Celtic-Germanic intermarriages were also no rarity.
Does English sound like other Germanic languages?
<<There are evidences that the Anglo-Saxons did not displace the Roman Celts in England. It can be compared with the Spanish 'invasion' in Central/South America. That is to say, people in Mexico are not pure descendants of the Spaniards, in the same way it would be wrong to say the English are pure descendants of the Anglo-Saxons. Most Saxons stayed in their homeland, Northern Germany. The Germanic people in Britain (i.e. the land of the Britons - a Celtic people) rather made up the ruling class and imposed their language on the natives, though there had been plenty meaning shifts of English words. >>
Anglo-Saxons migrated in masses to Great Britain with their family and cattle whereas the Spanish were a few hundreds of soldiers in South America who withouth Spanish women inevitably had to mix with the local population. There is no comparison possible.
Anglo-Saxons migrated in masses to Great Britain with their family and cattle whereas the Spanish were a few hundreds of soldiers in South America who withouth Spanish women inevitably had to mix with the local population. There is no comparison possible.
Thank you all for your interesting answers!
Well, it seems the vote is split on whether Celts and Anglo-Saxons integrated. The reason for me asking is that if a majority Celtic population was forced to speak English by dominant invaders, then that might cause a shift away from Germanic accents in Britain. Mind you, that's perhaps also what happened with Scottish and Irish accents, with diferent effects, so it's not a particularly coherent idea.
I was totally unaware that Anglo-Saxons had been in Britain before the Romans.
I'll look for that other thread and read. Thanks for your help :-)
Well, it seems the vote is split on whether Celts and Anglo-Saxons integrated. The reason for me asking is that if a majority Celtic population was forced to speak English by dominant invaders, then that might cause a shift away from Germanic accents in Britain. Mind you, that's perhaps also what happened with Scottish and Irish accents, with diferent effects, so it's not a particularly coherent idea.
I was totally unaware that Anglo-Saxons had been in Britain before the Romans.
I'll look for that other thread and read. Thanks for your help :-)
<<Anglo-Saxons migrated in masses to Great Britain with their family and cattle whereas the Spanish were a few hundreds of soldiers in South America who withouth Spanish women inevitably had to mix with the local population. There is no comparison possible. >>
Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth :)
The whole Anglian nation moved to Britain, vacating their homeland and leaving it for the Danes to come in and occupy. This was not a small band of leod--it was the entire nation. And many Jutes and Saxons came too.
Granted, in a situation like that in the Americas, where native populations were conquered by small bands of single young men, who took wives of the natives, you would have a mixed population like that in Mexico or South America.
But the situation in Anglo-Saxon Britain was NOT like that in Mexico. It was like that in NORTH America (US and Canada) where the settlers imported their culture, wives, children and livestock with them, and ousted the original inhabitants.
I don't know why you insist on holding onto to this notion. It's not even an attractive one...:\
Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth :)
The whole Anglian nation moved to Britain, vacating their homeland and leaving it for the Danes to come in and occupy. This was not a small band of leod--it was the entire nation. And many Jutes and Saxons came too.
Granted, in a situation like that in the Americas, where native populations were conquered by small bands of single young men, who took wives of the natives, you would have a mixed population like that in Mexico or South America.
But the situation in Anglo-Saxon Britain was NOT like that in Mexico. It was like that in NORTH America (US and Canada) where the settlers imported their culture, wives, children and livestock with them, and ousted the original inhabitants.
I don't know why you insist on holding onto to this notion. It's not even an attractive one...:\
<<I was totally unaware that Anglo-Saxons had been in Britain before the Romans. >>
They weren't.
They weren't.
Thanks observer, I didn't see how that was possible. I've had a long day and I'm exhausted, and for some reason I believed something crazy because I misread the referenced thread title as a credible claimed fact...
By the way, I thought it was amusing that they call the question at the bottom an "anti-spam" question, when I tiredly forgot it.
By the way, I thought it was amusing that they call the question at the bottom an "anti-spam" question, when I tiredly forgot it.
"The whole Anglian nation moved to Britain, vacating their homeland and leaving it for the Danes to come in and occupy. This was not a small band of leod--it was the entire nation"
The entire nation of the Danes and the WHOLE Anglian nation? :) The Anglians must have outnumbered those numerous Celtic tribes in Britain... and I didn't know the Danes completely gave up their homeland north of Germany's border back then.
" We note, however, that Gildas made the statement that, in his own day, the Saxons were not warring against the Britons. We can be certain that the greater part of the pre-English inhabitants of England survived, and that a great proportion of present-day England is made up of their descendants.
