French language

Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:07 am GMT
Es evidente que el inglés no tiene ni rastro de influencia celta, porque no hay ni unas pocas míseros vocablos en la lengua inglesa de origen celta, por tanto si no hay palabras celtas mucho menos elementos sintácticos. Incluso el español tiene más palabras celtas que el inglés. ¿Por qué no se asume de una vez que los celtas fueron exterminados por los anglosajones sin que su lengua se viera contaminada en absoluto ya que los celtas eran un pueblo arcaico y débil?
Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:34 am GMT
"There seems to be some confusion here in regards to the English present progressive tense. According to "English and Celtic in Contact" the Celtic languages use the verb "to be" plus a verbal noun, whereas Modern English uses a similar yet completely different contruction of "be" plus present participle adjective ("I am go-ing")."

I believe they say the initial construction was be + preposition + verbal noun/gerund, which survived in some dialectal usage.

"Is this supposed to make me think English has had an impact from Celtic? Where are the words? --the lexicon? I might entertain this were it not for the lack of Celtic lexicon. After all, lexicon is stage 1 in linguistic transfer. "

Remember the Britons were a subjected people, so their language would not have been considered equal to the language of the ruling class, the Anglo-Saxons, it's no surprise that hardly any vocabulary made into English. Grammatical transfer is almost unconscious.
Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:01 am GMT
I'll just add though that the linguistic evidence is only a small part of the case for significant British survival, the genetic, archaelogical and historical evidence (laws of King Ine for example) provides a more convincing picture.
Vincent   Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:32 am GMT
So what? Why does it even matter?
Leasnam   Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:17 pm GMT
<<Remember the Britons were a subjected people, so their language would not have been considered equal to the language of the ruling class, the Anglo-Saxons, it's no surprise that hardly any vocabulary made into English. Grammatical transfer is almost unconscious. >>

Is there any historical evidence or accounts of large communities of Celtic speakers being subjugated by the Anglo-Saxons who ended up adopting the language of their rulers, and then became large and influential enough to affect other varieties of the spoken language (say in written works, theatre, etc.)?

didn't think so.


It's just a faciful notion. As someone else put it: we use facts here at Antimoon ;)
Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:14 pm GMT
Ok. I have an open mind. What are the facts opposing this "fanciful notion"?
Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:43 pm GMT
<<Ok. I have an open mind. What are the facts opposing this "fanciful notion"? >>

Usually when one puts forth a new or radical idea, the burden of proof rests on them, not the other way around.
Guest   Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:21 pm GMT
It's neither a new nor a radical idea. British academic thought is slowly moving away from the notion of a mass displacement of the indigenous people, which is seen as outdated now. Respected archaelogists have been saying it for years, and now genetic studies back up their findings.