named after you for nothing.

And what of the tens of Waltons around? Walshaws, Waldens, Wal.. etc. There's even a village called 'Wales' in Yorkshire!

[Hrolf Kraki]

I don't need to. The contemporary stuff is enough.

You most certainly do need to cite a source if you want me to take you seriously. Do you have a degree in this stuff? My professor has a Ph.D. in English Linguistics. Why should I believe you over him???

[Osweo]

You most certainly do need to cite a source if you want me to take you seriously. Do you have a degree in this stuff? My professor has a Ph.D. in English Linguistics. Why should I believe you over him???

It's unfortunate that you think somebody should need a degree to be able to discuss this.

I do have a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology, however. And those disciplines are probably better suited to tackling this problem than linguistics. This is an issue of demography, social relations, historiography and population genetics even.

Sources... yawn... I live and breathe this stuff, it's not all in the one place, you have to read around for years. There's a feller called N. J. Higham who says things of relevance. Find anything by Eilert Ekwall for the toponymic evidence. But most of the very general works don't contradict me.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
By saying that, they're being rather simplistic, as there were free Britons around still, and even high class ones.

The founder of the West Saxon kingdom, Cerdic has a British name, and the laws of the Wessex king Ine make specific reference to free Britons living in Wessex.

Personally I don’t see how anyone can still argue for wipeout theory.


Originally Posted by Hrolf Kraki
My professor has a Ph.D. in English Linguistics. Why should I believe you over him

Who suggested the man is lying? He has a Phd in linguistics, how well read is he on early English history? What knowledge of the archaeology of the period does he have? How well does he understand the genetic evidence that has accumulated over the last two decades? Just because he has a Phd means nothing, I’m a BA in archaeology, who studied Anglo-Saxon archaeology for my final year, I’ve kept up to reasonable date with new information, and I’m well read in the subject, which is why I personally wouldn’t take your professor’s opinion as gospel because I’ve studied and seen a lot of evidence that says otherwise.

Find out for yourself, don’t just accept someone’s opinion as fact because they have letters behind their name.

[Beorn]

Caedmon's existence, for example, is surely enough to smash this nonsense in one go.

A king of Lindsey was called Caedbad.


The founder of the West Saxon kingdom, Cerdic has a British name, and the laws of the Wessex king Ine make specific reference to free Britons living in Wessex.

Wessex had several Celtic named kings. They even had several kings whose names implied British input, like Cenwalh which means 'bold Welshman'. Penda of Mercia had a son whose name was Merewalh which means 'illustrious Briton'. Sussex had Aethelwalh, which means 'noble Briton'.

Reading 'Anglo-Saxon England' by Frank Stenton throws so many of these names up, it is amazing.

[Wulfhere]

A king of Lindsey was called Caedbad.



Wessex had several Celtic named kings. They even had several kings whose names implied British input, like Cenwalh which means 'bold Welshman'. Penda of Mercia had a son whose name was Merewalh which means 'illustrious Briton'. Sussex had Aethelwalh, which means 'noble Briton'.

Reading 'Anglo-Saxon England' by Frank Stenton throws so many of these names up, it is amazing.

Merewalh was very unlikely to be Penda's son... but, Penda himself has a name that could mean something in Welsh.

[Hrolf Kraki]

To solve the dispute, put up a goddamn source. Just because my professor has a Ph.D doesn't mean he's right, BUT it gives him a hell of a lot of credibility. If you show me why you think so many Celts were integrated, then perhaps I'll take your side. Fuck! Is it really this difficult??


For example, if we were to discuss.. oh let's say the light curve of a supernova and a professor of Astronomy tells me the light curve exhibits such and such elements while some random guy on the internet tells me another, I'm going to believe the Astronomy professor, no questions asked. However, if the random guy on the internet gives me a source for his information, I'm going to check out the source and give his viewpoint some attention. If his source makes more sense, then sure I'd believe him over the Astronomy professor.

