The Applied Epistemology Library :: View topic

The Library Index

FAQ

Profile

Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 239, 240, 241 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

What rubbish. In militaristic societies certain people are trained to be warriors. And they consequently have a monopoly of warrior skills...so, yes, I suppose you could say they are the best warriors. But who they are is strictly a matter of who's doing the choosing. As a matter of fact, whenever we have actual evidence, it tends to be worst detritus of the human population that joins the army. It's not something that appeals to sensible people. To be perfectly honest, the whole of the Roman Army and the whole of the Anglo-Saxon army could have been made up of English-speaking 'slaves' without changing things one jot. So easily is discipline and esprit produced.

Sorry, doesn't fit in the bin. The 'worst detritus', 'English-speaking slaves' speaking 'Anglo-Saxon, you booby'. The defenders are far more likely to be people with a real stake in the system, defending their own people from the ravages of any invader. In Y Gododdin, Welsh speaking warriors defending Welsh speakers from Anglian invaders. If your home and your livelihood depend on defeating any invader you are going to make sure that your warriors are the best you can collectively afford to field. Its not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that matters. Several million natives, just sitting there and letting it happen, whilst various warrior elites numbered in the few thousands just walk all over them? Notice, I'm leaving the boobies out of this one.

The short answer is that we have no documentary evidence about what anybody was speaking at any time until...um...I suppose linguistic textbooks in the nineteenth century.

We don't so we can only speculate and until you're prepared to accept the genetics and I've read your kindly received links to the English dialect in north-east Scotland that's all we can do.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

In Y Gododdin, Welsh speaking warriors defending Welsh speakers from Anglian invaders.

I just don't understand your point. Of course the Welsh defended their homes -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not. That's the way of the world. When they were unsuccessful -- as they were against the Romans and against Edward I -- they just accepted occupation by foreigners for the next several hundred years and made the best of things. That too is the way of the world. It does not matter what you put into the field, and with what doggedness you fight, when the big batallions are against you, it's end of story.

THOBR draws no firm conclusion about the English-speakers of Britain. It is careful not to say whether, say, Boadicea was English-speaking, Welsh-speaking or Belgic-speaking because we simply do not know. What is important is that for the next several hundred years the people of England (and the different people of Wales) were ruled by people who spoke and wrote in a foreign language (Latin) and that it would be foolish to suppose that just because all our sources are by, with or from Latin-speakers that the population of England (and Wales) spoke Latin. THOBR's central message is that it is irrelevant what ruling elites were speaking/writing because, before the advent of the nation state, rulers tended to speak different languages from the ruled.

However there is indirect evidence that the Celtic-speakers were militarily stronger than the English-speakers because the Belgae, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Normans found it relatively straightforward conquering England but had far more difficulty with Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. So it is reasonable to assume that the English-speakers were ruled by the Welsh-speakers for a good part of pre-historic time. I expect the English-speakers made the best of that too. Indeed, from their point of view, I expect they rather benefited from efficient foreign invaders (eg Romans and Normans) as opposed to inefficient ones (Welsh, Picts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons, Danes) but I make no great play with the point.

Interestingly, as soon as the rulers and ruled are known to speak the same language in England (from the thirteenth century onwards) England was entirely immune from foreign occupation.

PS I apologise for calling you a booby. There was no particular call for this and I don't know you well enough for such robust language.

PPS You have not taken up my kind invitation to explain (to your own satisfaction) how the Anglian minority in south-east Scotland persuaded their fellow-countryment to speak Inglis in the years 600 - 1300. I repeat, you will find it rewarding trying to do so.

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

I just don't understand your point. Of course the Welsh defended their homes -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

My point is that the natives in this poem, which covers the events in a battle fought in northern England by Welsh speakers from a kingdom centred in northern England, soon to be captured by the Anglians, is a microcosm of what could have happened in the rest of the country. Welsh warriors fighting for Welsh people to defend their country. The natives, in all probability, in the first century or so after the Anglo-Saxon invasions were probably reeling from the shock. Many were killed, enslaved, or were driven into the more easily defensible highlands of the country. Now for some reason once we move out of the easily conquered lowlands the resistance stiffens. Y Gododdin is the first real piece of literature that we have which describes a Welsh martial elite actually fighting back. People have speculated for years about Arthur, Mons Badonicus etc. etc. but here we have it. A real historical account of the Anglo-Saxon conquest.

Now I think we have to entertain the very real possibility that the Anglo-Saxons only took the land that they needed. It would explain why Celtic languages survived. It's a basic axiom of Economics that there is a law of diminishing returns. Faced with mountainous terrain and land that produced poorer yields then you would stop, consolidate what you have and protect your borders. The geography is not beside the point it is the point. Later, then the English did push further west. We have documentary evidence of the expulsion of the Britons from Exeter and it's settlement with West Saxons in the reign of Athelstan. These people were called the 'West Welsh'. The border was fixed along the Tamar. Athelstan also forced the 'North Welsh' to submit and pay tribute of, we are assured, immense proportions.

