There is a fair amount here about Celtic inscriptions in Gaul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
If you break the link between old english and middle english and sideline written anglo saxon texts to an elite, you are left with a language of which you have no successor and no texts. You don't know what it is. It may be, as Venneman suggests, Vasconic. What reason is there to suppose it is Germanic?

Harry, this is quite fascinating. I think we should be very cautious indeed about simply assuming a direct link between Old English and Middle English. Of course, we've always been told that it is so but I think there is sufficient evidence to question that link. The reference to Venneman is what intrigues me. Is he saying that English is linked to Vasconic?

quote:

Originally posted by Jean M:
There are earlier Celtic inscriptions on the Continent.

This still doesn't solve our problem Jean. We need 'Celtic' inscriptions in England. How could continental inscriptions help us?

You may be interested in Hildegard Tristram's Diglossia which outlines some explanations for the shift from old english to middle english. This starts at the paragraph:

The earliest Middle English texts give evidence of a great typological change. With apparant suddenness appeared the drift away from syntheticity to analycity. All germanic langauges are subject to this drift, but here it appeared with particular strength.

http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/697/pdf/tristram_2004.pdf

I think it has been long accepted that written old english was lagging spoken old english by several generations by the time of the 10th cent. AS texts. The developments continued in the spoken language during and after the norman conquest. However, when texts were once again written, now in middle english, the jump seems large when compared to the AS texts. It was however simply catching up on several century's worth of development in the spoken language.

best

Harry A

quote:

The reference to Venneman is what intrigues me. Is he saying that English is linked to Vasconic?

No, his main claim is that Celtic languages evolved from Vasconic. He is out on a limb on this though, but that is no reason to dismiss it.

He also suggests a Vasconic substrate in many european languages, particularly in the hydronyms. In other words, whereas he claims Celtic evolved directly from Vasconic, other languages just picked up elements.

Germanic languages are noted for their high proportion of non indo european words, by far the largest in europe. Thus, there are often two words for one object. I suppose, though I don't know for sure, that Venneman would claim these are Vasconic in origin. Other, such as Wiik, claim a Uralic origin.

If you are interested in this, in this instance, wikipedia outlines the main points well and you will be able to deduce links from it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

best

harry A

quote:

This still doesn't solve our problem Jean. We need 'Celtic' inscriptions in England. How could continental inscriptions help us?

Perhaps I misunderstood you Duncan. Why do you consider it a problem that there are (almost) no Celtic inscription in England (except Cornwall) after the Anglo-Saxon invasions. We wouldn't expect any.

Celtic inscriptions (on stone) start up in Britain after the departure of the Romans. Before the Romans imported their culture, Britannia was apparently an almost illiterate society. Apart from a few names on coins, we have nothing in the way of writing from the period. This is our pre-history.

After the Romans arrived, there are plenty of inscriptions in Latin. IIRC a few of the inscriptions on lead tossed into the Sacred Spring at Bath were in Celtic, though the majority were in Latin. Latin was the official language.

Then after Britannia broke away from Rome, Latin continued to be the language of scholarship and was still used in some inscriptions, but others use British (Celtic).

Perhaps it should be noted that the incoming Angles and Saxons were initially illiterate. They did not partake of Romanitas. They were outside it. Therefore we have no inscriptions in any Germanic language from the early Anglo-Saxon period. Only where the literacy of Romanitas clung on do we have inscriptions at all from the 5th century.

Hi Duncan,

This link will be of interest. It contains a whole bunch of notes and texts by Venneman. The titles are often in german, but the notes in english.

http://www.germanistik.uni-muenchen.de/germanistische_l...tik/TV/Vennemann.htm

The abstracts link is the most informative.

best

harry A

LOL, I found this in where Venneman wraps up a talk:

Today’s talk in a nut-shell:
English is a substratally Celticized
(and thereby indirectly Semiticized),
superstratally Romanized
Low German dialect.

Given that he proposes a vasconic root for celtic, I suppose he is saying english has a vasconic element.

It's an interesting presentation to the Rotary Club. Worth a read just for some of the etymologies and interesting tables.

Apparantly, 1066 only resulted in 0.3% of french loan words, the largest proportion came in the 14th cent, ie. 31.8%.

best

Harry A


http://www.rotary-munich.de/2005-2006/theo-vennemann.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan A:
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.

I wasn't trying to make light of your question, it's just that I like hard facts in these matters. There's so much we don't know about pre-Roman Britain. Also, without documentation we don't know who visited these shores and what influence they may have had. Many languages may have been spoken, or not as the case may be. Yes we make archaeological finds which suggest people(s) from other countries may have lived here or visited us. Then again, these artefacts could have been brought here by traders.

