quote:

Originally posted by Steffan:
POI, Mr Chairman. Jean isn't a man.

Jean, I do apologise!

The Briggs website has a critique of the Forster paper: P Forster, T Polzin & A Röhl Evolution of English basic vocabulary within the network of Germanic languages, in P Forster & C Renfrew Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages (McDonald Institute 2006).

This is the key paper. Unfortunately this remains elusive on the net and is only available in the full edition by Forster and Renfrew.

The Trask stuff is concerning Gaulish so I'll side step this for now and concentrate on the Briggs critique. If anyone can provide a link to the paper itself we can get to grips with this. As far as I know the paper is written from the explicitly linguistic angle so is a key part of the evidence provided for the 'English spoken in Pre-Roman Britain' point of view.

Duncan.

quote:

Jean, I do apologise!

No problem. There is another Jean Manco on the Internet, who is an Italian male, so I'm used to the occasional mix-up. I'm English.

quote:

What? If all Historians and Archaeologists just sat down and accepted this view then we really might as well give up. Luckily they don't and neither should we. As long as we're here then new evidence can be found and new interpretations can be created upon the basis of that evidence

I don't see what evidence can be found, as to how people spoke before the Romans graced us with their presence. There my be some grand theories, and educated guesses, but hard and fast evidence ?, that's quite another kettle of fish.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan A:
The Briggs website has a critique of the Forster paper: P Forster, T Polzin & A Röhl Evolution of English basic vocabulary within the network of Germanic languages, in P Forster & C Renfrew Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages (McDonald Institute 2006).

This is the key paper. Unfortunately this remains elusive on the net and is only available in the full edition by Forster and Renfrew.

The Trask stuff is concerning Gaulish so I'll side step this for now and concentrate on the Briggs critique. If anyone can provide a link to the paper itself we can get to grips with this. As far as I know the paper is written from the explicitly linguistic angle so is a key part of the evidence provided for the 'English spoken in Pre-Roman Britain' point of view.

Duncan.

I would be surprised if it was available on-line. As you point out, it is part of a book. Available for twenty quid from an on-line bookseller named after a South American river. However, I think I will most likely have another daliance with a photocopier at the library.

quote:

Originally posted by PMT:

quote:

What? If all Historians and Archaeologists just sat down and accepted this view then we really might as well give up. Luckily they don't and neither should we. As long as we're here then new evidence can be found and new interpretations can be created upon the basis of that evidence

I don't see what evidence can be found, as to how people spoke before the Romans graced us with their presence. There my be some grand theories, and educated guesses, but hard and fast evidence ?, that's quite another kettle of fish.

I am with Duncan on this. We never know, they may just dig up a Vindolanda Tape Recorder which will settle all the arguments once and for all! Until then it is all just extremely interesting speculation.

Jesting apart, what I notice is that most of the evidence quoted seems to be of remaining "Official" documents - charters,treaties, etc. It may not reflect at all what was spoken by the people. I have just looked at my will (not a very long one) but its style of writing is nothing like what I am writing now - for one thing it could prove that punctuation is no longer used (mind you, it wasn't used on one of my Victorian ancestors either which just goes to show how early its usage was ended.) But that just isn't the case is it? So how can we really judge what the ploughman was speaking either before or after the Romans/Anglo-Saxons/Viking/et al came along?

I mentioned on a different thread how I notice that the "Welsh" Celtic language is still spoken as a mother tongue even after some what? 600? years of English domination. Welsh landmarks etc are still in the Welsh language and yet we are to believe that the "English" Celts had their language and place names (and heritage) totally obliterated over a similar period during the Dark Ages. I also wonder why the Scots speak English (except in the Western edges)when they fought successfully to keep the English at bay for even longer periods. Why isn't "Scottish" Celtic spoken as a predominant language? But then I'm not an academic and have not really read all the right books (apart from Oppenheimer.) I'm just someone who tries to work out what the common man (like me) was up to.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave g B:
I am with Duncan on this. We never know, they may just dig up a Vindolanda Tape Recorder which will settle all the arguments once and for all! Until then it is all just extremely interesting speculation.

