MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 161, 162, 163 ... 239, 240, 241  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Nick


In: Madrid
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Frank,
Have you thought about the case of Derby? We are told that it is a Viking name (meaning "deer village"). We are also told that it was originally an Anglo-Saxon town called Northworthy.

Now something doesn't ring true here because Derby was recaptured early by the English, specifically in 917CE by Aethelflaed the Mercian (a Xena-like warrior princess!).

Anyway, I find it very hard to believe that if the Vikings held a town for a couple of decades the original citizens would recapture it but keep the new name.

Your suggestion that the -by name would be much older makes more sense.
Send private message
Donmillion


In: Acton, Middlesex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

frank h wrote:

Some way back in the thread the 'by' ending place names is said to represent Danish/Viking settlements of the 9 to10 th centuries.
If so, other than in Britain not many exist elsewhere, if any, outside Denmark. Strange since they attacked much of northern Europe.
More likely they are the place names of the original pre-Roman Scandinavian settlers mainly down the eastern side of England.

Hi, Frank. If you're not finding '-by' names outside of England and Denmark, it could be that you're looking for the wrong toponymic elements. But in any case, there aren't many places you'd expect to find them, if you think about it.

English -by in place-names reflects Old Norse byr, basically meaning 'a dwelling' (it is said to be cognate--see how careful I am with my wording?--with modern English bower and byre). In north-western Europe, you'll find it in various forms which have bowed to local spelling and/or linguistic conventions, only Scandinavia and in those regions that were colonised by Danes; and those are few in number.

I write, colonised, because -by is a settlement name, and you won't find it in places the Danes 'attacked' but never settled. So, to the north of Watling Street, there are (I think) around 600 occurrences; to the south, almost none. A notable exception is on Scilly (Grimsby), where the Vikings established a base in 763 from which they raided the Bristol Channel. On the other hand, although Pembrokeshire was settled by Vikings and has several Norse names, Tenby is pure (well, adulterated) Welsh, Dinbych, 'little fort'.

To find other -by names, look in Normandy for toponyms ending in -bue, -buf, -beuf, or -bouef. Using Google Maps, I find Criquebuf, Marboeuf, Quittebeuf (which I think is Whitby!), Daubeuf (Dau from dale?), Carquebuf (Kirkby?), and so on. I'm pretty sure the Normans were Danish (should look it up, really), given the very large number of toft and especially thorp names, including Yvetot, Lilletot ('Little Toft'?), Hautot and Langtot ('high' and 'long'), and -tourp, -torbe, and -tourbe names, not to mention "Le Torpe".

The other area outside Scandinavia and Britain that I recall having -by names is the area of Schleswig-Hollstein that was settled by the Danes, where there is a small cluster of -byr names (half a dozen?) having the forms -by or -buren, on the Danish side of the northern Eider river (i.e., in Schleswig); but I've got fed up scanning Google maps, so anyone interested can look for them themselves.
_________________
-- Don

"Eveything is deeply intertwingled" (thankyou, Danny Faught)
Send private message Send e-mail
Donmillion


In: Acton, Middlesex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

With regard to Derby and Northworthy, Nick...Have a look here:

http://www.derbyheritageforum.co.uk/deoraby.pdf (Ron McKeown).

First record of the place is the Roman vicus (civilian settlement) Derbentione (Derventio), which would mean 'oak-place' in Brythonic Celtic, and is obviously the same as the name of the River Derwent that Derby stands on. Some authorities take this to be the origin of the present name, though the connection isn't documented historically.

With regard to 'Derby' versus 'Northworthy', the name 'Derby' appears first. As Nick notes, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 917 (or 918); Aethelflaed, 'the Lady of Mercia,' is recorded as conquering 'the town called Derby, with all that thereto belonged'. 'Northworthy' appears in a monkish chronicle entry for the year 820 that refers to 'Northworthy in the Saxon tongue and Deoraby in the Danish tongue'; however, the chronicle in the form we have it dates from the 12th century.

It is mainly this two-fold attestation that gives rise to the suggestion that 'Northworthy' was an original Saxon name, and that 'Derby' was the name given the town during a period of temporary Danish occupation. There is, however, one other reference from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to take into account.

