Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)

[N R Scott]

Sorry, the subtitles are very small and not well placed.

The basic gist of what they said is that Romanian isn't a daughter language of Latin, that it's impossible for a country to switch language in such a short space of time, and that Romanian is probably a sister language descending from an older language that was the common ancestor of both Romanian and the Latin languages.

[Mick Harper]

I couldn't follow the subtitles either. Why do people insist on spending zillions of pounds on a production and then not bothering to make it comprehensible? But it is still apparent that Romanian has nothing to do with Romance languages ... just as THOBR says. And the evidence is just as overwhelming to anybody except linguists. I mean Romance-trained linguists of course. The basic arguments are as per THOBR as well.

Keep us informed on this front, Scottie.

[Mick Harper]

A long review of THOBR has just appeared in a blog by someone called Scott Gronmark. I will post it up in bitesized chunks. I'll put my own comments in in bold and will slightly re-paragraph it for readability.
-----------------------------------------------

Eight years ago I bought a paperback entitled The History of Britain Revealed: The Shocking Truth About the English Language as the final item in a Waterstones threefer deal, mainly on the strength of the reviews on the cover:
“The most outrageous book I have ever read” The Oldie;
“The best rewriting of history since 1066 And All That” Fortean Times;
“Mind-blowing, incredibly entertaining stuff” Daily Mail;
“This book brings a blast of fresh air to British history” Rupert Sheldrake.
Those comments all turned out to be accurate.

What was the fuss about? The author, M.J. Harper (a somewhat mysterious figure – just try finding anything out about him on the web and you’ll see what I mean), [This is a bit weird, I thought I was more than averagely available] propounded the revolutionary theory that the English we speak today is basically the same language that was being spoken in England when the Romans arrived.

Obviously, many loan words have elbowed their way in since then, and we simply have no idea how words were pronounced in the past – but, Harper argues, the early English probably spoke early English, not Celtic (Brythonic or otherwise). This is certainly an outrageous claim, because we were taught at school – and many academics still maintain – that modern English (and, for that matter, Chaucerian English) is a derivative of Anglo-Saxon. {This 'most academics' is strange -- as far as I know not a single one dissents.]

http://scottgronmark.blogspot.co.uk

[aurelius]

Like many of you I suppose I was drawn to the AEL by first reading THOBR, which I found stimulating and very convincing. I look forward to a paradigm shift!

Thank you, Mick. I don't find the AE angle quite so powerful in some of the other topics, but you never know...

[Mick Harper]

Mr Gronmark continued

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

We were also taught – and many academics still maintain – that, when the Anglo-Saxons invaded England from about 450 AD, after the Romans scarpered, they wiped out the indigenous Celts who allegedly occupied most of England, Wales and Ireland at the time, suppressed the prevailing Celtic culture (which was far more advanced than their own), and enforced their own language.

The only problem with the traditional narrative, Harper says, is that there is absolutely no proof that the pre-Roman English were Celts, just as there is no proof that the Anglo-Saxons committed wholesale genocide, just as there is no proof that the English language grew out of Anglo-Saxon.

In one particularly startling table, Harper lists six Western European countries within the Roman Empire (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Britain), the tribes who occupied them (including Visigoths, Vandals, Anglo-Saxons, Arabs, Vikings, Danes and Normans) and then points out that of the total of nineteen tribes which subsequently took turns invading one or several of those six countries, only one of them – the Anglo-Saxons – are credited with changing the language spoken in any of those countries before their arrival, i.e. Britain (or England, to be more precise).

[Only Mr Gronmark has spotted the importance of this, in my opinion, quasi-scientific evidence in support of my theory. Everybody else just shrugs.]

[Ishmael]

Absolutely! This is the KEY ARGUMENT presented in the book. I recall with absolute vividness my reaction upon seeing it--just how utterly devastating it was to the orthodox case.

The question as to why "everyone else just shrugs" goes to the Applied Epistemology in which Aurelius finds so little worth; both in terms of the psychology of scholars and the nature of reason. The Applied Epistemological rule, "There are no special cases", is derived directly from this table. Our opponents simply do not abide by this principle. It is not part of their methodology. They do not recognize it as a proper function of rational thinking.

[Boreades]

Nobody expects the Orthodox Historians to be consistent. They have two special weapons, Cognitive Dissonance and Special Pleading.

[Mick Harper]

More from Gronmark, as he picks up on something that we here have (and even more on the old Quest site) really tried to push. Of course the speed with which languages in general change is a much more fundamental matter than English and Anglo-Saxon and it remains extraordinary that nobody but us can see that they don't. And nor therefore does history..

====================

In another coup de théâtre, Harper presents us with three literary extracts, one from the 8th century Anglo-Saxon poet Caedmon, one from Chaucer (12th century) and one from T.S. Eliot. Harper concludes that the Anglo-Saxon poet was writing in a foreign language which just happens to be related to English (there are a few recognizable words), but which is incomprehensible to modern English readers, whereas, apart from the spelling, Chaucer was essentially writing modern English. The idea that Anglo-Saxon was the basis for English strikes Harper as ludicrous:

[aurelius]

Did anyone see the Alice Roberts/Neil Oliver documentary The Celts last night? They suggested the "new" idea that the culture spread from the west to the east, not out from Halstatt, contrary to what was previously thought! They based this view on the dating of swords now turning up in Britain.

[Boreades]

Yes.

The Celts: Blood, Iron and Sacrifice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h3ytf

With all the high-status ritual goods, battles and death that we would expect as par-for-the-course from ortho-media archaeologists. But with a few glimmers of our own orthodoxy starting to shine through at the end of episode one: the Atlantic Fringe, trade by sea, and migrations from west to east.

[Mick Harper]

Boreades has posted something on our companion site http://www.themegalithicempire.com/forum/ in the thread Did the Celts Take Ponies Everywhere.

[Hatty]

[Mick Harper]

An interesting little project has just been launched. I'll bring you the various upshots as we go along. It started with this challenge

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

Who doesn’t enjoy a good crank theory? Jesus married Mary Magdalene? I’m in! The earth is hollow and/or flat? Yowza! A perpetual motion machine? Bring it!

Can you distinguish a real crank theory from a fake? Here is the Crank Theory Challenge. Three crank theories follow. Two are real crank theories, put forward by genuine cranks. The other I just made up. While I may be a crank, it isn’t a real crank theory because I lack the necessary ingredient of sincerity in presenting the theory. Can you spot the fake?
Two ground rules:
(1) No googling, obviously. Really, do I need to even tell you that?
(2) If you already know one or both of the real crank theories, treat this as a spoiler, with appropriate warnings in comments.
(3) In the spirit of the thing, I have not googled my invention. If it turns out also to be a real crank theory, I claim the prize.

So here we go:

[Ishmael]

This is one reason among many that life to me is a tiresome enterprise.

[Mick Harper]

This is one reason among many that life to me is a wondrous enterprise.