A thought struck me, supported by reading around the subject, that perhaps our perception of Roman and post-Roman Britain is a bit linear when it comes to languages. We (in this I generalise) assume that the language of the "educated" was Latin and that in the countryside, the pagus spoke a variant of Brythonic......
Ok, all well and good. Or is it. There is of course the presence of Goidelic on the outer fringes (Ireland) and depending on which theory you ascribe to either continually present in the Western parts of Scotland throughout the period or introduced with Irish migrations towards the later part of the period.
What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.
If the above is the case, and Germanic type languages exist within Britain during the Roman period then it is perhaps (a big maybe) a part of the puzzle of why lowland Britain adopted English with relatively little "Celtic" loan words in the period after Roman influence wanes. Of course another piece is the positioning of Gemanic foederati within lowland Britain...but thats another story
So my point is, with potentially many languages present both during and after the Roman period, do we need to be a little bit more expansive with our perceptions of language use and prevalence. I think multi linguistic populations are sometimes under-estimated in Britain in this period and we really need to relook at our own perceptions. The simplistic assumed model of "English" (a very generic and generalised term!), Latin and "Welsh" speaking populations is not so clear cut in this period to my mind (post 8th Centurey the picture changes and solidifies somewhat). Multi lingual populations would be more the norm as many more languages were used, writing was not necessarily very widespread outside of built up urban areas and the spoken word had much more reliance placed on it. If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?
Comments?
For most people it probably wasn't an issue, they never travelled all that far so they may never really have heard much in other languages
From memory we assume Latin was widely spoken in towns because even the graffiti was in latin.
Rural areas could have spoken dialects that varied widely, look how widely 'kitchen Welsh' can vary from one valley to the next.
Buying and selling doesn't take a big command of the other person's language, not in a market setting, some common words for numbers and a lot of pointing.
Land ownership and tenancy agreements, Intermarriage and shared religion would probably lead to more use of common language
Jim
That makes sense, at least to me.
Latin was the language of church, administration and the army (at least while there was an army). This would have been overlaid on a mix of mutually intelligible Celtic dialects. I am less sure about the Belgae hanging on to German, on the basis that they would have needed to communicate much more with Celtic speakers, but it may or may not be coincidence that the first German foederati (i.e. Saxons) hired by the ruler of post-Roman Britain seem to have been settled in Belgae areas.
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?
There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...
My understanding of the period is that it is a confusing paradox. There is evidence of a near-total collapse of the Roman economic, societal and administrative structures that went hand-in-hand with an ad-hoc substitution by the residual tribal structures, not enough to build a stable society but enough to allow for the existence of warlords and 'kings' of the stamp of Vortigern and Ambrosius, and which did not leave the Saxon arrivals anything to emulate.
Things were different on the continent. There the Roman infrastructure remained substantially intact (at least in most places), and the barbarian invaders assimilated and adopted it, more or less. The Saxons were no more brutal or primitive than the Franks, but they did not find an intact and functioning Romanised society (bearing in mind that Gaul had been under Roman rule only slightly longer than Britain). In Britain when they came as paid mercenaries what they saw was by and large a tabula rasa. They had nothing to look up to and so no reason to give up their tribal structures, customs and language. The eastern Britons, on the other hand, had been reduced to such a basic level of existence that adopting the way of life including the language of the new conquerors was natural. They no longer had a Roman reference point. So Saxons they became.
The question then is what reduced Britain to such a degree of anarchy? It wasn't fire and the Saxon sword as the Saxons came after the damage had been done. There was some radical weakness in Romano-British society that brought it crashing down spectacularly.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
That makes sense, at least to me.
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?
There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...
Agreed, although modern genetic studies suggest that this may not be the case, ie large portions of the Romano-British population
may have in fact stayed where they were or at least the lower levels of society did
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 23, 2014, 08:11:49 PM
My understanding of the period is that it is a confusing paradox. There is evidence of a near-total collapse of the Roman economic, societal and administrative structures that went hand-in-hand with an ad-hoc substitution by the residual tribal structures, not enough to build a stable society but enough to allow for the existence of warlords and 'kings' of the stamp of Vortigern and Ambrosius, and which did not leave the Saxon arrivals anything to emulate.
Things were different on the continent. There the Roman infrastructure remained substantially intact (at least in most places), and the barbarian invaders assimilated and adopted it, more or less. The Saxons were no more brutal or primitive than the Franks, but they did not find an intact and functioning Romanised society (bearing in mind that Gaul had been under Roman rule only slightly longer than Britain). In Britain when they came as paid mercenaries what they saw was by and large a tabula rasa. They had nothing to look up to and so no reason to give up their tribal structures, customs and language. The eastern Britons, on the other hand, had been reduced to such a basic level of existence that adopting the way of life including the language of the new conquerors was natural. They no longer had a Roman reference point. So Saxons they became.
The question then is what reduced Britain to such a degree of anarchy? It wasn't fire and the Saxon sword as the Saxons came after the damage had been done. There was some radical weakness in Romano-British society that brought it crashing down spectacularly.
The latest perceived wisdom suggests that the monetary system broke down...which led to many of the villas being abandoned and the towns reduced in size. This wasnt simply just the coinage system per se it was the whole economic bedrock of a functioning government with a functioning army which simply melted away in the 5th century.
At the risk of drifting away from my own thread title :) its also worth mentioning that Britannia was divided into 4 provinces (5 if you think that Velentia existed in ts own right) along potential soci-economic lines which may have roughly existed before the 1st Century. Removal of Roman structured government simply allowed these "fault lines" to reopen...
Other issues such as the Pelagian heresy further split competing factions which meant that there was no centralised and coherent guiding light for all to follow....the rest is history as they say
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe. The Parisi(i) certainly were not. A contemporary specialist on the Celtic world, Alain Duval, places the various peoples where Caesar was later to encounter them. In L'ART CELTIQUE DE LA GAULE, 1989 he states that in the north of Gaul and in England lived the Belgae and that the insular Belgae were called Britons.
If this is correct, then either part of the Belgae moved from the Continent to Britain, or - why not?- from Britain to the Continent. By the same token, Brittany (Bretagne) in modern France is called after the Britons that left Great Britain (La Grande Bretagne), after the island was invaded by Germanic tribes in the 5th century AD.
Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.
