View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Is William of Newburgh a different William to William of Malmsbury?
If so, which one was Rev. Theophilus Evans talking about?
When Jeffrey ap [son of] Arthur, Lord Bishop of Llandaff [Geoffrey Monmouth], died, an Englishman of the name Gwilym Bach [little William or William the Less] arrived, of whom I have already spoke, who desired Dafydd ap Owen, Prince of Gwynedd, to make him Bishop in Geoffrey’s place about the year 1169 AD. But when it was not in the mind of Dafydd ap Owen to grant him his request the man went home full of hatred and commenced to exercise his mind how best to despise and malign not only the memory of this bishop, who was lying in his grave, but also the whole of the Welsh nation. |
Ref = Mirror of the Principal Ages by Rev. Theophilus Evans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote wrote: | It makes you think that wearing a Giant "H" on your jerkin was not such a good idea after all |
H = 8 = Octave
Octave Kings mark the transitions between major historical eras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | Wile E. Coyote wrote: | It makes you think that wearing a Giant "H" on your jerkin was not such a good idea after all |
H = 8 = Octave
Octave Kings mark the transitions between major historical eras. |
Interesting. I have sever/seven as a stop. So 8 he new start or failed new start....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
No. 8 is the new start. Always. Though the King with the 8 in his name may be the last of the old order, he always represents the beginning of the new order.
Last King of Christian Byzantium = Peter 8
England's Last Catholic Monarch and First Protestant Monarch = Henry 8 (Henry's symbol was an H imposed over an A, an explicit reference to the Octave).
First King of Israel = David (eighth son of Jesse/Jesus).
First Emperor of Rome = Caesar Augustus Ocatavian (8)
And most intriguing of all.....
Last King of pre-Republican France: = Louis 16 (double 8).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | No. 8 is the new start. Always. Though the King with the 8 in his name may be the last of the old order, he always represents the beginning of the new order. |
Am I the only one on AE that can't get a grip on numbers? Every time we get a "numerology" type post, I waste a couple of days trying to "figure" it all out.
I am happy with Ish's post in the sense that 8 (the symbol) not the number means exactly what he says.....
But as far the number goes, I think that the ancients were using a variety of different bases and "8" was most probably occurring at different points. 12381, 123481, 123456781,
Maybe it's a type of double 0, one on top of the other.
Perhaps 9 is an amalgamation of 1 and 0
I have to say the orthodox idea that 0 did not exist in the ancient world is bollox.
0 is probably the moon and 00 is related to the lunar cycle. Its rebirth exactly as Ish says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
It really doesn't matter. I couldn't care less. All I did was notice that at every major turning point in the official world history there's some royal dude present who has an 8 in his name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, I do know what to make of it. It's one of the most common mistakes in "DNA mapping". What's been found are two groups with similar DNA in dissimilar places. From that, there are three assumptions that can be made. Let's say they are groups A and B
1) Group A came from group B
2) Group B came from group A
3) Groups A and B both came from somewhere else
You can see what the ortho's have assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I thought THOBR had achieved a quiet corner in the wrong-but-Ok corner after all these years but here's some stuff from six months ago in Wiki talk trying to work out whether I should get a mention on the History of English page -- alternative theories section.
I'm not the top expert in this area, but I teach History of the English Language at the university level and have the strong sense that Harper's argument is highly marginal. The subtitle of his novel is sensationalizing ("the shocking truth about..."), the publisher is not an academic press, and the few reviews at amazon.com are very mixed. Jk180 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
Totally WP:FRINGE, and should not be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
an anonymous author (that's not his real name) who is also anti-evolution and a selfpublished book? No. Doug Weller (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) [this from a bloke I've corresponded with plenty in quite a friendly way over the years!] |
He's pro- book advances; I'm not sure more than that can be said with certainty! Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Here's an interesting piece of AE re THOBR
When I presented these arguments to an old and dear friend who studied English at Cambridge (and, therefore, some Anglo-Saxon as well) he became angrier than I had ever seen him, and dismissed the book with some distinctly un-academic language. He begged me not to read such trash. |
This though was the bit I really liked, as an author not as an AE-ist
The Harper book is a jolly romp – very sarcastic about the academic establishment and extremely funny – while Oppenheimer’s book is difficult in parts (some of the genetic analysis made my eyes water), but enormously stimulating and rewarding. I've just re-read both of them, and enjoyed them even more the second time around. |
Full review here
http://scottgronmark.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-english-were-speaking-english.html#more
PS I found this courtesy of a search engine called Duckduckgo https://duckduckgo.com/ which seems rather good eg nobody else has brought this to my attention. Anyone use it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper wrote: |
PS I found this courtesy of a search engine called Duckduckgo https://duckduckgo.com/ which seems rather good eg nobody else has brought this to my attention. Anyone use it? |
I haven't used it, I tried Dogpile but we didn't really get on.
It looks according to reviews to be about privacy.... The Duck is not watching you. So you can expect it to be less intuitive as it is not analysing your preferences??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, Dogpile was the best in the days when it was worthwhile compulsively looking for mentions of my name on the internet. Google is adequate for twice-a-day searches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Anyone who wants to plough through this, just come out, will discover he agrees with me, sort of.
https://ishamcook.com/2017/02/12/anglish-and-english-why-our-language-is-750-and-not-1500-years-old/
His actual comment on THOBR goes slightly weirdly as follows
Harper, M. J. The Secret History of the English Language (Melvillehouse, 2008). Provocative and persuasive account of the language’s history, casting the OE paradigm as an academic propaganda campaign. Harper seems to be arguing for Celtic predominance in Britain until he proposes a thesis far more radical than that. Recommended for traditionalists who want to be enraged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Some interesting fringe-Wiki goings on. First up was this excellent piece from one Richardson McPhillips
Are there alternate theories of the history of English? Actually I know there is at least one, that of M. J. Harper, as presented in The History of Britain Revealed (namely that English was spoken in Britain long before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, and that Beowulf is a good example of "not-English" rather than "proto-English"). So my question really is, is his theory so marginal that it shouldn't be mentioned at all? Or should it be mentioned to be refuted, or relegated to the loonybins of the English Department? Or is it legitimate to discuss? |
It got this baffling reply from Eru-tuon
I looked M. J. Harper's book up [on Language Log]. Apparently his theory includes the idea that Modern English existed from medieval times, and that it gave rise to modern European languages. This seems highly implausible to me, and I haven't heard it before. |
Nor me. Both statements are indeed (sort of) put forward in THOBR but by linking them together he has me asserting that modern European languages evolved from English since 1000 AD! Slightly more than implausible I would have thought.
More later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Luckily an academic, JK180, rides to the rescue
I'm not the top expert in this area, but I teach History of the English Language at the university level and have the strong sense that Harper's argument is highly marginal. |
This is completely true -- and needs saying. There's no getting away from the fact that the THOBR thesis is still, after fifteen years, highly marginal. His next sentence though is disturbing
The subtitle of his novel is sensationalizing ("the shocking truth about...") |
I would not like my children to be in the care of an English professor who does not know what a novel is. Is he perhaps better clued up on book publishing?
the publisher is not an academic press |
This too is significant but not quite in the way JK180 thinks ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|