| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
 |
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | But isn't it speaking Irish (by which I presume I mean English) that distinguishes Irish Travellers from Roma? So Henry was referring to Roma? Who are supposed to have left India/Pakistan circa 1000 AD. Blimey, that was quick. So much for staying in Hungary/Romania until the Mongols came by. |
No, he was not referring to Roma. He was referring to Irish Travellers, speaking Shelta/Gammon/Cant - which is different from Irish.
The Roma didn't arrive that early in Ireland - hence he must have been referring to Irish Travellers - note that the Invaders specifically describe these people "speaking differently" FROM THE REST OF THE CONQUERED FOLK which presumably spoke Irish.
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You will recall that AE claims that everybody adhering to the prevailing orthodoxy is always under the impression that they believe something which is merely 'common sense' or, in the academic sphere is 'supported by overwhelming evidence'. The above statement clearly demonstrates Tani to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. But her presence here also demonstrates she has a queasy feeling about it. |
Te aves yertime mander tai te yertil tut o Del, pisliskurja...
(patting your head patiently)
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| He was referring to Irish Travellers, speaking Shelta/Gammon/Cant - which is different from Irish. |
The 1175 records are explicit on that?
Tell us again what Shelta/Gammon/Cant are like.
| The Roma didn't arrive that early in Ireland - hence he must have been referring to Irish Travellers |
By whose reckoning? Can it be trusted?
| people "speaking differently" FROM THE REST OF THE CONQUERED FOLK which presumably spoke Irish. |
We have reason to believe Irish (Gaelic) and English were both being spoken, so we need to be careful about which folk are (and are not) which.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
There is some debate about whether Romanian really qualifies as a Romance language. Wiki says
| Out of the Romance languages, Italian is generally considered to be the one most closely resembling Latin in terms of vocabulary and pronunciation, though Romanian most closely preserves the grammar of Classical Latin. |
And we already saw that Romanian vocabulary is largely shared with Romani. Given the Romani contact language thing, i.e. Romani vocabulary on local grammar, it sounds like Romanian results from Gypsies in the Roman Empire. (Or adopting the Roman Alphabetical technique.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | D'ya think lemon/lime is mel backwards? |
Only if Suk is a backwards Kiss.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
So, Dan, are we looking at Dacian cavalry gone feral?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
While browsing the net for first recorded appearances, I found this:
'According to Ian Hancock, a professor at the University of Texas, the latest research indicates the original Gypsies were a mix of Indian ethnic groups assembled in the early 11th Century as a military force to resist Islamic incursions. Romany developed in India as a military lingua franca with heavy Persian influences; the Romany word for a non-Gypsy, gadje, is derived from the Hindi word gajjha, meaning civilian. The first record of Gypsies in the West is in Constantinople in 1054; their first appearance in Europe proper came as military attachments to Ottoman armies.'
(from: Media Relations Guide for the Roma; London 2001) |
Ian Hancock is Roma himself.
A funny world we're livin in...
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
The earliest *recorded* date I could find for Roma proper in Britain is from 1505: Roma (and recognized as that) appear in Scotland....
BUT
look what I found as well: Blimey!
Abstract: Biol. Lett. (2005) 1, 280-282 doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0314 Published online 5 July 2005
A Romani mitochondrial haplotype in England 500 years before their recorded arrival in Britain
Ana L. Töpf and A. Rus Hoelzel* School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK *Author for correspondence ([email protected])
| The nomadic Romani (gypsy) people are known for their deep-rooted traditions, but most of their history is recorded from external sources. We find evidence for a Romani genetic lineage in England long before their recorded arrival there. The most likely explanations are that either the historical record is wrong, or that early liaisons between Norse and Romani people during their coincident presence in ninth to tenth century Byzantium led to the spread of the haplotype to England ." |
Full article here:
ttp://journals.royalsociety.org/content/etvy3jgjymvrjhqm/fulltext.pdf
AE: British Historians recorded bull.->
All British Historians are to be regarded with suspicion.->
Never trust a British Historian.
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
Back to linguistics.
I was idly browsing my Romani dictionary when something jumped out at me - right at me throat.
I think this will be a feast for Dan.
The Romani word for: Vision Poet, Seer, Shaman is :
filefilidh
which of course is not only Old Irish but also a contraction of the Singular form file and the Plural filidh!
This is Romani, mind - not from a Shelta/Gammon/Cant dictionary!
So I dug deeper and found there are more expressions for "Seer" or "Shaman" besides filefilidh:
- awenydd
-awenyddion
- taibhsear
(taibhsear
noun masculine (genitive and vocative -eir; +an, one having second sight, seer in Faclair Gaidhlig - Beurla, Gaelic of the Scottish Highlands)
The first two look distinctively WELSH to me, the third is Scots Gaelic..
Now note this: Filidh is OLD Irish. So if the Romani have picked up a word and integrated it in their language, they must have come across it while it was still spoken!
