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 ... 230, 231, 232
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am still (not) making waves. This is going on right now

The Gaels did not speak Germanic. Their word for Saxon is Saesanact
MJ Harper in his book The History of Britain makes for a reasonable case that at least some did.

--------------------

The Belgae didn’t speak a Germanic language, as is clear from their coins and personal names. The ones in Britain, at least. I haven’t studied the Belgae on the continent in any depth but it is my understanding that the academic consensus is that they spoke a Celtic language, not Germanic. Don't know who MJ Harper is but if he claims the Gaels are Germanic, he's mistaken, likewise the Belgae & the Atrebates are Celtic. You are confusing Celts with Germans.

-------------------

He does not state the proto Irish were Germanic, just that many could have been speaking 'English'.

--------------------

Not likely. English didn't even exist in the 5th century. Though I personally doubt it, it's possible that a few Gaels might understand Saxon then. It's most definitely not their native tongue. Personally I doubt that even one Gael could speak Saxon in the 5th century. Too little contact with each other. I believe there is a consensus of one that believe the Belgae are Germans.

----------------------

The North Sea used to be called the German Sea. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany all have a Germanic language. It makes complete sense that the other areas around that sea, modern day northern Belgium (Flanders) and England also shared that language root, simply due to trade. The reason why English is the major language today is due to trade. It's not everyone's first language, but it is most peoples second.

-----------------

Today & the 5th century are very different times. As I said English didn't exist yet. The Scotti were creatures of the Irish sea not the North sea. It's doubtful that a Scotti & a Saxon had ever met at this time. The Scotti are to the west of the Britons, the Saxons to the east. The Saxons have to carve up & digest the Britons before they have much contact with the Scotti, that's gonna take a few centuries. In fact the Saxons never quite complete the task before they are themselves conquered by the Normans.

------------------

Mick Harper's book is a spoof history. It's written in the vein of the Henry Root Letters. Harper's law of applied epistemology allows him to slice Occam's razor through centuries of academic assumption.

"At some point in Michael Harper’s life, a member of the academic establishment must have done something truly awful to him – like decapitating his Action Man®. "

He is taking the p**s out of the academic establishment by making claims that the English have always spoken English since England was repopulated at the end of the ice age. He loves it when a few academics take him seriously and challenge him.

-------------------------

There is some truth to what you say, but let's compare the apparent conquest of England by Anglo-Saxons with that of the definite invasion by the Normans. Archaeological evidence proves that 'peasants' were not pushed out, by either invader, confirmed by other sciences as well. So how were the AS invaders able to achieve the shift in language from 'Celtic' to Germanic, and what mechanism was used?

----------------

The entire "English as a fourth Germanic language" is fringe theory which was adopted by ambitious archaeologists who never held any research post in any academic institution like Francis Pryor. They latched onto the experimental work of a geneticist, Peter Forster, whose algorithm used the evolution of human biology as a proxy for the evolution of language. He had a 4000 year margin of error for the date when English began to be spoken. No linguist would countenance it, simply asking, "Where is the evidence"? There is not a shred of evidence.

It was a very short lived hypothesis, one to two years, that was never taken up as there is simply no evidence. It was posited in support of the minimalist acculturation models because that model had been unable to explain the swift and and widespread transformation from Brythonic to Anglo-Saxon. The minimalists argued that "they didn't have to because Anglo-Saxon was always spoken".

No linguist discusses it and it is never cited in peer reviewed papers. The people who jumped on this short lived bandwagon, people like archaeologist Win Scutt, were writing papers which were not published. If English had been spoken, there would of course be English place names dating to that period but the poor quality of his work undid his assertion when he was claiming that places like Meysey did prove a Germanic language was spoken in the pre-Roman period when anyone with a book on place names could have told him that it was named after the 12th century De Maisey family who came from Normandy.

------------------------

It was a hypothesis created by the medical practitioner Stephen Oppenheimer who relied on the work of a geneticist, Peter Forster, to help sell his book which was based on the hypothesis that the Basques were some sort of living fossil of the European population during the Ice Age, a notion too that has been comprehensively trashed. No peer reviewed researcher ever took it up and it died a death within a couple of years. It was a good marketing campaign which sold a lot of Oppenheimer tests at £420 each plus the book sales but it was never science.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They ALWAYS mention the money these writers made, from novel ideas they themselves were unable to conceive. One can almost smell the envy.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't think it's envy. It is more an explanation for why these people so bafflingly reject what is obvious in favour of something that's completely fruitcake. As I say in a book that is due to go off to the printer's any day now (there's still time if anyone's got any more):

Tip No 10

Grow a leathery carapace. If you report your
findings in a public arena, you will be accused
of any combination of the following


not being an academic
needing to do some proper research
a conspiracy theorist
a fantasist
a member of a cult
the leader of a cult
an exponent of fake news
a political extremist
a professional contrarian
only out to make money
writing a spoof
an exhibitionist
a troll
a fool
a liar
a crook
an abomination
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
(there's still time if anyone's got any more):

a madman
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is too close to the 'mad professor', 'mad inventor' et al who always turn out to be right in the end. I prefer 'clinically insane' which I have been called multi-times, and which I shall add.

Interestingly, the Soviets in the fifties and sixties genuinely thought dissidents must be clinically insane and locked them up in psychiatric units. Though as I have pointed out, the dissidents must have been pretty cracked to sound off whatever they believed, knowing what would happen to them. But see today's TV post.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 230, 231, 232

Jump to:  
Page 232 of 232

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