English was spoken in England before the Roman invasion

Lobo   Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:39 pm GMT
Everybody's name is guest in this forum.

Hey guest, guess what guest just said?_)(*&?%$%$#@!
rep   Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:02 pm GMT
<<Culturally speaking the Germanics have their origin in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany, that's undeniable.>>
<<<<If you associate Germanic with genetics and not language, then England is 0% Germanic, because they don't have Finno-Ugric ancestors nor the genes associated to the peoples of Kurgan (original IE speakers). The English are as Germanic as the Peruvians are Latin. >>

Contradictory point of view.
Ancestors of English people Angles,Saxon,Jutes and Frisian came from contemporary Norhern Germany and Denmark.
Other ancestors of English people,Normans,were most of Scandinavian (Germanic) origin.
Norsemen (Germanic) make genetic influence on English people too when they invade to England.
<<In 2005 a study by Professor of Human Genetics Bryan Sykes of Oxford led to the conclusion that Somerled has possibly 500,000 living descendants - making him the second most common currently-known ancestor after Genghis Khan. [1] [2] [3] Sykes's research led him to conclude that Somerled was a member of the Y-DNA R1a1 Haplogroup, often considered the marker of Viking descent among men of deep British or Scottish ancestry.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerled
There were many colonies of Middle Low Germans (Low Saxons),Flemings in England during Middle Ages.They influenced English (and Scottish) genetic too.
Well,English people have some Celtic genetic ancestry.
Leasnam   Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:03 pm GMT
<<Culturally speaking the Germanics have their origin in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany, that's undeniable. >>

Okay, I know where you got this--WIKIPEDIA!


<<Maybe they spoke a Finno-Ugric language before the IE peoples arrived to there , but that does not invaildate the fact that proto-Germanic appeared in this zone due to the adoption of IE language by the ancestors of the Germanics. >>

Okay, and I don't believe the Germanics met with Finno-Ugrics, only the North Germanics did, but also, WIKIPEDIA!


<<If you associate Germanic with genetics and not language, then England is 0% Germanic, because they don't have Finno-Ugric ancestors nor the genes associated to the peoples of Kurgan (original IE speakers). The English are as Germanic as the Peruvians are Latin. >>

FULL BULLSHITE!
Guest   Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:08 pm GMT
<<Ancestors of English people Angles,Saxon,Jutes and Frisian came from contemporary Norhern Germany and Denmark.
>>

Wrong. English people have many ancestors, and one of them are the germanic tribes, but the Germanics during the Migration period arrived to many parts of Europe, so even Italians are Germanic because the Lombards are one of their ancestors. Did you see the genetic profile of the English population? It's much more similar to that of the Irish and the French and the Scandinavians. The Scandinavians have more genes of original IE speakers of the Kurgan culture than the British (virtually 0%). So basing the Germanicity of the English on genetics is pure nonsense. The English speak a Germanic language, period, but they are not Germanic.
Guest   Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:21 pm GMT
In fact the English have so many ancestors that even 1.8% of their DNA is subsaharian (due to slave trade of the English empire).
Guest   Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:22 pm GMT
<<There were many colonies of Middle Low Germans (Low Saxons),Flemings in England during Middle Ages.They influenced English (and Scottish) genetic too.
>>

Yes and they influenced the language too: staple, etch, trade, smuggle, slip, eazel, spook, duck (cloth), hoist, selvage, snip, curl, flirt, maelstrom, iceberg, monkey, boom (pole), smack, snap, boss, bundle, freight, frolic, grab, furlough, plug, golf, loafer, pump, sleigh, quack, slim, roster, sketch, sled, waffle, stove, tickle, wagon, all come from this period.



<<Well,English people have some Celtic genetic ancestry. >>

Yes.
PARISIEN   Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:24 pm GMT
<< In fact the English have so many ancestors that even 1.8% of their DNA is subsaharian (due to slave trade of the English empire). >>

-- No. The Romans imported slaves from Britain, but didn't export any.