[Treffie]

To solve the dispute, put up a goddamn source. Just because my professor has a Ph.D doesn't mean he's right, BUT it gives him a hell of a lot of credibility. If you show me why you think so many Celts were integrated, then perhaps I'll take your side. Fuck! Is it really this difficult??


For example, if we were to discuss.. oh let's say the light curve of a supernova and a professor of Astronomy tells me the light curve exhibits such and such elements while some random guy on the internet tells me another, I'm going to believe the Astronomy professor, no questions asked. However, if the random guy on the internet gives me a source for his information, I'm going to check out the source and give his viewpoint some attention. If his source makes more sense, then sure I'd believe him over the Astronomy professor.

Integration versus apartheid in post-Roman Britain: a response to Pattison (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603197/)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hrolf Kraki
If you show me why you think so many Celts were integrated, then perhaps I'll take your side. Fuck! Is it really this difficult??

Hrolf, to be blunt I couldn’t give a monkey’s toss whether you accept my word, your professor’s or Santa Claus, I don’t actually care whether you believe me or not, I long ago lost interest in the I'm right you're not childishness and the last word game. What I have suggested is you go away and find out for yourself and in the spirit of helping my fellow man I’ll suggest some book titles for you, but don’t expect me to quote lengthy passages to you (I’m not doing your work for you):

The English Settlements (Oxford History of England) J.N.L. Myres
The Earliest English (living and Dying in Early Anglo-Saxon England) S. Glasswell
The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death Sam Lucy
An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms C.J. Arnold

Though I am somewhat wary of conclusions from genetic surveys at present:

Blood of the Isles (Exploring the genetic roots of our tribal history) Bryan Sykes
Face of Britain (How Our Genes Reveal The History of Britain) Robin McKie

They are titles you should be able to acquire from a library or off Amazon.

[Treffie]

Arguably, the use of periphrastic constructions in the English verb (which is more widespread than in the other Germanic languages) is traceable to Brythonic influence.

Some researchers argue that English syntax reflects more extensive Brythonic influences. For instance, in English tag questions, the form of the tag depends on the verb form in the main statement (aren't I?, isn't he?, won't we? etc). The German nicht wahr? and the French n'est ce pas?, by contrast, are fixed forms which can be used with almost any main statement. It has been claimed that the English system has been borrowed from Brythonic, since Welsh tag questions vary in almost exactly the same way. This view is far from being generally accepted, though, since it is equally possible that the Welsh construction is borrowed from English.

Far more notable, but less well known, are the many Brythonic influences on Scottish Gaelic. Like English, periphrastic constructions have come to the fore, but to a much greater degree. Some important borrowings into Gaidhlig include Beinn meaning mountain, and anglicised "Ben", probably from the Brythonic pen meaning "Head".

Source (http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/br/brythonic_languages.htm#hd3)

I can see his argument when he relates to the tag questions.

(Links back to Joensuu)

[Hrolf Kraki]

Hrolf, to be blunt I couldn’t give a monkey’s toss whether you accept my word, your professor’s or Santa Claus, I don’t actually care whether you believe me or not, I long ago lost interest in the I'm right you're not childishness and the last word game. What I have suggested is you go away and find out for yourself and in the spirit of helping my fellow man I’ll suggest some book titles for you, but don’t expect me to quote lengthy passages to you (I’m not doing your work for you):

The English Settlements (Oxford History of England) J.N.L. Myres
The Earliest English (living and Dying in Early Anglo-Saxon England) S. Glasswell
The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death Sam Lucy
An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms C.J. Arnold

Though I am somewhat wary of conclusions from genetic surveys at present:

Blood of the Isles (Exploring the genetic roots of our tribal history) Bryan Sykes
Face of Britain (How Our Genes Reveal The History of Britain) Robin McKie

They are titles you should be able to acquire from a library or off Amazon.


Then what's the point of a discussion forum??? People can say all sorts of bullshit all day long on the internet. Why bother reading anything if it's not backed up by sources?

When I make a post and someone comes on here and simply tells me I'm wrong, without any explanation, then I want a reason. If you don't want to give me one, then shut the fuck up!

