67 replies to this topic

[LongMa]

Yes, I do (often) get certain similar events, peoples and items mixed up. Comes from having such a broad (though shallow) base of knowledge. I will agree I got it wrong on English being a Romance language. Don't remember where I read that, I think it was a textbook in Elementary, but then again, I may have just pieced a few things together incorrectly in my memory. Thus the not-so authoritative "to my knowledge" disclaimer on that one.
However, I Was correct in my statement that the language of the day and place was Germanic before the coming of the Romans.

Sorry that is not correct.

The language was not Germanic before the coming of the Romans.

It was Celtic. There is a theory that "English" as a or proto-English existed in Britton before Rome came, but the vast majority of scholar believe this is false and the only languages spoken were all Celtic (Gaelic) in origin. The closest living ancestor of what that language was that was being spoken in present day "England" is Welsh. it is thought they those Celto-Romans fled to Wales because it had natural fortification due to the foothills and mountains so it was not easy for the Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes) to conqueror the area. Wales/Welsh is a Germanic word the Germanic tribes gave to the inhabitants which means "foreigner or stranger"...there are variations of this used all over Europe where Germanic people came into contact with non-Germans (Wallonia, Wallachia)

great map

Edited by LongMa, 07 January 2009 - 07:49 AM.

[liuzg150181]

Sorry that is not correct.

The language was not Germanic before the coming of the Romans.

It was Celtic. There is a theory that "English" as a or proto-English existed in Britton before Rome came, but the vast majority of scholar believe this is false and the only languages spoken were all Celtic (Gaelic) in origin. The closest living ancestor of what that language was that was being spoken in present day "England" is Welsh. it is thought they those Celto-Romans fled to Wales because it had natural fortification due to the foothills and mountains so it was not easy for the Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes) to conqueror the area. Wales/Welsh is a Germanic word the Germanic tribes gave to the inhabitants which means "foreigner or stranger"...there are variations of this used all over Europe where Germanic people came into contact with non-Germans (Wallonia, Wallachia)

great map

To expand on Longma's reply the Welsh people doesnt call themselve Welsh, buth rather ''Cymro ("Welshman"); Cymraes ("Welshwoman"); Cymry ("Welshmen/women")".
Also there is a hypothesis that the Anglo-Saxon people who came to England had imposed Aparthied-like system, to explain the prevalence of 'Germanic genes' amongst the English people, though like any hypothesis it is subjected to disputes:
http://www.redorbit....tain/index.html
http://publishing.ro...SPB20063627.pdf
http://www.telegraph...on-Britain.html
'English and Welsh are races apart' by BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.u...les/2076470.stm

Another trivia is that in English many days of the week are named after Germanic pagan gods - Tuesday = "Day of Tyr", Wednesday = "Day of Woden(aka Odin aka Wotan)",Thursday = "Day of Thunor(aka Thor)","Friday = "Day of Frige(aka Frigg)".

[Taran ap Dafydd]

No I'm not using Wikipedia.

LOL

Try BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ng_arthur.shtml

Ah! Yes, MUCH better. Like citing The History Channel...

It is also true that most of the names of the "knights" of King Author (Round Table) had Gaelic and Germanic names.

The idea of Arthur "Searching for the Holy Grail" and all these other things likely did come from the mainland, likely through France, but that was a merger of preexisting myth (Anglo-Saxon through Welsh) with the new invading Normans. Actually I think those originated during the Victorian Era.

Here is an exert from the Welsh National Museum:

The first mention of Arthur is thought to be a reference in a line from the poem The Gododdin of Aneirin, the earliest known work of literature in Welsh. The poem is from the 6th century, when much of western Britain (Wales, northern England and southern Scotland) spoke Welsh; the earliest surviving written form of the poem dates to the 13th century. The reference to Arthur in this source may be no earlier than the 9th century, but it demonstrates the fame of Arthur among the Welsh at this time.

"Is thought" "Is Thought"
That is conjecture.

The most important of the historical texts is the Historia Brittonum, the 'History of the Britons', which gives the earliest written record of Arthur who 'fought against them [the Saxons] with the kings of the Britons but he himself was leader [Duke] of Battles', winning twelve battles. The earliest version of this history is dated about AD829-830.

Again, this is who they Think the King Arthur legend is based on. Rather, it's one of Many people they think the legend is based on. There is a whole list of issues with the idea of any one of them being the Actual King Arthur, starting with the names listed and going on to include their feats.
In the end, every time they write a paper on any of these people or a book or make a show or have a discussion, they are left with "Well, I think it's this guy and here's why..."

Early Welsh literature has many wondrous tales which form an important part of the Arthurian tradition. There are portrayals of Arthur in anonymous Welsh poetry found in 13th and 14th century manuscripts. In one of the poems of the Black Book of Carmarthen, Englynion y Beddau ('The Stanzas of the Graves'), Arthur's grave is described as a great wonder because no one knows where it is located.

And written After Le Morte d'Arthur...

See my last comment on Arthur. You have merely supported my argument. Thank you.

Edited by Taran ap Dafydd, 09 January 2009 - 06:30 PM.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

Sorry that is not correct.

The language was not Germanic before the coming of the Romans.

It was Celtic. There is a theory that "English" as a or proto-English existed in Britton before Rome came, but the vast majority of scholar believe this is false and the only languages spoken were all Celtic (Gaelic) in origin. The closest living ancestor of what that language was that was being spoken in present day "England" is Welsh. it is thought they those Celto-Romans fled to Wales because it had natural fortification due to the foothills and mountains so it was not easy for the Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes) to conqueror the area. Wales/Welsh is a Germanic word the Germanic tribes gave to the inhabitants which means "foreigner or stranger"...there are variations of this used all over Europe where Germanic people came into contact with non-Germans (Wallonia, Wallachia)

great map

That is another and younger theory, but runs into the trouble of being unable to explain how the Saxons and the Angles and the Britons all communicated so easily. The Saxons and Angles, obvious. Them and the Britons?
Those scholars do make it clear that the Picts and the Celts couldn't communicate with the newcomers at all for a long time, but that the lowlanders in England proper could. They just haven't figured out how to explain that yet. Thus the older theory that I mentioned hasn't died off yet.

