The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[ambrosius]

[When you see less hostility from Romans to all these Celts [than from Anglo-Saxons to Britons] then why not even 200 Celtic words in Latin. What percentage are we even speaking of? A very low one. That it's more that tenfold the amount of British words that made it to English is ceratinly true - but it's still a very very low number IF you say that the reason for the latter is something as drastic as population replacement and near-invisiblity of the conquered language.

No, that's not what I say. What Coates and I say is that when language
exchange does not occur, that is usulally because there is no
'projeceted gain' (as Coates words it) or gain of prestige (as Aryaman
words it) for the Anglo-Saxons. In other words, one very likely scenario
is that Anglo-Saxons looked-down on Britons as inferior, both culturally
and racially. There may indeed have been a slaughter of Britons or
mass exiling to the West or to Brittany. But, again, as in the case of the
lack of adoption of British words into English, what is the real reason for that. Slaughter and exile may explain why there were no
Britons around for the Anglo-Saxons to learn British words from, but
why aren't there any around in the first place? If Anglo-Saxons
weren't hostile to the Britons, then why slaughter or exile them? And
so the lack of British words in English becomes merely a symptom
of the hostility of Anglo-Saxons towards Britons.

And THEN the comparison fails, for the Romans did not replace the Celts from all thes e areas.

No it doesn't fail. :lol: Both slaughter of Britons by Anglo-Saxons and
failure of them to adopt British words into English are symptoms
of hostility towards Britons by Anglo-Saxons. Do you see? 8) What you
say, above, merely replaces one paradigm for understanding the hostility
from anglo-Saxons towards Britons with another. It doesn't matter
whether you choose to say that Anglo-Saxons slaughtered Britons or
refused to speak Brittonic. Either way, they were hostile to Britons. :wink:

So, there must be something else going on that caused so few word of Celtic entering Latin, and even fewer words of British to enter English.

Yes, Robert. It's called conquest and assimilation. And however hostile
Romans were towards Gauls, it seems that this attitude was magnified
when it comes to how Anglo-Saxons regarded Britons.

Hmmm. I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom, here. But Coates
seems to be making the point that the Anglo-Saxons even went to the
trouble to adopt an Irish word for something that no longer even existed in mainland Britain - a druid' - rather than adopt any Brittonic words, which were closer to home, and described still extant objects. Coates is making the same point as yourself, you just don't realise it.

No, I don't think so, but that's my interpretation. I don't see Coates making the point of the Anglo-Saxons avoiding existing British vocabulary, I think he just used the wrong example here.

Well whatever example he uses, he is making the point which I
mantioned above. Perhaps if you were to re-read the article, it might
become clearer what he is saying. 8)

Although I wonder where the Anglo-Saxons came into contact with Irish people speaking about druids, I thought Ireland was already well-baptised when the English came into full contact with them.

Yes, it was (baptised by Romanised British Christians, by the way,
like St. Patrick - whose name was actually Patricius, by the way. But
we still use the word 'druid', today, even though there are precious few
druids around. And even those who choose to call themselves 'druids'
in a New-Age-sort-of-way, don't know what druidism was all about.
Few even realise that Stonehenge wasn't built by druids (and in all
probability, was never used by them, either).

But to say that Anglo-Saxons' vocabulary sufficed is to introduce an element of special-pleading on their behalf, surely.

You mean by me? NOt my words, it's Coates who brought that up.

I'm afraid the same goes for both Romans and Anglo-Saxons equally
on that score, Robert, since neither would have found anything that
unusual in the environment anywhere in Western Europe - unlike
Europeans going to Australia or Africa. So we're back to square one,
again, I'm afraid. Given that the situation is equal for both Romans and
Anglo-Saxons in this regard - why do Anglo-Saxons so conspicuously
choose not to speak any British.

As an invading Anglo-Saxon, your vocabulary may suffice for everday
things, but it would still be polite to adopt at least some native words for
things, just to show you aren't completely anti-British. 8)

Like what? Bag-pipes?

Actually, according to David Marshall, bagpipes were likely a Roman
import to Britain, and the Scots probably first heard them being played
by Roman troops on Hadrian's Wall. 8)

Coates argues that Anglo-Saxons saw nothing much new in Britain, so they did not need new words. Sorry Mike, you can't stick that on me - blame Coates! :lol:

Coates argues that the Romans wouldn't have seen anything new in
Gaul, either. I'm afraid that this argument reduces to zero, on this
point, Robert - see above. Yet Romans still adopted ten times
as many words from Gauls, didn't they. :lol:

Ambrosius / Mike