The langues d'oïl (a group of related proto-French languages) were spoken throughout the north of France (and Wallonie), stretching from the northern coast to the modern-day départements of Centre, Franche-Comte, Bourgogne, and Poitou-Charentes. Of course there were non-langue d'oïl-speaking areas such as Bretagne and Alsace, which fell outside the French kings’ sphere of influence and whose inhabitants stubbornly clung to their non-French ways. Modern French comes from Francien, spoken in the region of Ile-de-France, where the kings of France built their power base.
Correction: That should be Poitevin-Saintongeais, spoken in Poitou-Charentes. Classified as langue d'oïl but with elements of langue d'oc.
I have seen both Frisian and Anglosaxon peoms(and some texts).I think they are much closer to modern high german and other german(or germanic) languages than english.
YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT,ENGLAND IS NOT GERMANIC,NOT LINGUAL,NOT CULTURAL,AND NOT RACIAL.(I KNOW IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE BUT I CAN GIVE YOU SOME SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ABOUT THE RACE OF BRITISH PEOPLE.)
AFTER ALL I PREFER TO USE "BRITAIN" INSTEAD OF "ENGLAND", BECAUSE BOTH ANGELS AND SAXONS WERE GERMAN,AND A BRITISH IS NOT.
I am just trying to say english is also a nice language,but there are two possibilities if you think britain is a teutonic country:
1.You don't know britain.
2.You don't know what is teutonic.
That's nice, swee'pea. Now be a dear, and run along before you miss your curfew.
I doubt that most Normans at the time of the conquest were Danish, certainly not culturally and not even in terms of genetic makeup. They were largely Northern French people with a Danish influenced aristocracy. What percent of the population of Normandy was of viking stock at that time. Not many I believe.
I have also read that recent DNA study shows that a high percentage of English people are of Germanic stock, higher than one would think based on the pre-existing Britons. But I could be wrong and would like to be enlightened.
Is it really that important whether or not we are from a germanic ancestry?
I am proud of my heritage whether my ancestors were mostly germanic, celtic, french or whatever. In the end, they were probably a mix, and what's wrong with that.
This is becoming more about race then language.
Calm down Adam. You are too conditioned to North American university life where it is decided ahead of time what is to be discussed and what is to be thought.
Of course we are all mixed. It remains that it is interesting to know if the Normans were largely the original Vikings, which I doubt, or contained a large admixture and were, in fact, predominantly of Gallo-Roman stock. This is history. History can be rewriiten but its facts, to the extent we can know them, predate the "post-modern" anti-truth anti-beauty movement.
Why are you proud of your ancestry if it is all mixed and you do not know what it is? Why not be proud of what you are now which is equally mixed? Long live the melting pot and down with multicultural orthodoxy. (I digress. )
I don't need to calm down, I'm not upset. I'm am just questioning why Britanophobe is so worked up about the whole issue, and also the fact that this topic seems to be diverting from language altogether. Is alright with you if I pose a question on the forum now and then? If not I'll be sure to run my posts past you before actually posting them from now on.
I agree that it would be very interesting to find out about our genetic make-up, I am not arguing that point what-so-ever. In fact there is an on-going study right now in the UK, the results of which I will look forward to reading.
I didn't say I don't know what my ancestry is, I know as much about mine as you do about yours, I would guess. The mixed part I was referring to is genetic. I'm guessing you haven't undertaken a detailed study of your genetic make-up either, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, on to me being conditioned by North American University life, that's just simply not possible.
Merry Christmas Steve, all you need is a little Christmas spirit to cheer you up.
Thank you, so I feel it partly confirmed that what is called French (Francien) was largely restricted to Ile-de-France, but that you can also speak about "French" (meaning langue d'oil) in a broader sense, in the same way as "Occitan" is a generic name for langues d'oc.
By the way, talking about the cultural heritage of the British, it is definitely a mixture of Germanic, Celtic and Romance elements, while anthropologically the English are perhaps closest to the Celts and Scandinavians, less to the Germans. The mediaeval kings, from the Normans and especially the Angevins right up to the Tudors, cultivated largely a French-style court life, and I think Henry VIII for one was more of a Latin-style "troubadour" king than an "English" one in the proper sense. On the other hand, the British literary culture at least is very much indebted to the Irish, who often turned out to be more skillful in using the language of their former oppressors than the latter themselves... And I have a feeling that a Celtic influence has definitely left its marks on American culture as well, especially in the South, although it perhaps cannot really be traced in a "scientific" way.
Before the romans came into France, the Gaulois were a celtic people. Celtic civilization is originally from the actual area of Austria
Gaulois is a generic term which designs the actual area of France (Gaule cisalpine), the actual north Italy (Gaule Transalpine) + a small part ot the actual area of Spain (CELT+ IBERE = celtibère).
I am thinking about Galicy, but it could better if we had the confirmation from a spanish who knows well history
Sorry, I put two topics into a single post. In the second part of my message I was talking about the various influences on English culture and the "Celtic" influence in the American South ("Celtic" here meaning the immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, etc.).