English was not imported by the Anglo-Saxons

[Zeus10]

I read some people claiming the existence of the so called "Proto-English". I am fully confident there was never such a thing as "Proto-English"and there was never such a language in existence prior to the Christians becoming the rulers of the country. All the main European countries established a language either Latin-based or Germanic-based, or both (like English), when they became a Christian Theocracy. Their ties to vernacular language were cut when the local Christian rulers, established the Church as the only institution of the education and knowledge.

 

[Noman]

1)	Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change
2)	English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire?
3)	How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century?
4)	Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons?
5)	Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift?

1. What sources are those? Nobody would change their language for writing, even if they brought it from elsewhere. But this kind of writing just suddenly shows up. Then there were many more influences later, obviously. Remember most people were illiterate, and what the peasants spoke didn't matter much and slowly withered away in many cases. The interaction between the rulers and commoners was pretty simple.

2. Wales always stayed very separate until relatively modern times and can't be seen as part of the same country. Welsh and the Breton spoken by those who left may not have even been all that similar, either.

3. The celts either joined in or simply packed up and left. Today brittany is much more english than england and has been a long time. They had no allegiance to the "bretons" that had been part of roman occupation, and moved on to better lands. England by contrast is almost half german.

4. Even a thousand warriors was a lot back then, like USA having all of france's armed forces come for a visit, and large mercenary armies were not that uncommon. But no I don't think they exterminated anyone, it was probably underpopulated in the north and east even before the exodus to brittany.

5. Because they were not even remotely the same people, and went through more changes since then as well.

 

[sparkey]

Some pedantry...

2. Wales always stayed very separate until relatively modern times and can't be seen as part of the same country. Welsh and the Breton spoken by those who left may not have even been all that similar, either.

It's true that Cambria/Cymru/Wales has long been a distinct entity from southeastern Britain, and that Breton descends from the apparently distinct Dumnonian dialect of Brittonic (as does Cornish). So the problem here is that Goormachtigh et al. are using the term "Welsh" too loosely. They probably really mean "Brittonic." They probably aren't particularly fond of that term, though. If they wanted to be more specific, they could have perhaps used "Loegrian," but any use of that term opens another can of worms.

Today brittany is much more english than england and has been a long time.

It's weird to say that "brittany is much more english than england"; I suppose you mean much more British or Brythonic than England.

But no I don't think they exterminated anyone, it was probably underpopulated in the north and east even before the exodus to brittany.

What's the evidence for the North and East being underpopulated? London and York were two of the many important population centers in those regions during that time; I doubt that Cambria and Dumnonia were so populated. I also doubt that the North and East were particularly important regions regarding the settlement of Brittany. Every indication to me gives the relatively robust Dumnonian region as the primary source of Brittany's Brittonic-speaking population.

 

[MOESAN]

breton languages shows the most of ressemblance with cornish but dialects of Leon N-W and Vannes (Gwened) S-E show some traits close to welsh language

 

[Aberdeen]

Anyone who thinks that pre-Roman Britain wasn't Celtic should read some of the Roman sources, such as Tacitus. Also, there are a lot of place names in England that are of Celtic origins. This is a quote from Wikipedia, which we all know never contains errors.

"Linguistic evidence for Celtic place-names in present-day England can be found in names such as Leatherhead or Litchfield. In addition, evidence of Celtic populations can be found from those place-names including the Old English element wealh "foreigner, stranger, Briton". Such names are a minority, but are widespread across England. For example, a smattering of villages around the Fenland town of Wisbech hint at this: West Walton, Walsoken, and the Walpoles indicate the continued presence of an indigenous population, and Wisbech, King's Lynn and Chatteris retain Celtic topographical elements."

 

[Aberdeen]

I've spoken to Frisians from Holland and can almost understand what they're saying in their native dialect. If the English language was native to England, are the Frisians evidence of some English invasion of Holland prior to the Anglo-Saxon conquest? Because if English has been in England for thousands of years, it's surprising that Frisian is so similar to the Germanic portion of the English language.

 

[Nobody1]

Anyone who thinks that pre-Roman Britain wasn't Celtic should read some of the Roman sources, such as Tacitus. Also, there are a lot of place names in England that are of Celtic origins. This is a quote from Wikipedia, which we all know never contains errors.

I agree that the pre-Roman Britain was Keltic;
But prob. not entirely and Tacitus is a good source for it; The Caledonii are considered Germanic;

Tacitus - AGRICOLA - XI
The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin
Namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant

And the Silures are considered Iberians from Spain;

Tacitus - AGRICOLA - XI
The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts
Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt


Not really sure about Pytheas accounts (4th cen BC) and if Britain was already at that time (4th cen BC) Keltic; But Gauls from the continent (Belgae) invaded and settled pre-Roman Britain - especially the Maritime/Coastal areas;

Julius Caesar - De BELLO GALLICO - Book V/XII
The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither, and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands. The number of the people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous, for the most part very like those of the Gauls: the number of cattle is great.

