02-08-2007, 05:58 AM
Hi Aryamen,
Well, it's very easy to dismiss the idea of an extremely hostile conquest
by Anglo-Saxons by saying that the genetic (or archaeological, or
written or linguistic) evidence does not support genocide. But then,
(leaving aside what Coates may say) neither does the evidence support
the post WWII revisionist movement in British & American Archaeology
to try to make the Anglo-Saxons out to be just misunderstood 'Moma's
Boys', while absolutely demonising the late-Roman Empire in all its
forms in Western Europe (as it is de rigeur in those countries now to
regard any Empire as being inherently evil, and to claim that
whatever replaces them - however distasteful it may be - simply must
be an improvement). :?
By contrast, however, Archaeologists in mainland Europe have no such
delusions about the modern 'rose tinted' retrospective view of invasions
and conquests in the migration-period. This is because, on mainland
Europe (unlike in the UK or US) they have far more recent experience
of invasion, conquest, enslavement, genocide etc - in many cases, still
within living memory.
You make a point of supporting Robert when he claims that there was
probably a larger representation of Brittonic words in Old English than
the THREE words which still exist, today. Okay, well I'd like to
throw that comment back to you (as I've done to Robert) and say that
what's 'sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander'. :lol: How do you
or Robert know that that must be the case for Brittonic in English, but
at the same time, you don't consider the same situation to pertain with
the adoption of Gallic into Latin, or Gallic into Frankish (French)? 8)
Why, I can make the same claim as you, and say that if twice as many
Brittonic words were originally adopted into English, then so could twice
as many Gallic words have been originally adopted into Latin. :lol:
And then, after all this equally futile conjecture, we are left back at
square-one, again, because it is the RELATIVE adoption of the
native vocabulary by Anglo-Saxons verses Romans or Franks which
is the paradigm under examination, here. And when all is said and done,
you and Robert can theorise about hypothetical 'lost' British words in
Old English, but you have no evidence for it at all. No more than I would
have for making the same claims for Gallic. So isn't it more sensible
simply to pay due respect to the actual evidence we have about the
relative adoption of native language by the various conquerors, and
not indulge in the kind of fruitless speculation which doesn't improve
the 'Touch-Feely Anglo-Saxon' hypothesis at all, but only exasperates
those of us who cannot get certain people to accept the evidence. 8)
Lastly, you suggest that the conquered Britons had good reason to
forget Brittonic and 'become Anglo-Saxons (and how does one do
that, I wonder...). Yet you forget that the native Britons in the 5th & 6th
centuries remained staunchly Brittonic speakers in the British West -
that is, in Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall & Strathclyde - and have sought
to do so even down to very recent times. Welsh is still a living language,
and Cornish was also, until recent centuries. And Breton (in Brittany)
survived where British refugees escaped abroad.
And even if a Briton could 'become an Anglo-Saxon', that may only be
out of duress. The difference, to me, is that while Gaul became
integrated into the Roman Empire, with Gallo-Romans, Bretons and
Britons joining forces in the 5th c. under leaders like Riothamus, to try
to defeat the invasions of barbarians in Gaul like Saxons & Visigoths,
the Welsh and English remained at war throughout the hegemony of
Anglo-Saxons in England, until 1066.
Ambrosius / Mike
Quote:ambrosius:2ckj0vzs Wrote: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). Mike
To me, it is clear that genetic evidence doesn´t support any idea of genocide, so other explanations should be looked after. I used "social prestige" because it is a notion well established in sociology. It derives from enjoying status and superior position in hierarchical organizations, so Briton language, linked to no social prestige, made little impact (as Robert says probably larger than the surviving examples in modern Engilsh though) on early English. You say you are against the idea of peaceful assimilation because all that proves (and here I agree with you) Britons were not held in high esteem by Anglo-Saxons, but that doesn´t mean war to death, it means simply that conquered Britons had good reasons to forget Britonic and become Anglo-Saxons.
Well, it's very easy to dismiss the idea of an extremely hostile conquest
by Anglo-Saxons by saying that the genetic (or archaeological, or
written or linguistic) evidence does not support genocide. But then,
(leaving aside what Coates may say) neither does the evidence support
the post WWII revisionist movement in British & American Archaeology
to try to make the Anglo-Saxons out to be just misunderstood 'Moma's
Boys', while absolutely demonising the late-Roman Empire in all its
forms in Western Europe (as it is de rigeur in those countries now to
regard any Empire as being inherently evil, and to claim that
whatever replaces them - however distasteful it may be - simply must
be an improvement). :?
By contrast, however, Archaeologists in mainland Europe have no such
delusions about the modern 'rose tinted' retrospective view of invasions
and conquests in the migration-period. This is because, on mainland
Europe (unlike in the UK or US) they have far more recent experience
of invasion, conquest, enslavement, genocide etc - in many cases, still
within living memory.
You make a point of supporting Robert when he claims that there was
probably a larger representation of Brittonic words in Old English than
the THREE words which still exist, today. Okay, well I'd like to
throw that comment back to you (as I've done to Robert) and say that
what's 'sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander'. :lol: How do you
or Robert know that that must be the case for Brittonic in English, but
at the same time, you don't consider the same situation to pertain with
the adoption of Gallic into Latin, or Gallic into Frankish (French)? 8)
Why, I can make the same claim as you, and say that if twice as many
Brittonic words were originally adopted into English, then so could twice
as many Gallic words have been originally adopted into Latin. :lol:
And then, after all this equally futile conjecture, we are left back at
square-one, again, because it is the RELATIVE adoption of the
native vocabulary by Anglo-Saxons verses Romans or Franks which
is the paradigm under examination, here. And when all is said and done,
you and Robert can theorise about hypothetical 'lost' British words in
Old English, but you have no evidence for it at all. No more than I would
have for making the same claims for Gallic. So isn't it more sensible
simply to pay due respect to the actual evidence we have about the
relative adoption of native language by the various conquerors, and
not indulge in the kind of fruitless speculation which doesn't improve
the 'Touch-Feely Anglo-Saxon' hypothesis at all, but only exasperates
those of us who cannot get certain people to accept the evidence. 8)
Lastly, you suggest that the conquered Britons had good reason to
forget Brittonic and 'become Anglo-Saxons (and how does one do
that, I wonder...). Yet you forget that the native Britons in the 5th & 6th
centuries remained staunchly Brittonic speakers in the British West -
that is, in Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall & Strathclyde - and have sought
to do so even down to very recent times. Welsh is still a living language,
and Cornish was also, until recent centuries. And Breton (in Brittany)
survived where British refugees escaped abroad.
And even if a Briton could 'become an Anglo-Saxon', that may only be
out of duress. The difference, to me, is that while Gaul became
integrated into the Roman Empire, with Gallo-Romans, Bretons and
Britons joining forces in the 5th c. under leaders like Riothamus, to try
to defeat the invasions of barbarians in Gaul like Saxons & Visigoths,
the Welsh and English remained at war throughout the hegemony of
Anglo-Saxons in England, until 1066.
Ambrosius / Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