Celtic-speakers were militarily stronger than the English-speakers because the Belgae, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Normans found it relatively straightforward conquering England but had far more difficulty with Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

So it's feasible that the same now applies here. The difficulties of the landscape, the marginal nature of much of the agricultural land and the tenacity of the defenders when backed against a wall could all have played their part. Now I firmly expect you to be saying 'tendentious, tendentious, tendentious' but you asked me to come up with an explanation for what could have happened. I still cling, perhaps romantically, to this notion of Anglo-Saxon incursions pushing the Welsh speaking native Britons ever westwards. I get this from Gildas, the Annals of Wales, the Annals of Ulster etc. etc. Even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Bede tell us the same thing. The word 'Welsh', as we know, is an Anglo-Saxon term meaning 'slave' or 'foreigner'. They called themselves 'Cymbrogi' or countrymen and their country 'Cymru'. England they call Lloegr the lost lands. This is the story of a whole people being dispossessed by, dare I say it, warriors carrying a different batch of Y Chromosomes. It is not just about elites shifting and playing tennis with Centre Court UK. I was taught this by no authority figures. In schools children are hardly taught this stuff at all. History is all about the Spinning Jenny, Henry VIII and Adolf Hitler. I may even be using genetics to bolster my case and perhaps after my research into Doric I might even publish too. I am not neglecting your invitation. Just setting the scene.

Duncan

In: Yorkshire



Certainly interesting looking into the English language in north east Scotland. Derrick McClure's book into the Doric dialect looks informative but at Â£80 on Amazon it will have to wait! I had a look at a couple of things that could prove fruitful. Firstly, population numbers. Perth's population is in the 40,000 range. Aberdeen and Dundee are five times that, but all the growth is post-Industrial Revolution. Aberdeen had 3000 occupants back in 1396. What did they speak back then? All these cities have Gaelic names attached to them now but Dundee and Perth are supposed to be Pictish. Interesting that Aberdeen means the 'mouth of the Dee', as in Aberystwyth in Wales. I also looked at the names of land features rather than places. All of the mountains have Gaelic names once we leave a broad coastal zone. This is significant because it suggests a language cline based on topographical features. This cline moves just to the west of Stirling and then north east to Perth, west of Dundee and west of Aberdeen. The coastal zone, however, is Anglicised right down to the names of the hills. Capelli et al suggest Germanic/Celtic DNA at a ratio of 1:3 in Stonehaven, just south of Aberdeen, so how it got there would be interesting. Aberdeen was held by an English garrison throughout the Scottish wars of Independence but it's hard to imagine them planting too many seeds... We're lacking any evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the area but it's on the east coast so certainly within their range of operations. So, what do we have to go off? English speaking people along the east coast with evidence of Germanic genetic input that is comparable to say, Faversham in England. As we move away from this coastal strip that input falls. Then we hit a wall of Gaelic named topographical features suggesting Gaelic settlement. We could infer a Gaelic invasion that pushed the English speakers back to the coast but unlike Wales or the highlands of Scotland this area is not easily defensible. Orthodoxy could build a case upon southern migration into this coastal zone. English could then develop in the same way as it has penetrated the rest of Scotland since. Given low population numbers in the coastal areas in the past, even a small migration could significantly shift the linguistic balance.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

I understand that. But surely you can see that all this would be just as true if the Welsh lived exclusively in Wales. As I have said, there is reason to believe that Celts per se were militarily stronger than English-speakers per se (I have speculated this is because of the clan-system but just living in more marginal land will tend to have the same effect) so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that after the Romans (as well as before) the Welsh would set up kingdoms in middle England. No doubt they fought as hard for their newly acquired territory as did the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes and the Normans.

Welsh warriors fighting for Welsh people to defend their country.

Quite so. Just as in the Indian Mutiny, British warriors fought for British people to defend their country. It says nothing about who the natives were.

The natives, in all probability, in the first century or so after the Anglo-Saxon invasions were probably reeling from the shock.

All the more likely to be overrun by the Welsh...and the Picts...and the Danes....and the Normans

Many were killed, enslaved, or were driven into the more easily defensible highlands of the country.

Yeah...I know this is always the explanation for an alleged population change. It's just plain weird, this idea of ordinary people upsticking and heading for the hills. What do you do when you get to the hills? Not a lot to eat. 'S a bit cold. Kids crying. Me...I'd stay at home and say, "Yes, massa; no, massa, three bags full, massa." What the fuck do I care whether massa is a Welshman, a Belgae, a Roman, an Anglo-Saxon, a Welshman (again), a Dane, an Anglo-Saxon (again), a Norman, an English-speaking lord of the manor, the Thatcherite Junta...