Who those 'natives' in the interior are is not fully described; Prob. must have been Kelts from a former migration; Because Tacitus describes the Britons as similar to the Gauls and the languages "differs but little"

 

[adamo]

What makes the most sense to me is the arrival of angles,Jutes,Saxons from Denmark with both R-S21 and I1 lineages; maybe even from holland, towards England.

 

[adamo]

particularly in what concerns south-central and south-eastern England; this is where both R-S21 and I1 peak in the British isles; whereas as we know the Irish are heavily Italo-Celtic as many welsh, Scottish and some English are as well (a good chunk of English but deffinetly less than half of them 35-40%).

 

[Aberdeen]

.................

Who those 'natives' in the interior are is not fully described; Prob. must have been Kelts from a former migration; Because Tacitus describes the Britons as similar to the Gauls and the languages "differs but little"

Yes, that's the part of Tacitus I was thinking of, where he talks about how similar the language of the Britons was to that of Gaul, etc. I forgot about those passages where he makes assumptions about the historical origins of various tribal groups based on their hair colour.

 

[Nobody1]

Yes, that's the part of Tacitus I was thinking of, where he talks about how similar the language of the Britons was to that of Gaul, etc. I forgot about those passages where he makes assumptions about the historical origins of various tribal groups based on their hair colour.

Exactly;
Thats the passage (Tacitus) that is the most revealing about the "natives" (similar to Gauls);
Both Caesar and Pythaes are not that clear on the "natives";

Bede (7th-8th cen AD) also records that Pisctish was diff. than Brythonic and Goidelic; Which corresponds with Tacitus (1st-2nd cen AD) descriptiobn of the Caledonii; those passages are always about more than just Hair-color;

Brythonic is P-Keltic (like Gaulish / in Connection with Tacitus "natives" descr. and Caesars historical Gaulish invasion descr.) and Goidelic is Q-Keltic (like Celt-Iberian / in connection with the Mil Espaine) - and Pictish was acc. to Bede none of the two;

 

[Aberdeen]

Some of the names in the Pictish king list make me think that perhaps the Picts were a remnant pre-IE group, and the fact that most Scottish ogham seems to be untranslatable supports that idea, IMO, but that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion these days. In fact, I get the impression that much of the scholarly community considers it to be a definite fact that the Picts were a P-Celtic group. And why do they think that? Well, it just makes sense, that's why. You can't argue against logic like that.

 

[MOESAN]

Some of the names in the Pictish king list make me think that perhaps the Picts were a remnant pre-IE group, and the fact that most Scottish ogham seems to be untranslatable supports that idea, IMO, but that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion these days. In fact, I get the impression that much of the scholarly community considers it to be a definite fact that the Picts were a P-Celtic group. And why do they think that? Well, it just makes sense, that's why. You can't argue against logic like that.

concerning Scotland placenames the evidence is: a so called pictish region (grosso mode Grampians = East highlands + Fifeshire + a light density in North: Caithness) with undiscutable brittonic names, a southern Scotland (Galloway and Borders) with again undiscutbale brittonic names - that does not exclude previous non-celtic populations but these last ones did not leave us reconizable placenames! the brittonic and even more typical 'pictish' placenames in 'Pitt-' seem never having reached the Orkney and Zetland islands -
these "first" layer of celtic brittonic names was covered in the WHOLE Highlands (even "Pictland") by a dense network of gaelic placenames, and these gaelic names are found also in southwestern Scotland -
concerning previous populations I believe the most of them were of neolithical stock (akin to 'Long Barrows' people present too in the Netherlands and Scandinavia and even in N-France and having taken part in the Funnelbeaker TRB culture foundation -
the physical descriptiosn are very often a ready-to-use set of stereotypes passed from ancient (classical: roman or greek) writer to another one - contradictions: in other texts Ancients seemed considering all Celts as big red haired wild people! No coherence - THERE IS NO RED HAIRS POPULATIONS: the less rare red-haired ones are in W-Scotland and Ireland, gaelic speaking regions and as a whole in celtic regions or regions having been under celtic control at some stage - the funnier is that Picts (a recent enough name in History, maybe replacing in North the Pretani name = Cruithni of the Gaels) were described sometimes as ugly small dark pigmented people!!! - there are some evidences of links between Picts and Gaul, and maybe rather in Eastern Gaul spite the presence of Pictons in Western Gaul - the equation Caledonians = Picts doesn't work here - that said, the names of Caledonians could very well be celtic in form - and we have NO germanic or finnic evidence in Scotland placenames (the older names of rivers, even if the reconstitutions are sometimes based upon scarce evidence, seem pointing to an old form of I-E -