Precisely

PMT, the whole problem with this line of argument i.e. is that it detracts from the really important issues. If archaeologists told you that the Ancient Britons spoke Japanese you would expect pretty strong evidence wouldn't you? My view on this is really straightforward. On questions of language, as supported by place names, what we speak now is what we have always spoken unless there is evidence to the contrary. That's my working principle.

quote:

On questions of language, as supported by place names, what we speak now is what we have always spoken unless there is evidence to the contrary.

A reasonable assumption, except that we need to take a few points into consideration.

1) Languages evolve. English has evolved in my lifetime, never mind the many centuries since the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Latin turned into French, Italian, Spanish, etc over the same period. It would cause confusion to label Latin as French, or say that the Ancient Romans spoke Italian. So we need to be clear in terminology.

2) One language can replace another in a particular area, either through mass movement of people, or through cultural change (generally imposed by a hefty minority who are in power.)

3) Place-name evidence shows several languages used at various times in England. There is the heavy influence of Anglian and Saxon dialects, indicating that the people them selves (not just a sprinkling of warlords) spoke the languages which we label Old English. There is an influence from Old Norse in Viking-settled areas. Underlying that are the remnants of Celtic languages, filtered in some cases through Latin. For example York, originally Eborakon = "estate of a man called Eboros" or perhaps "yew-tree estate" in old Celtic. It has been noted often that Celtic river names tend to survive, while settlement names reflect their origins as villages created in the Anglo-Saxon/Viking period.

Those cases where the incoming Romans adapted a previous settlement or river name are particularly telling. This is crucial evidence for the language spoken before the Roman arrival. Another example would be Colchester (Colonia Camulodunum.)

quote:

Originally posted by Jean Manco:
Those cases where the incoming Romans adapted a previous settlement or river name are particularly telling. This is crucial evidence for the language spoken before the Roman arrival. Another example would be Colchester (Colonia Camulodunum.)

Jean, did you have a look at the Win Scutt website where he discusses precisely this question? He interprets pre-Roman place names in a way that is conducive to the language being English not 'Celtic'.

I have now re-read Oppenheimer, Myths of British Ancestry (2006). I must have read it last year, as I listed it in the Open Directory, but my memory is not up to much.

I like his approach to the Celts and their language(s). However I feel that when it comes to English, there are problems with his deductions.

1) He notes the near-total absence of Celtic inscriptions in England outside Cornwall. That is not surprising, since the Celtic inscriptions in the British Isles all date from the Post-Roman period.

2) He quotes Tacitus as saying that the language differs but little between Britain and Gaul, and then assumes this to be a Germanic language, spoken by the Belgae. In fact the standard Roman perception of Gaul was the country inhabited by Gauls (Celts).

Caesar decided that the Belgae were to be considered as falling within Gaul. (Steffan pointed to an interesting article on the political reasons for this sudden expansion of Gaul by Caesar.) But Tacitus is clearly referring to the Gaulish language.

quote:

Jean, did you have a look at the Win Scutt website

I have now! It is a worthwhile exercise to consider alternative derivations. Indeed place-name specialists are now aware that the previous focus on Old English for English place-names may have blinded people to the possible Celtic alternatives. Win Scutt fights the tide and goes in the opposite direction.

To be honest I would have rather more faith in the process coming from a linguist, rather than an archaeologist with a clear agenda. Some of his attempts to dismiss obvious Celtic derivations (e.g. Avon) look almost desperate.

The tribal chiefs who resisted the Roman conquest, such as Caractacus, had Celtic names, as did those chiefs who fought the Anglo-Saxon advance, e.g. Coinmail, Condidan and Farinmail, who died at Dyrham in 577.