Now for some reason once we move out of the easily conquered lowlands the resistance stiffens.

No, actually not. We equate reasonably enough, the Celts with the mountains but it's not the mountains that are the problem, it's the Celts. Offa's Dyke does not divide the mountains from the lowlands (any more than Hadrians Wall or the Antonine Wall does). All these places -- it can be argued -- are where the Celtic sphere of influence makes military progress hard-going.

Y Gododdin is the first real piece of literature that we have which describes a Welsh martial elite actually fighting back. People have speculated for years about Arthur, Mons Badonicus etc. etc. but here we have it. A real historical account of the Anglo-Saxon conquest.

Absolutely spot on. The Welsh fought back (including with words!). That's why all theses epics are associated with the western half of Britain -- that's where the Welsh either lived or, at any rate, sought to hold back the invaders. Are there a lot of Brythonic epics set in...er...Faversham?

Now I think we have to entertain the very real possibility that the Anglo-Saxons only took the land that they needed.

Couldn't possibly entertain such a bizarre notion. As far as I know every invader in the whole of human history (and pre-history come to that) just carries on invading until something or somebody stops him. "Well, Carruthers, I think that's all the jolly old empire "needs" for now, I think we can all go home for a very well-deserved cup of tea." "Got no tea yet, Sir, we'll "need" to conquer Assam." "Right-oh, Carruthers, best press on."

It would explain why Celtic languages survived.

Excuse I, Duncaroonie, but all the language of the British Isles survived. Except Cornish, and that wasn't because of miltary invasion.

It's a basic axiom of Economics that there is a law of diminishing returns. Faced with mountainous terrain and land that produced poorer yields then you would stop, consolidate what you have and protect your borders. The geography is not beside the point it is the point.

I entirely agree but do you really suppose that, for instance, Offa would go to all the trouble to build his Dyke just because of the "poorer yields" in the Welsh mountains? Of course he wouldn't, he'd have just added Wales to Mercia and have done with it. But he couldn't conquer Wales because it was full of Welshmen. But according to you and orthodoxy England was full of Welshmen too so what didn't stop the A/S's here? It couldn't be the mountains because Offa's Dyke isn't where the mountains are. It seems a remarkable coincidence to me that he should choose the England/Wales border.

Later, then the English did push further west. We have documentary evidence of the expulsion of the Britons from Exeter and its settlement with West Saxons in the reign of Athelstan.

Yes! Yes! You're beginning to grasp the situation at last! The Anglo-Saxons couldn't conquer Cornwall either because it was chocko with Welshmen aka Cornishmen. Only when Athelstan (the A/S version of Edward I) really got the A/S act together were they able even to conquer this very small Celtic enclave.

These people were called the 'West Welsh'. The border was fixed along the Tamar. Athelstan also forced the 'North Welsh' to submit and pay tribute of, we are assured, immense proportions.

Exactement! He couldn't conquer the Welsh proper...only exact tribute. (...er...I thought there was no money in Wales...)

No! No! No! I'm not interested in yet another orthodox explanation about how the A/S dealt with the Britons in England (or didn't deal with them in Wales). I have accepted that there is an explanation, however implausible. I have asked you for an explanation of how the Anglo-Saxons dealt with the Scottish Britons. It's easy-peasy coming up with myriad explanations wherever the Anglo-Saxons actually conquered somewhere but they didn't conquer the great majority of Scotland -- yet the great majority of Scotland speaks English. I ask for the umpteenth time -- why is Glasgow an English-speaking city and not a Gaelic-speaking one?

I had a look at a couple of things that could prove fruitful. Firstly, population numbers. Perth's population is in the 40,000 range. Aberdeen and Dundee are five times that, but all the growth is post-Industrial Revolution. Aberdeen had 3000 occupants back in 1396.

That is absolutely huge. Name a Celtic city anywhere that had even a third of this number.

What did they speak back then?

Well, since you seem to have a reverence for written sources, permit to draw your attention to all the Scottish literature from this period. If it is official, it's in Latin; if it ain't, it's in Inglis.

All these cities have Gaelic names attached to them now but Dundee and Perth are supposed to be Pictish. Interesting that Aberdeen means the 'mouth of the Dee', as in Aberystwyth in Wales.

Pictish hasn't been deciphered so pray do not even "suppose" that we know any Pictish names. Strictly speaking, we do not know that Aber is Welsh...as you say it turns up all over the shop. However, given that "mouth of" is presumably a trading term, and traders set up and name trading places, and the Celts generally are regarded (here at least) as a trading people...then Aberdeen might well be a Celtic place-name.

