quote:

1. This is always the case. Everything you say was true of, say, the Romans in Britain or the British in India. It never alters the local language. It's often the second language of people on the make...but that's about it.

<<Establish a castle, kick all locals out of the area and take their land, (see Beumaris and Newborough on Anglesey). Create a town around the castle populated with your people and where locals were not allowed to live, trade etc.>>

2. So how come eight hundred years later Anglesey is still substantially Welsh-speaking? Ditto the rest of your arguments.

1. The English and Roman Models do not Exactly align, the Roman were far more open to the assimilation of native cultures and were here for a far shorter time. Besides, few of the Romans in Britain would have been 'Roman'. Its actually only quite recently that the massive changes it language distribution take place.
2. The Welsh language had two major boosts that heled to to survive these pressures, where other 'Celtic' languages did not.
The translation of the Bible into Welsh, and The rise of Non Conformity and the Welsh Chapel.
These allowed people to learn to read and write in Welsh through the Sunday schools. These allowed the survival of Welsh despite the colonial presure on the language. Anglesey is know as it has always been a largely Rural area and these have always been more conservative and resistant to change. Besides the Pattern of Welsh language use changes markedly depending, where on the Island you are.
If you want two better examples look at the Gower and Pembrokshire. Both are split into the Englishry and Welshry. The mass immigration and planting of settlements under Marcher lordships has altered the language distribution and even the place names in these areas. The Landsker line still marks this today.
Ireland, you will have to get someone with more knowledge of the country than me. But the same kind of stratagies were used in all the areas of English Incursion.
Without the Media, legal and Education .
I live in the Welshry area of North Gower, I have lived on Anglesey and I have worked for the last 14 years in the Valleys.
I speak with much local knowledge.
Ireland, well I have been to Holyhead if that counts.
I can only speak for my little corner of our Island. But if you insist on bringing up the pale, why go beyond it.
Beside I hate speaking about Welsh, There is more than one and Hyntws and Gogs don't always understand each other. When I lived with the Gogs I tended to speak English as it reduced missunderstanding and as for the Cofies (Caernarfon) people a couple of miles out of town have trouble.

quote:

I think this whole "English speakers were here first" theory is an attempt by English nationalists to lay claim to the land.

Well I'm a Newfoundlander. We barely speak English as it is.

quote:

The passion with which this pseudo-scientific idea is being argued tells its own tale....Labelling the thought process used to arrive at it "applied epistemology" is roughly equivalent to an actor wearing a white lab coat in a TV advert.

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that we're much concerned with the language situation in Britain (or anywhere really). This is just one tiny little dark corner of study into which Applied Epistemology has shone its light. The trivial nature of this subject in the public mind was the very reason it was chosen as a suitable first target.

Applied Epistemology has a lot more to say about things most consider far more significant than ‘who spoke what first’ on some little island in the north Atlantic.

quote:

We are "certain" of only one thing: MJ's explanation for the language pattern in the British Isles is the simplest ever proposed.

Mr Harper's explanation is certainly simple. That is because it was born out of profound ignorance. It is the kind of idea that a child might come up with, unburdened by knowledge. As I have said before, ignorance can be liberating. The eye of a child can give us a new perspective. But only if that idea/perspective makes better sense of the evidence than the existing model will it be useful and become accepted. How often does that actually happen? To be honest - very rarely. In general successful new ideas are born from knowledge.

quote:

As our research indicates that this simplest of scenarios remains consistent with all the currently known facts, we are obliged to accept it as the working model.

But it is not consistent with all the currently known facts. Not by a long chalk. Having come up with a notion that appealed to him, Mr Harper has attempted to dispose of all the evidence that does not fit his model by wriggling, bluff, scorn and denial.

The scientific method is the exact opposite. A true scientist looks for any evidence that won't fit. Just one piece means that the theory needs to be junked.

quote:

We have a name for this radical methodology. We call it, The Scientific Method. We're hoping it catches on.

I can see the attraction of the method. Assume the simplest explanation is the most likely until contrary evidence is produced.

With regard to spanish being spoken in Spain since prehistory however, we have a large number of texts which are not spanish. We also have different writing systems. To me, it would be simpler to assume that spanish was not spoken in Spain.

I also disagree that it is a scientific method. Science requires that theories are verified by producing evidence in the affirmative. Thus a contention that english was spoken in Ireland in pre history would require some evidence.

