quote:

Harry wrote:
Why do you say it is typical Ishmael? It's odd yes, but a typical distortion?

It is odd. And typical. I will provide more examples over time but not all at once. I don't want to spam the forum.

My question (and one you should ask too): Why don't scholars just do what I do when it comes to "translating" Chaucer -- just correct the spelling? If they did that, students could judge for themselves whether or not this language really is or is not "half-Saxon."

Students don't have that opportunity.

Students can read Chaucer in only one of two formats: Paraphrase or Pseudo-original form (I say pseudo-original as the Anglo-Saxon characters are almost invariably excised in favour of Latin alternatives – which, mind you, I consider a good thing).

Why not just a spelling-corrected Chaucer? Why has such an edition never been published?

quote:

Originally posted by 1shmael:
Why not just a spelling-corrected Chaucer? Why has such an edition never been published?

"Must" be a huge conspiracy...

But the "Shocking Truth" will out eh?

As for Harper's non-differentiation of "artificial" and constructed languages, I don't think I will bother to rise to the bait.

Harper said he was not going to discuss his loopy ideas about Latin here (in a thread called "English spoken in Pre-Roman Britain?"). But lo and behold when the going gets tough when we come back to the problem of the lack of actual proof of the existence of his invisible illiterate mystic "organic" (very New Agey eh?) speakers of pre-Roman English... Another change of subject. Mary Magdalene in France, vocative in Polish, Ishmael "revealing" a publishers' conspiracy to "hide" the true nature of Chaucer from the proles... and so the circus goes on, and on, and on...

quote:

Ishmael "revealing" a publishers' conspiracy to "hide" the true nature of Chaucer from the proles... and so the circus goes on, and on, and on...

Fortunately, we've got you here to keep us sane.

But for the record, I don't believe in conspiracies.

So we have an oddity. A perfectly reasonable approach to Chaucer that has never been tried. Though each alternative to either side has been done to death a thousand times.

This tells us more about how the human brain operates than how academia (or publishers!) operate. But what precisely it tells us, that deserves a study in itself.

Well, PMB, if it's not a conspiracy, then why are there no editions of properly-spelled Chaucer? You don't offer anything yourself so I'd better tell you. It is because of a paradigm error. Any human being that has been told that it is a self-evident fact that Chaucer is half-Saxon will see it as half-Saxon. Everybody reading this thread with even half an eye now knows that it is not half-Saxon it is all-English. Except for people who just can't bring themselves to question authority.

Speaking of whom I had better try once more to deal with your all too querulous comments.

<<his invisible illiterate mystic "organic" (very New Agey eh?) speakers of pre-Roman English>>

I don't know if you've been listening but the whole strength of the New Paradigm is that it portrays the Ancient Brits as rather dull. They seem to behave just like everybody else. They live in villages, they grow their own food on their own plots, they pay taxes in the form of collective labour for the local gentry, they worship at the local...er...place of worship, they carry on speaking their mother-tongue whatever the language of administration happens to be. Blimey, they could be us.

<<... Another change of subject.>>

I like to keep things fresh.

<<Mary Magdalene in France>>

I didn't pick you up on that because you seemed somewhat ill-informed about the status of "black madonnas" in France so I decided that your views about Eastern Europe would probably not be of great help.

<<vocative in Polish>>

Still waiting for a Yes or a No. What about: if you post in the next half-hour it'll be yes, if not no.

<<Ishmael "revealing" a publishers' conspiracy to "hide" the true nature of Chaucer from the proles... >>

Did he? By Jove, I must have missed it. He can be excitable. So, again what is your explanation for the fact that a bunch of Nazi Scientologist Mugwumps can do it, but the serried ranks of Academe can't?

<<and so the circus goes on, and on, and on>>

Yes, I expect you do find it exciting. Applied Epistemologists, by the nature of their work, range across the disciplines (voices off:"And masters of none") so all our discussions tend to be free-ranging. I must say, since you are contributing so greatly, that your curmudgeonly exterior might well hide a free spirit manqué.

quote:

Why not just a spelling-corrected Chaucer?

