02-26-2010, 10:08 AM
Harry, thank you for your bibliography. I do have Britons in Anglo-Saxon England and actually the entire section of "Linguistic Perspectives" is a nice read, perhaps especially Peter Schrijver's "What Britons Spoke around 400 AD" arguing for a Lowland British Celtic and a Highland British Celtic, the former more influenced by Latin (and its speakers were mostly Latin-Celtic bilinguals) and having stronger connections with the contemporary Celtic dialects from northern Gaul.
IMHO a serious linguistic debate must have a technical side.
My example above, however, was also to prove that even a etymology looks solid, it still may be not. Careless etymologies and speculative analogies have a lot of pitfalls. Coincidences are persuasive, but at the same time so unreliable (à propos of briga/burg). Just imagine a 41st century linguist asserting the word 'tomahawk' is of Germanic origin
Quote:It wasn't my intention to over simplify the subject, it's just that posts should be made understandable for all readers.
IMHO a serious linguistic debate must have a technical side.
My example above, however, was also to prove that even a etymology looks solid, it still may be not. Careless etymologies and speculative analogies have a lot of pitfalls. Coincidences are persuasive, but at the same time so unreliable (à propos of briga/burg). Just imagine a 41st century linguist asserting the word 'tomahawk' is of Germanic origin
Drago?