Now, I know that is not what you do and both you and MJ have both stated that there is no such evidence but the approach is still to assume the simplest explanation. Therefore, the onus is on academia to produce evidence to verify it's claims. That's fair comment but, I wouldn't call your method scientific.

best

Harry A

quote:

It is the kind of idea that a child might come up with, unburdened by knowledge.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

There's hope for you yet Harry.

Darn this message board. Meant to say Jean in my last post. Sorry Harry for the confusion. But there's hope for you too I promise! ;-)

<<But it is not consistent with all the currently known facts. Not by a long chalk. Having come up with a notion that appealed to him, Mr Harper has attempted to dispose of all the evidence that does not fit his model by wriggling, bluff, scorn and denial.>>

You are all making a simple error about these "facts" or "evidence" as some of you have called it.

The human brain does not have two departments, one for "beliefs by evidence" and another for "beliefs by authority". We just proceed on the basis of what we believe. Period.

Over time, and especially given the way that authority effects us all on a daily basis, we gradually form the view that everything we believe is because of evidence (leaving aside some special cases like religious beliefs). If challenged on some detail, we would merely respond, "Oh, well, I haven't myself inspected the evidence in detail but I trust that the authorities I have selected have done so on my behalf."

This is fine except that it applies to the authorities themselves. After a few generations of one set of academics teaching the next set of academics, everybody vaguely thinks that they're speaking "from the evidence". When in fact they simply believe what was told to them as undergraduates. And the more basic the belief the more likely it is that nobody actually inspects the evidence for themselves.

All that Applied Epistemology does is come along (very late in the day....remember we rely on the academics for everything) and just sorts through the various beliefs: this is evidence-based, this isn't; this makes sense, this doesn't. As someone pointed out (Bystander?) it ought to be the academics themselves carrying out this task but they don't. They really don't.

Some of you think we're a waste of space but you would have to agree that we have managed to sustain quite a lively debate over eighteen pages of posts on a matter which most of you thought had been settled beyond debate aeons ago. We do the same on academic websites.

But, as a test, I invite any of you to actually place here some piece of evidence, some fact, that contradicts the new paradigm. We won't respond if you just say airily, "All the archaeology" or "We've already given you hundreds" but give us one contrary fact, and we will admit failure.

quote:

Sorry Harry for the confusion. But there's hope for you too I promise! ;-)

Ply me with enough whisky :-)

best

HA

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
With regard to spanish being spoken in Spain since prehistory however, we have a large number of texts which are not spanish. We also have different writing systems. To me, it would be simpler to assume that spanish was not spoken in Spain.

The simplest explanation is that the Spanish-Speaking people coexisted with the non-Spanish literature. Fewest number of variables consistent with observation. After all, the Non-Spanish literature is not all we must explain. We’ve also got a few million Spanish-speaking people who’s appearance would need accounting for, were we not to assume their earlier presence.

quote:

I also disagree that it is a scientific method. Science requires that theories are verified by producing evidence in the affirmative.

Falsification is the principle pillar upon which rests the Scientific method. Science has always recognized the fundamental impossibility of proving something is the case and the, at least theoretical, possibility of proving something is not the case.

There are real practical difficulties with establishing evidence for the negative (which is why some object to our model on the grounds that we demand it be proven that English wasn’t spoken) but, those practical concerns notwithstanding, it is definitively impossible to ever prove anything is the case. That’s why theories have a tendency to stick around so long as they are never falsified by new evidence.

But falsification is not sufficient to the scientific method. Science has a second pillar.

Evidence is often ambiguous. The data can often remain consistent with multiple models, all of which can coexist rationally with the facts. Witness the aforementioned controversy concerning the replacement and/or conversion of the Celts by the Anglo-Saxons: Both of these models are rational and both fit the information as we have it.

To evaluate competing models that cannot be falsified, science appeals to the second pillar of the scientific method, Occam’s Razor; Of all models consistent with the data, the one composed of the fewest variables is most likely to be true. The simplest model consitent with the facts remains the working model until falsified.

The problem with falsification is that the principle can encourage scientific ossification. Once a particular model has been around for a long time without being falsified, it’s very longevity lends it the weight of truth.

