<<Cheer up, greg,French is purest Latin of all germanic languages. >>
LOL, that's funny!
(and true...)
LOL, that's funny!
(and true...)
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
"Yet in Britain, specifically England, *apparently* there were so many invaders that they completely swamped the native population, even when there's so much evidence to the contrary from genetic, archaelogical and even linguistic. It's laughable."
Actually I think that genetic studies are somewhat varied as far as which population won out, and it's largely a regional pattern. Much of eastern and northern England was said to have been heavily affected by both Anglo-Saxon and later Danish settlement (much of the eastern English coast was so heavily Danish that it became known as the "Danelaw" prior to the Norman Conquest). I've also read sources (unfortunately I don't have any on hand right now) that explain that the English are essentially genetically intermediate between their British neighbors and the Danes, which I personally think is most logical. Otherwise why all this fierce debating about which group the English are closer to? The answer is probably that they're substantially related to both. The Germanic language and identity certainly won over the Celtic one in Britain, but what probably occurred was that a large number of Anglo-Saxon and later Danish Viking settlers simply intermarried with the Britons.
I think the English even look like a blend between Celtic and Germanic backgrounds. They're blonder than their neighbors (save some of the Lowland Scots who also have some Anglo-Saxon/Viking ancestry) and have somewhat different facial features sometimes. Other Brits have a tendency toward browner hair, with a higher percentage of redheads as well (even though they're still a minority there). I also think that if the English were that much more native Celtic than Germanic, they'd have more words of Celtic origin coloring their vocabulary. That's hardly the case as very few Celtic words are present in English.
For example, Mexicans speak Spanish. However, their ancestry is heavily derived from the local Amerindians. Even though the Spaniards imposed their language and culture on the natives (and intermarried with them to an extent), words from indigenous languages such as Nahuatl and Mayan color the local Spanish dialect. This is precisely what one might expect from a population that adopts a conqueror's language but has still preserved many place names and words from the native languages.
However on a side note, I'm unaware of any indigenous Iberian influence in Spanish that predates the adoption of Latin in Spain. If anyone knows of this, please feel free to share because I'm curious.
Actually I think that genetic studies are somewhat varied as far as which population won out, and it's largely a regional pattern. Much of eastern and northern England was said to have been heavily affected by both Anglo-Saxon and later Danish settlement (much of the eastern English coast was so heavily Danish that it became known as the "Danelaw" prior to the Norman Conquest). I've also read sources (unfortunately I don't have any on hand right now) that explain that the English are essentially genetically intermediate between their British neighbors and the Danes, which I personally think is most logical. Otherwise why all this fierce debating about which group the English are closer to? The answer is probably that they're substantially related to both. The Germanic language and identity certainly won over the Celtic one in Britain, but what probably occurred was that a large number of Anglo-Saxon and later Danish Viking settlers simply intermarried with the Britons.
I think the English even look like a blend between Celtic and Germanic backgrounds. They're blonder than their neighbors (save some of the Lowland Scots who also have some Anglo-Saxon/Viking ancestry) and have somewhat different facial features sometimes. Other Brits have a tendency toward browner hair, with a higher percentage of redheads as well (even though they're still a minority there). I also think that if the English were that much more native Celtic than Germanic, they'd have more words of Celtic origin coloring their vocabulary. That's hardly the case as very few Celtic words are present in English.
For example, Mexicans speak Spanish. However, their ancestry is heavily derived from the local Amerindians. Even though the Spaniards imposed their language and culture on the natives (and intermarried with them to an extent), words from indigenous languages such as Nahuatl and Mayan color the local Spanish dialect. This is precisely what one might expect from a population that adopts a conqueror's language but has still preserved many place names and words from the native languages.
However on a side note, I'm unaware of any indigenous Iberian influence in Spanish that predates the adoption of Latin in Spain. If anyone knows of this, please feel free to share because I'm curious.
<<I think the English even look like a blend between Celtic and Germanic backgrounds. They're blonder than their neighbors (save some of the Lowland Scots who also have some Anglo-Saxon/Viking ancestry) and have somewhat different facial features sometimes.>>
Irish people have Viking(and Celtic) ancestry too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse-Gaels
Irish people have Viking(and Celtic) ancestry too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse-Gaels
<<However on a side note, I'm unaware of any indigenous Iberian influence in Spanish that predates the adoption of Latin>>
In Spanish there are a few words from the indigenous tongues spoken before the Romans conquered Spain but these are a few dozens: barro, burro, cabaña, perro are some of them.