But how do you know if the correction is accurate? For example, you translate 'soote' as 'suit', others translate it as 'sweet'. A difference.

best

Harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
[QUOTE]But how do you know if the correction is accurate? For example, you translate 'soote' as 'suit', others translate it as 'sweet'. A difference.

Yes. And they are probably right.

Wherever my spelling fix differs from the meaning assigned by the experts, I advise you go (almost) always with the experts.

What's this? Me advise you to trust academics?

But of course. As MJ has said, their errors are not data errors. They are interpretive paradigm errors (data errors occur only where premised on the wrong model).

These guys are still experts in the language of Chaucer's time, even if they are carefully ignoring the fact that they are reading/ translating English. I've little doubt that the real word is "sweet”, as they say.

In trying to decipher Chaucerian spelling, the experts will do much better than me, once they get the paradigm right. I’m a complete amateur. I just happen to have the right model – and there’s my only advantage.

Here's another selection. The first is Chaucerian original in latinized characters. The second is my spelling-corrected version (modern, standard spelling that is). The last is a "translation" of Chaucer.

To every wight commanded was silence,
And that the knight shold tell in audience
What thing that worldly women loven best.
This knight ne stood not still as doth a beest,
But to his questioun anon answerde
With manly voice that all the court it herde:
"My liege lady, generally, " quod he,
"Women desire to have sovereigntee
As well over hir husband as hir love,
And for to been in maistry him above.
This is your most desire, though ye me kille.
Doth as you list: I am here at your wille."
In all the court ne was there wife ne maide
Ne widow that contraried that he saide,
But saiden he was worthy han his lif.
And with that word up stert that olde wif,
Which that the knight saw sitting on the greene;
"Mercy," quod she, "my sovereign lady queene!
Ere that your court departe, do me right.
I taghte this answer unto the knight,
For which he plighte me his trouthe there
The firste thing I would him requere
He wold it do, if it lay in his might.

My version:

To every one commanded was silence,
And that the knight should tell in audience
What thing that worldly women love best.
This knight nay stood not still as does a beast,
But to this question now answered
With manly voice that all the court it heard:
"My liege lady, generally," quote he,
"Women desire to have sovereignty
As well over her husband as her love,
And for to being in mastery him above.
This is your most desire, though you me kill.
Do as you list: I am here at your will."
In all the court nay was there wife nay maid
Nay widow that contrary’ed that he said,
But said he was worthy having his life.
And with that word up start that old wife,
Which that the knight saw sitting on the green;
"Mercy," quote she, "my sovereign lady queen!
E’re that your court depart, do me right.
I taught this answer unto the knight,
For which he pledged me his troth there
The first thing I would him require
He would it do, if it lay in his might.

And now the translation (taken from http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/gates/wifebprt.htm)

Command was given for silence in the hall,
And that the knight should tell before them all
What thing all worldly women love the best.
This knight did not stand dumb, as does a beast,
But to this question presently answered
With manly voice, so that the whole court heard:
"My liege lady, generally," said he,
"Women desire to have the sovereignty
As well upon their husband as their love,
And to have mastery their man above;
This thing you most desire, though me you kill
Do as you please, I am here at your will."
In all the court there was no wife or maid
Or widow that denied the thing he said,
But all held, he was worthy to have life.
And with that word up started the old wife
Whom he had seen a-sitting on the green.
“Mercy," cried she, "my sovereign lady queen!
Before the court's dismissed, give me my right.
'Twas I who taught the answer to this knight;
For which he did plight troth to me, out there,
That the first thing I should of him require
He would do that, if it lay in his might.

So for what purpose does the "translated" version introduce the distortions in the text? It's very odd indeed.

Where is the smiley face for :[yawn]?