What academics often forget is that the second pillar of the Scientific Method always allows for improvement on current thinking even in the absence of new evidence. We need not wait for “further research” to advance our understanding of a given field.

All we need to do is find a simpler model.

If a simpler model remains consistent with the facts, it must win out over the established model even when neither may be falsified.

So it is not necessary to first falsify an established paradigm before superseding it with a superior model. Reminding the world of this is one of the principle thrusts of Applied Epistemology. And finding simpler models is often surprisingly easy to do because Academics have already done all of the hard research. They've just not put it together. They wait for someone to first falsifiy the prevailing paradigm of their field before seeking its replacement.

We can't wait. We're moving on with or without them.

quote:

Thus a contention that English was spoken in Ireland in pre history would require some evidence.

I agree. And it has some.

The evidence in favour of English being spoken in Ireland in pre-history is the fact that English is spoken in Ireland in the present.

The existence of the English in Ireland is evidence (not proof!) in favour of their previous existence in Ireland (for what is true of today is likely true of yesterday and what is true of yesterday is likely true of the day before). If this model cannot be falsified, it cannot be rejected. And being the most simple model remaining consistent with the facts, it must be considered our working model.

In closing, I wish to say that I very much appreciate the tone you have taken in these discussions. I do not ask that you agree with us or change your mind. Only that we exchange points of view freely and with respect. Thank you for your measured and thoughtful response.

Mr Harper once again I am happy to be able to agree with you on something. It is indeed true that most of us are obliged to rely on authorities for much of our knowledge. The body of knowledge is now so great that no-one can be a Renaissance Man. I have to accept what the experts tell me about e.g. the solar system or thermodynamics, because I haven't the time to delve into it all.

I also agree that even some of those in academia who ought to be capable of judging on the evidence are over-reliant on authorities. The kind of independence of mind that is needed to expand horizons is rare and precious. But that is well known within academia.

We live in a high-technology society that worships innovation. Indeed our society would collapse without it. There is a pressure upon academics not only to publish, but to publish original material and ideas. In my view that can lead to an artificial striving after originality, new ideas for the sake of novelty, whether or not they truly make a contribution to understanding.

I wouldn't care to say which trend (conformity or desire to be different) has led to more wasted shelf space in our academic libraries.

quote:

what is true of today is likely true of yesterday and what is true of yesterday is likely true of the day before

Not so. This is what I meant by a child-like theory. To a child the supposition is that things have always been as they are now. The child hasn't lived long enough to experience much in the way of change. Only if they acquire the experience of their forebears through written accounts and archaeology does an inkling come of how very different things were in the past.

Maths is my subject and although most people tend to think everything must be either right or wrong, there are some 'mathematical fixes'.

Thus you can ask one mathematician what is 1/0.5 and he will say 2. Ask then what is 0/0 and he will say it is undefined. Ask another and he will say it is anything between infinity and 0.

0.5/0.5 = 1; 0.1/0.1 = 1; 0.0001/0.0001 = 1, 0.00000000001/0.00000000001 = 1 but 0/0 is a problem.

And of course we get people like the top applied mathematican Eric Laithwaite who ruined his career for suggesting that we may not fully understan the mathematics of gyroscope and newton's 3rd law may not apply. Absolute herasy.

best

Harry A

The problem here Mr Harper is that you have adopted the continuity model as your gospel. I have been amused by the horror with which you have greeted genuine challenges to what is simply the current fashion in British archaeology. I suppose that you may have done us all a service by pushing that model to the point of absurdity. But the model was already being questioned.

Jean, you cannot possibly disagree with the "what is true today is true of yesterday" doctrine unless you sincerely want to be some kind of Deist.

The whole of modern science, Englightenment principles and systematic thought is based on this premise. The old Scholastic/Religious model is that things were NOT the same yesterday as they are today because God intervened arbitrarily and constructed all that we see around us. With the corollary that he could intervene tomorrow if He felt moved to do so.

Science says, "No. What you see about you is the product of Uniformitarian principles. Everything has a natural cause." What is misleading you is that you are supposing that science (or Applied Epistemolgists for that matter) is saying that the principle implies no change. Actually the priciple says, "What happens today is the same as happened yesterday, including the bits that apparently were different about today but which, if you look carefully, were there in embryo yesterday."

Anmyone got any facts for us?