By the way Win Scutt notes Camulodunum, but fails to explain it in Germanic terms. I would be amazed if he could. The construction has parallels in Roman Gaul e.g. Lugdunum .

quote:

Jean, did you have a look at the Win Scutt website where he discusses precisely this question? He interprets pre-Roman place names in a way that is conducive to the language being English not 'Celtic'.

Hi Duncan,

You may be interested in Win Scutt's proposed submission to Antiquity Journal. He posted the URL on the Gegagerung along with the password, which is 'durrington' asking for comments.

http://writeboard.com/a1f300104540dbaa4

Yes, he writes about roman place names as if the OE explanations must be true simply because there is a possible OE explanation.

I reproduce one example of Steve Pollington's response to Win Scutt's request:

Scutt: “DERVENTIO …. The traditional view would have us believe that the name must derive from a hypothetical British element daru ‘oak’. However, an OE derivation can be easily found in dēor OE deer (Smith 1956, 130-1) on a river called Wende (wende OE ‘winding’); ...

Pollington: I believe that the OBritish *daru ‘oak’ is fairly well established by comparative means. Its Germanic cognate is of course *tarw- the source of our word ‘tar’. I can see no reason to prefer deor-wend ‘deer path’ as the name of a river to the traditional view, which is to say that *other things being equal* I would not accept the OE explanation over the British.

You can find alternative etymologies almost anywhere. You have seen Jean's post about the accepted etymology of York which Win Scutt challenges with an alternative germanic 'boar etymology'. Theo Venneman, who claims a hamito-semitic => vasconic => celtic progression cites 'ibara' as a vasonic, i.e. a proto basque, place name element. I could just as easily say that Eboracum is obviously a latinised vasconic place name based on ibara, the place where two rivers meet, in York's case, the Foss and the Ouse protecting the western, southern and eastern sides of the roman colonnia.

People such as Kenneth Jackson spent their entire working lives looking into these problems and he took several hydronyms off the celtic list and placed them on the pre celtic list. He found no reason to include them on the OE list.

Taking places in isolation is generally not a good idea. One has to explain the etymologies of surrounding places too and, although few in Yorkshire, they are either celtic or pre celtic. Great care must be taken. Aberford for example, sounds celtic but, to my surprise, is given as OE by Mills, Aeburford, after a personal name Eadburh.

I think if any of the places Win Scutt mentions did have a germanic etymology, they would have already been placed on the germanic list but the trend is that more 'celtic' names have been taken off the celtic list and placed on the pre-celtic list, i.e. an unknown language.

best

harry A

best

Harry Amphlett

Welcome to the TT forum Mr Amphlett. I see that you have also posted on the Face of Britain thread in the History forum. I didn't realise that discussion was going on there too.

The main problem I have with the hypothesis that germanic was spoken in prehistoric britain is that unwritten language evolves quickly. If it had been in the British Isles for a much longer period, it would have been very different by the time we get to old english.

Take for example, the opening lines of the Lord's prayer:

old saxon circa 800:
Fadar ûsa thu bist an them himila
gewîhid sî thîn namo

old english circa 1000:
Fæder ure thu the eart on heofonum;
Si thin nama gehalgod

standard german:
Vater unser im Himmel,
Geheiligt werde dein Name.

The standard german form is slightly different, it does not include the 'thou art' bit and all germanic versions in britian use 'heaven' rather than continental 'himmel'. Other than that, much is recognisable with modern english:

Our father who art in heaven
hallowed be thy name.

One of the earliest germanic inscriptions that we have are on the Horns of Gallehus:

ek hlewagastiz holtijaz horna tawido

This is around 300. It already looks very different. Project that back to 1000BC and we would have something very different indeed. Yet, we are being asked to believe that insular english, as a germanic language' evolved in isolation but entirely along the same lines as the continental low germanic languages for 2000 years to the point where the continental and insular versions were virtually identical around 1000 AD and this, for the most part, where unwritten languages normally diverge rapidly.

best

harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Jean Manco:
I feel that when it comes to English, there are problems with his deductions.