In other words, before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Britons in Great Britain will have either spoken Latin, or pidgin versions of it, or Celtic larded with a lot of Roman loanwords, depending how far away they lived from the centres of Roman culture.
Hope this helps,
Robert
One of the problems we have with this question is a lot is the lack of solid evidence can lead to extremes of interpretation. So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons. Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come. There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church. What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone? Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC). Place names are interesting - it is clear that the names of some places in Roman Britain continued into the early English settlement because a garbled version of them is preserved, which does not point to a deserted landscape, even if it also doesn't confirm continuity.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 23, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe. The Parisi(i) certainly were not. A contemporary specialist on the Celtic world, Alain Duval, places the various peoples where Caesar was later to encounter them. In L'ART CELTIQUE DE LA GAULE, 1989 he states that in the north of Gaul and in England lived the Belgae and that the insular Belgae were called Britons.
If this is correct, then either part of the Belgae moved from the Continent to Britain, or - why not?- from Britain to the Continent. By the same token, Brittany (Bretagne) in modern France is called after the Britons that left Great Britain (La Grande Bretagne), after the island was invaded by Germanic tribes in the 5th century AD.
Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.
In other words, before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Britons in Great Britain will have either spoken Latin, or pidgin versions of it, or Celtic larded with a lot of Roman loanwords, depending how far away they lived from the centres of Roman culture.
Hope this helps,
Robert
Thanks Robert.
I am not personally convinced that the relatively linear and traditional picture you have painted above does necessairly hold true for Britain. Its hard to prove hence the discussion :) but I feel there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a much more complex picture existed with regards to language centres within Britain, before during and immediately after the Roman period
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2014, 10:13:30 PM
One of the problems we have with this question is a lot is the lack of solid evidence can lead to extremes of interpretation. So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons. Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come. There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church. What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone? Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC). Place names are interesting - it is clear that the names of some places in Roman Britain continued into the early English settlement because a garbled version of them is preserved, which does not point to a deserted landscape, even if it also doesn't confirm continuity.
Yes Guy Halsall has interesting ideas with regards to that aspect of the lowland language origins.
I wonder if Roman British populations under the control of Anglo Saxon being regarded as "2nd class citizens" led them to adopt English (in all its forms!) rapidly to avoid disadvantage. Knowledge of certain dialects of English would help this transition. The siting of foederati throughout lowland Britain would certainly help to make this situation viable
Whilst agreeing that if a low status group is differentiated from a high status group by language (or clothing/hair styles) then there is a clear incentive for members of the low status group to adopt the language etc of the high status group - however the high status group is often motivated to attempt to deny them easy mobility (between status levels). All the various Medieval laws about what type of clothes / colours various groups were entitled to (and those on food) spring to mind.
Just a thought offered into the discussion.... :)
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...
Agreed, although modern genetic studies suggest that this may not be the case, ie large portions of the Romano-British population may have in fact stayed where they were or at least the lower levels of society did
I had the impression this was the infamous study that in essence said: we can tell people's origin by the trace elements in their teeth, because this shows where they drank their water. These skeletons have teeth which shows that most of them drank most or all of their water in Britain.
Therefore they were Britons. (Spot the gap in logic ...)
Or have there been some genuine genetic studies? It would be nice if these could be pinpointed.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 23, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.
I am not sure if this principle is universally applicable: my impression (right or wrong) is that the majority of Belgians speak good English, as do many Norwegians, it being in effect a second language in each country. Admittedly the primary current Norwegian means of learning English - television - would not be a factor in the 5th century AD.
Quote
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe.
I think the basis for the Belgae being considered German is in Caesar's Gallic War II.4:
"
When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do, in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there on account of the fertility of the country and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was that from the recollection of those events they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters."
When the Remi report on the tribes' agreed mobilisation, Caesar lists (ibid):
"...
the Condrusi, the Eburones, the Caeraesi, the Paemani, who are called by the common name of Germans [had promised], they thought, to the number of 40,000. "
When the Eburones were, following their revolt and destruction of Sabinus' legion, being ravaged by a Roman revenge campaign, some Germans crossed the Rhine to prey on the weakened tribe.
"
Allured by booty, they advance further; neither morass nor forest obstructs these men, born amid war and depredations; they inquire of their prisoners in what part Caesar is; they find that he has advanced further, and learn that all the army has removed. Thereon one of the prisoners says, 'Why do you pursue such wretched and trifling spoil; you, to whom it is granted to become even now most richly endowed by fortune? In three hours you can reach Aduatuca; there the Roman army has deposited all its fortunes; there is so little of a garrison that not even the wall can be manned, nor dare any one go beyond the fortifications'."
Communication of this easy and detailed nature suggests that captors and captives shared a common language, although it is not clear whether the Eburones as a tribe spoke only German or both Celtic and German.
Quote from: gavindbm on April 24, 2014, 08:26:28 AM
All the various Medieval laws about what type of clothes / colours various groups were entitled to (and those on food) spring to mind.
One can see the division between Norman-French and English in the vocabulary for live and dead meat. From the English/Anglo-Saxon point of view:
Live (male) cattle: bull (or ox). Dead cattle: beef (boeuf).
Live sheep: sheep. Dead sheep: mutton (mouton).
Live pig: pig. Dead pig: pork (porc).
In each case the English term for meat ready to be eaten is the French term for the live animal.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 23, 2014, 10:13:30 PM
... So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons. Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come. There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church. What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone? Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC). Place names are interesting - .
I am not sure if the lack of Celtic loanwords is primarily due to an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons. We should not forget that in sub-Roman days writing was limited to the Church (Latin) and the ruling classes (Latin). I am not a specialist in Roman Britain, but I have a hunch that there are hardly any written Celtic documents available that date back to the sub-Roman or directly post-Roman period, apart from occasional inscriptions in stones.
In such a situation, it is only logical that Latin became the official trade language, as it did in France, Spain and other parts of Europe occupied by the Romans. Languages are often replaced due to the political or social dominance of another language, also without the involvement of force. Look at Australia, most of Canada and the USA, where the languages of the immigrants from many different nations, as well as those of the local natives, was basically replaced by English, mainly because English had become the official trade language. The same goes for South America, where Spanish and Portuguese are now widely spoken. The occasional eradication of local tribes and competing nations definitely speeded up the process.
