Celts and Anglo-Saxons

LAA - Juaquin en la caja!   Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:58 am GMT
This has been a long debated topic on internet discussion boards. If the primary ancestral compenent of England is not Anglo-Saxon or Germanic in origin, then why has modern day England adopted a Germanic language and culture, while Gaul and Spain, Portugal, and Italy did not in the face of a Germanic minority ruling class?

Why do almost all Englishmen have a Germanic surname? Why do they speak English? English is not known to have been influenced by the native Celtic tounge, very much at all. Why are statistically speaking, the English, on average, taller than the Welsh or the Irish?

Different studies constantly contradict each other. I am of the belief, that the English, can not possibly be "pure" Germanic in origin, as there had to be at least some interaction with the native Celts, and not total eradication of the native peoples. Their culture and their language was completely wiped away however, and native Celtic had very little, to no influence at all on the development of Old English.

Studying the topic can shed new light on the displacement of Celtic speaking populations in what is modern day Angleland.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html
Fredrik from Norway   Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:54 am GMT
Read Tonio Kröger by Thomas Mann. It's excactly something for you.
Sander   Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:15 am GMT
Or perhaps Mein Kampf, which also touches the subject of your interest; racial studies.
Tiffany   Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:49 pm GMT
Agreed. LAA, I feel you have a fixation on ethnicity. There are boards better suited to that. What does this topic have to do with linguistics?
greg   Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:40 pm GMT
LAA : « Why do almost all Englishmen have a Germanic surname? »

Parce que tous ne l'ont pas francisé.
Guest   Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:13 pm GMT
LAA, there is a very interesting text concerning this topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3514756.stm
Guest   Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:21 pm GMT
There seems to be some different viewpoints on this subject.
Here is another.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008
Guest   Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:14 pm GMT
Are all ethnologists nazis?
LAA   Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:10 pm GMT
"Are all ethnologists nazis? "

No. In fact, there are many ethnologists and geneticists, who are socialist pacifists, who couldn't be farther from racists.

It's a topic of interest to me, because it sheds light on history. Population movements is one of the major aspects of human history. And the history of Britain is directly related to the displacement of native Celtic by English. How is that not related to languages?

It is not an obsession. Are you obsessed with linguistics just because you enjoy researching it, or discussing it? You come to this discussion board on a habitual basis. Does that mean you are obsessed with linguistics and internet discussion boards? No, it just means you show an interest in it.
greg   Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:16 pm GMT
LAA : t'es pris — encore une fois — en flagrant délit d'exhibitionnisme narcissique sous couvert de pseudo-ethnologie. Tu devrais écouter le conseil de Tiffany : si la démographie, l'ethnologie et l'anthropométrie sont tes passions, tu t'es trompé de site.
Tiffany   Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:47 pm GMT
That is not what I meant, as greg said. You have taken my words out of context. I've always said linguistics is a passion of mine. Si, sono fissata. You have your passions, for example anthropology, especially related to ethnicities - there is nothing wrong with this. However, this board is geared toward studying linguistics, not ethniticities. And as I said, there are boards better suited to this than Antimoon. That is all.
Tiffany   Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:17 pm GMT
I'd like to add that I realize you applied a negative connotation to 'fixation'. Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of word in this instance, though I think I choose it because I feel there are some generalizations that can lead to racist overtones in your study of ethnicity. However, it is not fair to judge your motives at this stage.

"Passion" however, might better suit you. Many people have called my passion for linguistics an "obsession." I find this to be accurate, as I really do have a great love for it. I spend a lot of time on it. But it also might be misunderstood, because they might not see where my love of linguistics comes from. They might attribute things to it that I would not. Perhaps this is your case as well.
Tiffany   Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:19 pm GMT
"racist overtones" = racism. Obviously, I had racist overtones at first and decided to clarify it.
LAA - Juaquin en la caja!   Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:06 pm GMT
I like reasearching and discussing different ethnic groups, as relgion, language, culture, and history, are usually intertwined with ethnic background.

I will give you an example:

Ireland - Celtic - Non-Anglo- Catholic - Celtic language

England - Germanic - Anglo- Protestant/Anglican Church - Germanic language

Do you see how all of these fields of study are closely related? They are all part of one large chain of cause and affect relationships. I have a passion for history, economics, political science, languages, cultures, and peoples. Naturally, an important element of all these topics has to do with the people themselves, as these are all "SOCIAL Sciences". As such, an important aspect of the uniqueness of a given people, or group of peoples, is their common ethnic/genetic/ancestral background. So in my eyes, it is important to determine the historical or ancestral background of people, so that I can learn the truth of their history and their origin. This has nothing to do with racism, and does not contain racist overtones. I have stated repeatedly that no one race, or sub-racial group or ethnic group, is naturally superior or inferior to another. But I will not refuse to acknowledge their differences. And all the more, I love to consider the uniqueness of all of the different social groups of mankind. I find it to be a beautiful and wondrous thing.

That being said, I believe discovering the extent of the Germanic settlement, and displacement of the Celts, as being paramount to learning the historical reasons behind the extinction of the native Celtic languages of modern day England. Learning the history of the English people themselves, is key to understand how and why, English became the language of a large part of Great Britain.
Tiffany   Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:07 am GMT
LAA,
I have never said they were not closely related, but they are still separate. Many topics you start and/or reply to lead to these discussions of ethnicity. This is not an antropology site. We have before discussed topics related to anthropology, but only through linguistics, as language is the purpose of this board. Please read the rules.

<<That being said, I believe discovering the extent of the Germanic settlement, and displacement of the Celts, as being paramount to learning the historical reasons behind the extinction of the native Celtic languages of modern day England.>>

Thank you for telling me this, but this little revelation should not come as the 14th post on your topic. If you want to talk about the extinction of Celtic languages, talk about it, but let that be your topic. Simply saying "Celts and Anglo-Saxons" has nothing to with languages. You asked questions of height in there.

Try to convince someone else that the motivation behind this question was of a linguistic nature. Look around. People have realized what this is all about.