Okay, let's look at what we have and try to work out where it might take us.

quote:

1) He notes the near-total absence of Celtic inscriptions in England outside Cornwall. That is not surprising, since the Celtic inscriptions in the British Isles all date from the Post-Roman period.

This is indeed a problem! You would then need to provide evidence of any Celtic inscriptions from outside this period.

quote:

2) He quotes Tacitus as saying that the language differs but little between Britain and Gaul, and then assumes this to be a Germanic language, spoken by the Belgae. In fact the standard Roman perception of Gaul was the country inhabited by Gauls (Celts).

We know from the Wikipedia link that you provided that there is debate over the language spoken by the Belgae. Some spoke a Germanic language and others Gallic. I think the jury is still out on this one BUT I'm tempted to think that the Belgae are not likely to be the source of the English language. Tacitus is interesting because he could be providing evidence of Gallic being spoken by some people in south-eastern England. This could be expected through mutual trading links or elite domination.

quote:

The tribal chiefs who resisted the Roman conquest, such as Caractacus, had Celtic names, as did those chiefs who fought the Anglo-Saxon advance, e.g. Coinmail, Condidan and Farinmail, who died at Dyrham in 577.

This really depends upon where the linguistic cline is drawn. The genetics point to a Germanic east and a 'Celtic' west. I'd be interested to know how you can say Caractacus is a Celtic name. The British leaders at Dyrham were probably Welsh speakers. Gloucester is only a short way from the current Welsh border so I can fully accept that.

My problem lies with going further east. We are expected to believe that eastern Britain spoke 'Celtic'. I think that the evidence of a Germanic language being spoken there so quickly after the end of Roman power really does imply that it was already spoken here. For it not to be would imply either:

1. That the incomers were numerous enough to replace the 'Celtic' speakers and rename all of their places.
2. That the incomers were small in number but able to persuade the 'Celts' to start speaking a Germanic language within the space of a few years.

Now the population of Roman Britain numbered well over a million so we're talking serious numbers Jean.

Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
The main problem I have with the hypothesis that germanic was spoken in prehistoric britain is that unwritten language evolves quickly. If it had been in the British Isles for a much longer period, it would have been very different by the time we get to old english.

Harry, much of what you write, of course, is predicated on the assumption that Old English evolved into Modern English. Your analysis would certainly hold for continental parallels between, say Old Frisian and Old Saxon which would be very similar to Anglo-Saxon. The view developed by Oppenheimer on this question, based on Forster's work, is that the Anglo-Saxons were simply an early form of Viking raider. Although they gave us written Anglo-Saxon as the language of a ruling elite, the language spoken by the population in the east of the country was English. Anglo-Saxon is a different language and really makes no sense to the modern ear whereas Middle English is to all intents and purposes Modern English spelt differently. Very little evidence of change there.

Cheers, Duncan.

quote:

Anglo-Saxon is a different language and really makes no sense to the modern ear

That does not mean that Middle English did not evolve from it. I earlier gave the examples of the various Romance languages which evolved from Latin in the centuries after the collapse of the Roman empire.

Modern English (as I have said before) has a vast vocabulary, because it has developed in an environment in which a number of languages were spoken and it draws on these. The great majority of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary derive from languages other than Old English. However words deriving from Old English make up 62 per cent of those most commonly used. [John McWhirter, The Power of Babel (2002)].

You asked earlier for an example of the progression from Old English to Middle English. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written for the most part in Old English. It was continued at Peterborough Abbey for nearly a century after the Norman conquest. I quote Michael Swanton, who has produced a recent translation:

quote:

Up to and including the annal for 1131 the Peterborough manuscript employed the late Old English standard literary language. But during the following hiatus, this conservative archival language ... appears to have fallen into disuse, and the new scribe chose to use the contemporary local colloquial speech. These latest entries are among the earliest examples of Middle English..