I also looked at the names of land features rather than places. All of the mountains have Gaelic names once we leave a broad coastal zone.

Quite so. It is generally quite easy, once you rid yourself of the fixed historical paradigms of the English Place-Name Society, to distinguish between English- and Celtic-placenames. I nearly said they're as different as Aberystwyth and Aberdeen but perhaps I ought not. The English-speakers in Northern Scotland tended to live in the eastern coastal plains and the Gaelic-speakers in the western mountain zone. Which is odd really since according to you and orthodoxy, the whole of Scotland was non-English speaking and the Anglo-Saxons never went north of the Firth of Forth.

This is significant because it suggests a language cline based on topographical features. This cline moves just to the west of Stirling and then north east to Perth, west of Dundee and west of Aberdeen. The coastal zone, however, is Anglicised right down to the names of the hills.

Yes...Anglicized...by whom though? If you can't find anybody to do the Anglicisation,.you might have to assume....they were already there. As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminated...

Capelli et al suggest Germanic/Celtic DNA at a ratio of 1:3 in Stonehaven, just south of Aberdeen, so how it got there would be interesting. Aberdeen was held by an English garrison throughout the Scottish wars of Independence but it's hard to imagine them planting too many seeds...

How true.

We're lacking any evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the area but it's on the east coast so certainly within their range of operations.

Ah...at last! An explanation. So, let's see now...the locals changed their language at the behest of the Anglo-Saxons because
1) the Anglo-Saxons occupied and ruled them for several hundred years (south-east Scotland) and
2) whenever the locals were 'within their range of operations' (north-east Scotland).
Phew! That's solved that one. Now go on to south-west Scotland, the Clyde Valley and Central Scotland as far north as, say, Perth.

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

I have asked you for an explanation of how the Anglo-Saxons dealt with the Scottish Britons. It's easy-peasy coming up with myriad explanations wherever the Anglo-Saxons actually conquered somewhere but they didn't conquer the great majority of Scotland -- yet the great majority of Scotland speaks English. I ask for the umpteenth time -- why is Glasgow an English-speaking city and not a Gaelic-speaking one?

Good day to you Mickaroonie. Scotland's population is only 10 percent of England's and the bulk of them live in the lowlands. As we have already said many of them are potentially Anglian settlers in the east. Many more are immigrants from Ireland after the potato famine, speaking English. We just can't use today's linguistic patterns to simply support a conclusion as controversial as THOBR's. For example, many of the immigrants to the big Scottish cities, as you have so eloquently pointed out before, were from the Highland Clearances. In their hundreds of thousands they tumbled down from the Highlands. Net result? No change to the language. They were simply absorbed by the 'big language' to the south. Now the orthodox explanation is not so naive that it thinks this is the whole story but it is pretty persuasive. There is a lot of Germanic DNA up there, whether you like it or not, so there is prima facie evidence for something more complicated than bald statements about the majority of the Scottish population speaking English when the Anglo-Saxons didn't conquer Scotland. I'll put it another way: south west England does speak English with the same genetic mix i.e. predominantly non-Germanic. How on earth did that happen?

The sort of step by step explanation you're after: Horsa and his slashfest mates push north into Gododdin, slay a few hundred wealas, chase some away and enslave the rest, whilst forcing the rest at sword point to start speaking English; I don't think I can do this anymore than the next man. You're not going to get such cut and dried explanations. But to then jump in and say 'so they must have spoken English all along' is not an answer that satisfies.

An interesting aside. I've put a few of your very valid questions to Professor Elaine Treharne, Head of the English Department and lecturer in Old English at the University of Leicester. She's quite high profile, been on the telly an' stuff. I'll let you know what she says. Those references to Doric were a bit of a cul-de-sac.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

An interesting sniperoni from today's Guardian

Anyone here speak Cromarty fisher?
Matt Kennard
Monday February 26, 2007
The Guardian

Obscure fishing dialects aren't renowned for their ability to set the heart racing, but news that a centuries-old brand of Anglo-Scottish pidgin is only two people from extinction has induced mild panic among traditionalists. The Cromarty fisher dialect is being kept alive by two Scottish brothers, Bobby and Gordon Hogg, 87 and 80, who live in the Highland town. Am Bailie, an online archive, plans to record them to preserve the language for posterity. "Dialects come and go, but they are extremely important," says Jamie Gaukroger, content organiser for Am Bailie. "It would be doing a disservice to the whole culture by not recording it."

Cromarty is a small port on the tip of the Black Isle, just north of Inverness. The Cromarty website describes the town as a "jewel of vernacular architecture" and the "capital of the Highlands". Its patois is assumed to have developed in the 17th century from a fusion of the local fishermen's tongue and that of visiting English soldiers. "The language has died now," says Bobby. "It was associated with fishing, and as the industry has died out, so has the language. Me and my brother are not the only ones who know the language - we're just the only ones who speak it all the time."