[Osweo]

Then what's the point of a discussion forum??? People can say all sorts of bullshit all day long on the internet. Why bother reading anything if it's not backed up by sources?

When I make a post and someone comes on here and simply tells me I'm wrong, without any explanation, then I want a reason. If you don't want to give me one, then shut the fuck up!

Reasoning is as good as sources. Perhaps we weren't as full in our answers as we could have been, but you could at least attempt to pull apart the arguments we're putting, sourced or not!

There are villages called Walton all over the country. Wealas lived there! End of story! :p

If you're some warlord taking over an area, you're not going to want to wipe out one of its most valuable commodities; a labour force.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hrolf Kraki
Then what's the point of a discussion forum??? People can say all sorts of bullshit all day long on the internet. Why bother reading anything if it's not backed up by sources?

When I make a post and someone comes on here and simply tells me I'm wrong, without any explanation, then I want a reason. If you don't want to give me one, then shut the fuck up!

Well I can see posts by both me and Arawn giving you sources that back up the things me and Osweo have been saying.

As above I’m not doing the work for you, go away actually gain some knowledge of the subject not hear say or others opinions. If you don't like what we say at least have something to go on, not well my teacher says.....

So if you spent more time “shutting the fuck up” and reading, you may have the ability to debate the subject and understand the position me and Osweo take.

But that’s your look out not mine.;)

When you have something more than the opinion of a linguist let me know.

[Treffie]

Well I can see posts by both me and Arawn giving you sources that back up the things me and Osweo have been saying.

As above I’m not doing the work for you, go away actually gain some knowledge of the subject not hear say or others opinions. If you don't like what we say at least have something to go on, not well my teacher says.....

So if you spent more time “shutting the fuck up” and reading, you may have the ability to debate the subject and understand the position me and Osweo take.

But that’s your look out not mine.;)

When you have something more than the opinion of a linguist let me know.

I think we call it research ;)

[Hrolf Kraki]

When you have something more than the opinion of a linguist let me know.

I spoke to my friend who knows damn near everything about Celtic history; he even speaks Irish. He told me pretty much the exact same thing as my professor did. He did mention though that the Anglo-Saxons tried breeding out the Celts that weren't pushed to the fringes of Britain.

Thank you for the sources. That's all I wanted...

[Osweo]

I spoke to my friend who knows damn near everything about Celtic history; he even speaks Irish.
lol
Being an Irish speaker, and knowing about the Celts, is hardly background enough to tackle this problem. Me and Liffrea actually LIVE in the lands in question, and are intimately acquainted with the many signs of continuity in population that your professor and friend seem blissfully unaware of. I bet combined we've spent untold hours investigating it, in one way or another. It's enough to just look at faces of the people we grew up among to know that not all of them got off the boat in 450 AD.

And anyroad, a lot of enthusiasts claim to be able to speak Irish, yet when it comes to it they can just about mumble a few pleasantries about your health and the weather, and say 'Put the milk in the cup', count to thirty, and that's it. Well, I can speak as much Irish as that! :p

He told me pretty much the exact same thing as my professor did.
:strokebeard:

He did mention though that the Anglo-Saxons tried breeding out the Celts that weren't pushed to the fringes of Britain.
He was there, was he? :rolleyes:
Honestly, you take such broad-brush nonsensical comments as gospel from him, but won't even listen to anything we say?!

The key thing here, is what rings true. This is geographically speaking a very intricate country. Nothing can hold true for all parts of it, and the story of the invasions and 'Englishing' of the land must be correspondingly detailed and regionally varied. There's no way you could drive out everyone from every part of it, and end up with the present English people.

Thank you for the sources. That's all I wanted...
Sources... Anything said on this matter will boil down to the same few primary sources anyway. Secondary analyses come and go, so the common sense reasoning of those intimate with the former is as valid as any of the latter.