@Liuzq, read my last post before yours. I mentioned that, though, granted, in an off-hand sort of way. Celts/Picts aren't European in origin at all. They're from the Middle-East. Their wanderings have been pretty easy to follow thanks to their language and name for themselves.

Edited by Taran ap Dafydd, 09 January 2009 - 06:28 PM.

[LongMa]

That is another and younger theory, but runs into the trouble of being unable to explain how the Saxons and the Angles and the Britons all communicated so easily. The Saxons and Angles, obvious. Them and the Britons?
Those scholars do make it clear that the Picts and the Celts couldn't communicate with the newcomers at all for a long time, but that the lowlanders in England proper could. They just haven't figured out how to explain that yet. Thus the older theory that I mentioned hasn't died off yet.

@Liuzq, read my last post before yours. I mentioned that, though, granted, in an off-hand sort of way. Celts/Picts aren't European in origin at all. They're from the Middle-East. Their wanderings have been pretty easy to follow thanks to their language and name for themselves.

Here is a guess...but wouldn't it be likely that they spoke Latin to each other? Germanic tribes long had contact with Rome before ever coming to Britons. Look up the "Saxon Shore Forts"...Saxons interacted with the Romans many decades before the Romans left Briton, I doubt the Roman's spoke their "barbaric language" likely they spoke some Latin.

The Britons (meaning the left over Romano-Celts) likely could speak some Latin after decades of Roman occupation, at least some of them would trade or live in Roman towns.

So the lingua franca, at least at first, could be Latin, until the Germanic tribes force the Celts to speak their language (which became English).

This seems to make sense to me but I have absolutely no proof.

It is like if an educated ancient Japanese man found himself in Vietnam...he likely could not speak Chinese or Vietnamese, but he could write Chinese characters (as Japanese originally wrote Chinese using Chinese grammar and slowly over time developed their own written off shoot)...so written Chinese would be the lingua franca.

Same is true for many people around the world today. In Japan it was not odd to see a foreigner (like a Frenchman or German) speak ENglish to a Japanese person in Japan and try to explain something. Neither were native speakers.

Edited by LongMa, 09 January 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[LongMa]

Ah! Yes, MUCH better. Like citing The History Channel...




"Is thought" "Is Thought"
That is conjecture.


Again, this is who they Think the King Arthur legend is based on. Rather, it's one of Many people they think the legend is based on. There is a whole list of issues with the idea of any one of them being the Actual King Arthur, starting with the names listed and going on to include their feats.
In the end, every time they write a paper on any of these people or a book or make a show or have a discussion, they are left with "Well, I think it's this guy and here's why..."




And written After Le Morte d'Arthur...

See my last comment on Arthur. You have merely supported my argument. Thank you.

My point is that there are a lot of people in the UK who think Arthur was a Celto-Roman (Proto-Welsh)...this is accepted by many in Wales and England.

Like most myths Arthur probably did not exist but is a combination of several people and several myths fused together over time.

The idea that I expressed about Arthur's origins is not a bizarre fringe argument it is a legitimate theory that carries weight in respected circles in the UK. Is it correct? No idea, I'm not expert. What I can say is there are "experts" at big time research universities who believe this theory.

It is often mentioned that Arthur might have been Ambrosius Aurelianus...look him up...many believe Arthur was the last name Anglanized over time.

Edited by LongMa, 09 January 2009 - 11:35 PM.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

My point is that there are a lot of people in the UK who think Arthur was a Celto-Roman (Proto-Welsh)...this is accepted by many in Wales and England.

Like most myths Arthur probably did not exist but is a combination of several people and several myths fused together over time.

The idea that I expressed about Arthur's origins is not a bizarre fringe argument it is a legitimate theory that carries weight in respected circles in the UK. Is it correct? No idea, I'm not expert. What I can say is there are "experts" at big time research universities who believe this theory.

It is often mentioned that Arthur might have been Ambrosius Aurelianus...look him up...many believe Arthur was the last name Anglanized over time.

I don't think I was arguing what "many people believe." I think we've been speaking past each other again.
What I did was point out that your arguments about King Arthur were based entirely on conjecture and a handful of fragments of evidence spread across as many different sources and centuries of recording.
I don't pretend to know what the origins of the Arthur myth that eventually was written as La Morte d'Arthur are or who Arthur really was. I keep my ears and eyes open for stories about more evidence being found in support of one or another theory. All I know is that no one else knows the origins or truths of the matter either and I was trying to keep that plain fact from being clouded.


As for the Romano-Celts being the "Britons" I can only say that the books and papers I have read all make a clear distinction between the "Britons" and the Celts and the Romans starting with the people who occupied the British Isles prior to the coming of the Cyrcaesir (the Celts/Picts) and were mostly the same people until the coming of the Angles and Saxons encouraged alliances and sped interbreeding between the Britons and everyone else. The most cited example being Queen Boudicca's Iceni were "Britons" and not "Celts."

Did they speak Latin with the Saxons? Maybe. Apparently, the folks writing what I have read aren't satisfied with any evidence in that direction. I don't have any in either direction, either, so...

[Mipp]

Taran, the Britons language had absorbed some Latin vocabulary by the end of the Roman period, but after that the Saxons conquerored them and made them speak their language. The only two major survivors of the Brythonic languages are Welsh, Breton (extant) and Cornish (now extinct).