So far, I see no reason to abandon the linear approach to language evolution in Britain. Bede wrote in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (completed in 731) that "currently, [there are in Britain] the languages of five peoples, namely that of the Angles (English), the Britons (Welsh), the Scots (Gaelic), the Picts and the Latins" (HE 1.1).
If we rule out the Angles, who arrived after the Roman period, we are basically left with 3 indigenous Celtic or Brythonic languages and Latin. Bede wrote his Historia in a period when the Angles, Jutes and Saxons had been around for some 300 years. Not much later Britain would be invaded by the Danes. Apparently, the socio-economic power and numbers of the Germanic invaders was large enough to literally marginalise the speakers of Brythonic and Latin dialects.
Place names: I have a map on Saxon and Viking Britain at home, published by the Council for British Archeology. Apart from in Scotland and in Wales, especially the Saxons seem to have been all over the place. It is proposed that they formed a ruling elite, with acculturisation of the local population, which accounts for the marginalisation of the Brythonic languages.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 24, 2014, 10:29:16 AMI think the basis for the Belgae being considered German is in Caesar's Gallic War II.4:
...
Communication of this easy and detailed nature suggests that captors and captives shared a common language, although it is not clear whether the Eburones as a tribe spoke only German or both Celtic and German.
Of course, Caesar's use of "German" has been questioned. It may just mean "wild barbarian from beyond the Rhine, against whom I can claim to be defending, not conquering, Gaul" rather than having any real linguistic component.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 24, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
I am not sure if the lack of Celtic loanwords is primarily due to an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons.
Old theory, but with modern term "ethnic cleansing" inserted to replace "massacre".
Quote
It is proposed that they formed a ruling elite, with acculturisation of the local population, which accounts for the marginalisation of the Brythonic languages.
Newer theory. Probably the current paradigm. However, there will doubtless be newer theories, there always are :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 24, 2014, 10:42:29 AM
Of course, Caesar's use of "German" has been questioned. It may just mean "wild barbarian from beyond the Rhine, against whom I can claim to be defending, not conquering, Gaul" rather than having any real linguistic component.
As one might expect from a master propagandist, yet Caesar in
Gallic War II.4 writes that the ethnic explanations were given to him by the envoys of the Remi. He seemed happy enough to conquer the whole of Gaul under the excuse of 'protecting his allies' - and there were enough Germans wandering across the Rhine for him not to need to pick on the 'Germanic' Gauls (some of whom were actually friendly - in Gallic War VI.32 the Segni and Condrusi, both of whom were classed as Germans-in-Gaul, dissociate themselves from the ongoing rebellion and agree to help him by picking up any fugitives from the Eburones).
Interestingly, Caesar's major criterion for what-is-a-Gaul and what-is-a-German seems to centre not on geography nor ethnicity but on customs and way of life. In Gallic War book VI chapters 3 and 4 he summarises the essential features of and differences between what he sees as Gauls and Germans. One wonders for how long after Caesar this remained the main criterion for identifying peoples as peoples.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 23, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.
I am not sure if this principle is universally applicable: my impression (right or wrong) is that the majority of Belgians speak good English, as do many Norwegians, it being in effect a second language in each country. Admittedly the primary current Norwegian means of learning English - television - would not be a factor in the 5th century AD.
[/quote]
Hi Patrick,
I meant to say that people normally stick to their mother tongue and do not speak 2 languages simultaneously all the time, unless such is required. A real mix of two languages is excluded, as in that case the addressed person is likely to miss out on 50% of the conversation.
Whereas the majority of
educated Belgians and Norwegians will speak good English, indeed, the average man in the street in France, Italy, Spain or Germany, however, will give you a blank stare if they are addressed in English. This partly has to do with the education systems, but is also for a great part due to the fact that in these countries English TV & films are all dubbed in the local language.
Another example of how socio-economic power (= also education) determines which language is spoken where.
Isn't the theory of a small Saxon migration modified now, because the genetic evidence tends towards a large number of people with Saxon genes?
In this new paradigm the A?s breed much more prolifically than the Britons because they economically oppress them and take the best land, have discriminatory laws etc. This works for me because it is the way that the US immigrants did for the American Indians (Native Americans) They so disrupted them ,partly through diseases, but also through raiding and taking land that the Indians could not maintain their culture.
I am convinced that priests lead their flocks to flee from the Saxons who are aggressive pagans. These refugees won't be all the people, but a lot of the better off ones. When they flee their birthrate will fall, or rather the survival rate of their young will drop drastically and proportionately the numbers of Saxons will be greater. For Britons bereft of higher levels of society and of culture, religion etc. emulating the Saxons will have been the best option. The sort of thing that you would merge in for would be that if a saxon wanted your land and their were no British lords to help you then you sought a Saxon lord. if you were enslaved or half free then you would find expanding your lands and food production harder, whereas if you were a Saxon you had the power of the dominant culture backing you.
Its easy to see how, in the East the Saxons established areas that were overwhelmingly Saxon in nature.
In terms of loan words, if I remember back the Latin words are for things that the church might have words for. If they represented words from an indigenous mass population they would be for more ordinary items.
Roy
A list of Latin Loan words that are from after the Saxon Conquest.
Latin OE date MnE
ancora ancor 880 anchor
angelus engel 950 angel
apostolus apostol 950 apostle
arca arc 1000 ark
balsamum balsam 1000 balsam
beta bete 1000 beet
buxus box 931 box (tree)
candela candel 700 candle
cappa cæppe 1000 cap
cedrus ceder 1000 cedar
calix celic 825 chalice
cista cest 700 chest
circulus circul 1000 circle
cocus coc 1000 cook (n)
culter culter 1000 coulter
cuculla cugele 931 cowl
credo creda 1000 creed
crispus crisp 900 crisp
discipulus discipul 900 disciple
vannus fann 800 fan
finuclum finugl 700 fennel
febris fefor 1000 fever
fontem fant/font 1000 font
gingiber gingiber 1000 ginger
lilium lilie 971 lily
locusta lopustre 1000 lobster
martyr martyr 900 martyr
missa mæsse 900 mass
magister mægester 1000 master
matta matt 825 mat
monasterium mynster 900 minster
muscula muscle 1000 mussel
murra myrra 824 myrrh
nonna nunne 900 nun
organum organe 1000 organ
palmum palma 825 palm
pira pere 1000 pear
pinus pin 1000 pine
planta plante 825 plant
papa papa 900 pope
presbyter preost 805 priest
psalmus psealm 961 psalm
radicem rædic 1000 radish
sabbatum sabat 950 sabbath
saccus sacc 1000 sack
schola scol 1000 school
scrinium scrin 1000 shrine
sericus sioloc 888 silk
soccus socc 725 sock
spongia sponge 1000 sponge
talenta talente 930 talent
templum templ 825 temple
titulus titul 950 title
versus fers 900 verse
zephyrus zefferus 1000 zephyr
Interesting, Roy: the numbers are presumably the dates (AD) of introduction.
