Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)

[Mick Harper]

Yes, I think so. Doesn't AE follow orthodoxy unlesss there are pungent reasons not to? I ask the question querulously because, as you know, AE forbids definitions at the beginning of proceedings -- only at the end -- and this is is perilously close to a definition.

It would be (I think) an AE assumption that, for instance, Wilkens be given a polite hearing but the evidence is not (I would have thought) anywhere near good enough to adopt his position. Whether Wilkens-believers can be AE-ists is a good point. Probably so, though this was raised in connection with one of our members being a Christian which is surely incompatible with being an AEist. However, the person in question robustly ignored this observation -- which is in itself probably a good AE-ist position to hold.

[Ishmael]

[Rocky]

[Ishmael]

[Ishmael]

And Istanbul is Constantinople.

And Constantinople is Rome.

And Rome is Jerusalem.

And Jerusalem is Babylon.

[Rocky]

[Mick Harper]

I think you'll find that that is not what Fomenko/Ishmael means. The difference between Fomenko and THOBR is quite stark in this respect though I think we would probably agree that the 'facts' are hidden in plain sight.

[Dave Lawrenson]

I am new to this site so excuse any failings of protocol but I thought Mick might like this.

Graeme Davis, a specialist in the history of Old English at the OU, has come to the conclusion that there were English in the Orkney and Shetland (and he speculates Caithness and Sutherland) in the fourth century long before the supposed settlement of mainland UK.

His primary historical reference point is Claudius Claudinanus's De IV Consulatu Honori Augusti written in 398, which historians see as boring but reliable. Claudianus eulogises the victory of a naval expedition of the then general and, later, emperor Theodosius in 363 and claims that Theodosius defeated the Saxons in the Orkneys. (The Orkneys were known in the ancient world, the first recorded reference is in 49 BC).

Orkney and Shetland Norn (OSN) was the language of the majority of the population prior to the transfer of sovereignty of the Islands to Scotland in 1468. Its last recorded use was in the 1950s. Davis shows that OSN cannot be Old Norse. All the Germanic languages, including Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon, went through the i-mutation between 450 and 500, basically the i replaced many other vowels. Uniquely this did not happen in OSN. Isolation is the only way a language in a language group can avoid mutation, if it is part of the language group. So, Davis claims, the language had to exist in the Northern Isles pre c 450 and then be cut of from 450-500 when the mutation occurred.

Davis is working in the established invasion mode and concludes that, as Norn must be pre-Viking, the only explanation is that the language comes from an Anglo Saxon settlement that replaced all the previous languages and was then isolated. Without evidence he says these languages were Celtic. There is evidence of Celtic absence, there are no Celtic place names on the Islands.

Davis compares what he considers to be the 16 most significant elements of vocab (not prepositions, pronouns etc) of the Lord's prayer in; OSN, Old Norse and Old English (as he calls it). It is unclear when the prayer was translated but he has used the oldest version he could find. He argues that the vocabulary of OSN is closer to Norse than Old English (even though it cannot be Norse). There are four significant words he cannot allocate to either language; tumtation (temptation), delivera (deliver) cosdum (kingdom) mota (will). Now I am no expert, but I think I know a language that sounds like this, particularly if you take mota as might. The words he argues are near to Norse and Anglo Saxon also sound English to my untrained ear, for example, in Favor (father) sin (sin) Da (day) Ilt (evil) lyv (lead) firgive (forgive) dalight (daily) ga (give). In fact the only ones that seem to be nearer to Norse or Anglo Saxon are Chimrie (heaven) which is like Norse Himenriki and Yurn (earth) like Anglo-Saxon Eorthan (possibly). Some of the vocabulary is so far from Anglo-Saxon that you would have to work really hard to connect the two, for example, temptation is costnunge or give is syle.

[Dave Lawrenson]

More power to Mick's elbow.

I looked through the postings and THOBR to check whether the issue of diphthong change was addressed but could not find it. Whilst reading Davis on Orkney Norn he refers to the issue of the death of Anglo Saxon diphthongs c 1100-1250.

He notes that in the space of sixty years, depending on area, in the transition from Old English (his term) to Middle English every single diphthong changed to a monophthong. This is unprecedented in any language. Such a shift is usually explained by the fact that monophthongs are easier to pronounce. This cannot hold because at the same time some of the Old English monophthongs changed to Middle English diphthongs.

Now Davis believes in these changes, he is after all a lecturer in the history of Old English, but calls it an absurdity and argues that at the time of these changes different generations would not be able to understand each other. Think of that a language community without a shared language. Unless Middle English does not derive from Anglo-Saxon and English children learnt the language their parents spoke, English.

[Mick Harper]

Welcome "Dave" Lawrenson. You might want to check out Doric English which is the dialect that existed in the north-east of Scotland early doors and presents various anomalies, but which I have never managed to fathom properly. Presumably this would apply to the Orkneys.

Your very interesting posts illustrate a well-known AE principle which is that True Believers are the best source for uncovering paradigm fractures. As you say, Davis is an A-S academic and therefore cannot escape his own basic assumptions. But paradoxically such absolute certainty allows him to explore 'impossible' and 'unprecedented' and 'unique' situations blithely without indulging in 'careful ignoral' as others are wont to do. Nevertheless he sounds like somebody we might turn if we could strap him down and inject with scopolamine. I'll get one of our teams on it.

[Mick Harper]

On further investigation he seems somewhat unusual (for an academic). See here http://graemedavis.blogspot.com/
I have e-mailed him in case he wishes to take matters further.

[Nick]

Fascinating post, Dave. One thing though. Surely we must be talking about digraphs rather than diphthongs as regards the supposed changes in "transitional Old English" - after all, all we've got is the texts, right? Couldn't one wish away the supposed incomprehension between generations by simply saying it's a question of orthography rather than pronunciation. Anyway, it gives a whole new meaning to the lament, "My parents don't understand me!"

[Mick Harper]

What is the first dipthong/digraph? This is an important matter since, according to us anyway, all early alphabetical languages must by definition be artificial since all natural languages have a virtually infinite number of sounds and therefore cannot be rendered down to twenty or so discreet sound-signifiers (aka alphabetical letters).

It further follows therefore that every word in these early artificial languages can be so rendered. But of course the moment a foreign word is encountered, there is a dilemma because
1. by definition, this word cannot be rendered in the present alphabet so
2 it has to be altered so that it can thereby
3 coining a brand new word but
4 how do you then alert everyone using the alphabet that this new word signifies this particular foreign word?

One method is to have a whole gallimaufry of signs that are not needed (again by definition) for one's own words but can be used for foreign words. But this rather defeats the whole object of alphabets which is to keep discreet sound-signifiers (aka letters) to a minimum. [I think Dan will tell us that this method was used by the Japanese...]

One area in which it might not be possible/permissable to actually alter a foreign word to render it spellable is foreign names, especially illustrious foreign names. This then would be a prime area to use dipthongs/digraphs (or even cartouches!) since one might readily guess what 'ae' is trying to say and therefore understand how to say Julius Caesar (foreign!!?). But you'd have to learn the 'ch' in Winston Churchill... nobody would guess that ...which just goes to show that the dudes responsible for this digraph were not responsible for the original alphabet.

[frank h]

[Leon]