To answer the question how did the small number of invaders come to master the larger part of Britain? John Davies gives us part of the answer: the regions seized by the newcomers were mainly those that had been most thoroughly Romanized, regions where traditions of political and military self-help were at their weakest. Those who chafed at the administration of Rome could only have welcomed the arrival of the English in such areas as Kent and Sussex, in the southeast. "
http://www.britannia.com/history
The entire nation of the Danes and the WHOLE Anglian nation? :) The Anglians must have outnumbered those numerous Celtic tribes in Britain... and I didn't know the Danes completely gave up their homeland north of Germany's border back then.
" We note, however, that Gildas made the statement that, in his own day, the Saxons were not warring against the Britons. We can be certain that the greater part of the pre-English inhabitants of England survived, and that a great proportion of present-day England is made up of their descendants.
To answer the question how did the small number of invaders come to master the larger part of Britain? John Davies gives us part of the answer: the regions seized by the newcomers were mainly those that had been most thoroughly Romanized, regions where traditions of political and military self-help were at their weakest. Those who chafed at the administration of Rome could only have welcomed the arrival of the English in such areas as Kent and Sussex, in the southeast. "
http://www.britannia.com/history
<<I was totally unaware that Anglo-Saxons had been in Britain before the Romans. >>
The Belgae and the Frisians were the first Germanic speaking peoples to invade Britain before the Roman invasion.They populated the mouth of the Humber up to the Isle of Wight (they just had to cross over the Channel which is quite logical) These are the reasons why there are almost no placenames of Celtic origin in those areas and this is why Frisian and English are in the same linguistic group. So The Angles and the Saxons just integrated the previous population of England.
Caesar wrote in De Bello Gallico 'that the population of southern Britannia was extremely large and shared much in common with the Belgae of the Low Countries.' as he also wrote 'Gaul is divided in three parts, one is inhabited by the Belgae (Germani cisrhenani), the other by the Aquitanians, the third part by those who call themselves the Celts, but those we call Gauls. They all have other languages, institutions and laws.' This could also apply for England, Britons vs Belgae (respectively Celtic language and Germanic language)
The Belgae and the Frisians were the first Germanic speaking peoples to invade Britain before the Roman invasion.They populated the mouth of the Humber up to the Isle of Wight (they just had to cross over the Channel which is quite logical) These are the reasons why there are almost no placenames of Celtic origin in those areas and this is why Frisian and English are in the same linguistic group. So The Angles and the Saxons just integrated the previous population of England.
Caesar wrote in De Bello Gallico 'that the population of southern Britannia was extremely large and shared much in common with the Belgae of the Low Countries.' as he also wrote 'Gaul is divided in three parts, one is inhabited by the Belgae (Germani cisrhenani), the other by the Aquitanians, the third part by those who call themselves the Celts, but those we call Gauls. They all have other languages, institutions and laws.' This could also apply for England, Britons vs Belgae (respectively Celtic language and Germanic language)
<<The entire nation of the Danes and the WHOLE Anglian nation? :) The Anglians must have outnumbered those numerous Celtic tribes in Britain... and I didn't know the Danes completely gave up their homeland north of Germany's border back then. >>
Only the Angles moved, the Danes were located in the extreme norther part of Jutland at this time, and the vacuum left by the exiting Angles and Jutes allowed the Danes to move South into the rest of Jutland. The danes did not move to Britain.
<<The Belgae and the Frisians were the first Germanic speaking peoples to invade Britain before the Roman invasion.They populated the mouth of the Humber up to the Isle of Wight (they just had to cross over the Channel which is quite logical) These are the reasons why there are almost no placenames of Celtic origin in those areas and this is why Frisian and English are in the same linguistic group. So The Angles and the Saxons just integrated the previous population of England. >>
Do you have any other evidence for this? What you followed up beginning with "Caesar wrote..." does not really support this particular claim.
Only the Angles moved, the Danes were located in the extreme norther part of Jutland at this time, and the vacuum left by the exiting Angles and Jutes allowed the Danes to move South into the rest of Jutland. The danes did not move to Britain.
<<The Belgae and the Frisians were the first Germanic speaking peoples to invade Britain before the Roman invasion.They populated the mouth of the Humber up to the Isle of Wight (they just had to cross over the Channel which is quite logical) These are the reasons why there are almost no placenames of Celtic origin in those areas and this is why Frisian and English are in the same linguistic group. So The Angles and the Saxons just integrated the previous population of England. >>
Do you have any other evidence for this? What you followed up beginning with "Caesar wrote..." does not really support this particular claim.
Do you have any other evidence for this? What you followed up beginning with "Caesar wrote..." does not really support this particular claim.
