The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[ambrosius]

Perhaps initially, yes. Certainly moreso under Caesar than Augustus.
But by the time of Claudius, you see him wanting to introduce Gallic
senators, to widen the enfranchisement of the Empire. You can hardly
claim to see the same kind of evidence of enfranchisement being
extended from Anglo-Saxon kings towards native Britons, certainly
not within a century of the initial conquest, c. 450. :lol:
...
Well, ten times as much lexical copying took place as in Britain.
Give it up, Robert. No matter what spin you put on the figures,
40 is still at least ten times more than 3. 8) And it is surely important
what words are being adopted. If they are more commonly
used words, or of more prestige, then they carry more weight.

Hardly the things I am adressing Mike.

Well, here we see one of the limitations of language. I can only answer
the questions you ask me. I'm not telepathic. :wink:

Of course the Romans treated the Celts different than the English did, but that may also provide an answer.

Nice to see you acknoweldge this.

For one, the Romans had been in touch with Celtic people for centuries even before Caesar conquered Gaul. And during those centuries and the centuries that followed, 'just' a few hundred (let's be generous) words enetred Latin. One would expect a much higher number, even when we totally disregard any comparison with the British situation.

Well Romans had been in touch with Germanic peoples for centuries
as well, except that Celtic society was, originally, more organised and
prestigious than Germanic society; until that position became reversed
in the centuries AD. And why do you not express equal surprise that
'just' three Brittonic words enter english after 600 years of the
Anglo-Saxon 'occupation' of England - always presuming that you are
right, and there were many Britons speaking Brittonic, still alive in the
East of England, and in contact with Anglo-Saxons?

Why so few? Maybe Coates' answer, that the Romans did not need 'new' words, applies here?

Yet they still did adopt both Gallic and Brittonic words, didn't they, in
spite of not needing them. That's only polite, when you are living in
close proximity with another people for centuries. Yet your Anglo-
Saxons evidently saw no need for such social niceties. Really, Robert,
you seem unwilling to discuss Romans and Anglo-Saxons on a level
playing-field; always avoiding the fact that there was ten-times as
much linguistic borrowing by Romans than by Anglo-Saxons. What you
don't seem to realise is that - if you would just once acknowledge this
fact - there would be no need for me to keep repeating it to you. :lol:

I just don't know. I hope the linguists find an answer to that, because it will certainly be an aid to (in part) tell why hardly any British words entered English.

I thought we'd already answered that question, many times... 8)

Ambrosius / Mike