And that, friends and fellow AEists, was between the 6th and the 10th century (according to the Irish scholars, that is).
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| So, Dan, are we looking at Dacian cavalry gone feral? |
Wouldn't they be famous mercenaries?
The genetic thing is quite strong.
Travelling, tinkering and scrap-dealing just sounds like a job to me: maybe it's just that this Indian lot cornered the market. Is there a special reason for the market to be big or late in the Balkans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| the latest research indicates the original Gypsies were a mix of Indian ethnic groups assembled in the early 11th Century as a military force to resist Islamic incursions... their first appearance in Europe proper came as military attachments to Ottoman armies. |
So the gypsies are like a toy that was once wound up and let go? I don't buy it. If you assemble a mercenary force, you send them home again when the job is done. If not, they're either dead or still in the army.
But of course, you want mercenaries who are already good at what they do: you can't hire a large detachment of cavalrymen unless there are lots of horsemen, prepared to fight, already about. They can be released to do as they please when the job is done, probably with the proviso that they bugger off somewhere else.
Is the military thing just the mechanism for getting from India into Europe (and not so much back again)? Is the importance of the Balkans simply that it's just to the left of the Bosporus and they've been spreading out from there?
Then what? Was there no market for mercenaries in Europe? Praps because they were all fighting the Crusades? Did they turn to scrap metal because they could (it's compact and valuable and they are mobile) and to tinkering because they already serviced their own weapons, armour and materiel?
A bit of cohesive cultural identity wouldn't go amiss in non-Indian Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| And that, friends and fellow AEists, was between the 6th and the 10th century (according to the Irish scholars, that is). |
So what were the Celts doing round about then...?
We've had half an idea that Christianity, even Judaism, come from Ireland rather than the Middle East (while the Irish seem to come from the Middle East via North Africa). Maybe the Roma took Christianity there in time for it to be picked up by the Romans. And there is an argument for Christianity stemming from Indian Buddhism... unless it's the other way around... My brain hurts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | the latest research indicates the original Gypsies were a mix of Indian ethnic groups assembled in the early 11th Century as a military force to resist Islamic incursions... their first appearance in Europe proper came as military attachments to Ottoman armies. |
So the gypsies are like a toy that was once wound up and let go? I don't buy it. If you assemble a mercenary force, you send them home again when the job is done. If not, they're either dead or still in the army. |
You know what? I think I actually have the answer. I know one thing...the answer I have makes a lot of sense.
I was thinking about another problem just yesterday -- but suddenly today see a connection between it and this matter of a 'mercenary' origin for the Roma. I was thinking, as I drifted off to sleep last night, "What happened to all the people in those 'crusader states' when the territory was lost to the Turks?" I wondered, what it would have been like returning 'home' to Europe after a 200 to 400 year absence?
It wouldn't be home. There would be no room for you in Europe. Yet there would have been nowhere else to go.
I fell asleep having left the question in my mind. Now this morning you offer an answer.
About the only option would be to set up as roving travellers offering exotic goods, entertainments and, in desperate times, operating as thieves.
But it gets even better.
In another thread, Endlessly-Rocking raised the subject of the work of the Russian alternate-historian, Anatoly Fomenko. Fomenko expressly identifies the original 'Egypt' and 'Rome' as crusader states set up by European mercenaries on the area of Asia Minor.
What else would the refugees from Egypt and Rome be called but '(e)Gypsies' and 'Roma'?
Everything falls into place.
Except one anomaly.
The Roma aren't Christian.
But that fits some of my own thinking about the dating of the rise of canonized Christianity: It was born in Europe after the fall of Constantinople and the Crusader evacuation.
Yes. That's right. The crusaders were not Christian. And neither are their Gypsy and Roma descendants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| http://www.carltoncomputerservices.co.uk/oriordan/history.htm wrote: | | The name O'Riordan, and several variations; Riordan, -- Riada, Reedy, Reardon, and Rearden have their origin the name of "Rioghbhardán," meaning "Bards to the Kings," or "The King's Bard." The "Riogh" part is Gaelic for "king", and "bhardan" means "bard". |
Rioghbhardán = Royal Bard is all very well, but where has the B consistently disappeared to?
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traveller wrote: | | They refer to themselves as "Pavees". In Irish, Travellers are called an Lucht siúil (literally "the people of walking"). |
Pavee as in pavement? But why "people of walking" when they plainly don't?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | You know what? I think I actually have the answer. I know one thing...the answer I have makes a lot of sense.
|
But, how do we know that the story of the Gypsies doesn't go back, way back into history? How do we know they are not part of the original group of horse-domesticating hunter-gatherer types that date back to the last ice-age? Maybe they domesticated horses just as the ice started encroaching, and have been on the move ever since. At some point, their gathering activities would have become illegal. How do we prove this isn't the case?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