[Pallantides]

There are probably more Celt descendents among Icelandics and western Norwegians than there are Germanics in Britian. *jk* :p

[Treffie]

lol
Being an Irish speaker, and knowing about the Celts, is hardly background enough to tackle this problem. Me and Liffrea actually LIVE in the lands in question, and are intimately acquainted with the many signs of continuity in population that your professor and friend seem blissfully unaware of. I bet combined we've spent untold hours investigating it, in one way or another. It's enough to just look at faces of the people we grew up among to know that not all of them got off the boat in 450 AD.

And anyroad, a lot of enthusiasts claim to be able to speak Irish, yet when it comes to it they can just about mumble a few pleasantries about your health and the weather, and say 'Put the milk in the cup', count to thirty, and that's it. Well, I can speak as much Irish as that! :p



Yep, it's these nuances that academia does not and can not always answer. Local historians are by far the best source ;)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hrolf Kraki
I spoke to my friend who knows damn near everything about Celtic history; he even speaks Irish. He told me pretty much the exact same thing as my professor did.

Right so now I have the opinion of a linguist…..and your mate who speaks Irish…..

I’m not being funny I have a good grasp of English history in general and a keen interest in AS history and archaeology…..but I wouldn’t expect you to take my word for it, I don’t deliberately mislead but I would rather people found things out for themselves, it’s a thing I have, I don’t much care what people believe as long as they can justify it by research and thought.


He did mention though that the Anglo-Saxons tried breeding out the Celts that weren't pushed to the fringes of Britain.

There are those who support an apartheid type system in western England, it’s an interesting theory.

Population genetics is somewhat nascent but preliminary results seem to suggest that the picture of Celtic survival is dependent on where you are. In East Anglia the numbers are low, compared to Shropshire, Somerset and Northumberland where Celtic survival seems to have been higher.


Thank you for the sources. That's all I wanted...

No problem.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
It's enough to just look at faces of the people we grew up among to know that not all of them got off the boat in 450 AD.

1948 onwards for many of the people I grew up with….:D

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Pallantides
There are probably more Celt descendents among Icelandics and western Norwegians than there are Germanics in Britian.

Depends on what one makes of all those R1b returns I suppose, what is it half of all Danish males are R1b and a third of Norwegians?

Unless we suggest that the Vikings were importing large numbers of Celtic males (homosexual Vikings hmmm)…the only other conclusion is that the Iberian recolonisation didn’t stop in Britain at the end of the LGM but kept on going……hence, presumably, many of those Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norse settlers in Britain must have been R1b carriers……which is one reason I have a problem with the R1b “Celtic” I “Germanic” labelling….

My R1b marker only has one other exact match and that's from the Orkney Islands. Assuming it's been there for some time, it could be Pictish or Norse....

[Treffie]

Okay then - and pardon the spelling as I know spoken Welsh far better then I can spell it - we have keffell for horse, finnest for window, dyew for god, all the days of the week, cagh for shit... I'm sure I could think of a lot more.

I see that you've done your research :rolleyes:

ceffyl
ffenestr
Duw
cachu

[Belenus]

I see that you've done your research :rolleyes:

ceffyl
ffenestr
Duw
cachu

Ffenestr sounds a lot like German 'fenster' for window. And 'cachu' could maybe be related to German 'kacke' for shit. Though I really have no idea. Just thought I'd comment on that similarity.

[Arne]

Ffenestr sounds a lot like German 'fenster' for window. And 'cachu' could maybe be related to German 'kacke' for shit. Though I really have no idea. Just thought I'd comment on that similarity.

Caghe sounds much like Kacke .
I think the english are overrating their supposed celtic roots.
Before the WW they claimed to be Teutons as i´d heard.

There are some similarities between some of these words like Caghe,Fenster.

[Osweo]

German 'Fenster' is ALSO a Romance borrowing. Cack in its various forms may well be too, it's certainly not a traditional English word.


cack
"act of voiding excrement; to void excrement," mid-15c., from L. cacare (see caca).

[Brynhild]

Caca is also a well-used word for shit among the Maltese and Italians. Just thought I'd throw that in there... :D