According to Gaukroger, Cromarty fisher is one of many Highland dialects that will soon disappear. "About five have come to our attention - all in the Black Isle area - and once we have got this one done, we will actively look to record the others."

Cromarty fisher sounds like a bizarre mixture of twee Shakespearean English and thick Geordie. Archaic words like "thou", "thee" and "thine" are combined with a virtuoso use of the letter "h": "ear" becomes "hear" and "herring" becomes "erring". The uninitiated listener is left in a daze as to which century they are in.

"I've spoken the language all my life, so of course it's a good thing it will be preserved," says Bobby. "I'm surprised by the interest because I think this is a problem all over the country." He pauses and sighs wearily. "In the last couple years, though, they've started speaking like Invernessians round here!"

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Good day to you Mickaroonie. Scotland's population is only 10 percent of England's

This is quite irrelevant. The point is that there has historically been almost no cultural contacts between the two countries, at least on the scale that would have the slightest likelihood of persuading people to change their language.

and the bulk of them live in the lowlands. As we have already said many of them are potentially Anglian settlers in the east.

You are overlooking a crucial factor. If, as you say, these "Anglians" migrated up the east coast (a perfectly sound argument in itself though completely unevidenced) they would have taken their language with them. So how, pray, did they manage to turn Anglo-Saxon into Inglis which is a dialect of the same language spoken by, for instance, Devonians? I mean, we've already established that Anglo-Saxon is about 180 degrees different from Modern English so how on earth did these dudes up on the Fife coast manage to make all the same 180 degree changes that their English brethren were also doing?

This is the bit that orthodoxy really can't bridge no matter how many other parts of the mosaic they wish into existence. Inglis is virtually the same as English but neither are at all like Anglo-Saxon. So, yes, by all means have the Anglo-Saxons introduce Anglo-Saxon; yes, by all means have Anglo-Saxon turn magically into English; but no, unless you want to re-write Scottish history 1000 - 1400 AD and have intensave intercourse between the two nations, you are never going to get Scottish Anglo-Saxon turned into Inglis.

Many more are immigrants from Ireland after the potato famine, speaking English.

This is ridiculous. The vast majority of the Irish potato famine victims spoke Gaelic not English. But we are talking about 1400 AD not 1850 AD. As soon as the Scots started writing in their vernacular it is perfectly obvious that their vernacular is Inglis.

We just can't use today's linguistic patterns to simply support a conclusion as controversial as THOBR's. For example, many of the immigrants to the big Scottish cities, as you have so eloquently pointed out before, were from the Highland Clearances. In their hundreds of thousands they tumbled down from the Highlands. Net result? No change to the language. They were simply absorbed by the 'big language' to the south.

Yes, YES, YES! This is what I've been trying to tell you and you just won't listen. The language that survives is always the 'big language'. If you can tell me at what moment in time Anglo-Saxon, spoken by a few admin and military types over in Haddingtonshire, was the Big Language in Scotland I'll listen to your case.

Now the orthodox explanation is not so naive that it thinks this is the whole story

I wouldn't know. As I am sure you are finding out by now, they don't attempt any sort of story. They just assume "it must have happened" because of their a priori assumption that Inglis is modern Anglo-Saxon.

but it is pretty persuasive.

Come on,. Duncan, even you must have realised by now that it is persuasive only if you start off "knowing" it.

There is a lot of Germanic DNA up there, whether you like it or not,

I keep telling you...I like it a lot! English-speaking DNA is Germanic DNA or (just as likely) German DNA is English DNA since we don't know whether the Germanics spread to the British Isles or the British Islanders spread to the continent. I wish you'd put this one to bed.

so there is prima facie evidence for something more complicated than bald statements about the majority of the Scottish population speaking English when the Anglo-Saxons didn't conquer Scotland.

Good grief, man, are you really not listening. It is orthodoxy that can't stand German DNA in Scotland because as far as they are concerned the Scottish population is entirely Celtic with (even they concede) only the barest brush from Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and what have you. The more Germanic DNA they find in Scotland the better it is for us. We firmly predict that, when the population geneticists really get their act together, they will find the whole southern and eastern half of Scotland will be Germanic with Celtic influences and northern and western Scotlands will be Celtic with Germanic influences.

I'll put it another way: south west England does speak English with the same genetic mix i.e. predominantly non-Germanic. How on earth did that happen?