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
<<Mary Magdalene in France>> I didn't pick you up on that because you seemed somewhat ill-informed about the status of "black madonnas" in France

Well, how telepathically perspicaceous of you..... What I actually wrote in response to was:

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
But never mind, old chap, have a look at the Black Madonna sites in the Tatra/ Carpathians... that should get you started.

and this was apparently in connection with what is "commonplace" about the location of English churches on previously sacred sites. Now not even in Revisionist Geographic circles are the Tatras considered as in either France or England, so I hardly see where France or Mary of Magdala come into it at all, or why I should even consider mentioning them in a reply to a point apparently made about Marian sanctuaries in the Carpathians. If you meant France, it beats me why you wrote something else. But you know what? I really don't care what farrago of nonsense you are going to try to build around Medieval "Black Madonnas" wherever they are...

Polish vocative.. so why don't you believe your Polish girlfriend when she tells you Polish has a vocative case?

[QUOTE] all our discussions tend to be free-ranging [?QUOTE] well, from what we have seen on the last 25 pages, obviously as free ranging as the devotees of Erich von Daniken, Graham Hancock, crystal skulls, Area 51, Rennes le Chateau, Giza Death Star, faces on Mars and all the other mindless and misguided junk that passes for "free thought" these days. Some of it even labelled by its devotees as an "-ology".

quote:

Where is the smiley face for :[yawn]?

I don't know but I wish you would find it. Your words convey an emotion quite distinct from boredom.

quote:

Come on, Aardvaak, don't be daft. You've been in this business quite long enough to have followed a dozen villa digs. They are all of a pattern and none of them have workers houses. I mean "houses"...you know where people live... with hearths...and domestic refuse...bejaysus, there hard to miss..

Indeed I have been in the business long enough to know what I am talking about. And I've bothered reading the literature. I cite examples, and yet you you persist along the 'none of them have workers houses' line. Why?

quote:

Well, we both know this is an area of the keenest debate so let's just say you think a few, I think a lot. Actually I think "practically all" but that's more a personal thing (between you and me, PMB had a point, I am ever so slightlyon the freaky wing when it comes to the Ancient Brits)...

Cite your sources

quote:

On the matter of density, I am sure your statements are correct but it's all incredibly anecdotal. You know perfectly well that if you plot all the known settlements nationwide they wouldn't add up to (relatively speaking) a row of beans. Two million people, however they lived, leave a lot of evidence and archaeology is simply not taking on board that what it's found does not even nearly meet the case. You know this in your bones.)...

Rubbish. You asked me to cite 50 settlements. I pointed you to 2 databases listing thousands, and pointed to settlement densities above and beyond that required to reach your figure of 2 million. And yet it is anecdotal and irrelevant Why?

quote:

No, the other way around. Orthodoxy claims they must be of late origin because they believe the language to be of late origin. The new language paradigm opens up the possibility of these same villages being of ancient origin.

Rubbish. Archaeology believes many villages have their origins in the Late Saxon period predominantly because there is NO EVIDENCE for earlier origins.

quote:

Of course a critical question...the critical question.

Here we agree. perhaps you would like to address it?

quote:

Remember, you can't use stratigraphy with this question because the Iron Age stuff is a priori being defined as non-village. Even where you find it directly underlying Saxon material, the conclusion would be that the either the Saxons re-occupied the site or they built on an existing Romano-British "hamlet. No respectable archaeologist would say, "Hey, look, a pre-Roman village with continuous occupation."

Your understanding of stratigraphy and its application is seriously flawed. Why is the Iron Age stuff being defined as non village? If there was a site, with evidence for an Iron Age village occupied continuously through the Roman Saxon and into the medieval periods, I would have no problem with such an interpretation. Provided it could be demostrated by the excavated material, most archaeologists would feel the same. The reason we do not interpret sites this way is because we have never found one. Unless you know of a site you wish to tell us about?

I missed your data bases, Aadvaark, and looked back at your posts, but if they are what I think they are they show "settlements". It is important in these matters to distinguish between sites that show human activity and which are presumed to be inhabited and those that show actual collective, permanent dwellings. "Errors of Clustering" are a notorious statistical minefield and one that archaeologists are very prey to fall into.

However, overall I must give you best on the question of villages, I have no more shots in this particular locker. I might add, as a Parthian shot, that a very eminent archaeologist agreed with me about the villages but not on the language their inhabitants spoke!

