Languages in Roman and Post Roman Britain

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Robert Heiligers]

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.

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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. 

[Erpingham]

Interesting, Roy: the numbers are presumably the dates (AD) of introduction.

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Swampster]

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.