Just the way we say it did! In far far antiquity, the south-west was an area that was primarily Celtic in Cornwall and primarily Germanic (as you call it, English as we call it) in Devon (we know this from place-name evidence). The population in Cornwall has undoubtedly mushroomed by English-speaking immigrants but presumably the Celts have increased too. It is impossible to say now what the correct mix should be. But the language situation is absolutely crystal since it all happened during fully documented historical times: the Cornish Celts retained all the appertunances of a language group during the High Middle Ages but, being a very small group, were unable to resist the normal cline advance of a majority language. The last native Cornish speaker is said to have died in 1790.

The sort of step by step explanation you're after: Horsa and his slashfest mates push north into Gododdin, slay a few hundred wealas, chase some away and enslave the rest, whilst forcing the rest at sword point to start speaking English; I don't think I can do this anymore than the next man. You're not going to get such cut and dried explanations. But to then jump in and say 'so they must have spoken English all along' is not an answer that satisfies.

A fascinating argument. You're saying because yours is the Current Paradigm it does not need to be evidenced. Or even be capable of sustaining a reasonable, if unevidenced, explanation. You have summed up what we Applied Epistemologists are in business to expose: that a great many academic paradigms not only lack any evidence, they don't even make much sense.

An interesting aside. I've put a few of your very valid questions to Professor Elaine Treharne, Head of the English Department and lecturer in Old English at the University of Leicester. She's quite high profile, been on the telly an' stuff. I'll let you know what she says. Those references to Doric were a bit of a cul-de-sac.

I can tell you what you'll get from Dame Ellie: careful ignoral. Don't let it dishearten you. For a bit of "Doric" see above.

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

If, as you say, these "Anglians" migrated up the east coast (a perfectly sound argument in itself though completely unevidenced) they would have taken their language with them. So how, pray, did they manage to turn Anglo-Saxon into Inglis which is a dialect of the same language spoken by, for instance, Devonians?

There's the Achilles heel for orthodox explanations, as you well know, and which provided the niche for THOBR's publication. Of course, there are different dialects. Doric is pretty different from Devonian which differs again from Geordie etc. etc. You should know that it is southern/midland English that became standard English rather than the northern dialects. Lallan Scots is clearly very different from standard English whilst being recognisably the same language.

I accept that the links between Old English and modern English are very weak. Elaine Treharne says that one-third of modern English words are directly derived from Old English but that the syntax is very similar. I need convincing on that one so I'm in agreement with you, so far. But then:

We need to be careful here. Of course there have been cultural contacts. Think about what you're saying. If, as you say, lowland and eastern Scotland are ancient English speaking lands then simply in terms of your own argument this is untrue! You're telling me they are the same people and I AGREE with you.

We firmly predict that, when the population geneticists really get their act together, they will find the whole southern and eastern half of Scotland will be Germanic with Celtic influences and northern and western Scotlands will be Celtic with Germanic influences.

It's not the story so far, more like large minority Germanic fading to negligible minority, and this is the problem. Progress though, you now appear to be accepting my central argument: Germanic DNA is equated with the English language, native DNA is what has had the English language forced upon it.

Perhaps you've not been listening. There is a new orthodoxy emerging based upon the latest genetics. Everything that I've been saying stems from my attempt to square this with a range of perspectives including THOBR's. I am not prepared to discount this because the more I read the clearer the picture becomes. You simply will not accept that the genetically dominant population (80% non-Germanic genes in the UK as a whole according to all the latest research!!!) is now speaking English. We really are back to square one.

I'm prepared to look into the sources and search for any links, no matter how tentative, that could establish a link between Old English and Modern English. I simply want to know what happened. The implications, if THOBR's thesis is true, as I've said before, are truly immense. But that thesis must come to terms with the population genetics that emerged in Capelli et al and has since been clarified and confirmed in Brian Sykes's 'Blood of the Isles', Stephen Oppenheimer's 'The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story' and Walter Bodmer's ongoing project for the Wellcome Foundation. If you can, I'll eat my flat cap.

Ishmael

In: Toronto

Duncan wrote:

There's the Achilles heel for orthodox explanations, as you well know, and which provided the niche for THOBR's publication.

The History of Britain Revealed is the first work of history in which the author has actually employed the scientific method. Everyone else is just making up campfire stories.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Yes, this is -- as Ishmael suggests -- the one bit of scientific method in THOBR and therefore the one unarguable bit that will finally choke the orthodox case to death. We have a complete record of the development of both Inglis (Lallan Scots) and 'Modern' English from 1400 to the present, thanks to the written record. We know they are, to use Duncan's phrase, "clearly very different whilst being recognisably the same language". We have a complete record of the development of Anglo-Saxon from 800 to 1100 thanks to the written record. It is recognisably a different language (regardless of whether you think it is a fore-runner or not).