Perhaps you can help me with another matter which might or might not have a bearing. I often come across references to the disappearance of pottery in the British lowlands for a century or two (some say longer)after the end of the Roman occupation. Can you tell me what you know about this?

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
I often come across references to the disappearance of pottery in the British lowlands for a century or two (some say longer)after the end of the Roman occupation. Can you tell me what you know about this?

Well, there you have it, proof positive they were not early English; without cups, how could they have had their five o'clock tea? MJH, if you have seen "references" to this, the idea is you go to a library and look them up for yourself, and don't go around picking other people's brains for ideas and material to use in your forthcoming book. That's not very epistemological is it? Do your own legwork and perhaps learn something from doing so. Unless of course you are offering Aardvark a fee for acting as your research assistant and consultant. Does your American publisher's budget extend to that?

There are a number of decent books on "the end[ing] of Roman Britain" (Google it) where you can find the answer to your question, and more besides (such as settlement continuity).

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
However, overall I must give you best on the question of villages, I have no more shots in this particular locker. I might add, as a Parthian shot, that a very eminent archaeologist agreed with me about the villages but not on the language their inhabitants spoke!

Go on, name names! I know one or 2 eminent archaeologists who can't peer over the battlements of their ivory towers at the hoi polloi without getting a bit dizzy

quote:

Perhaps you can help me with another matter which might or might not have a bearing. I often come across references to the disappearance of pottery in the British lowlands for a century or two (some say longer)after the end of the Roman occupation. Can you tell me what you know about this?

Not really my field, but there seems to have been an economic crisis in Britain in the late C4 or early C5. By 410 the situation had deteriorated to the extent that Honorius issued his famous edict telling the provinces of Britain to look to their own defence and government. The implication is that the Roman state withdrew whatever support it still supplied, including the remaining legions. The last batches of coins supplied to the province were minted between AD 388 and 402. Pottery production seems to have gone into decline at this time. There were a number of well established kilns and potteries operating in Late Roman Britain, all with quite well defined markets and areas of circulation. However, these seem to stop producing new forms either in the late fourth century or early in the fifth. dating is notoriously difficult here because of the absence of any later coinage.

We do find some pottery which is almost certainly fifth or sixth century in date, but it is almost exclusively badly made and locally produced - they tend to be hand made, organic tempered and bonfire fired. There are some imported wares from the mediterranean, but they tend to be confined to sites such as Tintagel and some of the re-occupied hillforts. Too little pottery is recovered, hoever, to suggest that it was regularly used. The next really good, well made pottery we find is Saxon pottery, by which time the projected population of Britain is thought to have fallen by half.

As Paul said, there are plenty of books on it. Recent boks by Ken Dark, Richard Reece and Neil Faulkner all deal with it. For what you want I would start with Richard Reece as he tends to focus on the material and what has been found.I'm sure any of them would be more use than my twitterings

Valuable suggestions, PMB, but it is not legwork I am in need of. As I say, some peer-reviewed works accept that pottery disappeared, so by the nature of a discipline it can be concluded that ALL archaeologists accept it. We conclude this because such a finding is a) on the face of things obvious and b) would be the subject of intense debate if contested.

However the FACT is not intensely debated ie its cause, implications and result is not the stuff of frequent comment. It is not like, for instance, the FACT that Brythonic disappeared at the same time which IS intensely debated as to cause, implications and result, and which is the stuff of frequent comment.

These situations are what Applied Epistemologists call "careful ignoral" because they can indicate paradigm errors. What I need is the opinions, or perhaps better the experience, of people who have been in and around the work of the professional practitioners in this area. In other words I want to access the people who have done the legwork because therein may lie the reason for the ignoral.

It may be that there is a relatively simple explanation that fits the existing paradigm and that the problem is 'ignored' simply because it is thereby of limited interest. But it's also the case that things can be ignored because they don't fit the paradigm and there is a semi-conscious desire to shy away from the subject.

I will entirely understand if you wish to forbear giving me ammunition for my work.

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
It is not like, for instance, the FACT that Brythonic disappeared at the same time which IS intensely debated as to cause, implications and result, and which is the stuff of frequent comment.

