DejaVu
Regular Member
- Messages
- 573
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 0
This is how the events of the 5th century AD and the origin of the English language are declared in every history book, in every schoolbook, worldwide :
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.
So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
Professor Simon James (University of Leicester) reminds us that the theory of the introduction of English was established in the 17th century under James I to suit the political needs of the time. The union of the crowns of Scotland and England was explained as re-union of (Celtic) Britain. State paid historians stated that Britain was ‘Celtic’ before the Roman age. This implied the existence of a Celtic language [2] all over Britain. The theory was used to quieten the critics who were against unification. The latter argued that the Scots always had been the eternal enemies of the English.
The English language was explained as an 'unfortunate and imported accident'.
Let there be no doubt: there is no historical proof whatsoever that the Anglo-Saxons imported English. We will also challenge the very existence of Celts as a distinct people with a distinct language, but not the existence of a Celtic culture.
We discovered a seriously faulty circular reasoning that is used by modern historians who are specialized in Celtic language, history and culture. We will combat that.
Stating that (proto) English was there all the time not only explains much better what happened during the 5th century, plus later events, and the modern situation, it also can predict a number of facts. Assuming 2 languages in Britain, the 5th century puzzle can be solved and the modern situation makes far more sense.
http://www.proto-english.org/
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.
So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
| 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? |
Professor Simon James (University of Leicester) reminds us that the theory of the introduction of English was established in the 17th century under James I to suit the political needs of the time. The union of the crowns of Scotland and England was explained as re-union of (Celtic) Britain. State paid historians stated that Britain was ‘Celtic’ before the Roman age. This implied the existence of a Celtic language [2] all over Britain. The theory was used to quieten the critics who were against unification. The latter argued that the Scots always had been the eternal enemies of the English.
The English language was explained as an 'unfortunate and imported accident'.
Let there be no doubt: there is no historical proof whatsoever that the Anglo-Saxons imported English. We will also challenge the very existence of Celts as a distinct people with a distinct language, but not the existence of a Celtic culture.
We discovered a seriously faulty circular reasoning that is used by modern historians who are specialized in Celtic language, history and culture. We will combat that.
Stating that (proto) English was there all the time not only explains much better what happened during the 5th century, plus later events, and the modern situation, it also can predict a number of facts. Assuming 2 languages in Britain, the 5th century puzzle can be solved and the modern situation makes far more sense.
http://www.proto-english.org/
