08-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Hi Vortigern,
Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.
Isn't this where the word 'Walloon' comes from?
BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' - althoughyou yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
Also, I do not place much faith in genetic studies of modern populations -- particularly as it is such a developing science and it's interpretation is based on statistical methods that I can't follow.
He
concludes that it must have been the unique quality of the English language that was responsible for absorbing the masses of Brythonic, Danish and Norman speakers..
Did Charles-Edwards say that English is easier than other languages to learn? I am a little suspicious of his conclusions if he did -- did he point out that the Danes actually helped to bring about grammatical change to the language? Unlike the Normans - who just added to the vocabulary. As for the 'asorbtions' -- these are assumptions!
Cheers,
Paul
Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.
Isn't this where the word 'Walloon' comes from?
BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' - althoughyou yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
Also, I do not place much faith in genetic studies of modern populations -- particularly as it is such a developing science and it's interpretation is based on statistical methods that I can't follow.
He
concludes that it must have been the unique quality of the English language that was responsible for absorbing the masses of Brythonic, Danish and Norman speakers..
Did Charles-Edwards say that English is easier than other languages to learn? I am a little suspicious of his conclusions if he did -- did he point out that the Danes actually helped to bring about grammatical change to the language? Unlike the Normans - who just added to the vocabulary. As for the 'asorbtions' -- these are assumptions!
Cheers,
Paul
Paul Mortimer