A factor possibly complicating DNA studies and ethnicity questions might be the extent to which Saxon invaders interbred with their slaves. One would assume that like most cultures of the period part of their conquest procedure would be to take as many slaves as they could for their own use (and probably some for resale). The more attractive of these would presumably end up in the gene pool without being a discernible part of the property-owning social structure.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 24, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
I meant to say that people normally stick to their mother tongue and do not speak 2 languages simultaneously all the time, unless such is required. A real mix of two languages is excluded, as in that case the addressed person is likely to miss out on 50% of the conversation.
In essence, then, the majority of a population, especially a mainly rural population, is unlikely to be bilingual. This may hold for Western Europe, although my impression was that in Syria during Roman times the majority of the population were fluent in Aramaic and Greek. The history and commercial structure of the region probably explains this, and it may not be a good parallel for areas of Western Europe.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 24, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
I meant to say that people normally stick to their mother tongue and do not speak 2 languages simultaneously all the time, unless such is required. A real mix of two languages is excluded, as in that case the addressed person is likely to miss out on 50% of the conversation.
I have been surprised that a conversation between UK Asian residents often breaks this rule. Not only are there lots of loan words, but also loan phrases and even whole sentences in English. Some concepts (e.g. bus passes, primary school) are firmly fixed in one language, so you don't translate them, just co-opt the term for the concept. I can imagine this is how English and French blended post-Norman Conquest. But it doesn't seem to fit post- Saxon.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 24, 2014, 11:31:41 AM
Interesting, Roy: the numbers are presumably the dates (AD) of introduction.
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 24, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
I would guess they are first recorded use. Obviously, we are dependent on written records to see things coming into the language and the writing is done by the educated, who might be more likely to use exotic foreign terms. And, as Roy has said, an awful lot of these words are things related to the Church, who will have provided most of the people doing the writing down.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 24, 2014, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: Robert Heiligers on April 24, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
I meant to say that people normally stick to their mother tongue and do not speak 2 languages simultaneously all the time, unless such is required. A real mix of two languages is excluded, as in that case the addressed person is likely to miss out on 50% of the conversation.
I have been surprised that a conversation between UK Asian residents often breaks this rule. Not only are there lots of loan words, but also loan phrases and even whole sentences in English. Some concepts (e.g. bus passes, primary school) are firmly fixed in one language, so you don't translate them, just co-opt the term for the concept. I can imagine this is how English and French blended post-Norman Conquest. But it doesn't seem to fit post- Saxon.
When I was at Reading Uni we saw the same thing with Welsh students. Whilst they'd determinedly speak Welsh, you could normally follow the conversation because of the amount of loan words they had to use, especially in a course-work based conversation.
Mind you, a friend of my late mother was Welsh, her uncle had been one of the scholars who did one of the better Welsh bibles, translating not from English but from Latin and Greek. He was apparently pretty scathing about spoken or 'Kitchen' Welsh, and as for High Welsh he described it as a fine language for planning a cattle raid and singing about it afterwards :-)
Jim
The aroption of Arabic in North Africa might be a good model to look at. There a relatively small number of Arabs takes over a huge area that speaks either Latin ir Berberor is there some post punic language too. Anyway being an Arab and Moslem is hugely privileged as otherwise you pay the Jizya tax and suffer disabilities.
This policy was not pursued as a means of conversion because too many people converting actually embarassed the govt as it lost taxpayers. However long term it worked to cuhange the religion and language of the region.
Quote from: aligern on April 24, 2014, 04:16:39 PM
The aroption of Arabic in North Africa might be a good model to look at. There a relatively small number of Arabs takes over a huge area that speaks either Latin ir Berberor is there some post punic language too. Anyway being an Arab and Moslem is hugely privileged as otherwise you pay the Jizya tax and suffer disabilities.
This policy was not pursued as a means of conversion because too many people converting actually embarassed the govt as it lost taxpayers. However long term it worked to cuhange the religion and language of the region.
It's interesting that this is the only area where the Moslems seem to have entirely displaced Christians, something that never happened elsewhere to anything like the same extent. Some have suggested that it is because Arianism is closer to Islam
Jim
But they would be wrong as Arianism had no foothold in 7th Century Africa. It might be a better case that the Christians hung on for quite a while but gradually converted because the N African regimes, Marinids, Almohads, Almoravides were very strict and devout Muslims and often persecutors.
Roy
I'm genuinely not sure Roy, outside my field
But I wouldn't mind a look at Arianism and the Byzantine Army in Africa 533-546 WE Kaegi
Jim
I have it. It will tell us that Justinian's crackdown on heresy stimulated the army revolts in Africa that follwed the Belisarian conquest of 534. However, Arianism had no hold in Africa. Their Arian beliefs were what had disinguuished the Vandals who had launched persecutions against the Catholics. However, once the Vandals were crushed and the mercenary revolts were beaten Arianism disappeared from Africa.
There was a theory that heresies such as Donatism paved the way for Islam because it was so ascetic and uncompromising. However conversion to Islam happened rapidly in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Central Asia, where there was no Arianism.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on April 24, 2014, 07:36:15 PM
I have it. It will tell us that Justinian's crackdown on heresy stimulated the army revolts in Africa that follwed the Belisarian conquest of 534. However, Arianism had no hold in Africa. Their Arian beliefs were what had disinguuished the Vandals who had launched persecutions against the Catholics. However, once the Vandals were crushed and the mercenary revolts were beaten Arianism disappeared from Africa.
There was a theory that heresies such as Donatism paved the way for Islam because it was so ascetic and uncompromising. However conversion to Islam happened rapidly in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Central Asia, where there was no Arianism.
Roy
It's interesting that Christianity disappeared from North Africa so completely when compared to Egypt and Syria.
