Anglo-Saxon barbarian language?

Anglo-Saxon a barbarian language ?

Do Most Germanic languages have barbarian roots ? Why many Germanic intellectuals accepted this infamous legacy in literature, film, media >

Conan the barbarian is just one example! Conan the Rebel, etc.

History: <By 500 most of the Western half of the Roman Empire was under Germanic barbaric control.>

Vandals , etc

How many of this barbarian words are preserved today in modern Germanic languages ?

Barbarian is a a description used by Romans in ancient times to describe non-Roman citizens.

If by 'barbarian words' you mean Germanic words or Non-Romance words, then most modern germanic languages, English excepted, are still mostly germanic.

my dictionary says

Goth = member of the Goths, member of one of the Germanic tribes that invaded the Roman Empire; barbaric person ;

Vandal = one who purposefully destroys or damages something that is beautiful or something that belongs to someone else

barbaric = adj. uncivilized, primitive; wild, savage, cruel, brutal

saxon = member of an ancient Germanic tribe who invaded and settled parts of Britain


Why many terms related to Germanics are use derogatory today ?

why Vandal and Vanlalism ? I don’t want my children to learn in school, about his ancestors being barbarians goths and vandals . This words used today as derogatory words !

Sven wrote:
"Goth = member of the Goths, member of one of the Germanic tribes that invaded the Roman Empire; barbaric person ; "

When did Goth become a synonym for "barbaric person"?
Which crappy dictionary is this?

Vandal is a negative term because the vandals were negative people.
Franks, Goths, Lombards etc., at least they built some new cultures on the ruins of the Roman Empire. The vandals just destroyed.

Gothic is today a rather positive word. Think of Gothic architecture! (Even though that has very little to do with the actual Goths!)

People who dress in black and wear white face makeup are called 'goths'.

Words preserved as Germanic (I'll give the English ones):

love, shirt, skirt, ski, sky, stark, hark, hawk, hall, hell, helm, ham, hang, stone, stand, under, understand, water, good, bad, and, look, children, all, start, king, queen, lord, daughter, son, talk, think, world, man, open, never, ever, forever, further, far, field, fell, fall, fang, fight, wight, evermore, moreover, hereafter, after, here, therefore, wherefore, hence, whence, through, though, thorough, altogether, albeit, spell, shell, shale, get, out, away, cast, last, best, black, bird, blackbird, thing, tongue, oh there are a lot more (this phrase also contains all Germanic words).

basically anything in English that tends to be more monosyllabic.

>Do Most Germanic languages have barbarian roots ? [Laura]

Language itself has barbarian roots. If you go back to the root of any family tree, you'll find barbarians.

As Brennus points out, to the Greeks the Romans were barbarians. The Egyptians regarded the Greeks that way. Even the languages that arose more recently (e.g., Italian, Spanish, French) were derived from popular speech, and at the beginning they were given little respect. As the language of Dante, Cervantes, and Molière, though, they are now recognized as legitimate manifestations of civilization. Likewise English was once the language of barbarians, but it could no longer be regarded that way once Shakespeare had written in it.

>Why many Germanic intellectuals accepted this infamous legacy in literature, film, media [Laura]

Some attempted to find good things to say about it. Barbarians aren't totally without virtue. Often they have physical courage and hardiness. Civilized persons tend to become soft and corrupt in many ways. Nietzsche, though a cultured person himself, sometimes glorified barbarians, and produced passages that were later useful to the Nazis (though he himself was opposed to some of the things that the Nazis supported). For instance, he criticized the "taming" of the pagan German barbarians by the Christian church.

"Die Zähmung eines Thieres seine "Besserung" nennen ist in unsren Ohren beinahe ein Scherz. Wer weiss, was in Menagerien geschieht, zweifelt daran, dass die Bestie daselbst "verbessert" wird....Nicht anders steht es mit dem gezähmten Menschen, den der Priester "verbessert" hat. Im frühen Mittelalter, wo in der That die Kirche vor Allem eine Menagerie war, machte man allerwärts auf die schönsten Exemplare der "blonden Bestie" Jagd, - man "verbesserte" zum Beispiel die vornehmen Germanen. Aber wie sah hinterdrein ein solcher "verbesserter," in's Kloster verführter Germane aus? Wie eine Caricatur des Menschen....Physiologisch geredet: im Kampf mit der Bestie kann Krankmachen das einzige Mittel sein, sie schwach zu machen. Das verstand die Kirche: sie verdarb den Menschen, sie schwächte ihn, - aber sie nahm in Anspruch, ihn "verbessert" zu haben...." http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/twig.htm#verb