Now clearly Anglo-Saxon can give rise to Anglo-Saxon dialects, and the Anglo-Saxonists go to great lengths to establish these -- Wessex, Northumbrian etc. And English can give rise to English dialects -- West Midlands and Lallan Scots for instance. But Anglo-Saxon cannot give rise to English dialects. In other words, the change from Anglo-Saxon to English must take place prior to the spread of English dialects. But orthodoxy has established the non plus ultra for both Anglo-Saxon and English, thanks to the written record. Anglo-Saxon was still Anglo-Saxon as late as 1100 AD and English was English as early as 1400 AD. So for the orthodox case to be true the changeover from Anglo-Saxon to English must have taken place between 1100 AD and 1400 AD. And of course the breakup of English into its various dialects must therefore have happened after 1100 AD.

But, and this is why the Scottish situation is so critical, we also know from the written record that Lallan Scots (Inglis) was established by 1400 AD. But there was no cultural links between England and Scotland between 1100 and 1400 AD. QED. To save their own bacon, the orthodoxers must break the paradigms of either
1. History, and posit that there was some second wave of people moving between England and Scotland in the years 1100 to 1400 or
2. Linguistics, and posit that languages can develop in the same direction in two discrete populations.
One wishes them well in either of these daunting tasks though of course in practice they will simply apply 'careful ignoral'.

The point is that there has historically been almost no cultural contacts between the two countries, at least on the scale that would have the slightest likelihood of persuading people to change their language.

We need to be careful here. Of course there have been cultural contacts. Think about what you're saying. If, as you say, lowland and eastern Scotland are ancient English speaking lands then simply in terms of your own argument this is untrue! You're telling me they are the same people and I AGREE with you.

I think it's you that is not being careful. They are only the same people anciently. Which is why they speak (or spoke until the nineteenth century) two dialects of the same language, English and Lallan. Even you would admit they are not the same people when it comes to the period 1100 to 1400. Blimey, how many cultural links do you require to make sure one group turned Anglo-Saxon into English and the other turned Anglo-Saxon into Inglis? You'd need an English Joint Board sitting in permanent session in Berwick. And even then every change (and even La Trehaine concedes this is at least two-thirds of the entire vocabulary!) would have to be imposed by fiat on each population.

Not likely! If the geneticists can show that the Germanic 'fades out' east to west then I'd be be very happy since this must be the case given a very ancient English/Celtic divide of the British Isles. But please tell me how genetic studies can tell which was forced on which?

If this is how it finally turns out then I agree orthodoxy would indeed be right and THOBR wrong. But always remember that current genetic studies are using fatally flawed benchmarks because they are operating from incorrect prior assumptions about what constitutes a) Germanic b) Celtic and c) 'native' genes. I too have been monitoring the latest genetics and nothing I have seen thus far gives me the slightest qualm. (Though of course Applied Epistemology would say that I am only applying my own version of careful ignoral in defence of my own paradigm.)

I'm prepared to look into the sources and search for any links, no matter how tentative, that could establish a link between Old English and Modern English.

Good luck! Will you take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence in this case?

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

So for the orthodox case to be true the changeover from Anglo-Saxon to English must have taken place between 1100 AD and 1400 AD. And of course the breakup of English into its various dialects must therefore have happened after 1100 AD...
But, and this is why the Scottish situation is so critical, we also know from the written record that Lallan Scots (Inglis) was established by 1400 AD. But there was no cultural links between England and Scotland between 1100 and 1400 AD.

Yeah, this period from 1100 to 1400 is crucial for so much. We face the huge problem that Anglo-Saxon ceased to be written at the very time that the Normans were engaging in their conquest. This certainly gives orthodoxy it's get out of jail card: it is the Normans who are responsible for the rapid change in language that led to the birth of written English by 1400. The extent to which we can consider invading English armies to be the harbingers of cultural exchange prior to Bannockburn in 1314 is a fascinating question that I can only raise but not elaborate upon at the moment.

I too have been monitoring the latest genetics and nothing I have seen thus far gives me the slightest qualm. (Though of course Applied Epistemology would say that I am only applying my own version of careful ignoral in defence of my own paradigm.)

The latter is always a possibility but I would suggest that you read Sykes and Oppenheimer in their entirety. Perhaps you will be able to pick out flaws in their analyses that I cannot. You have more invested than I do. Enjoy.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Yeah, this period from 1100 to 1400 is crucial for so much. We face the huge problem that Anglo-Saxon ceased to be written at the very time that the Normans were engaging in their conquest.

Well now, why not ask orthodoxy for their explanation for this rum state of affairs. According to them, England was entirely populated by a people speaking a literary language. Then along come the Normans and suddenly everybody in this country promptly forgets they speak a literary language. A hundred years pass...two hundred...three hundred...a few people start to remember they speak a written language and start to write it down but mysteriously it has in the meanwhile changed into a different language.

Or, alternatively, there is this version. The inhabitants of England did not speak a literary language when the Normans arrived. Eventually they did.

