quote:

But the language spoken today is not quite the same as the language spoken ten years ago and that differs slightly from the language spoken ten years before that. These changes are observable.

Moreover. They are measurable (by Vocabulary and Cline).

So measure them. Then apply your measurements and tell me how much time, by that measure, is required to transform an Island of Celtic Speakers into an Island of Anglo-Saxon Speakers, and an Island of Anglo-Saxon Speakers into an Island of English Speakers. Feel free to apply your model to various population sizes.

However...absent such modeling, there are other means of estimattion. Chaucerian English demonstrates that very little has changed from the 14th century to today. Correct for the spelling and, with a little aclimation, the style is almost familiar.

Languages do change. No one disagrees with this proposition. Languages are even influenced by neighbors and by invadors. The disagreement concerns the pace of change and the degree to which any given change may be attributed to a special invader.

quote:

The controversy of Anglo-Saxon is only however your controversy .. I don't have a problem with it... not when you loko at teh scale of change, the length, the archaeology, the population changes, the various dialects and languages that we do know about conclusively, the distribtion of cultural remains etc...

No BAJR. I am sorry I was not clear.

There is a controversy in Academia concerning how the Anglo-Saxons managed to transform an island of celtic-speakers into Anglo-Saxon speakers.

Some academics argue that the Celts were exterminated. Others argue that the Celts were converted (into Anglo-Saxon speakers). That is the controversy to which I refer.

My point is that, by assuming the Island was populated by native English-Speakers from the start, there is no longer any need to explain how the island was converted from Celtic-speaking to Anglo-Saxon speaking.

Sorry for misunderstanding

however.. you make it sound like the entire Island gets english speaking overnight...

though we know that welsh is still spoken as first language in parts of Wales, that gaelic is still spoken as first language that Cornish onyy died as a living language in the 19th century, that English has developed over many many hundreds of years.. now it even looks like taking on the world... at least as an international business/political/banking language.

I would be amazed if the whole of Britian became English Speaking overnight... even over 50 years ... but it did not... so I think the controversy is safe now... my money is on a combination of the two... rather than a theory that needs real evidence to be ignored to work.

The other theories can be discussed only becuase they have evidence that can back either theory... the pre English though... Smoke and mirrors...

As Harry has pointed out, linguists are very fond of creating 'fossil' languages by looking at today's languages, observing their similarities and differences and then by splitting the various differences (or adding them together) they come up with Proto-Indic or Old Germanic or whatever it is. This would be fine if they knew
a) the rate of language change and
b) which of today's languages were oldest. Since they either get this wrong or we simply don't know, their efforts are not just null they are actually mischievous because (but of course) they alway make sure their reconstructions support the prevailing paradigm.

It's one thing finding archaeopteryx and using it to prove a particular theory of animal evolution, but linguists construct their own archaeopteryx and then use that to prove their (very particular) theory of language evolution.

But never fear, I shall be publishing my own magisterial summation of the rate of language change later today.

quote:

Moreover. They are measurable (by Vocabulary and Cline).

So measure them.

I said, the changes are observable.

Personally I wouldn't know how to apply a model if I had one but, I have observed changes within my own lifetime and I recognise the difference between speech today and recordings of speech made decades ago.

I'm quite happy to accept the OE => ME => Modern but if you think this development is too fast, I'd be interested to see, or hear, what your version of english was like say circa 400AD. At least I'd have something to compare then. I've asked MJH a similar question about proto english.

best

Harry A

quote:

But never fear, I shall be publishing my own magisterial summation of the rate of language change later today.

I hope you're going to make it rhyme.

HA

Mesolithic Howick

Thanks for the links Harry. The Marsden moor one is of paticular interest since my Y-chromosome comes from close by.
The conjectual map of Doggerland can also be found by refernce to a 1930s atlas showing a relief map of the British Isles which includes hydro-graphic contours. The -50 ft contour roughly shows the outline of Doggerland and the -100 ft the bed of the Wash 30 miles out to sea.

Tommy

Not a bad idea, Harry, iambic pentameter might be appropriate in the circumstances. However while I am doing this with one hand perhaps I might draw something else to your avid attention.

In Applied Epsitemology, one of the things we have discoverd is that when people hear of something for the first time, and it is obviously true, AND it has the potential for making large changes in primary beliefs, human beings do an odd thing -- they immediately assume they've known it all the time! This is very remarkable but it is very useful since people then go on to think to themselves, "Oh well, I knew that so it must be built into my assumptions. Next!" And they go about their business.