Before we take a look at it, I have to say that it appears that no Danish conquest is recorded historically; it is inferred from the dual name recorded for 820, and the single name (Derby) recorded for 917. However, although McKeown doesn't canvas it, another interpretation is possible, that you'll find in Wikipedia (ouch?): that the two names refer to two different settlements, a Saxon one and a Danish one, separated by a tributary of the River Derwent.

According to Wikipedia (who?), 'Modern research (2004) into the history and archaeology of Derby has provided evidence that the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons probably co-existed,... as happened in Nottingham, ...occupying two areas of land surrounded by water. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (c. 900) says that 'Derby is divided by water'. These areas of land were known as Norworig ("Northworthy", = "north enclosure") and Deoraby respectively.

By some accounts, 'Northworthy' was sufficiently obscure that its location is now unknown (http://www.derbyshire-peakdistrict.co.uk/derbyhistoricalnotes.htm ). However, an alternative account (http://www.aboutderbyshire.co.uk/cms/places/the-city-of-derby.shtml ) reckons that the Saxon settlement was in some 'part of a large Royal Estate called Northworthy'; though once again, exactly where is unknown. At all events, it is agreed (not universally) that the Saxon and Danish settlements were close but separate.

My guess is that Derby was the more prosperous of the two, and was a rich prize when Aethelflaed took it off the Danes--and when the Danes took it back off the Mercians in 924, albeit only for eight years. However, 'we need more information' ....
_________________
-- Don

"Eveything is deeply intertwingled" (thankyou, Danny Faught)
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Donmillion wrote:
--see how careful I am with my wording?--


How precious.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
berniegreen wrote:
I gave up posting myself

Good job I wasn't holding my breath over "Dan, You raise some good and interesting points that deserve a considered response... I will reply sometime in the next few days." then innit.
Obviously I owe Dan an explanation. It is this.
Despite our differences I respected what I then believed was the integrity and seriousness of his contributions. And then, in response to one of Ishmael's irrelevant, smugly fatuous and denigrating remarks, Dan gives an encouraging "Good one Ishmael !".

The scales fell from my eyes as I realised that this forum had all the semblance of a gang's private game and that it was more important to drub the outsider than it was to conduct a serious intellectual discussion. Hence my reaction - "why bother?"
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
How precious.
What a prick you are, Ishmael.
Send private message Send e-mail
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

You will please remember there is a ban on pointless insults which extends to everyone on this site, new or old or Danish.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dear Mr Admonistrator,

Is your objection to my direct insult or to Ishmael's indirect one? Or both?

I will gladly withdraw mine and promise to never do it again if Ishmael will also withdraw his and commit to cease his insulting and/or disparaging comments.

Yrs respectfully,

Bernie Green
Send private message Send e-mail
Nick


In: Madrid
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So, Don, you're suggesting that Derby was a English Midlands version of Mostar. I wonder if they blew up the bridge over the Derwent at any point?
Send private message
Nick


In: Madrid
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bernie, you much practise "careful ignoral" with some Applied Epistemologists. I value your contributions.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nick wrote:
Bernie, you much practise "careful ignoral" with some Applied Epistemologists. I value your contributions.
Hombre!
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since I am here and since Don generously mentioned my little Romulus and Remus interlude I would like to return to the serious point that I was trying to make at that time but which was carefully ignored.

Quite apart from the historical linguistic considerations, it seems to me to be an absolutely hysterically funny and lunatic suggestion to propose that Latin (just leaving the Greek and the rest of them out of it for the moment) was manufactured as a separate construct to be a written language whether for trade or for any other purpose. Why would you bother?.

Think of all the extra effort that you have to go to. Just for starters, you have to teach loads of other people how to
1) Understand this new language
2) READ, and then
3) how to read this strange language that they don't normally use.

Can't you just here the conversations taking place in the Senate Committee for the Invention of Latin -

"'Ere Tiberius, this reading and writing is a good idea but why do you want to bugger around with this daft language. Let's just do it the proper way, the way that we talk"

Come on everybody! Get real! The world is fundamentally a workaday practical place. People (especially merchants) don't sod around wasting their time doing things that aren't necessary or profitable.