To use place names to assign a language to people living here, is in my humble opinion pushing the bounds of credibility, but hey what do I know ?
Good luck in your quest.

quote:

To use place names to assign a language to people living here, is in my humble opinion pushing the bounds of credibility, but hey what do I know ?

Place names are a good indication of what was spoken but not of when it was spoken.

Sometimes we know the geographic area in which a language was spoken, but we don't even know what the language was nor when it was spoken, eg.

Rivers, such as the Isar and Donau (Danube) have etymologies which are common and widespread throughout many parts of europe: Don (UK and Russia), Rhone (Rhodanus), Dneippe, Esera, Isère, Yser and Jizera.

Sometimes we know what the language was, eg. Tartessian, when it was spoken, circa 500 BC - 700 BC, where it was spoken, southern spain and portugal and we even have scripts.

But no one knows what they mean.

best

Harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
Place names are a good indication of what was spoken but not of when it was spoken.

The only problem here is that the spelling of place names can change dramatically, over a fairly short period.
This was pointed out in this week's TT Special in JamesTown.
The spellings of place names wasn't always important. Even today place names, and whole areas can change, depending on the politics of the country in question.

quote:

Originally posted by Jean M:
Perhaps I misunderstood you Duncan. Why do you consider it a problem that there are (almost) no Celtic inscription in England (except Cornwall) after the Anglo-Saxon invasions. We wouldn't expect any. Celtic inscriptions (on stone) start up in Britain after the departure of the Romans.

The problem with this is that we have 'Celtic' inscritions in Celtic areas after the Romans left. Now it took the Anglo-Saxons over a hundred years to reach Dyrham in 577 and to bring most of lowland Britannia under their yoke. We should surely have inscriptions being written in these areas AFTER the Romans left but BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons arrived if these people were the literate Celtic speakers that History tells us they were. But we don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
I think it has been long accepted that written old english was lagging spoken old english by several generations by the time of the 10th cent. AS texts. The developments continued in the spoken language during and after the norman conquest. However, when texts were once again written, now in middle english, the jump seems large when compared to the AS texts. It was however simply catching up on several century's worth of development in the spoken language.

Harry, thanks for the links which I'm working through as I write. What you've said goes some way towards explaining the 'intelligibility gap' between A-S and Middle English. Nonetheless the gap is a big one. Written Anglo-Saxon remains unchanged for several hundred years until the Norman conquest but then disappears and reappears as Middle English totally transformed. It then remains essentially unchanged (apart from the spelling) until the present day. Sounds odd doesn't it?

The big questions that orthodox academic accounts have to answer with regard to the development of the English language are these:

1. How could the language of a few small immigrant warbands speaking 'Old English' become, within the space of a few generations, the language of most of the former province of Britannia.

2. How could that same language become the tongue of most of lowland Scotland, including areas where the Anglo-Saxons never reached i.e. most of the country?

Cheers, Duncan.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan A:
The problem with this is that we have 'Celtic' inscritions in Celtic areas after the Romans left. Now it took the Anglo-Saxons over a hundred years to reach Dyrham in 577 and to bring most of lowland Britannia under their yoke. We should surely have inscriptions being written in these areas AFTER the Romans left but BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons arrived if these people were the literate Celtic speakers that History tells us they were. But we don't.

There are no Welsh inscriptions in what is now Wales until about the ninth century - does that mean that there were no Welsh people in Wales until then? Obviously there may have been more that have since been lost to us, but it still indicates that there is little in the way of Welsh being used for monumental inscriptions. Now we have Irish in Wales, and of course, there are Irish inscriptions as far east as Wroxeter and Silchester.

If we are to accept this idea of a Germanic language in parts of what is now England, at a pre-Roman date shouldn't we expect to see a huge Vulgar Latin influence on English in the Early Medieval era? From what I understand, most of the Latin influence in Modern English can be traced to Ecclesiastic Latin along with the Latin already contained in Norman French.

The area which you seem to be suggesting as being occupied by Germanic speakers was to become the most Roman influenced part of Britain for nearly four centuries. And yet how many names that appear on Roman inscribed stones, or curse tablets or in surviving writings elsewhere point to native Germanic names?

It is all very well saying that there were no 'Celtic' peoples in England because there are no 'Celtic' inscription, but where are the 'English' ones to prove their existence then?

quote:

The only problem here is that the spelling of place names can change dramatically, over a fairly short period.

Yes, this is where the bulk of the work is, finding out what the place was called at various points in time. Fortunately, we have the Domesday Book.

