No, genetic studies determined that there are very weak traces of the Indoeuropeans (the ethnic group) among modern Europeans (more weak as long as we move westernwards). Only slavic countries have significant contribution of the Indoeuropean genes .
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
^I think that I once came across this study. Whether or not it is outdated I can't say for sure, but I do recall seeing a study that indicated that ancient Indo-European ancestry was heaviest in Eastern Europe, as in modern Russia, Ukraine, and thereabouts. There is unquestionably some of this admixture in other European populations as well, but if all Europeans had a very heavy component from this original Indo-European stock, wouldn't all modern European ethnic groups look far more alike? Not there certain traits don't tend to mark someone as being of a European background, but Europeans exhibit considerable phenotypic diversity for such a small continent. These differences have much to do with the differential Paleolithic and Neolithic genetic contributions to various populations, climatic differences, etc.
In other words, far before the spread of the Indo-European languages into the rest of Europe, people in different parts of Europe very much resembled the people who live in those areas today. To use the Greek and Roman examples again, the people of pre-Indo-European Greece and Italy for the most part physically resembled the people who were to become the classical Greeks and Romans as they were their primary ancestors. Right down to the present day we see the same looks in these places. The same phenomenon undoubtedly applied to the tall blond inhabitants of Northern Europe, who were likewise the primary ancestors of the Germanic peoples.
I hate to use old outdated anthropological terms such as "Dinaric," "Alpine," and even "Nordic" or "Mediterranean," but for the purpose of explaining it more simply, these physical types were established in their respective areas long before the arrival of Indo-European speech.
In other words, far before the spread of the Indo-European languages into the rest of Europe, people in different parts of Europe very much resembled the people who live in those areas today. To use the Greek and Roman examples again, the people of pre-Indo-European Greece and Italy for the most part physically resembled the people who were to become the classical Greeks and Romans as they were their primary ancestors. Right down to the present day we see the same looks in these places. The same phenomenon undoubtedly applied to the tall blond inhabitants of Northern Europe, who were likewise the primary ancestors of the Germanic peoples.
I hate to use old outdated anthropological terms such as "Dinaric," "Alpine," and even "Nordic" or "Mediterranean," but for the purpose of explaining it more simply, these physical types were established in their respective areas long before the arrival of Indo-European speech.
The ignorance in this site has no barriers...my God! Freedom of speech at its worst. Resisting bashing "ideas" and "history storytelling" in here is as hard as resisting free cocaine for life. Please guys, get another hobby, or go outside and get healthier. But please, stop!
'It is always the same reflex: you and others state that only Migrating peoples (her Indoeuropean Greeks and Romans) were "just a small group of people who imposed their language upon a much larger mass of peoplei n Italy and the southern Balkans, ". Same is said from Germanic peoples migrating into Europe: They are characterized as a tiny little minority, quickly assimilated by the masses.
But this is not proven by any fact'.
Isn't that a fact in the case of the Normans in England (norman conquest)?
But this is not proven by any fact'.
Isn't that a fact in the case of the Normans in England (norman conquest)?
julius Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:47 pm GMT
...Same is said from Germanic peoples migrating into Europe: They are characterized as a tiny little minority, quickly assimilated by the masses. But this is not proven by any fact'.
Isn't that a fact in the case of the Normans in England (norman conquest)?
________________________________
Since no valid statistical data have been collected, we will never know exactly. Here some of the usual standard circumscription of the unclear situation found on the www:
http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Anglo-Norman
The Anglo-Normans were the descendents of the Normans who ruled England following the conquest by William of Normandy in 1066. They spoke the Anglo-Norman language.
Following the Battle of Hastings, the invading Normans and their descendants formed a distinct population in England......
.....Whatever the level of dispute, over time, the two populations largely intermarried and merged, combining languages and traditions. Normans began to identify themselves as Anglo-Norman; indeed, Anglo-Norman French was considerably distinct from the "Parisian French", which was the subject of some humour by Geoffrey Chaucer. Eventually, even this distinction largely disappeared in the course of the Hundred Years war, and by the 13th century the Anglo-Normans had merged with the Anglo-Saxons to form the English.
Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman?
...Same is said from Germanic peoples migrating into Europe: They are characterized as a tiny little minority, quickly assimilated by the masses. But this is not proven by any fact'.