[To call the taming of an animal its 'improvement' sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in menageries doubts that the beasts are 'improved' here....It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has 'improved.' In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a menagerie, the most beautiful specimens of the 'blond beast' were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were 'improved.' But how did such an 'improved' Teuton who had been seduced into a monastery look afterward? Like a caricature of man...Physiologically speaking: in the struggle with beasts to make them sick may be the only means for making them weak. This the church understood: it ruined man - weakened him - but it claimed to have 'improved' him.] http://www2.muw.edu/~jmiller/PHL451/readings/nietzsche-twilight-of-the-idols.html

Of course, it's not just Germans who have glorified the "noble savage". At the height of the Enlightenment the French writer Rousseau attained notoriety by writing a work that rejected the prevailing ideals of his age (Discours sur les sciences et les arts, 1750). He wrote it as an entry in a contest sponsored by the Académie des Sciences & Belles-Lettres de Lyon.

The academy had asked for responses that answered the question whether the restoration of the arts and sciences had served to purify the morals of society. Its learned members almost certainly expected that the winning entry would answer 'yes' and go on to confirm the conventional values of the Enlightenment. How surprised they must have been to discover that the best essay had been written by Rousseau, who answered 'no'. :-)

This glorification of the "noble savage" continued strong during the Romantic period. It's still strong now, though the word 'savage' itself is no longer applied to human societies (the fact that 'savage' isn't acceptable may itself be a sign of how strong the association with nobility has become). Some key ideas from Rousseau's basic philosophy appear in both the environmental and multicultural movements. We see it too in the praise of the "simple life" (though that has multiple sources, for instance, in some religious traditions).

Some things in Thoreau's writings have some connection to this -- the appreciation of nature, the quest for freedom from the burdens that an excessive pursuit of material riches can bring. (I sympathize with these aims myself and to some degree have incorporated them into my own life. This doesn't prevent me from using the internet and satellite TV, though, nor from being grateful for the mass consumption society that has made them relatively inexpensive.)

Pop culture too shows many manifestations of the noble savage theme. I've never seen the movie Conan the Barbarian myself, but I imagine that it would be an example. Tarzan would be another.

[Persons who have no special interest in Rousseau -- and specifically in the topic of the virtues of civilization versus barbarism -- may wish to skip the following comments about Rousseau's essay. In my opinion the publication of his essay was an important event in European cultural history, with implications for cultural history throughout the world.]

Though I have some sympathy for Rousseau's point of view, on the whole I come down firmly on the side of the traditional arts and sciences -- what's commonly known as 'civilization'. Here's what I wrote right after reading Rousseau's essay.

The philosophical name of the essay is a bit misleading. Rousseau doesn't make much use of philosophical arguments. Primarily he relies on historical examples. In this relatively short work he assumes many things rather than try to prove them. I have to admit that Rousseau is a good writer, though. His eloquence in denouncing the civilized conventions of his time often had me sympathizing with his point of view. The arts and sciences do tend to weaken at least some of the virtues that he wishes to instill. I can understand why he won the prize, though I still don't agree with him.

What I dislike most about his point of view is its fanaticism. He's willing to sacrifice all the glories of literature and the arts, and all the knowledge and amenities that come from the sciences -- and in pursuit of what? An idealized society that has probably never existed. And that probably never will. He bases his ideas of this society on myths of golden ages and superficial, secondhand reports of life among some primitive peoples. Of course, when it comes to relatively well-documented history -- the ancient Greeks -- he prefers Sparta to Athens. His idea of virtue is closely linked with military strength. It's a Spartan virtue, and it reminds me very much of the virtue of some modern totalitarian regimes.

He contrasts the corruption of the Roman empire with the more admirable qualities of the early Republic. It's not the imperialism of the later Romans that bothers him, though. It's their moral weakness once they'd consolidated their empire and turned their attention to other pursuits. He puts a speech into the mouth of the early Roman hero Fabricius and has him denounce the later corruption, saying "the only talent worthy of Rome is that of conquering the world and of making virtue prevail there" (I'm including my own rough translations -- "le seul talent digne de Rome est celui de conquérir le monde, et d'y faire régner la vertu)."

He'd prefer a state in which people didn't waste their time in "stériles contemplations" [art for art's sake and disinterested knowledge] but rather one in which "everybody, heeding only the obligations of humanity and the duties of nature, would have no time but for his country, for the unfortunate, and for his friends" ("si chacun, ne consultant que les devoirs de l'homme et les besoins de la nature,n'avoit de temps que pour la patrie, pour les malheureux, et pour ses amis").

Rousseau approves of those ancient institutions which "forbade their citizens all easy and sedentary occupations" ("interdit à leurs citoyens tous ces métiers tranquilles et sédentaires") that enervate and corrupt the body. I find it noteworthy that he speaks of freedom, yet he wants to put strict limits on that freedom -- limits that nowadays most of us would consider oppressive. He seems to want the people kept in a state of deprivation and hardship so as to make them virtuous and able to withstand the rigors of war. This may be necessary in times of great danger, but it's not my idea of a better life.