Sorry MJ you've lost me there. What Fact? Brythonic (not a concept I'm familiar with) disappeared in late Antiquity did it? How do we know. How is it defined, what are the signs of its presence/absence, and how are we dating its demise? And who is commenting on it? When?

quote:

Why do you say it is typical Ishmael? It's odd yes, but a typical distortion?

First translation I picked up:

"When the sweet showers of April fall and shoot"

You seem to have answered your won question: the first "translation" you picked up is rather far removed from Chaucer's words: When that April with his showers suit.

quote:

But how do you know if the correction is accurate?

Linguists look only to the texts; the only evidence for whether final Es are pronounced, how things rhyme and so on is what is written. Pronouncing every letter with a mock German accent, as the reconstructors do, is entirely self-consistent, but entirely self-referring, circular. They have no independent evidence as to how things were pronounced, so the sense of "accurate" must be stretched to fit here.

Logically, this is bad practice: that's why spreadsheets don't let you use circular references. A computer programme that tests whether X is equal to X is never going to yield a meaningful result. It only makes sense to test whether X is equal to Y: spelling and pronunciation are 2 different things.

The History of Britain Revealed argues for continuity and suggests on independent grounds that the English of Chaucer should be just English. Lo and behold, we get an equally self-consistent reading of Chaucer, but this time we have a reason to say elles is pronounced "else", thries "thrice", tappesterre "tapster" (female tap operator: barmaid), soote "suit", sunne "sun" and so on. Now we can say "yes, X does equal Y" -- and by the same token identify the real changes that have taken place, such as the disappearance of bet from bet/better/best, or changes in the use of -en.

quote:

For example, you translate 'soote' as 'suit', others translate it as 'sweet'. A difference.

Not translate, spell. You only have to look to line 5 to see sweet spelled sweete. And the context confirms that sweet is meant.

Is soote some other ordinary English word: the one it sounds like for instance? (After all, it rhymes with root.) They say soote does not survive in modern English, but it does: suit means "goes with, attends", as in suit, suite, suitor... "April with his showers suit" means "April and the showers that go with him": April Showers.

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
I will entirely understand if you wish to forbear giving me ammunition for my work.

Good, because I have not the foggiest what on earth you are on about, but it sounds like more mumbo-jumbo. The pottery collapse has nothing to do with linguistic change or anything like that. Read the books, you'll like Richard Reece, a bit of a revisionist and heretic himself. Try also Esmonde Cleary "The Ending of Roman Britain", a bit oldish but still has a lot of useful stuff and he discuses the pottery as I recall. He also puts Britain in its continental context which will I am sure interest you.

quote:

Is soote some other ordinary English word: the one it sounds like for instance? (After all, it rhymes with root.) They say soote does not survive in modern English, but it does: suit means "goes with, attends", as in suit, suite, suitor... "April with his showers suit" means "April and the showers that go with him": April Showers.

Ahh...of course. I had forgotten this argument of yours. I withdraw my earlier recomendation to defer to the experts on matters of spelling-correction. Clearly, the falty paradigm has infected their work even on its most basic level.

I only wish the world could see your work in this area more rapidly. When are you going to publish your edition of Chaucer??? It needs to be done!

Flatterer!

<<Go on, name names! I know one or 2 eminent archaeologists who can't peer over the battlements of their ivory towers at the hoi polloi without getting a bit dizzy>>

<<What Fact? Brythonic (not a concept I'm familiar with) disappeared in late Antiquity did it?>>

I was referring to the Celtic language orthodoxy claims was spoken in England under the Romans. Most people refer to it as Brythonic, though Old Welsh would be more accurate. The point I was making was that the reasons for the disappearance of this language (or the people that spoke it) after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons is the subject of long, intense and never-resolved debates. (Another indicator, along with 'careful ignoral', that Applied Epistemologists use to suspect the presence of paradigm error.)

[Yes, yes, I know: if they debate it long into the night we are suspicious, if they don't debate it at all, we are suspicious. It's all a matter of degree.]

On the question of pottery I will post later today.