01-24-2007, 05:34 AM
Hi Aryaman,
Sure, I agree with you. And Coates also outlines that argument, himself
(even if he doesn't make a point of suggesting that as another
possible explanation). But ultimately, of course (as I mention to Robert)
it doesn't really matter whether we're using 'emigration, annihilation or
enslavement' or 'lack of prestige' to explain the lack of linguistic
borrowing from Brittonic to English. Either way, it is equally clear that
Britons were not exactly held in the highest esteem by Anglo-Saxons.
This, then, mitigates against the idea of a peaceful assimilation between the two cultural groups (which idea is one of my pet hates).
Ambrosius / Mike
Quote:Mike
As I posted, Coates claims that Britons were not visible because of "emmigration, annhilation or enslavement" page 18, and I disagree with that explanation, I think social and cultural considerations could explain it without resorting to genocide or ethinic cleansing explanations.
Sure, I agree with you. And Coates also outlines that argument, himself
(even if he doesn't make a point of suggesting that as another
possible explanation). But ultimately, of course (as I mention to Robert)
it doesn't really matter whether we're using 'emigration, annihilation or
enslavement' or 'lack of prestige' to explain the lack of linguistic
borrowing from Brittonic to English. Either way, it is equally clear that
Britons were not exactly held in the highest esteem by Anglo-Saxons.
This, then, mitigates against the idea of a peaceful assimilation between the two cultural groups (which idea is one of my pet hates).
Ambrosius / Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