Here's another rather shocking statement in reference to one of the times the library at Alexandria was burned:

"On dit que le calife Omar, consulté sur ce qu'il falloit faire de la bibliothèque d'Alexandrie, répondit en ces termes: Si les livres de cette bibliothèque contiennent des choses opposées à l'Alcoran, ils sont mauvais, et il faut les brûler; s'ils ne contiennent que la doctrine de l'Alcoran, brûlez-les encore: ils sont superflus...Cependant, supposez Grégoire-le Grand à la place d'Omar, et l'Évangile à la place de l'Alcoran, la bibliothèque auroit encore été brûlée, et ce seroit peut-être le plus beau trait de la vie de cet illustre pontife."

"It is said that the Caliph Omar, having been asked what should be done with the library at Alexandria, answered in this way: 'If the books in the library contain things which are contrary to the Koran, they are evil and ought to be burned; if they contain only what is taught in the Koran, burn them anyway -- they are superfluous.'...Yet suppose that it had been Gregory the Great in the place of Omar, and the Gospel in the place of the Koran, the library would still have been burned, and it would have been perhaps the finest deed in the life of this illustrious pontiff."

This example shows that Rousseau isn't just talking theory. Amazingly he's really supporting the burning of those books. I wonder if he would have later supported the burning of his own books. Perhaps his fanaticism would have started to moderate there.

Well, that should give you an idea of what I don't like about the essay. Of course, because my own position is mostly on the other side, I've used illustrations of what I consider to be its weaknesses. In fairness I should repeat what I said at the beginning. Rousseau writes well, and the work has value both as literature and as an important document in cultural history. I believe that he's essentially wrong but must admit that he's wrong in a striking and -- for me at least -- interesting way.

<When did Goth become a synonym for "barbaric person"?
Which crappy dictionary is this? >



another dictionary says :

Gothic=adj. of or pertaining to the Goths or their language; of or pertaining to a style of medieval architecture characterized by pointed arches and vaulting; of or pertaining to the artistic style of medieval northern Europe; medieval; barbaric

Gjones2:
Interesting stuff about Rousseau. I know he admired mountain people like the Swiss and the Scandinavians, because they lived close to nature, in non-feudal freedom.

"Barbar" was originally what the Greeks called non-Greeks, people who didn't utter understandable stuff (= Greek), but just bar-bar (=blah-blah).
Similarly Slavs call Germans "Nemec" = dumb (is in severly linguistically handicapped, not stupid) people, because Germans were unable to communicate in German when among only Slavs. So they were in effect dumb.

Some of the finest pieces of Greek (=non-barbaric) culture are of course Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, tales about daring heroes who sail upon the high seas, make war and do many martial deeds.
But what is the difference between these tales and the Norse sagas? The saga heroes also sail around on adventure conquer and explore untill the fate the gods have chosen for them reaches them, just like Ulysses and his guys.
Although the Vikings officially were barbarians, were is the difference?

Yes, the early Greeks would seem to qualify as barbarians too. This is true in general of legends of "heroic" ages. Some of these heroes do have virtues that are admired still. Along with those virtues, though, are many things that go against the ideals of modern civilization.

The fact that modern European education developed on a foundation of Greek and Latin scholarship probably has much to do with the different treatment that has been given to the Greek and Norse heroes. Also most modern history is written by people from the larger European countries whose ancestors regarded the Vikings as enemies rather than by persons who might have more sympathy for them. I suppose that some credit is given to the Vikings for their courage and seamanship, though, and to the Norse explorers for their accomplishment in crossing the Atlantic.

You are so right, Gjones2, it all depends on your point of view.
Although having arrived as wild barbarians just a couple of centirues before, intruding upon Britain's Roman-Celtic civilization, the Anglo-Saxons were shocked when Norse barbarians showed up at Lindisfarne in 793 killing monks and raping women.

In a similar vein Germanic = barbarian Norwegians today are just as shocked as other Europeans by the stories of anonymous hordes of Vandals, Lombards, Goths, Franks etc. sacking Rome and Roman culture. Because we have learned to view "our" barbarians differently: The Vikings were wild and barbaric, but many of them we know by their name (perhaps the same as your own), their birth place (could be your own) and so on. The sagas don't tell of anonymous hordes, but of Eirik from Obrestad, Ingolv from Fjordane, Odd from Berglyd who sailed westwards and did some "business" there. They had their life, their saga and their fate and could have been your neighbours and relatives, and no doubt the Icelanders especially still cherish that feeling.