| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Greek Fisherman | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 23 2010, 05:50 PM (767 Views) | |
| Rhadamanthus | Jun 24 2010, 07:04 PM Post #26 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
Sed, what do you mean by English? Old English is generally used as a synonym for Anglo-Saxon, which forms the base of English's Germanic vocabulary (though of course we got a lot of Latinate aspects from Medieval Latin and Norman French). "English" as a word is derived from "Angles". |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 24 2010, 07:36 PM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
Son of a Bitch, people. Where the hell do you guys have the time to learn this? Or is it just my age? |
|
|
| Telosan | Jun 24 2010, 08:56 PM Post #28 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
Not your age, just you. ^^ I knew this. I actually learned it as a result of playing Medieval 2 for the first time when it first came out. I read up on the factions I played. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Jun 24 2010, 09:15 PM Post #29 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
To be fair, at least one of the participants in the above discussion majored in history in college. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Jun 24 2010, 10:01 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
I don't see your point. Large numbers of people in what are now England and Scotland spoke Old English from the 5th through the 12th centuries. It's not like Beowulf was planted as a cunning ploy by the Germanic peoples of Europe so that historians would later be convinced their language was more important than the languages that existed in those geographic areas before. Furthermore, if you can't call Old English "English" then what exactly are we speaking now. The influence of the ancient languages of the British Isles on English is and has always been minute. English is far more German, Latin, and/or French than it will ever be Celtic/Brythonic. I don't see much difference in its "authenticity" as an English language though. After all, Celtic is derived from a language group founded in mainland Europe, just as Proto-Germanic is. Proto-Norse evolved from Proto-Germanic, so same deal. All those languages were derived from Proto-Indo-European. If you look back far enough you can't help but find we're all from the same place. If you go back far enough you also can't help that find that we've all been bastardizing the same language for countless thousands of years. (Except for Arabic, Turkic, and Chinese. Some crackpot probably just made those up at some point in the unrecorded past. :P ) The Anglo-Saxons bastardized it better and so their language got accepted. I would imagine there was some burning and stabbing involved. Regardless, unless you want to rename the language that we are currently speaking something entirely different, there isn't much else you can call Old English. Also, disputing the names of languages is quite foolish. Usually they've been achieved by working backwards. We speak (Modern) English. The discernible iteration before ours thus gets dubbed Early Modern English, which is preceded by Middle English, which is preceded by Old English, which is preceded by Proto-English, which is whatever the Anglo-Saxons spoke before they arrived in England and their language actually evolved properly. If our language was called "Purple" you would expect to see Early Modern Purple, Middle Purple, Old Purple, and Proto-Purple. In more complex cases, you might even see East Old Purple and West Old Purple, or some such. That's about it though. Also, as far as I can tell Old English evolved from the tribal languages of the Anglo-Saxon invaders after they arrived in the British Isles. I guess that's a roundabout way of expressing the following query: lolwut? Is there an argument here? Edited by Al Araam, Jun 24 2010, 10:05 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Jun 25 2010, 12:20 AM Post #31 |
|
Field Marshal
|
You did miss my point. Brythonic peoples lived in Britain, who were conquered by Romans, who were conquered by Anglo-Saxons. Whatever the Anglo-Saxons were speaking before the Normans invaded is what modern linguists call Old English. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't think of Anglo-Saxons as English. They were Germans, plain and simple. |
![]() |
|
| Menhad | Jun 25 2010, 02:25 AM Post #32 |
|
ET2(IDW)
|
To Hesperia: Not a cheap shot at all.... In fact that is a GREAT point. To NH: I understand back 200, 100, hell even 50 years ago if African-American couldn't speak proper English, just as I understand that rural people can't speak proper English. But in this day and age, they have the opportunity, and it's not racist if someone points out they don't take it. Now if anyone said that African-Americans can't learn proper English, that would be racist. To Abnar: Nothing is wrong with "linguistic elitism". But I think a better term instead of "linguistic elitism" would have been "Grammar Nazi", at least in this case Al. Sharpton is an idiot, who makes his living inciting racial hatred. I can't wait for the day that these "race hustlers" no longer exist. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 25 2010, 02:55 AM Post #33 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Well, the Migrations Age Anglo-Saxons are generally referred to as Anglo-Saxons and not English/Englishmen so your concern about what the people should be called is a non-issue. I honestly cannot think of Venerable Bede, Alfred the Great, Harold Godwinson, etc. as "Germans" plain or simple or not. The Anglo-Saxons called their own language "Englisc" so we might as well call it "Old English." Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 25 2010, 02:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jun 25 2010, 08:30 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