concerning frisian and english, why it would be so incredible they had kept some old similitudes over centuries? and do'nt forget these similitudes are magnified by some people, too much for I think - so I think the language of the majority of Germanics that landed in Eastern England spoke a language close to the frisian ancestor; all the way Frisian were the closer to England, closer than Saxons, Angles or Jutes... the today dutch language is surely influenced by East-saxon and Rhineland dialects, at ancient times it would have been very closer to today Frisian - so no "english frisian" TO the Netherlands, and, for now, no germanic steady settlement in England before the 4°-5° century - (but we know Saxons and Frisians were pirating the Britain shores for a long time before that...)

 

[MOESAN]

sorry I correct myself: when I said "NO germanic or finnic evidence in Scotland placenames" I think: at Romans times - it is evident that a lot of anglo-saxon and scandinavian placenames are found in Scotland, more or less dense according to subregions, dating from the 4° century and Middle Ages, and more recently english names...

 

[MOESAN]

some scholars think that the distinction between Picts and other Brittons were more based on archaïsm of culture and habits than on remote ethnic ancestry - it seems more than a layer of Celts settled the Isles and that the last ones, more concentrate in South, were considered as more "evolved"; even among P-celtic tribes there were surely some differences at this level -
&: Siluri were maybe not Celts at all (basque speaking???) - and they did not present a physical aspect recalling the Bell Beakers population of Brittain (the question of the language of these last ones is still open) - It should bet for a Neolithic population for Siluri -

 

[toyomotor]

Sparky: The modern English language is a bastard language. It contains so many "loan words" with so many inconsistent rules that make it a very hard language for foreigners to work out. Often, one will ask "But why is this spelled similarly yet pronounced differently?" and the only answer, without going into technical etymology, is "Because it is." I'd guess that the early Picts in England spoke the same language, with tribal variations, but then were influenced by early invaders e.g. the Romans (Latin) Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Germanic) Vikings, French and so on.

 

[sparkey]

&: Siluri were maybe not Celts at all (basque speaking???) - and they did not present a physical aspect recalling the Bell Beakers population of Brittain (the question of the language of these last ones is still open) - It should bet for a Neolithic population for Siluri -

AFAIK there is no evidence of the Silures being "Basque speaking" other than a speculation by Tacitus that they looked Iberian. But even today likely Silure descendants (SE Welsh) are darker than many of their other nearby Celtic counterparts (e.g. Irish). So today it is just variance in appearance among Celtic peoples, why couldn't it have been the same then? There's no huge genetic difference between modern SE Welsh and others nearby. Maybe just a little more G2a?

 

[sparkey]

I'd guess that the early Picts in England...

Picts in England?

 

[toyomotor]

Picts in England?

Sorry, typo. Should have said Brythonic or Briton. But I'm not clear on when the modern day English, or even Ancient English came into being. According to Peter Williams PhD, "The Celts in Britain used a language derived from a branch of Celtic known as either Brythonic, which gave rise to Welsh, Cornish and Breton; or Goidelic, giving rise to Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx. Along with their languages, the Celts brought their religion to Britain, particularly that of the Druids, the guardians of traditions and learning. The Druids glorified the pursuits of war, feasting and horsemanship. They controlled the calender and the planting of crops and presided over the religious festivals and rituals that honored local deities." My supposition is that English, as we know it gradually developed from the mixture of languages brought to Britain by invading forces. It's accepted that the "Ruling Class" would have spoken their native language, while the common workers picked up enough of that language to be able to communicate with overseers. As we all know today, English has very many "loan words" gained from the media as well as other sources.

 

[MOESAN]

AFAIK there is no evidence of the Silures being "Basque speaking" other than a speculation by Tacitus that they looked Iberian. But even today likely Silure descendants (SE Welsh) are darker than many of their other nearby Celtic counterparts (e.g. Irish). So today it is just variance in appearance among Celtic peoples, why couldn't it have been the same then? There's no huge genetic difference between modern SE Welsh and others nearby. Maybe just a little more G2a?

OK Sparkey: "Basque speaking" was just a question, not an affirmation
concerning the today S-E Welsh, I can tell you they present sometimes some recognizable 'mediterranean' (rough sense) types, a BIT more than other British people, but they are far from showing this type as dominant as a whole !!! (always old stereotypes!) - so no surprise concerning today genetics -