Take my statement about advancing ice sheets destroying all evidence. You all immediately thought, "That's obvious, I knew that." But you didn't, you were hearing it for the first time. And it really does make a difference. Consider the middle of Scotland c 15,000 BC. It is covered in ice sheets, all evidence of recent events has been destroyed. So we don't know whether human beings were there in, say, 20,000 BC (or whenever the last interglacial was). If you think about it, that makes a big difference.

These people (if they were there) were speaking a language and we don't know what it was. But it opens up large vistas of time for the evolution of very slowly-evolving languages.

quote:

The Marsden moor one is of paticular interest since my Y-chromosome comes from close by.

If you have a local interest, this is quite a good book:

Prehistoric people of the Pennines: Reconstructing the lifestyles of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers on Marsden Moor by Penny Spikins.

http://www.arch.wyjs.org.uk/aspubl.htm

best

Harry A

quote:

Take my statement about advancing ice sheets destroying all evidence.

not quite true either..After all we have ice sheets not wiping out sites of paleolithic dates in caves.. its al about how you settle.. now true an ice sheet will wipe out a tented place in a valley.. but then Mesolithic people don't come into the picture until AFTER the ice sheets begin to retreat.. so that would be difficult to wipe out..

As to earlier occupation..

please see this website...
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/ahob/index_2.html

and I also worked on a site dating to around 35000 in the Wye Valley (Cave 5615) among others.

Harry

Thanks for the reference.
My connection is with the Rishworth/ Scammonden area.

Tommy

quote:

I'd be interested to see, or hear, what your version of english was like say circa 400AD.

Harry,

There is no way anyone can pretend to know what English was like in 400A.D. However, based upon observed rates of change, I am confident you could converse in it.

Your replies, BAJR, illustrate my point exactly.

<<After all we have ice sheets not wiping out sites of paleolithic dates in caves>>

Not so. We have at the edge of the ice, caves protecting evidence that were it in the open would be destoyed. This skews the surviving evidence and contributes to our supposition that people lived in caves (a very doubtful proposition on other grounds). A moment's reflection will tell you that no cave can survive having a thousand feet ice sheet shoved on top of it, so these caves are by definition right at the limit of the ice sheets.

<<now true an ice sheet will wipe out a tented place in a valley.. but then Mesolithic people don't come into the picture until AFTER the ice sheets begin to retreat.. so that would be difficult to wipe out..>>

Just consider your statement once more. We think that Mesolithic people "come into the picture after the Ice Age" because we have, working south to north:
a) evidence of Mesolithic people to the south of the ice sheet
b) evidence of the extent of the ice sheet
c) no evidence of Mesolithic people to the north of the ice sheet EARLIER than the date the ice stopped.

But this is not evidence that there were no Mesolithics living to the north of the edge of the ice sheet because this would have been destroyed. In fact, one might fairly say, that since Mesolithic evidence exists right up to the place and date of the edge of the ice sheet, it would be a ridiculous coincidence if this was in fact the most northerly limit of Early Mesolithic Man.

<<and I also worked on a site dating to around 35000 in the Wye Valley (Cave 5615) among others>>

Just so. The Wye Valley is at the very limit of the glacial advance. You will notice that all such sites are either in this zone, or if further north, on or near the coast where the ice will similarly have reached its greatest extent.

But don't get downhearted. Remember, none of this has occurred to any of the professional practioners, so you can make a name for yourself by being the first one on your block to send Mesolithic Man home in a box.

My head hurts...

I would not try to get into an arguement about mesolithic movement - when its clear your grasp on what actual mesolithic means..

The reason you won't find meso north of ice sheets is not because it was wiped out by ice sheets... its becasue it is not possible to live on an ice sheet.... If there was mesolithic settlement that has been erased by ice sheets .. then in the areas that were not affected by glacial movement would have older mesolithic evidence.. ah... but it does not.

Mesolithic (or Epipaleolithic) I never really like Mesolithic as a term..

to quote

quote:

No one technology/subsistence strategy is characteristic of the Mesolithic, so one definition would be early Postglacial hunter-gatherers, ending with ending with the introduction of agriculture. However, this did not occur at the same time in all parts of Europe. Also, not all Mesolithic cultures fit into the 'between 10,000 BP and before agriculture' timescale.

