LOL @ Harry. But believe it or not my suggestion of politics was not ironic. I am a kindly creature who likes to see people happy. It's my belief that people are happiest when they are using their talents to the full in a productive way. It's deeply satisfying.

This is a fast-moving thread alright. I had several things to say that I didn't get to post (believe it or not), but -- who knows? -- this discussion may eventually return to the argument. So...

...apart from Bede, who is admittedly uncomfortable for The History of Britain Revealed, though not a show-stopper, does anyone have any direct evidence that English descends from the language introduced by the Anglo-Saxons and could not have been spoken by the population at large before they, or indeed the Romans, arrived?

Aside from the faction that claims the ancestor is West Friesian, not Anglo-Saxon, that is.

Hi, I've followed this discussion for a while now and I really need to comment!

Harry said:

"But written language is far more conservative and changes at a much slower rate than the spoken language. The problem is that we don't know what spoken old english of the 10th cent sounded like."

Harry, I am surprised that you are sticking to this view when the evidence (as presented here at least) shows exactly the opposite. I thought Innocent Bystander presented a solid case that Chaucer's English, as spoken, is pretty much the same as ours, and that it is simply his spelling which is different. This leads me to the conclusion that it's the spoken language that is conservative, and the written word which changes. As modern evidence for this you might consider the 'New English' of mobile phone texting and emails - we speak the same way, but write differently. Linguists in the year 3000 will no doubt be puzzled at the transcripts of text messages and the rapid rate of change of spoken English into this new language, with its strange and difficult pronounciation.

If it is the spoken language that is conservative, and academia has simply been misled by some awful spelling by Chaucer et al, it would be reasonable to expect that the English of the 10th century sounded much like ours today, and was always here, albeit in unwritten form. The rapid development of written English would explain the early lack of standardisation.

So it seems to me that Mr Harper has a case. However, I am surprised that he in turn has not addressed the problem of Bede's statement about the languages used in his time, and this appears to be a show-stopper. If Mr Harper is right, one of those must be similar to the English we use today, the language of the common people; if so, which one is it?

Mr Harper - how many sock-puppets does one man need?

quote:

Originally posted by Jean M:
Mr Harper - how many sock-puppets does one man need?

Jean M, unlike you, I can evaluate the evidence presented for myself. That does not make me Mr Harper's 'sock-puppet'.

quote:

Mr Harper - how many sock-puppets does one man need?

Jean,

The names of these new members are an interesting study in themselves :-)

best

HA

"It is oft said of the psychy ward that one cannot tell the difference between the doctors and the patients"

Perhaps we should tiptoe away Harry.

I agree that Bede is a show-slower. I have already conceded that. However my observations, for what they are worth is
1. I have read that some informed commentators believe this to be a later interpolation. Sorry I haven't been able to find this...you'll just to take my word for this as an honest recollection.
2. Bede's actual words do not definitively rule out that English (our English that is, not his) was widely spoken.
3. Bede's knowledge of British languages is by no means foolproof.

However, even given this I regard the rest of the 'evidence', by which I include overwhelming extrapolations from parallel situations elsewhere, to make THOBR's case far stronger than orthodoxy's.

Your observations, BJA, about written and spoken languages are cogent. It is bad enough orthodoxy relying on a completely unevidenced theory to hold their paradigm together (that sometimes comes with the territory) but to go against everything we know about written and unwritten languages is just plain immoral. These are not unimportant issues we are dealing with here.

So, once again, I ask opponents of glove-puppets everywhere: Please name one society in the world today which has a written form of the language languishing hundreds of years behind the unwritten one.

quote:

Please name one society in the world today which has a written form of the language languishing hundreds of years behind the unwritten one.

The Vatican.

HA

I was anticipating this answer (and rather hoping for it). The fascinating thing is that Latin has never and is never used in spoken form even though ostensibly everybody is thoroughly trained in its use. The language in the Vatican has traditionally been Italian though even this bastion is now falling to the World Domination of English.

Though funnily enough, Harry, if you really do think this is a spoken language perhaps you might care to tell us why it has remained essentially unchanged for 2,500 years.