Isn't that a fact in the case of the Normans in England (norman conquest)?
________________________________
Since no valid statistical data have been collected, we will never know exactly. Here some of the usual standard circumscription of the unclear situation found on the www:
http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Anglo-Norman
The Anglo-Normans were the descendents of the Normans who ruled England following the conquest by William of Normandy in 1066. They spoke the Anglo-Norman language.
Following the Battle of Hastings, the invading Normans and their descendants formed a distinct population in England......
.....Whatever the level of dispute, over time, the two populations largely intermarried and merged, combining languages and traditions. Normans began to identify themselves as Anglo-Norman; indeed, Anglo-Norman French was considerably distinct from the "Parisian French", which was the subject of some humour by Geoffrey Chaucer. Eventually, even this distinction largely disappeared in the course of the Hundred Years war, and by the 13th century the Anglo-Normans had merged with the Anglo-Saxons to form the English.
Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman?
<<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >>
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
CID Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:54 pm GMT
<<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >>
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
__________________
How do you know?
<<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >>
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
__________________
How do you know?
CID Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:54 pm GMT
<<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >>
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
__________________
How do you know?
<<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >>
That is correct. Unlike the statement above, the English were not formed out of the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman. That is a fallacy. English *are* Anglo-Saxons in the modern world. Only a small portion of the upperclass English population (Royal Family) have any Norman ancestry (among others).
__________________
How do you know?
Royal family of England has German ancestry (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,Battenberg ,Hanover) too.
All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry. They ultimately derive from Charlemagne .
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry. They ultimately derive from Charlemagne . >>
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry. They ultimately derive from Charlemagne . >>
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing!
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing!
What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing!
What does this have to do with the question What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language? Nothing!.
What does this have to do with the question What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language? Nothing!.
<<What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing! >>
Well, it does have something to do with this outflow here:
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry.>>
Since when does anyone stick purely to any one issue here at Antimoon. Quit making the rules to suit your own anti-Dutch tendencies, Kraut
Well, it does have something to do with this outflow here:
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry.>>
Since when does anyone stick purely to any one issue here at Antimoon. Quit making the rules to suit your own anti-Dutch tendencies, Kraut
bianca Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:55 pm GMT
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry. They ultimately derive from Charlemagne . >>
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing!
What does this have to do with the question What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language? Nothing!.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The point is, that not only the entire European royal families and lower nobility have Germanic ancestry, but that also all the Romance peoples like French, Italians, Spanish etc. have also Germanic ancestry. They are all descendents of Mediterranian AND Germanic populations that mixed in the early middle ages and created new peoples (French, Italians, Spanish), new realms (France, Italian and Spanish regions like Lombardia, Gothlandia (Catalonia), Burgundy etc.) and new languages (Romance).
That is why French probably is a Germanic-Latin mixed language. If we continue to minimize the impact of the migration period on the European peoples and languages, we will never understand Western European culture. E.g., French nationalists tend to state that only a handful of Franks once immigrated into their beautyful country and were quickly absorbed by the Gallo-Roman masses. In the meantime, science has definitively falsificated this scenario....
<<All the European royal families have Germanic ancestry. They ultimately derive from Charlemagne . >>
Yes, but the BRitish Royal Family are immediately German: Batterberg (Mount Batten) & Sax-Coburg-Gotha
What does this have to do with the question <<Were Normans a tiny minority with no impact on the ancestry of a modern Englishman? >> nothing!
What does this have to do with the question What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language? Nothing!.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The point is, that not only the entire European royal families and lower nobility have Germanic ancestry, but that also all the Romance peoples like French, Italians, Spanish etc. have also Germanic ancestry. They are all descendents of Mediterranian AND Germanic populations that mixed in the early middle ages and created new peoples (French, Italians, Spanish), new realms (France, Italian and Spanish regions like Lombardia, Gothlandia (Catalonia), Burgundy etc.) and new languages (Romance).
That is why French probably is a Germanic-Latin mixed language. If we continue to minimize the impact of the migration period on the European peoples and languages, we will never understand Western European culture. E.g., French nationalists tend to state that only a handful of Franks once immigrated into their beautyful country and were quickly absorbed by the Gallo-Roman masses. In the meantime, science has definitively falsificated this scenario....