Rozoy criticised the modern definition because it saw the period begin with a geological event and end with a cultural advancement. He proposed that the Mesolithic was the era of hunting with bow and arrow, so could be defined by a significant (i.e. over 10%) numbers of microlith armaments. Again, this definition does not suit all Mesolithic groups - not all used bows, and not all used microlithic arrowheads - some used bone instead.

Dennell also criticised this definition because deglaciation was a long drawn-out process lasting from c. 14,000 BP to 7/6,000 BP - the whole of Europe did not enter the Postglacial period at 10,000 BP, therefore the term 'Mesolithic' only had local significance. He saw it as a period of recolonisation of Europe by people using traditional (i.e. wild) resources.

Zvelebil in 1986 stated that a simple chronological definition was not adequate; the period was characterised by increasing social complexity.

There is no exact definition, so is 'Mesolithic' a valid term?

Terminology relating to the Mesolithic varies regionally and can be confusing. Definitions and usage have changed over time. For example:

'Maglemosian' (the presence of large flint axes) was originally confined to coastal areas in the Balkans. Now it is connected to the early Mesolithic in southern Scandinavia
'Sauveterrian' was originally a chronological stage in the French Mesolithic, characterised by geometric microliths. The term then became pan-European, and now is only used for SW France.
'Epipalaeolithic' is preferred to 'Mesolithic' in some parts of Europe.
The 'convenience definition' of 'Mesolithic' is fine for the British Isles.

unamed researcher

That really does it for me...

So now we have defined the concept of these people.. you can see that advance of ice sheets makes it impossible to inhabit an area, the definition of Mesolithic in Britain is celar - a post glacial advance of people... moving as rapidly north as the retreat of glaciers - were there people in Britian before the glaciers... er yes.... have we evidence... yup... Take even Boxgrove in west Sussex from around 1/2 million years ago... and no I don' think they spoke english either.

quote:

Just consider your statement once more. We think that Mesolithic people "come into the picture after the Ice Age" because we have, working south to north:
a) evidence of Mesolithic people to the south of the ice sheet
b) evidence of the extent of the ice sheet
c) no evidence of Mesolithic people to the north of the ice sheet EARLIER than the date the ice stopped.

But this is not evidence that there were no Mesolithics living to the north of the edge of the ice sheet because this would have been destroyed.... it would be a ridiculous coincidence if this was in fact the most northerly limit of Early Mesolithic Man.

see above... I am afraid it is evidence - as the definition is a post glacial human occupation of (in this case) the area that is now britian, including areas now submerged. So it is not absurd .. it is plain fact...

Mesolithic man was a hunter gatherer.

What exactly was he hunting on a ice sheet 1 mile thick?

Tommy

Exactly ... he was not on an ice sheet a mile thick... he was close to it...

just take a moment to imagine looking at that sort of glacier!! ...

quote:

c) no evidence of Mesolithic people to the north of the ice sheet EARLIER than the date the ice stopped.

But this is not evidence that there were no Mesolithics living to the north of the edge of the ice sheet because this would have been destroyed.

This is some new use of the term Mesolithic I haven't come across.

Erm, where and when is this ice age Mesolithic?

best

Harry A

I'm not quite following your argument, BAJR, but tell me what's wrong with this scenario:
A. 30,000 BP. Interglacial. No ice anywhere in Britain. Human beings (whichever label you care to give them) living in Scotland
B. 20, 000 BP. Ice advancing. Human beings retreat south in front of it. Ice destroys all archaeological and palaeo-anthropological
evidence of human settlement in Scotland
C. 15,000 BP. Ice reaches greatest extent in Thames and Wye Valley. All human evidence prior to 12,000 BP to the north of this line is erased.
D. 12,000 BP. Ice retreating. Human beings begin to return to Thames Valley and Wye Valley. We find evidence there of the at this date.

That is, after all, what we do find. Isn't it? [You'll have to forgive the dates, if they're wrong, it's a long time since I worked in this area.]

Ugh! this wretched forum. Ignore reference to 12,000 BP in C above.

Ugh again! I meant that 12,000 BP should read 15,000 BP.

No problem (roughly speaking) with that.

The problem is, your definition of Mesolithic...

I take it it is these Mesolithic/epipaleolithic people you have speaking english?

BAJR, your psychology baffles me. I offer you a new and radical idea that opens up vast vistas for your imaginative intellect and your chief concern is what palaeolithic label is appropriate or what language is spoken.

Answer: dunno.