Mediterranean/African/Middle Eastern DNA in England is a legacy of the Tin Route that started during the Bronze Age. Tin was an essential strategic resource in ancient times, the largest mines were in Cornwall and Devan. Phoenicians then Carthaginians controlled that trade.
rep   Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:54 am GMT
<<It is a rivalry that has prevailed throughout two World Wars and countless football clashes. But it seems the English and Germans have more in common than one might have thought.
New research has found that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain from the continent 1,600 years ago was so successful that native characteristics were virtually wiped out.
And as a result experts say this has left England with a population made up largely of Germanic genes and with a language that owes much to our Anglo-Saxon invaders.
The new study explains that the majority of original British genes were wiped out in favour of German ones through a system of apartheid set up by the invaders. This allowed the Anglo-Saxons to out-breed the Brits and our country became 'Germanised.'
It is thought between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrated from modern-day Germany, Holland and Denmark into what is now England between the fifth and seventh centuries AD. At this time there were more than two million native Britons living in the country.
But within just 15 generations, the British genes were on the way out, while the Germanic ones were flourishing.
Until now geneticists and archaeologists have been unable to reconcile how a relatively small number of invaders so successfully took over the UK gene pool. Now scientists have used computer analysis to work out how this could have been achieved within just a few hundred years.
They have concluded the Anglo-Saxons probably brought with them an apartheid regime, similar to that seen more recently in South Africa. Under this servant-master system, the Anglo-Saxons would have enjoyed a more prosperous existence and so their offspring would have flourished.
Through restricting intermarriage, they also helped prevent native British genes getting into their own population. This left England culturally and genetically 'Germanised', according to the study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The authors pointed to the fact that ancient texts show a far greater value was put on the head of an Anglo-Saxon than a Briton. If an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the perpetrator's family had to pay 'blood money' two to five times greater than the fine payable for the life of a native person.
Lead researcher Dr Mark Thomas of University College London's department of Biology, said the ethnic distinction of the native British and Anglo-Saxon populations could only have lasted for so many years through some kind of social segregation.
He said: "The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years. An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.
"We believe they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.
"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."
The Anglo-Saxon period came to an end in 1066 when Duke William of Normandy came to England and defeated Harold in the Battle of Hastings. However the legacy of that time can be seen in modern-day place names that end in 'ham' which means settlement, 'ton' which means farm or village and 'den' which means hill.
Other words we still use today that can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon era include daughter from 'dohter' and father >>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-396406/Were-Germans--1-600-years.html#ixzz0RFt8pvTH
my guest   Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:16 am GMT
some people here need to understand that the words used to define ethno-cultural groups such as "germanic", "slavic", "celtic", "latin", etc. DO NOT refer to alleged "racial" categories. They refer to LINGUISTIC groups, that is what define them as being grouped in their group.

They don't mean than all of the people pertenencing in one group all derive from a unique single pure ancestor... theses points of view are just a temptation of creating a sense of national "genetic" identities in the 19th century when racialists theories were in vogue. unfortunally those racialists theorist bagan to use linguistic/cultural definitions of ethnic groups to give them a racial meaning they never had. So now, many people are still brainwashed by the racialist of of view and can not understand than those we call "celts", slavs", "latins" or "germanic" were call that way (even those far away in the past) because they were part of cultures that were of that or this specific linguistic group.

On exemple; when we say that people are celtic, what does it mean? In realitiy that can mean only one thing: that the celtic person is part of a celtic speaking culture. this is what it has always meant, no more.
Now many people, when they hear that word imagine that it refers to a specific pure DNA (and so they think it is possible to be celtic even if you don't have a celtic-speaking culture). Many people in Britain seem to wish to not being considered germanic (for some obscure reasons) and try to believe that their identity in intrasequely celtic (from a gernetic point of view of course since culturally there is nothing celtic in English culture)... do they know what they are talking about. Do they know that the people they think to be their "celtic" ancestors (the supposed populations of pre-roman and pre-germanic times, the ancestors of welsh, scottish, irish), were not themslves from a unique ancestry, and even less their major ancestry was coming from central Europe (where celtic cultures are thought to have came from). those areas were celtic (still are for some tiny areas) just means that they have (had) been in one time in the past being speaking a celtic language. To extrapolate that the people from these areas have a genetic/racial heritage that link them to an alleged "celtic" ethnicity originated from central Europe that would have desplaced completly the former populations (independently from the language they spoke) is just absurd, as absurd that to think that north africans all descend from people of Arabian peninsula because they are Arabs (once again "arab describe a culture and a language, not a "race"), or as absurd as to think that all Bolivian descend from Spanish people because they are all hispanic (once again= speaking-spanish peoples) etc..