This certainly gives orthodoxy its get out of jail card: it is the Normans who are responsible for the rapid change in language that led to the birth of written English by 1400.

Yes, as noted in THOBR, perhaps the Sheriff of Nottingham conducted language classes. And a much later Sheriff of Nottingham conducted literacy classes.

The extent to which we can consider invading English armies to be the harbingers of cultural exchange prior to Bannockburn in 1314 is a fascinating question that I can only raise but not elaborate upon at the moment.

I wish you would. Medieval armies tended to be numbered in the single thousands and their (very well documented) stays in Scotland were both brief and localised. But did they conduct language classes? As you say, a fascinating question. I don't think even our current army of peacekeepers in Bosnia et al do that but I may be wrong. I know the Army Education Corps has a proud record when it comes to teaching proper English to the members of the British Army. And the British army has a proud record in fraternising...yes, you may have uncovered a whole new area of linguistic research here...

Not a chance, sunshine. This particular controversy occupies only one zillionth of a subject that itself occupies only one zillionth of my intellectual interests. I shall therefore continue to rely on tertiary sources (such as your good self) in my usual fashion. It's a principle of Applied Epistemology that such a strategy leads to an infinitely more balanced view of the subject as a whole since exposure to primary or secondary sources tends to be overpowering to all concerned.

Actually I think I did read Oppenheimer's piece in the New Thingamyjig since it is generally safe to read an overview.

Duncan

In: Yorkshire

This is concerning Mick. You've written a book whose central thesis is being seriously challenged by the population genetics:

If this is how it finally turns out then I agree orthodoxy would indeed be right and THOBR wrong.

One zillionth of one zillionth? Hardly! You think this whole area is important enough to write a book about it. I don't know what your day job is but that must have taken a few weekends and more than the odd evening. Neither are you taking on trust what I've told you about my reading of all the genetic literature in considerable depth and having a biologist on hand to explain the technical details, so how can you say you're relying on tertiary sources? To paraphrase, you won't see the trees for the wood. Take a walk inside, you might enjoy the shade.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

This is concerning Mick. You've written a book whose central thesis is being seriously challenged by the population genetics

:
Yes, it is always concerning to opponents (even favourably disposed ones such as you) that I never bother with true 'expertise'. But it's time to really get to grips with what really is expertise (if you wish to make progress in the expertise of Applied Epistemology). Experts, by definition, spend their waking lives in the minutiae of a subject and then go on to write books that bear all the hallmarks of certainty -- it is impossible for the human brain to devote a lifetime to a task unless it is, as it were, certain. When the non-expert (ie you and me, Dunc) reads the book our own brains get infected with the certainty -- ie our relatively unprepared brains can't help but take in the certainty along with the data. You really do get overwhelmed...it can't be helped.

On the other hand, other experts in the field avoid this problem because their brains are not unprepared -- indeed, quite the opposite, their brains are on the qui vive for error. They react accordingly by writing up their reactions. The Applied Epistemologist takes advantage of this situation by, in a sense, skating over all the experts' terrain and ends up with a better (more balanced) view than any individual expert.

One zillionth of one zillionth? Hardly! You think this whole area is important enough to write a book about it.

True, but years ago. Applied Epistemologists are concerned with academic paradigms in general. Any particular one is always merely 'a case in point'.

I don't know what your day job is but that must have taken a few weekends and more than the odd evening.

My day job is 'Applied Epistemologist'. But remember I study academic paradigms -- that means I am (almost certainly given the paucity of Applied Epistemologists) the World Authority on whatever academic paradigm I happen to be taking an interest in. Specialists never take an interest in their own academic paradigms (they assume they are done-and-dusted). Even you, by dint of these exchanges, know more about the relevant paradigm theories than the specialists in these fields do. You will discover this bewildering fact should you get clossetted with your colleagues in the Eng Lit dept. You will be constanty amazed at their ignorance of what appears to you to be vitally important matters. A bit like discovering a mathematician didn't know that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees (or if he did, doesn't know how to prove it). The fact that you couldn't find such a mathematician tells you a great deal about the difference between Maths and Eng Lit as academic subjects.

Neither are you taking on trust what I've told you about my reading of all the genetic literature in considerable depth and having a biologist on hand to explain the technical details, so how can you say you're relying on tertiary sources? To paraphrase, you won't see the trees for the wood. Take a walk inside, you might enjoy the shade.

I am taking on trust my own twenty-year experience in winnowing out expert testimony. However I have already indicated that I may not be the best person when it comes to real babies-and-bathwater situations. It is, when all's said and done, my baby we're talking about.

Display posts from previous:

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 239, 240, 241 Next

Page 4 of 241

The Library Index

FAQ

Profile