Ahh, I see your point.

The priest was from Liverpool and I couldn't understand him. I thought he was speaking latin. Do you think he was speaking scouse maybe?

best

HA

Some words did seem vaguely familiar.

quote:

The priest was from Liverpool and I couldn't understand him. I thought he was speaking latin.

C'mon Harry: "can speak Latin" and "also speaks Latin" are not the same as "speaks Latin".

Don't tell me you don't know the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
I agree that Bede is a show-slower. I have already conceded that. However my observations, for what they are worth is
1. I have read that some informed commentators believe this to be a later interpolation. Sorry I haven't been able to find this...you'll just to take my word for this as an honest recollection.

I trust your recollection, however it does look like special pleading to rely on an interpolation that would deliberately leave out one of the languages spoken and thus spoil your theory. So without proof of interpolation (and it has certainly been vigourously argued here that there isn't one), you can't validly use this.

quote:

2. Bede's actual words do not definitively rule out that English (our English that is, not his) was widely spoken.

But again, it has already been stated that Bede's languages are all accounted for and that none of them are 'our' English, or, that if one is, then one of the other 'known' languages of the time were left out. However, this would appear to be the most promising explanation from your point of view.

quote:

3. Bede's knowledge of British languages is by no means foolproof.

Ouch. Well, no, possibly not, but he was a bright guy and knew Greek (I think), so it's pushing it to say he didn't know the languages in his own backyard. Do you have anything to backup this statement?

quote:

It is bad enough orthodoxy relying on a completely unevidenced theory to hold their paradigm together (that sometimes comes with the territory) but to go against everything we know about written and unwritten languages is just plain immoral. These are not unimportant issues we are dealing with here.

As I see it, it has been shown that basic spoken English has changed very little since Chaucer's time, which would indicate that ordinarily language change is very slow. But that doesn't mean it didn't go through large changes prior to that due to extraordinary circumstances; I assume that such extraordinary circumstances can indeed be evidenced by the experts.

Let's think about Scouse for a moment. There are I would say three spoken dialects in Liverpool. There is Standard English (with or without a Liverpudlian accent) that is, I think, learned at school/from the telly etc etc. This is definitely available to all Liverpudlians simply because it is unavoidable, whatever your station in life, to have to use Standard in certain circumstances.

Then there is what we might call Conversational Scouse which is almost certainly literally a mother-tongue. This has a certain informality, and is unique to Merseyside but can be usderstood pretty much by all other English-speakers.

And then finally there is Aggressive Scouse. This is a tribal thing and is, once again, learned though not this time at school but in male-dominated milieux. It is, like all such patois, specifically designed to be slightly incomprehensible to outsiders.

But of course all these varieties have to conform with the general development of "English" in order that everybody in Liverpool can easily access them. Not necessarily Standard English but a kind of Agglumerative English (mainly American, often technical) that hums along quite nicely (in the modern world at any rate) in both written and spoken forms. At the same time.

quote:

C'mon Harry: "can speak Latin" and "also speaks Latin" are not the same as "speaks Latin".

LOL MJ, you're a scream. Sometimes you argue for precision in language, sometimes just the general sense will do.

best

HA

quote:

it has already been stated that Bede's languages are all accounted for

Unfortunately, they have been accounted for in accordance with the prevailing paradigm. But if the other considerations are overwhelming and we must establish MJ Harper's paradigm, then we must say "there is something wrong with Bede's evidence," even if we don't know what.

We would say things like
• "there wasn't the subtle appreciation for the relationships between languages that we take for granted now"; or
• "the ruling classes took no notice of the peasant classes anyway and Bede was only talking about the powerful factions: there is a genuine sense in which English was not in use at that time"; or
• "the oldest extant manuscripts are hundreds of years older than the text claims to be, so they are necessarily susceptible to interference"; or
• "how peoples and their languages get names from each other is confusing enough as it is and it possible that one the languages listed was English by another name"; or
• "there's something funny about written Anglo-Saxon appearing on the scene after Bede anyway"; or
• "historians second-guess Bede's agenda all the time anyway so this is something we can dismiss" or
• "Bede is plainly wrong, for an unknown reason"; or ...