But other earlier sources, if we have them, are better and the attempt must always be to get to the earliest:

Ebrauc => Eboracum => Eoforwic => Jorvik => York

Comparing modern day York in England with modern day Jork in Germany would be useless.

best

HA

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan A:
1. How could the language of a few small immigrant warbands speaking 'Old English' become, within the space of a few generations, the language of most of the former province of Britannia.
Cheers, Duncan.

It didn't.

quote:

1. How could the language of a few small immigrant warbands speaking 'Old English' become, within the space of a few generations, the language of most of the former province of Britannia.

That is one of the arguments against the elite domination theory.

Those who argue for a dominating elite, such as Higham, have to have an answer for this. Four or five years ago the thrust was that the persistence of Celtic languages can be picked up in regional dialects. Native celtic speakers spoke OE using the OE lexicon but with sentances structured as if they were speaking their native celtic tongue, eg.

If I take this brick,
and if I throw him in the air,
if he do come down,
we'll have to build a wall with him
but if he do stay up there
we can all go home.

Here the use of do and the use of the personal to denote an inanimate object are, supposed to be a sign of a celtic substrate.

When this sort of thing starts to appear in middle english texts, it is argued by some that this can be back projected to AS times. Not all agree however and Richard Coates produced the following paper for a conference organised by Higham:

Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics



You'll see that Coates does not agree with this hypothesis:

"No-one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated conclusively that Brittonic had an impact on English grammar."

Although many do still argue that the middle english texts and modern day dialects do contain celtic substrate effects that can be back projected to AS times, the latest theory to answer your question 1 above is of course that they always spoke OE anyway. No one who holds this view however has been prepared to publish in a peer reviewed linguistic journal.

quote:

2. How could that same language become the tongue of most of lowland Scotland, including areas where the Anglo-Saxons never reached i.e. most of the country?

Lallans and Doric are meant to represent the development of the language of the 30% of the population by germanic settlers proposed by Capelli. The Gaellic languages spread from Ireland and the english language influence from England proper, make up the other main influences. The interesting question is what happened to the Pictish language and indeed, what was it? Opinion is more towards the view that it was a Brittonic type language, ie. a 'P' Celtic as opposed to a 'Q' Celtic, but there is still no proof of this and the possibility remains that it may have been something entirely different.

best

harry A

quote:

How could the language of a few small immigrant warbands speaking 'Old English' become, within the space of a few generations, the language of most of the former province of Britannia.

There is no proof that the Anglo-Saxon immigration was so small. That idea is certainly favoured by some academics, but has been strongly contested by others. Bede speaks of the Anglian homeland as deserted after the invasions of England. There could scarcely be more of a mass migration than that.

David Miles is particularly interested in the debate over the size of the A-S immigration. He discusses it in The Tribes of Britain (2005).

Some archaeologists, such as Helen Geake on Time Team, have argued that the number required to overwhelm the existing post-Roman population would have been inconceivably vast, since the sheer logistics of transport would would defeat it. Miles points out that
a) the native population of lowland Britain had probably fallen dramatically by the mid-5th century, because of the collapse of the economy. (Others have pointed to a plague mentioned in this period.)
b) Transport was available in the "efficient seagoing Saxon ships."

He concludes:

quote:

The words you are reading are the most telling argument against the minimalist elite model. They are in English.

quote:

Originally posted by Steffan:
If we are to accept this idea of a Germanic language in parts of what is now England, at a pre-Roman date shouldn't we expect to see a huge Vulgar Latin influence on English in the Early Medieval era?

A fair point but by the same logic we would expect to see a huge Vulgar Latin influence on Welsh if that was the language spoken in what is now England. We don't.

quote:

It is all very well saying that there were no 'Celtic' peoples in England because there are no 'Celtic' inscription, but where are the 'English' ones to prove their existence then?

Certainly not there in a form which we would recognise as English or 'Celtic'. It would seem that the natives were illiterate and all inscribing was done in Latin by the Literati. We then have the age old problem of the conquered taking on the names of the conquerors to gain status. We can expect names to become latinised thus obscuring the ethnic identity of the named. Many of the great Roman historians, for example Tacitus, were not ethnic Romans at all.

quote:

Bede speaks of the Anglian homeland as deserted after the invasions of England.

Jean,

It's supported by the archaeology of the area too, not just Bede and Ottar's account of his voyage which he recounted to Alfred who kindly wrote it down for us:

And from Sciringesheal, he said that he sailed in five days to the trading-town which they call Hedeby; this stands between the Wends and the Saxons and the Angles, and belongs to the Danes. When he sailed there from Sciringesheal, then Denmark was to the port and open sea to the starboard for three days; and then for two days before he came to Hedeby there lay to his starboard, Jutland, and Zealand and many islands. The Angles dwelt in those lands before they came here to this country. And for those two days there lay to his port those islands which belong to Denmark."

best

Harry A