<<Irish people have Viking(and Celtic) ancestry too>>
I think that the whole Europe has Viking ancestry to some extent. Consider that they conquered even southern parts of Europe like Sicily.
In Spanish there are a few words from the indigenous tongues spoken before the Romans conquered Spain but these are a few dozens: barro, burro, cabaña, perro are some of them.
<<Irish people have Viking(and Celtic) ancestry too>>
I think that the whole Europe has Viking ancestry to some extent. Consider that they conquered even southern parts of Europe like Sicily.
^Hey thanks, didn't know the word "perro" for "dog" came from Iberian languages. That makes sense because I always wondered why the word in Italian is "cane" (i.e. Latin origin) but different in Spanish.
You're right about the Vikings in Sicily too but more precisely the "Vikings" in Sicily were actually their French-identified descendants, the Normans. Over the course of the two centuries or so when they were in power there, they transformed Sicily from a mostly Greek/Arabic-speaking island into a Latin Catholic one. I don't think too many people are aware of the strong influence they exerted over the cultural landscape of Sicily and southern Italy. Amazingly, even throughout the several centuries of Roman rule, the Romans did not completely Latinize the speech of their own native Italian peninsula and its nearest island. Parts of mainland southern Italy (esp. Calabria and lower Apulia) and Sicily were largely Greek-speaking right up until late medieval times. The periods of Byzantine rule also helped contribute to this as well, but it largely dated from ancient Greek times. Ironically, it was a foreign people in the Normans who made many of the natives more "native," so to speak.
Yet thousands of miles away in the province of Dacia (Romania), the Romans managed to create one of the most Romanized of all Roman provinces over a period of only about 125 years or so. That's absolutely amazing! Of course, due to isolation from Roman civilization in the heart of Eastern Europe, they would later undergo heavy Slavic, Hungarian, Turkish, and other influences, but still, their language at least was always fundamentally Romance despite the later large absorption of Slavic words.
But about Sicily, it should be noted that it was also to an extent demographically as well as culturally transformed under Norman rule as many of the Muslims living on the island were expelled (later on when tensions rose since the Normans were actually pretty tolerant of ethnic/religious diversity), killed, or voluntarily left the island out of a desire to live in a Muslim land. At their place, the Normans imported many immigrants from mainland Italy and even from France in order to repopulate Sicily with the intention of restoring Catholicism (under papal pressure of course) since the Sicilians of the time were either Muslim (ethnically Siculo-Arabs or native converts) or Greek Orthodox. As for Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, they would gradually assimilate and adopt Catholicism as well as the Romance speech that was to evolve into the Sicilian language, adding many of the words in the process. Arabic words are also sprinkled throughout Sicilian as some of the Muslim Arabs (mostly actually descended from Berbers whose ancestors adopted Islam and the Arabic language when Arabs conquered North Africa) remained in Sicily to later assimilate into the population.
The extent of gene flow from North Africa to Sicily is actually something that is hotly debated by many scholars, geneticists, and others, but most studies indicate a much stronger genetic kinship between Sicilians and other southern Italians, as well as with Greeks. Most agree that while the Arab occupation of Sicily certainly had an impact on the gene pool, it was more of a matter of the local population largely adopting the conqueror's tongue and religion, which of course has happened countless times throughout history.
You're right about the Vikings in Sicily too but more precisely the "Vikings" in Sicily were actually their French-identified descendants, the Normans. Over the course of the two centuries or so when they were in power there, they transformed Sicily from a mostly Greek/Arabic-speaking island into a Latin Catholic one. I don't think too many people are aware of the strong influence they exerted over the cultural landscape of Sicily and southern Italy. Amazingly, even throughout the several centuries of Roman rule, the Romans did not completely Latinize the speech of their own native Italian peninsula and its nearest island. Parts of mainland southern Italy (esp. Calabria and lower Apulia) and Sicily were largely Greek-speaking right up until late medieval times. The periods of Byzantine rule also helped contribute to this as well, but it largely dated from ancient Greek times. Ironically, it was a foreign people in the Normans who made many of the natives more "native," so to speak.