That is, Bede can be explained away if necessary. But that is precisely what academe does on the basis that the paradigm is self-evidently true all the time anyway (leading to "English must have been introduced via such-and-such means", "the written language must have lagged the spoken by 2 or 3 centuries", "the later ASC scribes must have switched to the colloquial language" and so on) so there is nothing new here. That's why I think Bede, as the sole piece of evidence offered so far, can be left on one side. So far, there is nothing to reinforce it.

quote:

Sometimes you argue for precision in language, sometimes just the general sense will do.

I dunno what you mean, Harry. I'm the one who brought up the idea of a "measure of central tendency".

Still... we're talking about mother tongues: multilingualism doesn't come into it.

quote:

That is, Bede can be explained away if necessary....

Argh. I keep getting pulled into this debate.

I just want to echo BJA's sentiments.

I agree with him that "explaining away" Bede as we have attempted to do smacks of special pleading. As Applied Epistemologists, we really shouldn't even attempt it. And we can't justify doing so by pointing to orthodoxy's indulgence of the same methods. Their bad behavior won't justify ours.

Best thing to do is admit that Bede remains an unresolved anomaly. His testimony remains unaccounted for. It is likely to remain a thorn in the foot of the new paradigm even as it tries to find its legs.

But a single example of inconsistent testimony will not a paradigm destroy. We’re not dealing here with direct, empirical observation. Nor even are we faced with certain contradiction. Only the number of languages identified by Bede differs from expectations. It is not as though Bede is definitively informing us, “Nope. No English spoken here.”

As for the larger case for the new Indigenous English paradigm, it is based expressly on empirical observation…

1) The inconsistency between the rate of language change required by the “Old English” model, contrasted with the actual rate of change observed in English throughout all of the period over which direct observation has been possible.
2) The observed lack of linguistic impact of any invasion of Britain occurring within the historical period, in contrast with the massive impact supposed by the “Old English” model to have occurred during the “dark age” period, over which observation is not possible.

That said, if other Bede-like testimony should turn up, it's going to pose a very serious challenge. And the longer the Bede anomaly persists, the more troublesome it will prove. At some point, we must account for that missing language.

Nevertheless, as we can see in point one and point two above, the only current alternative to the model we advocate faces some very serious anomalies indeed, and these are of an empirical nature. Even with its Bede problem, Indigenous English remains the simpler model, and it remains consistent with all empirical evidence.

Still…it’s worth repeating. We cannot at this time account for Bede’s testimony.

quote:

That is, Bede can be explained away if necessary

Of course - if you're the prevailing paradigm. But it's a whole lot more tricky if you're attempting to overthrow it! Sorry, but until you can come up with a convincing explanation, it won't do. And be fair, as I recall Mr Harper did challenge his opponents to produce one single fact that would falsify his theory. They did.

Still, I am convinced by your evidence that Chaucer's language was substantially the same as ours, and given that language development was cited as a (the?) 'key' issue here, I am disapointed that your opponents have failed to seriously address your arguments and its implications. But perhaps they've come to agree with you.

quote:

It is not as though Bede is definitively informing us, “Nope. No English spoken here.”

Fair point. And actually, he specifically does say "English spoken here"!

quote:

Of course - if you're the prevailing paradigm. But it's a whole lot more tricky if you're attempting to overthrow it!

Only in psychological, not logical, terms.

This point about the imbalance between what is required to overthrow an established paradigm and what is demanded from the new one is a very important one.

If we were being strictly rational, of course, we would demand the famous level playing field but, looking at it in a wider way, society is being quite rational in demanding much stricter standards for the new. In the first place it winnows out all the crazy stuff that's always flying around and in the second place there's the QWERTY factor. The sheer scale of effort required in changing any paradigm means it should not be undertaken lightly.

Nonetheless there comes a time when the change has to happen or the whole subject will fall into hopeless ossification. The problem now becomes a psychological one. At what point are the incumbents prepared to admit error. History and our own human experience tells us: never. You basically have to wait for a new generation to grow up.