But I suspect I've drifted a little from the topic :-[
Jim
If I remember Kennedy correctly, urbanism had plummeted in North Africa with even major cities abandoned or inhabited by a tiny proportion of their original population. The urban population in Egypt and Syria had also declined but there were still major centres in which Christianity could maintain critical mass.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 24, 2014, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...
Agreed, although modern genetic studies suggest that this may not be the case, ie large portions of the Romano-British population may have in fact stayed where they were or at least the lower levels of society did
I had the impression this was the infamous study that in essence said: we can tell people's origin by the trace elements in their teeth, because this shows where they drank their water. These skeletons have teeth which shows that most of them drank most or all of their water in Britain. Therefore they were Britons. (Spot the gap in logic ...)
Or have there been some genuine genetic studies? It would be nice if these could be pinpointed.
There have been such studies done. I'll have to have a look around my bookcase as there have been several but to mind Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Orogins of the British" was one of the better ones
Couple of thoughts additional to the above.
It may be worth exploring the Parisi tribal region of roughly the modern East Riding of Yorkshire as a possible pre-Roman area of continental settlers in Britain for place-name/language evidence, which became/continued as the rough area of Deira (and/or Ebrauc) during the post-Roman period (from memory, there's little such surviving place-name evidence, though there has been a general impression the Parisi became the later Deirans, maybe in a somewhat modified form). It's difficult to be certain what may have happened, because this was probably also the area of the best, largest, stretch of agricultural land in Britain north of the Humber, so would tend to have promoted a strong regional culture regardless of other considerations, as a loose, relatively rich, "breadbasket for the north", as it were. However, the Parisi seemed to have maintained a distinctive material culture separate from their "native British" neighbours too, albeit the timescale isn't tightly-constrained, and may have been relatively short.
There's also the comment from Tacitus' Agricola 12, where he talks of the Britons being unable to cooperate against a common enemy because of their local tribal squabblings, something which was clearly apparent during Caesar's time too. If that returned in the post-Roman period, as seems highly likely, perhaps the only thing stopping a more coherent external warrior force (Saxons, etc.) was a lack of interest in going any further - i.e. once they'd taken the better land, there was no desire to go further.
Place-name evidence is of course ever a difficult subject, because it's so heavily dependent on what forces operate to allow one name to dominate over another during long periods of time. There's evidence to suggest oral traditions rarely survive entirely intact for more than a couple of hundred years or so, partly because of the "Chinese whisper" effect of mispronunciation and minor errors in transmission with time, partly because changing circumstances necessitate re-evaluation of what's being transmitted, whereas once things are first written down, that tends to fix things more permanently, especially where the documents are preserved by local administrators (i.e. people that aren't suddenly going to vanish "overnight", as perhaps the Roman administrators in Britain, or more accurately the driving force behind them, effectively did). Thus place-names may date no earlier than when they're first recorded in writing by whatever group decides those documents should be preserved.
you do wonder if the presence of so many dialects in Britain could be due in part to a wide ranging ethnicity prevelant from just prior to and immediately after the Roman period
I think dialects develop much later Holly. In England there is a major split between North and South in terms of the pronunciation of Oo and a as in tooth and castle . Southern English rural accents go right from Cornwall to Norfolk Northern accents are pretty similar in the band from Lancashire to Nottingham / Derby, perhaps it is a Danish influence? Liverpool is a late creation of Northern and Irish,
Birmingham is presumably an invention of the nineteenth century as is the city itself. accent must develop quite quickly , look at Australia and at the USA so I wouldn't think much goes back as far as pre Roman Britain?
Roy
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2014, 06:54:02 PM
you do wonder if the presence of so many dialects in Britain could be due in part to a wide ranging ethnicity prevelant from just prior to and immediately after the Roman period
Has anyone ever studied the variations in loan words in different dialects? I know, for example, that Cumbrian dialect has some Welsh words. One might expect more in Scots, for example, given the continuation of North Welsh political and cultural entities longer than in the English lowlands.
Going off at a slight tangent (which may have been mentioned before) some borrowed forms can preserve pronunciation for centuries. The German 'Kaiser' is much closer to the original Latin 'Caesar' (kae-sar) then the Italian 'Cesare' (che-sa-re). In England, the customary form of assent was 'Aye, aye' whereas in Scotland it was 'Och, aye' (in both cases the 'aye' has an inflection that makes it sound almost like 'oye'). This seems to derive from the original pronunciation of the word for 'yes' in the Langue d'Oie and the Langue d'Oc respectively - northern French (and Normans) said oye whereas southern French said oc.
When French contingents travelled to Scotland, as was occasionally the case under the Auld Alliance (Scotland and France), Scots would not have been able to tell northern and southern Frenchmen apart. Hence, when giving acknowledgement or assent, both forms were given: oc and aye.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 26, 2014, 07:57:41 PM
Going off at a slight tangent (which may have been mentioned before) some borrowed forms can preserve pronunciation for centuries. The German 'Kaiser' is much closer to the original Latin 'Caesar' (kae-sar) then the Italian 'Cesare' (che-sa-re). In England, the customary form of assent was 'Aye, aye' whereas in Scotland it was 'Och, aye' (in both cases the 'aye' has an inflection that makes it sound almost like 'oye'). This seems to derive from the original pronunciation of the word for 'yes' in the Langue d'Oie and the Langue d'Oc respectively - northern French (and Normans) said oye whereas southern French said oc.
When French contingents travelled to Scotland, as was occasionally the case under the Auld Alliance (Scotland and France), Scots would not have been able to tell northern and southern Frenchmen apart. Hence, when giving acknowledgement or assent, both forms were given: oc and aye.
That's fascinating Patrick and thanks for highlighting it.
Re Scotland, there are an awful lot of place names and words present from Old Welsh which has persisted as has happened in Cumbria and also if you look the English borderlands (and of course Cornwall and Devon)
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2014, 06:54:02 PM
you do wonder if the presence of so many dialects in Britain could be due in part to a wide ranging ethnicity prevelant from just prior to and immediately after the Roman period
Has anyone ever studied the variations in loan words in different dialects? I know, for example, that Cumbrian dialect has some Welsh words. One might expect more in Scots, for example, given the continuation of North Welsh political and cultural entities longer than in the English lowlands.