Mr Harper - As far as I can see you simply regard evidence as a challenge to be overcome, a mental exercise for you. I gave you a piece of evidence - Bede's list of the languages spoken in his day. Your response was to bluff on an empty hand. When your bluff was called, you simply declared that in some unspecified way Bede must be wrong. If you have no respect for evidence, then debate becomes pointless. You may enjoy it for its own sake, but the pursuit of knowledge is not an exercise in rhetoric.

Good Lord, Jean, I had no idea you were left unhappy by our exchange...you should have said. I will outline the situation as best as I can recall it:
1. When I wrote my book originally in 2002 I wasn't aware of the Bede quote.
2. Having a discussion on ANSAXnet about the languages of Britain, one of the posters put up the Bede quote much to my discomfiture and I retired from the fray.
3. Some time later I came across the claim that Bede's list of the five languages of Britain was a later interpolation.
4. Obviously this pleased me no end so I followed it up.
5. Since nobody had any axe to grind and it was an entirely technical discussion between palaeographers I felt confident about going with it.
5. So I included it in the 2006 edition of the book.
6. However, thinking about it now, it would be remiss not to mention that the argument was about when the interpolation happened. If, as some argued, it was by one of the many Bede copyists in the tenth/eleventh/twelfth centuries then clearly the "five languages" thesis would still be cogent historical evidence (ie known to the copyist). But if (as I prefer to believe for obvious reasons) it was a Tudor interpolation -- Laurence Nowell was mentioned I seem to remember -- then the whole thing disappears.

I have spent the last couple of hours trying to find some reference to all this but have failed miserably. I know you will find this unsatisfactory but let me know if you find it very unsatisfactory and I will redouble my efforts.

Mr Harper - I'm afraid you are rather proving my point. You tell me that you accepted without question a theory that this so-inconvenient piece of evidence was an interpolation. Yet that theory makes no sense at all.

As I said before, we have a number of copies of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, including "the Moore Bede" (Cambridge University Library Kk.5) written in Northumbria soon after 737, and Leningrad Public Library MS lat. Q.v.1.18, written at Wearmouth-Jarrow no later than 747. These texts form the basis for modern editions, though of course there are later copies as well, which vary little as it happens from the original.

It is very rare to have even one text, let alone two, of this period so close in date to the author's composition. So I perfectly understand why you felt that it was safe to wish away any part of it that displeased you. For many early texts we are indeed dependent exclusively on later copies.

But, Jean, I wasn't wishing anything away. I was relieved to find it was wished away for me. Yes, of course I was taking the word of other people but these were "authorities" in the ordinary sense, citing evidence. I hardly think you would expect me to become an expert palaeographer just for this rather obscure task.

However I shall redouble my efforts to track down the original source since now my own curiousity is aroused.

I realised after posting that of course the Leningrad Bede is now known as St Petersburg Bede, with the city's name change. Wikipedia has the details, plus some images.

quote:

I shall redouble my efforts

Since it is plainly impossible for the conversation you describe to have taken place among scholars of Bede, I won't hold my breath.

I am puzzled by your reply, Jean. It is true I may be suffering from some kind of Recovered Memory Syndrome but you are surely aware that Bedeian scholars spend vast acreages of their time discussing which bits are by Bede and which are not. Here's a fairly typical piece I came across in my far-from-indefatiguable searches:

<<To his Bede transcript Nowell later added about seven brief interlinear or marginal passages in Old English--some eighty words in all--that translate Latin passages not otherwise attested in the surviving manuscripts of the shorter Old English version. Robin Flower determined in 1935 that these additions were the concoction of Nowell himself>>

If you are saying that you are so familiar with these discussions that you can positively rule out the 'Five Languages" passage as NOT being discussed by the experts, then I'll have to tip my hat to you.

You have been led astray Mr Harper. What you have got hold of there refers not to the Latin Bede i.e. Bede's original text. It refers to an abridged early translation of it into Old English. The idea is that Nowell added material to his transcript of this short O.E. version, by translating bits from the Latin text.

Scholars waste hardly any time discussing which bits of the Ecclesiastical History are by Bede and which are not. There isn't the scope for such discussion. Let me explain. It isn't necessary to be an expert in palaeography to follow the logic.

We have two early texts which represent the process of publishing Bede's history. In those days publication obviously was by hand copy. It appears that a good many copies were made at Bede's monastery and sent out not only within England,