Yes I do; Stephen Oppenheimer and Michael John Harper in their respective book are supporting what Caesar mentionned more than 2000 years ago and some of the Roman Britain tribes were actually Belgic tribes, let's just talk about three Belgic tribes, the Atrebates the Catuvellauni and the Belgae (to name a few of them), they were related to those of Gallia Belgica. There is nothing remaining of the Celtic world in the Low Countries and in southwestern England that could prove the presence of the Celts in those areas.
Yes I do; Stephen Oppenheimer and Michael John Harper in their respective book are supporting what Caesar mentionned more than 2000 years ago and some of the Roman Britain tribes were actually Belgic tribes, let's just talk about three Belgic tribes, the Atrebates the Catuvellauni and the Belgae (to name a few of them), they were related to those of Gallia Belgica. There is nothing remaining of the Celtic world in the Low Countries and in southwestern England that could prove the presence of the Celts in those areas.
The movie hostel says allot.
When the persona's are in Amsterdam the people there speak German instead of Dutch, bunch of ignorant Bast**ds :O .
I think its save to say Americans can't tell the difference between the German and Dutch tongue.
And also:
I speak Twents which is a part of the "Nedersaksisch' language, its a regional language spoken by dutch and german people on both sides of the border.
It sounds allot like the normal dutch language but also like the german language.
So i think its save to say that German language and the dutch language are allot alike and will also sound the same for foreigners
And about the Frisians:
i think the Frisian language has not much in common with german, someone said this earlier.
Even Frisian people say that it sounds more like english then like german.
And in the end it sounds mostly like Dutch probably because they are dutch, even if they dont like it >:(.
When the persona's are in Amsterdam the people there speak German instead of Dutch, bunch of ignorant Bast**ds :O .
I think its save to say Americans can't tell the difference between the German and Dutch tongue.
And also:
I speak Twents which is a part of the "Nedersaksisch' language, its a regional language spoken by dutch and german people on both sides of the border.
It sounds allot like the normal dutch language but also like the german language.
So i think its save to say that German language and the dutch language are allot alike and will also sound the same for foreigners
And about the Frisians:
i think the Frisian language has not much in common with german, someone said this earlier.
Even Frisian people say that it sounds more like english then like german.
And in the end it sounds mostly like Dutch probably because they are dutch, even if they dont like it >:(.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtq1ObGHy8
The commentator says something in double dutch and Steve McClaren laughs silently and says ' a clean sheet, I call it'.
I have tried listening to Dutch and German people. I must admit, that probably get more out of listening to Dutch or German people than I get out of listening to Polish people. When listening to Polish people all I can hear is tag, tag, ocean, ocean, and robina, which I find quite insulting.
My son preferred to study German rather than French because he felt German was more exciting as it sounded like a ‘pirate language’. How he imagined pirates would talk.
The commentator says something in double dutch and Steve McClaren laughs silently and says ' a clean sheet, I call it'.
I have tried listening to Dutch and German people. I must admit, that probably get more out of listening to Dutch or German people than I get out of listening to Polish people. When listening to Polish people all I can hear is tag, tag, ocean, ocean, and robina, which I find quite insulting.
My son preferred to study German rather than French because he felt German was more exciting as it sounded like a ‘pirate language’. How he imagined pirates would talk.
"My son preferred to study German rather than French because he felt German was more exciting as it sounded like a ‘pirate language’. How he imagined pirates would talk."
Lol cute. In real life modern pirate language sounds like Somalian. I guess it wouldn't be political-correct (in a rightwing sort of way) for your little lad to learn pirate language of swashbuckling African folk. Hehehe.
Lol cute. In real life modern pirate language sounds like Somalian. I guess it wouldn't be political-correct (in a rightwing sort of way) for your little lad to learn pirate language of swashbuckling African folk. Hehehe.
<<political-correct >>
*politically-correct*
<<for your little lad to learn pirate language of swashbuckling African folk>>
for your little lad to learn *the* pirate language of swashbuckling African folk
:)
*politically-correct*
<<for your little lad to learn pirate language of swashbuckling African folk>>
for your little lad to learn *the* pirate language of swashbuckling African folk
:)
Simple answer: No. English has retained Runic sounds like th or thorn and w whereas other Germanic languages have lost due to their romanization over the years. I used to think that the majority of these languages were the true Germanic sound until I cracked open a Latin book. Latin lacks the W sound; henceforth the W being treated like a V in German and Dutch although the W in English was previously UU in Middle English. And I agree that French has a Germanic sound moreso than a Latinate or a Slavic or a Celtic sound. Frisians can reportedly read Old English almost word per word like it was their own language. That's better than most modern Anglophones Had the French not invaded in 1066, I think it would've been more Celticized than anything with dozens of loanwords from the Irish & Welsh.