I remember when I went up to Shetland in the 1970s, the dialect contained words that were used in Cumbria, but the accents were often different.
Cumbrian contains a lot of Norse derived words, perhaps more Norse than Celtic
Jim
Quote from: aligern on April 26, 2014, 07:45:13 PM
I think dialects develop much later Holly. In England there is a major split between North and South in terms of the pronunciation of Oo and a as in tooth and castle . Southern English rural accents go right from Cornwall to Norfolk
Roy
It was fascinating being in Reading in 1975.
The commuters on the station spoke with one accent, the girls serving in the shops spoke with another, and the lads digging the road spoke a far more West Country dialect
Jim
And now everyone in Reading speaks sub-London.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 26, 2014, 08:52:13 PM
And now everyone in Reading speaks sub-London.
I went back to Reading for a meeting three or four years ago, having not been there since 1976.
Between the Station and the University there was a big chunk that was totally new to me.
Mind you I was walking back that evening to the hotel and the the children playing in the park were speaking Polish.
I suspect we'll pick up a few interesting words from that connection :)
Jim
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 26, 2014, 07:57:41 PM
When French contingents travelled to Scotland, as was occasionally the case under the Auld Alliance (Scotland and France), Scots would not have been able to tell northern and southern Frenchmen apart. Hence, when giving acknowledgement or assent, both forms were given: oc and aye.
I think 'och' is just an interjection, comparable to 'oh'. It can equally be used to show disapproval - "Och, Dr Cameron..."
A quick trawl of etymology sites puts 'aye' as being surprisingly late in usage though that may just be that it is only found written down at a late date (16th century).
I once lived and worked in Reading. The local social services said that the same families who were on the problem estates had been on their books since the 1890s. they were local agricultural labourers who had been forced off the land by mechanization. They had a country accent, but it would be wrong to call it a West Country accent. My wife's uncle, Surrey born and bred had a softer version of the same accent and there is a Hampshire version too. I presume it went right through to Kent and it is definitely spoke in Gloucestershire and Warwickshire
As to Duncan's Estuary English in Reading , very true, though I wonder if that is what is being spoken around Cemetery Junction:-))
Roy
To revert to the earlier discussion, I'm fairly sure that "dialect" or regional variation isn't just a modern thing. Anglo-Saxon writings can be assigned to different areas of the country based on the language in them and this is also true in later Medieval English. Almost certainly, the philological literature would generate family trees of variants. We can also say that dialect does contain clues about its linguistic origins - northern dialects have a nice line in Norse words for example. But does it give any insight as far back as the post-Roman period?
The dialect discussion is missing a key point, because dialect doesn't actually work on the kind of broad regional scales being described. For those living long term in an area, typically from childhood (albeit this is less common now than was once the case), it's often extremely easy to spot differences in dialect terms and accents (which are not necessarily the same things) from places sometimes only a few miles apart. The "broad brush" approach suggesting the existence of regional, or even county-wide, accents/dialects only works for people from outside said area, and unfamiliar with the local twangs and dialect words.
There's an interesting discussion of Geordie on the British Library's website, including sound files, that may be of interest here: http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/case-studies/geordie/ . As a Geordie (Newcastle-born), I can confirm how relatively easy it is for "true" Geordies to spot differences in native accents/dialect-terms from areas around Sunderland, the northern (rural) parts of County Durham, the various parts of south-eastern (urban) Northumberland, rural mid to western Northumberland and rural northern Northumberland, for example.There's also a difference in the Pitmatic spoken around Ashington in Northumberland and the Pitmatic from the north Durham coalfield towns, though that isn't mentioned on the BL site. I'd guess from past contact with folks brought up elsewhere in Britain, these would all be classed as "Geordie", however. This might relate back to the "many petty kingdoms" concept, but I'd doubt much has survived in the actual language which would tie up with the original topic query here.
It's also quite simple to follow how such small-scale differences could occur, seeing how most families develop, adapt or adopt words and phrases with especial significance to them, which then sometimes pass into the larger community of neighbours and/or friends, so in a less-travelled world, these could become part of the village/local area patois.
The BL site also has some useful pages on the change of language over time, including some notes on loanwords from various "external" cultures, starting here: http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/changlang/language.html . Searching for "loan words", specifying from which original language to English will bring up a lot more, while if you want to check out lists of loan-words in English, this Wikipedia page might be a good starting-place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_English_words_by_country_or_language_of_origin .
At a more general level, the discussions in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/english-language-and-linguistics-general-interest/cambridge-encyclopedia-english-language-2nd-edition) by David Crystal (2nd Edition, 2003, CUP) might be helpful for the earlier on-topic periods. I found a free scanned PDF copy of the first edition is available from various places online too, e.g. via this 2Shared page: http://www.2shared.com/document/z7sBqORd/The_Cambridge_Encyclopedia_of_.html .
There's also Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English (http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199574995.do) by Philip Durkin (OUP, January 2014). Parts of this are freely available online via Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PMZ7AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Anglo-Saxon+loanwords+in+northern+English&source=bl&ots=oreQYVeGrW&sig=jnBMbHWqV6f2SCwK6peye9xwcQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=repcU7acHKWT0AWB84HACw&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=Anglo-Saxon%20loanwords%20in%20northern%20English&f=false), of which I found the general discussion in Chapter 3 (pp. 53-64) gave a useful overview for the pre-Roman to Norman Conquest periods.
Thats a great link and very interesting Alastair.
One thing, and its probably me, but on occasion, some Northern accents (ie Cumbria/Northumberland) sound quite similar to some Welsh ones......?
Excellent stuff Alastair - the Durkin link was very good. So, our Celtic input seems to be very limited in terms of loan words but seems to change the way basic verbs are used (to be, to do) perhaps relating to people adopting a new language? A lot of Latin loans are technical to do with the Church but there are a lot of day to day words too. However, a lot of those ordinary words look like specialist things which the original language needed to borrow a word for e.g. mats, vessels, boxes, architectural terms. Don't know if that moves us on any?
If I remember correctly, one of the few words Welsh picked up from Latin was for armour, they took the Latin Lorica
Also the Welsh word for church apparently comes from Latin
It strikes me that a lot of words are borrowed along with the thing being borrowed
Jim
Yes, Llurig and Eglwys for armour and church.