Now come on Messrs Harper, Crisp et al just explain why common sense did not prevail. Because for your thesis to stand up for sure common sense did not prevail.

And on top of all that, what possible motivation would anybody have to invent such a complicated new language?
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
"'Ere Tiberius, this reading and writing is a good idea but why do you want to bugger around with this daft language. Let's just do it the proper way, the way that we talk"


And what way is it that we talk?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
I would like to return to the serious point that I was trying to make at that time but which was carefully ignored.


You must not confuse ignoring you with ignorance of your question.

(This group has been discussing -- and debating -- these matters for some years now. You imagine us so thick as to never have raised your objection; yet you think me the one insulting you.)

The origin of Greek, Latin, Sanscrit etc. remains a mystery.

There are some here more committed than others to defending a particular thesis but no one here is utterly committed to a specific idea. The notion that these languages are artificial, and the idea that phonetic language in its genesis requires artificiality: These proposals are interesting and novel and (if for no other reason than that novelty) are worth the defending. I am persuaded that these ideas have a lot more merit than would seem at first sensible.

Our civilization and our spoken language is post-alphabetical. We can't conceive of language apart from its written form. We imagine ourselves speaking distinct "words" with almost visible spacing between them when non-random sound emerges from our throat. Yet how accurately does this model of speech reflect the nature of spoken language? It is possible that much of the way we conceive of language is itself the effect of literacy. How much is the sound of a post-alphabetical language itself altered by the influence of phonetic symbolism?

These are questions up for discussion. There is no orthodoxy here. There are no heretics.

Many of those who defend the resolution are no less skeptical than you. That is how "the game" is played.
Send private message
Donmillion


In: Acton, Middlesex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thankyou, Ishmael, for that 'precious'. Precious things are important, valued, and loved, are they not, my preciouss?

You wrote:

The origin of Greek, Latin, Sanscrit etc. remains a mystery. ... The notion that these languages are artificial, and the idea that phonetic language in its genesis requires artificiality: These proposals are interesting and novel and (if for no other reason than that novelty) are worth the defending.

Sadly, however, 'The notion that these languages are artificial' is not a totally original idea. Linguists have known for a very long time that Latin is an 'artificial' language in the sense that its formality of expression and relative regularity of grammar do not reflect the spoken language of the time. I quote Wikipedia for convenience, but could make the same point from any of several books sadly at home in New Zealand:

The extensive use of elements from vernacular speech by the earliest authors and inscriptions of the Roman Republic make it clear that the original, unwritten language of the Roman Monarchy was a colloquial form only partly reconstructable called Vulgar Latin. By the late Roman Republic literate persons mainly at Rome had created a standard form from the spoken language of the educated and empowered now called Classical Latin, then called simply Latin or Latinity.

As for Sanskrit--its very name means 'regularised'. The word 'Sanskrit' is made up of sam, cognate with English same, and krta-, cognate with Latin create: i.e., a language 'made uniform'. Complex as its grammar is, like Latin, it was consciously and deliberately 'refined' from the rather more chaotic state of the spoken prakrits (prākrta-, 'made before'), for the written (and spoken) use of an elite. As with early Latin, early Sanskrit texts show intrusions from the prakrits (what Sanskrit scholars call aarsha), but these were gradually eliminated in the development of 'classical Sanskrit'.

So the thesis that written Latin and Sanskrit, at least, are 'artificial' languages is not entirely without merit; it has been the orthodox position for a long time ('Damn! We're being orthodox!'). However, it's a long way from saying that the languages were totally made up by a series of arbitrary and, so far, completely unexplained decisions.

These are questions up for discussion. There is no orthodoxy here. There are no heretics.
Many of those who defend the resolution are no less skeptical than you. That is how "the game" is played.


Phew! I wipe my brow in relief ....
_________________
-- Don

"Eveything is deeply intertwingled" (thankyou, Danny Faught)
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 161, 162, 163 ... 239, 240, 241  Next

Jump to:  
Page 162 of 241

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group