T.O. Wrong. I can all but guarentee you that Al Sharpton, et al, write perfectly well. There is very little connection between speaking and writing. With over 1700 languages in the world trying to use about 7 alphabets, you can damn well bet there is a big difference. Speaking comes naturally to human beings, it does not have to be "taught" formally, it is just absorbed, and Al Sharpton learned his way of speaking from his family, who learned it from their families, who learned it from their families, etc. Writing does not come naturally to man. It is very difficult, requires formal education, learning rules, adapting to a symbol system, and having a reason for writing at all. Native American societies NEVER developed writing systems because they never developed commerce that required keeping track of things. Al Sharpton is a product of his environment, to be sure, just as we all are. He can no more change his spoken syntax than you can, y'all. |
![]() |
|
| Filo | Jun 25 2010, 10:40 AM Post #35 |
|
General
|
Molto belo!!! Great find Telo. A Taoist approach to life!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ancient italian is very difficult to learn and read, but just in XVI century become more simple and like modern one.(it is still hard) Edited by Filo, Jun 25 2010, 10:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Jun 25 2010, 05:20 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
TC's point is valid. My point however, is that the Brythonic peoples were just one in an extensive series of peoples who migrated to the British Isles over the course of time. I'd be willing to bet that any person who considers their family to be English could reasonably expect to be connected to both Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon lineages. I'd also be willing to be that this is the way it has been for millennia. "English" is the language spoken by English people. Calling Old English anything else wouldn't make much sense because it's part of the unbroken line of languages that connects Modern English to Proto-Indo-European. Maybe I am missing your point. At what point did English become English? We've established that it was spoken by the people of the British Isles since about the 5th century AD and that, by most reckonings, any Brythonic linguistic contributions are unimportant at best. Can one actually establish a point where English broke with the Anglo-Saxon language it was based upon? If not, isn't the point moot? |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Jun 26 2010, 01:14 AM Post #37 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Brythonic Celts and Anglo-Saxons are simply not English. The land they lived in was not England. It was their land. Their home. And it was invaded, becoming Roman homes, then Saxon homes, then Norman homes, and somewhere after that they started calling themselves English. It is at that point that the country was truly England, and the language they spoke was truly English. I have Welsh blood and Cornish blood. It is absolutely not English, for they were people conquered and oppressed by the English, even into recent centuries. And though I have Norman blood as well, I do not mark it as English, for most the Normans of Ireland naturalized. It would be more accurate to say my Norman blood is Irish than English. Were I of pure blood of any of these peoples, I would be absolutely insulted if I were called English. A true Englishman is not measured by his blood, but rather by his identity as an Englishman and perhaps his loyalty to the crown. I suppose there is not much more to say on this matter. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 26 2010, 02:03 AM Post #38 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Regardless of some of these Brythonic holdouts, most European countries and churches recognized the southern part of Britain by the name of "England" or "Anglia" long before the Normans ever came. When William of Normandy fought against Harold Godwinson it was widely understood they were contesting for the English crown from Wessex to East Anglia to Northumbria.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 26 2010, 02:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Menhad | Jun 26 2010, 02:06 AM Post #39 |
|
ET2(IDW)
|
English is very much based on German, at least the individual words are. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jun 26 2010, 04:07 AM Post #40 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Gaius Baltar, Hugh Laurie, David Tennant and all emigrants who've ever made an effort to fit in (to avoid racial hatred) might disagree with you there. |
![]() |
|
| Filo | Jun 26 2010, 04:37 AM Post #41 |
|
General
|
English is a german language, more you go in the past, more the two language become similar. I have herd, during my studies, that Anglo-Saxon people were able to undestand withoud difficulty a Saxon living on the continent. because the anglians provvision(?) to old english was little. Italian language start very early, in X-XI century there are some papers that are no more latin and are similar to speaking common vulgar language of the people. « Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti. » (Capua, marzo 960) « Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe monstrai, Pergoaldi foro, que ki contene, et trenta anni le possette. » (Sessa, marzo 963) « Kella terra, per kelle fini que bobe mostrai, sancte Marie è, et trenta anni la posset parte sancte Marie. » (Teano, ottobre 963) « Sao cco kelle terre, per kelle fini que tebe mostrai, trenta anni le possette parte sancte Marie. » (Teano, ottobre 963) There are a placit, a interrogation from a ducal envoy to investigate about land dispute between two monasteries, San Benedict and Saint Maria. Obviusly the first true italian language was created by Dante(but only because he become very prestigiouse and not because some kind of real merit, any vulgar was good at that time) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jun 26 2010, 04:44 AM Post #42 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