It is culture (and especially language) that unites people in homogenic groups, not DNA. etnologist people all know that and do not think in loose racial points of view which doesn not correspond to reality.


I f we think in DNA terms, no one of these groups have a actual existance: celts, germanics, latins, slavs, arabs, etc... all are and have always been made of various individuals (each one with they own familal DNA history) united in cultures that found they unicity in language!

the physical appearance thay some of you might associate with such or such ethnic group is a concequence of intermixings in an homogenous group... with centuries, even a group made with physically very different people will began to show an "average" looking that will can be considered as a "racial definition" of their identity... but in the same time you will continue to find many people that won't fit in that stereotype while their ancestor are also part of that group since its origins. All that we can say is that we find more often on particular characeristic in this or that group, but that is a consequence of the fact that the group has been unifying a specific coktail of individuals, and in no way it is the definition of what being this or that group is. you don't need to be tall, blond and blue-eyed to be a germanic, since the begining there have been also short dark germanics. It jus happens that statistically there are more people who share those characeristics into germanic-speaking populations than in romance-speaking ones... inversely being tall, blond and blue eyed doesn't mean you are germanic. What makes you germanic is being part a germanic-speaking culture, this have alway being that way, even in proto-germanic times.
just me   Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:38 am GMT
" Did you see the genetic profile of the English population? It's much more similar to that of the Irish and the French and the Scandinavians. "

The french, irish and scandinavians don't look at all alike!...
most English people when they travel in vacation in France are instantenously noticed, complete different looks to us.




" So basing the Germanicity of the English on genetics is pure nonsense. The English speak a Germanic language, period, but they are not Germanic. "

The english speak a germanic language, it makes them a germanic people, that is the definition, period.

But I agree that basing the germanicity of the English (or another people, Germans, Dutch or Scandinavians) on GENETICS is a nonsence since "germanic" is not a genetic definition but a cultural one.
Leasnam   Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:03 pm GMT
<<But I agree that basing the germanicity of the English (or another people, Germans, Dutch or Scandinavians) on GENETICS is a nonsence since "germanic" is not a genetic definition but a cultural one. >>

It can be thought of this way--"Germanic" genes are the genes of those who were the Ur-group of germanic speakers. The proportion of *their* genetic lineage in descendant populations of germanic speakers is what can be born back to as "Germanic Genes". There is a slight validity to this, even though "Germanic Genes" are not that different from those of many other Europeans, and were undoubtedly of mixed ancestry themselves, no more than your family's genes are diffrerent from those of your neighbors' around the block--they are distinctly your falimy's, but only on an extreme micro-genetic level.
Lobo   Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:55 pm GMT
«New research has found that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain from the continent 1,600 years ago was so successful that native characteristics were virtually wiped out.»

C'est une théorie pratiquement impossible, puisqu'il la population de Grande-Bretagne serait tombée de 2 ou 3 millions à environ 200 000 habitants, soit le nombre des envahisseurs Anglo-saxons, ce qui est invraisemblable.

Non, je crois d'ailleurs qu'effectivement les anciens émigrants belges étaient pour la plupart d'entre eux en tout cas, les premiers habitants ayant parlé une langue germanique sur le sol anglais. Le Pas-de-Calais étant si près de l'Angleterre, l'émigration a pu commencer bien avant ce qui est habituellement proposé.

De toute façon, il est à peu près certain qu'au nord de la Somme la langue germanique ait été employée de tout temps, alors qu'entre la Somme et la Seine c'est tout autre chose, il n'y a rien de précis à ce sujet. Il est possible toutefois, dans le cas de la France, que sur une grande partie de son territoire la langue romane ait été utilisée depuis avant même la conquête de César, comme semble le suggérer Michael John Harper.
2-6   Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:06 pm GMT
"If we do what the Romance leod have done, which is define their association by language and culture alone, then England is firmly and unequivocally Germanic. Moreso than Germany itself! "

This comment will make me LOL for the rest of my life. Thank you - you poor are royally out of touch with reality. And thanks so much to Celtic England - these comments would just not be possible...
ceolad   Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:10 pm GMT
>>The English are as Germanic as the Peruvians are Latin.<<

I'm right there with you.
guest   Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:33 pm GMT
The English are Basque people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78