Yet thousands of miles away in the province of Dacia (Romania), the Romans managed to create one of the most Romanized of all Roman provinces over a period of only about 125 years or so. That's absolutely amazing! Of course, due to isolation from Roman civilization in the heart of Eastern Europe, they would later undergo heavy Slavic, Hungarian, Turkish, and other influences, but still, their language at least was always fundamentally Romance despite the later large absorption of Slavic words.
But about Sicily, it should be noted that it was also to an extent demographically as well as culturally transformed under Norman rule as many of the Muslims living on the island were expelled (later on when tensions rose since the Normans were actually pretty tolerant of ethnic/religious diversity), killed, or voluntarily left the island out of a desire to live in a Muslim land. At their place, the Normans imported many immigrants from mainland Italy and even from France in order to repopulate Sicily with the intention of restoring Catholicism (under papal pressure of course) since the Sicilians of the time were either Muslim (ethnically Siculo-Arabs or native converts) or Greek Orthodox. As for Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, they would gradually assimilate and adopt Catholicism as well as the Romance speech that was to evolve into the Sicilian language, adding many of the words in the process. Arabic words are also sprinkled throughout Sicilian as some of the Muslim Arabs (mostly actually descended from Berbers whose ancestors adopted Islam and the Arabic language when Arabs conquered North Africa) remained in Sicily to later assimilate into the population.
The extent of gene flow from North Africa to Sicily is actually something that is hotly debated by many scholars, geneticists, and others, but most studies indicate a much stronger genetic kinship between Sicilians and other southern Italians, as well as with Greeks. Most agree that while the Arab occupation of Sicily certainly had an impact on the gene pool, it was more of a matter of the local population largely adopting the conqueror's tongue and religion, which of course has happened countless times throughout history.
Oh and actually it was about 165 years of Roman occupation in Dacia (Romania) rather than 125. Also now that I think about, it certainly isn't thousands of miles from Italy to Romania LOL, maybe ONE thousand at most. Sorry about that folks.
"...the "Vikings" in Sicily were actually their French-identified descendants, the Normans."
You are right, the Normans were true French like the French-identified descendants of the Franks and the Goths and the Burgundians etc..
You are right, the Normans were true French like the French-identified descendants of the Franks and the Goths and the Burgundians etc..
^Yes, and not only that, but the Normans were also likely a mixture of Viking and native French blood (both Gallo-Roman and Frankish in Normandy) since almost all of the Vikings who settled in Normandy were probably men. It seems everywhere the Normans went, they had a tremendous impact on the local culture and language. In addition to southern Italy and Sicily, most people are well-aware of their more famous exploits in Britain and Ireland, at which point Old English was doomed and Middle English, with its much heavier contribution from Norman-French, was ushered in.
<<at which point Old English was doomed and Middle English, with its much heavier contribution from Norman-French, was ushered in>>
Old English was already poised to transition into Middle English on its own, even without the Norman language. It wasn't Norman that caused Old English's demise, but Old Norse...
Old English was already poised to transition into Middle English on its own, even without the Norman language. It wasn't Norman that caused Old English's demise, but Old Norse...
Oh well I thought most people pretty much acknowledged the Battle of Hastings as the symbolic point at which Old English ceased to exist. I'm assuming that Old Norse was the influence of the Danish settlements in England?
<<Oh well I thought most people pretty much acknowledged the Battle of Hastings as the symbolic point at which Old English ceased to exist.>>
Actually, the Old English language persisited for some time after that William the Invader stole rights to the English throne. The official cut-off date is 1150.
Actually, the Old English language persisited for some time after that William the Invader stole rights to the English throne. The official cut-off date is 1150.
"^Yes, and not only that, but the Normans were also likely a mixture of Viking and native French blood (both Gallo-Roman and Frankish in Normandy) since almost all of the Vikings who settled in Normandy were probably men."
Interesting details - are they based on any records, proofs, archeological findings or so? Or it is an assumption?
Interesting details - are they based on any records, proofs, archeological findings or so? Or it is an assumption?
^Little of both, I'll see if I can find something concrete for you, but I've read a few times that the Vikings in Normandy were mainly men who married local French women. Of course, some probably brought their Scandinavian families with them though. In either case, the Normans were very substantially of Viking ancestry though, with probably a little native French (Gallo-Roman/Frankish, etc.) thrown in.