English may have been a Germanic language. Then Shakespeare accidentally the whole thing. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jun 26 2010, 08:51 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
This but as I have pointed out before, the German part of English was for the peasant, the French part for the rich, thus: Pork = swine Beef = cow Padre = father (interesting indo-european shifts went on with this word - it's a fun linguistic look-up) Intellegent = smart Once the printing press became real, the language was codified in stone (well, print, actually) and the language has pretty much stagnated for the last 500 years. Nag: Hugh Laurie has an English accent, but can do a killer American accent on T.V. What's your point. Yes, of course black people that want to "fit in" in white circles (Uncle Tom's, I believe they are called) can pick up white syntax, but when back with their family and friends, they drop the pretentiousness. Al Sharpton has an interest fitting in with black people, so he doesn't make the effort. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Jun 26 2010, 01:27 PM Post #44 |
|
Field Marshal
|
If they were calling it Anglia and not England, that was obviously a recognition of the Anglo-Saxon government in place, not of this England you speak of. It was the crown of that government, the Anglo-Saxon government, that was contested. If Filo is correct, that the Anglo-Saxon people of Britannia could understand mainland Saxons well, then they were about as German as German can get. The Saxons were a great power on the mainland. They were the dominant German power. Charlemagne warred with them for thirty years before peace finally came in the unification of the Frankish and Saxon peoples. The eventual split of the Carolingian Empire led to the formation of France, Lombardy, and Germany. Germany eventually became successor as Holy Roman Empire, and it is well known that an Anglo-Saxon princess married an Emperor in the 11th century before the invasion of 1066. She was truly the German empress, and yet the English see fit to claim her as their princess. Hardly, I say, as their nation is not the Anglo-Saxon nation, the German nation, of old. I do not think anyone here would say that Greeks are Turks, or that Turks are Romans, to use an extreme example. |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Jun 26 2010, 01:36 PM Post #45 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
"Anglia" is the Latinate from; England is a native version. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Jun 26 2010, 01:44 PM Post #46 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
England was Germanic; it was not German. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Jun 26 2010, 02:38 PM Post #47 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Furthermore, the concept of a nation-state did not exist in time period in question. I would imagine that it was common for what we think of as nations to be referred to by the name of their government. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 26 2010, 04:47 PM Post #48 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Greeks and Turks have nothing to do with this. Your logic is incorrect. Your logic goes: Anglo-Saxons could communicate with mainland Saxons. Mainland Saxons were Germans. Therefore Anglo-Saxons were Germans. By your line of reasoning, Americans can communicate with Englishmen. Englishmen are British. Therefore Americans are British. As it turns out, Americans are not British, even though your logic predicts that Americans are British. Therefore your logic is defective. Even if Filo is correct, any mutual intelligibility between Anglo-Saxons and mainland Saxons would not make the Anglo-Saxons "German," any more than our American comprehension of English makes us "British." Anglo-Saxons were quite divergent from the marsh Saxons that Charlemagne fought against. Read Venerable Bede's passages about his homeland. It is quite clear he has nothing to do with Germany and he is of a spirit born and raised in the British Isles from Celtic times to Julius Caesar to the Anglo-Saxons. Bede lived as early as the 7th century and yet as an Anglo-Saxon he is distinctly of an Old English culture distinguishable from German and mainland European cultures. It is true that Beowulf is quite close to the primordial Germanic culture. However, after the Anglo-Saxons got comfortably settled in, the scope of their culture was very much Britain-centric and England-centric, and it was the island, not "Wotanic Germania", which formed the basis of their worldview and their cultural concerns. Nonetheless Beowulf serves as a good referential starting point for the English universe as a collective authentic connection to the Migrations Age much as Blackstone's English law book continues to have a role in American culture. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 26 2010, 05:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 26 2010, 05:54 PM Post #49 |
|
Deleted User
|
Everyone just shut up!!! :whistling: |
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 26 2010, 06:07 PM Post #50 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Atticus GTFO j/k :love: :love: |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |













11:53 AM Jul 13