Roy
there's quite a few words that Welsh picked up from Latin
pont
ffwrwm
ffenestra
etc etc
Something like 600 odd words could be described to have come from Latin directly
Talking of weapon words, the Welsh for arrow, saeth, is from the Latin sagitta.
Interesting that those reading families had been the same ones since mechanisation (or at least, one wave of it).
It contrasts the 3 generations theory of the time it takes a community to adapt to massive social change.
Quote from: Mark G on April 27, 2014, 07:13:23 PM
Interesting that those reading families had been the same ones since mechanisation (or at least, one wave of it).
It contrasts the 3 generations theory of the time it takes a community to adapt to massive social change.
It may be how they adapted to massive social change. Prior to mechanisation they may have been families who supplied casual/jobbing labour
Jim
Quote from: Holly on April 27, 2014, 03:43:20 PM
there's quite a few words that Welsh picked up from Latin
pont
ffwrwm
ffenestra
etc etc
Something like 600 odd words could be described to have come from Latin directly
And names - Emrhys/Ambrosius, Tegid/Tacitus, Owen/Eugenius. Always amused that the Welsh for danger - "perygl" - comes from Latin, suggesting they didn't know what danger was until the Romans arrived!
Quote from: Holly on April 27, 2014, 01:44:29 PM
One thing, and its probably me, but on occasion, some Northern accents (ie Cumbria/Northumberland) sound quite similar to some Welsh ones......?
I think you'd need to be a bit more specific here, Dave. North Northumberland has more of a southeastern Scottish accent than anything else to me, for instance, but it can be quite a mixture, and it may depend partly on what exactly you're listening for (speech patterns, or the general rhythm of the voice, for instance).
And most non-natives attempting a Welsh accent often come across as Indian/Pakistani, so what does that tell us ;D
ah, now there's another favourite thing of mine re names (ie transliterations from one language to another)
Maurice/Meurig
Theoderic/Tewdrig
Tribune/Tryphun
Quote from: Sharur on April 28, 2014, 03:25:26 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 27, 2014, 01:44:29 PM
One thing, and its probably me, but on occasion, some Northern accents (ie Cumbria/Northumberland) sound quite similar to some Welsh ones......?
I think you'd need to be a bit more specific here, Dave. North Northumberland has more of a southeastern Scottish accent than anything else to me, for instance, but it can be quite a mixture, and it may depend partly on what exactly you're listening for (speech patterns, or the general rhythm of the voice, for instance).
And most non-natives attempting a Welsh accent often come across as Indian/Pakistani, so what does that tell us ;D
um...quite ;)
true re specificity oop north but to my Welsh ears, the Geordie accent sounds mightily close to a valleys lilt
Quote from: Sharur on April 28, 2014, 03:25:26 PM
And most non-natives attempting a Welsh accent often come across as Indian/Pakistani, so what does that tell us ;D
Funnily enough, "Bombay Welsh" used to be an expression describing the effect of certain groups in the Indian subcontinent speaking English without having lost their native accent.
Not that this has anything to do with post-Roman Britain ...
Quote from: Swampster on April 27, 2014, 10:24:00 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 26, 2014, 07:57:41 PM
When French contingents travelled to Scotland, as was occasionally the case under the Auld Alliance (Scotland and France), Scots would not have been able to tell northern and southern Frenchmen apart. Hence, when giving acknowledgement or assent, both forms were given: oc and aye.
I think 'och' is just an interjection, comparable to 'oh'. It can equally be used to show disapproval - "Och, Dr Cameron..."
Interestingly enough, that is pretty much the use of 'ag' in Afrikaans (and Sah Theffricun Inglissh). It conveys surprise and irritation: "Ag mehn, thet's the nahnth tahm yoo've gotus lorst-ay."
I remember hearing that South African English is descended from 16/17th century southern English (a more specific dialect than that) so I suppose it probably isn't all that surprising that the interjection (and a very useful interjection) has widespread use. :)
Jim
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 28, 2014, 07:33:46 PM
Quote from: Swampster on April 27, 2014, 10:24:00 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 26, 2014, 07:57:41 PM
When French contingents travelled to Scotland, as was occasionally the case under the Auld Alliance (Scotland and France), Scots would not have been able to tell northern and southern Frenchmen apart. Hence, when giving acknowledgement or assent, both forms were given: oc and aye.
I think 'och' is just an interjection, comparable to 'oh'. It can equally be used to show disapproval - "Och, Dr Cameron..."
Interestingly enough, that is pretty much the use of 'ag' in Afrikaans (and Sah Theffricun Inglissh). It conveys surprise and irritation: "Ag mehn, thet's the nahnth tahm yoo've gotus lorst-ay."
;D that got me chuckling Justin. Love that accent
Surely we should look for South African English to be Dutch influenced? The majority of the white population is of Dutch/Huguenot descent.
It is interesting that Australian and New Zwealand accents are quite different from any UK accent. I wonder if the nasal sound of all three is to do with Coriolis effect?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on April 29, 2014, 10:11:53 AM
Surely we should look for South African English to be Dutch influenced? The majority of the white population is of Dutch/Huguenot descent.
It is interesting that Australian and New Zwealand accents are quite different from any UK accent. I wonder if the nasal sound of all three is to do with Coriolis effect?
Roy
I always imagined the Antipodean accents to be related to Cockney.....a reflection on the majority of original settlers?????
The same discussion that mentioned the SA accent also touched on Aus and NZ and apparently they were initially settled from different areas of England (perhaps depending upon where you committed the crime in the first place :-)
I do not pretend to be an expert on this, I'm just some guy who half heard a radio discussion 8)
Jim
I didn't think that New Zealand was used for the transportation of criminals?
Roy
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 28, 2014, 07:48:13 PM
I remember hearing that South African English is descended from 16/17th century southern English (a more specific dialect than that) so I suppose it probably isn't all that surprising that the interjection (and a very useful interjection) has widespread use. :)
Jim
Probably true, along with the Afrikaans element. It's interesting that heavily accented South African English is very distinct from an Afrikaner speaking heavily accented English. Both have not travelled quite the same path.
And don't forget the input of African languages. 'Boet/Boetie' - 'chum' or 'pal' in South African English comes from Afrikaans which itself got it from Zulu: 'Bhuti' - 'brother'.
And now I'll stop going off-topic. ::)
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 29, 2014, 12:08:19 PM
The same discussion that mentioned the SA accent also touched on Aus and NZ and apparently they were initially settled from different areas of England (perhaps depending upon where you committed the crime in the first place :-)
I do not pretend to be an expert on this, I'm just some guy who half heard a radio discussion 8)
Jim
me too......... ;D
Antipodean accents are merging now .
Well, at least in the cities. Farmers you can still tell apart easily, but city kids, not so easy.
The relative proportions of Celtic fringe settlements had an early effect too.
Quote from: aligern on April 29, 2014, 10:11:53 AM
Surely we should look for South African English to be Dutch influenced? The majority of the white population is of Dutch/Huguenot descent.
It is interesting that Australian and New Zwealand accents are quite different from any UK accent. I wonder if the nasal sound of all three is to do with Coriolis effect?
Roy
:)
I've heard it said - with no tongue in cheek - that an Aussie accent at least is influenced by trying to keep flies out of your mouth. And that Manc and Brummie/Black Country accents split from the surrounding ones through trying to keep the noxious industrial fumes out of your system.
Quote from: Holly on April 27, 2014, 01:44:29 PM
One thing, and its probably me, but on occasion, some Northern accents (ie Cumbria/Northumberland) sound quite similar to some Welsh ones......?
Possibly not surprising where Cumbria is concerned IIRC. Isn't the name of the county an echo of the Brittonnic
'Combrogi' ?
the Cumbrian and Northumbria/Durham accents differ fundamentally from Welsh accents in having the short a and oo sounds, Valleys in Welsh has a long a, in Northumberland it would have a short a.
It is easy to assume that the English spoken in Wales is accented by Welsh, but listening to Welsh it sounds little like the English Welsh people speak.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on April 29, 2014, 08:34:06 PM
the Cumbrian and Northumbria/Durham accents differ fundamentally from Welsh accents in having the short a and oo sounds, Valleys in Welsh has a long a, in Northumberland it would have a short a.
This would apply to pretty much the northern half of Britain, not just Northumberland! The first person I ever met from Wales was startled and horrified to discover this truism during a conversation that included the town name "Bath" ;D
Stepping back a couple of topic pages in this discussion, to where genetics and DNA analyses cropped up, I came across the Ancestral Journeys (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/) website, which may be of interest in this regard. The homepage starts with a sales pitch for the site author's (Jean Manco) Thames & Hudson book of the same name,
Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings, on the subject of what DNA analyses says on the people and their origins in conjunction with archaeological, historical and other data sources. Don't be put off, as Manco seems to know her stuff, and the site is excellent, with proper footnotes on each page and (mostly) working links - providing you're using a W3C standard browser, like Chrome, Firefox, IE8, etc., at least. And printing the webpage gets you a document with a proper list of footnotes, just like an academic paper, which is a nice touch, while these are hidden-embedded in the page when using it online.
The following link is the portal page for details on British Celtic tribes, for instance, which may be a little more useful given this topic than starting at the book-ad homepage: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celtictribes.shtml .
The book itself is pretty reasonably-priced too - 20 GBP for a 300+ page hardback (T&H to boot). There's an Amazon.com webpage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestral-Journeys-Peopling-Venturers-Vikings/dp/050005178X/ref==nosim?tag=ancestjourne-21) with some sample e-book pages available, in case anyone wants to try before buying.
Quote from: Sharur on April 30, 2014, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: aligern on April 29, 2014, 08:34:06 PM
the Cumbrian and Northumbria/Durham accents differ fundamentally from Welsh accents in having the short a and oo sounds, Valleys in Welsh has a long a, in Northumberland it would have a short a.
This would apply to pretty much the northern half of Britain, not just Northumberland! The first person I ever met from Wales was startled and horrified to discover this truism during a conversation that included the town name "Bath" ;D
Stepping back a couple of topic pages in this discussion, to where genetics and DNA analyses cropped up, I came across the Ancestral Journeys (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/) website, which may be of interest in this regard. The homepage starts with a sales pitch for the site author's (Jean Manco) Thames & Hudson book of the same name, Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings, on the subject of what DNA analyses says on the people and their origins in conjunction with archaeological, historical and other data sources. Don't be put off, as Manco seems to know his stuff, and the site is excellent, with proper footnotes on each page and (mostly) working links - providing you're using a W3C standard browser, like Chrome, Firefox, IE8, etc., at least. And printing the webpage gets you a document with a proper list of footnotes, just like an academic paper, which is a nice touch, while these are hidden-embedded in the page when using it online.
The following link is the portal page for details on British Celtic tribes, for instance, which may be a little more useful given this topic than starting at the book-ad homepage: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celtictribes.shtml .
The book itself is pretty reasonably-priced too - 20 GBP for a 300+ page hardback (T&H to boot). There's an Amazon.com webpage (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestral-Journeys-Peopling-Venturers-Vikings/dp/050005178X/ref==nosim?tag=ancestjourne-21) with some sample e-book pages available, in case anyone wants to try before buying.
Thanks Alastair this is really useful and the website is a cracking mine of information so thanks again :)
Just got my copy of Ancestral Journeys today, and wanted to correct my original note about the book and website author, as it turns out Jean Manco is actually "she", not "he" as I'd thought - posting amended above as a result.
As for the book, well if the website impressed you, you'll need a copy of the book too, as simply from my initial skimming of it, there's a wealth of new information and discussion in it, coupling up evidence from archaeology, history, linguistics and DNA analyses especially. Although centred on Europe, including the British Isles, because it deals with where the peoples from the continent came from (going back to c. 46,000 BC), geographically it covers from Europe and North Africa eastwards to India and similar northern hemisphere longitudes, plus points adjacent but still further afield. And it includes a host of new maps showing the masses of DNA evidence in simplified, comprehensible, form, which apparently mirror things like language distributions and other cultural elements.
Of course, DNA analytical work in conjunction with these existing disciplines is still in its infancy, but the book and website show how far and how fast the evidence from DNA has leapt forwards in just a few years. While I'm sure more developments will follow, this work is unquestionably the best, most comprehensive and comprehensible I've come across to date combining all these key elements.
Thanks Alastair.....another book to go on the wanted list ::)
I've got a couple of European and UK genetic study books but they primarily deal with, well, genetics and distribution of alleles with population shifts but not with any great understanding of associated language markers.
I'll put this to the top of the wanted pile I think