Talk:History of English/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latin and Greek

There is a brief note about Latin and Greek words being introduced via Christianity. When? Didn't the Romans occupy Britain at some time? Could Latin words have been adopted during the Roman occupation, and not second-hand via Germanic tribes?124.99.205.23 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Roman occupation of Britain was from 43 to 410—before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Even if there had been Anglo-Saxons there before 410, the language was not open to borrowing then, as can be seen from the fact that it did not borrow Brythonic words. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons began in 596. --teb728 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) I believe the wave of borrowing which resulted from the introduction of Christianity added principally words that were specifically Christian like church, bishop, and priest—words that would have been of no use to the pagan Anglo-Saxons at the time of the Roman occupation --teb728 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But the West Germanic tribes had already borrowed some words from Latin even before the Angles and Saxons left the Continent for Britain; words like cherry, butter, and street. Also church, as it's convenient to have a name for prominent buildings you see other people using, even if you don't use them yourself. (English had a word for mosque long before there were any English-speaking Muslims, after all.) —Angr/talk 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Though church is from Greek - but probably you meant that. Discussed at kirk. --Doric Loon 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Either I meant that, or I meant that Germanic borrowed it directly from Latin, which itself borrowed it from Greek. It's a little weird because neither Greek or Latin normally uses the word that Germanic church was borrowed from; they both use ekklesia instead. —Angr/talk 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When Caesar arrived in Britain, he met people whom he considered to be originally Belgic immigrants from Northern Gaul (De Bello Gallico v.xii). He tells us that the Belgae are a Germanic, not a Celtic people (De Bello Gallico ii.iv). England was speaking Germanic when Caesar arrived. Thus this concept of England being originally Celtic has absolutely no base in anything. The reason it was assumed that England spoke a Celtic language was that Tacitus tells us that the Britons share nearly the same language with that of Gaul. It was assumed that "Gaul" means Celtic Gaul. Actually, Northern Gaul, known as Belgica, spoke the "Belgian" tongue, a Germanic tongue, probably the ancestor of Frisian and Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozushi (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If Caesar thought Britain was inhabited by Germanic peoples when he arrived, he was mistaken. They were Celts; all the evidence points to this. According to our article on the Belgae it isn't certain whether they were Germanic or Celtic, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this article, as the inhabitants of Great Britain before the mid-5th century were unambiguously Celts, speakers of Brythonic languages. —Angr 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In its current version the page completely ignores the impact of 300 years of Roman England. Is there a reason for this? 172.206.105.159 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes; the 300 years of Roman Britain took place before the English language arrived on the island. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To say that all British were 'unambiguously' Celtic speakers shows clear bias. There is a huge body of doubt as to the All-Celtic England model. The examples of latin words in pre-norman English like Cherry, Butter and Street, indicates that the words arrived with the Roman occupation. To say these came over with the Angles is beyond dubious. The Romans never went North of the Rhine and Angeln is in modern Denmark. Funny how all those Latin words carried through and barely 4 Brythonic words came through. See a discussion of languages of the Belgae in wikipedia. The general consensus is that the Belgae were an independent Germanic speaking people who had a propensity for Celtic culture and language, especially in their Elites. To conclude that they all spoke Celt because some chiefs had Celtic names, is like claiming anyone with a Greek name like Andrew, speaks Greek.--92.4.172.62 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Shows clear bias"? I suppose it does: clear bias in favor of what the evidence points to. Since words like "cherry", "butter", and "street" are found not only in English but throughout West Germanic ("cherry" is in North Germanic too, and "street" is in Old Norse but maybe not in the modern Scandinavian languages), it's far more likely they were borrowed into some Proto-Germanic dialect long before English arrived in Britain. What's "beyond dubious" is the "evidence" you've presented here and at Talk:British language (Celtic) against the "all-Celtic England model". You can't expect anyone to believe you when all you do is glibly explain away the counterevidence without actually producing any positive, direct evidence in favor of your hypothesis. To reiterate the points I made on the other talk page: (1) The relative paucity of Celtic words in Old English is not evidence that Germanic speakers were already in Britain in Roman times. (2) The relative paucity of Celtic inscriptions in southeast England is not evidence that Germanic speakers were already in Britain in Roman times. (3) The DNA and archaeological evidence suggesting that the Celts were assimilated to the Anglo-Saxons, not wiped out by them, is also not evidence that Germanic speakers were already in Britain in Roman times. (4) So far, I haven't seen any evidence at all that Germanic speakers were already in Britain in Roman times —Angr 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglian is a Scandinavian language from Denmark. Butter in Danish is Smor, Street in Danish is Vej/Gade. Swedish is equally different. The closest words to butter/street are clearly Frisian which is Buter/strjitte. Its as likely that those words were shared already by early forms of Frisian/English, even before the Roman occupation of Southern England. To take your points, (1) True, but it anything but proves that Celtic was spoken does it not? (2) Really? Paucity is not even the word. Complete lack of Celtic is a better description. And the South East Britains were the most literate. I'd say that is a very strong pointer to a lack of Celtic surely. Of course it doesnt prove Germanic was spoken but they must have been speaking some language and it wasnt Latin overall. (3)True but it anything but proves that Celtic was spoken does it not? (4)Turn the question around. The biggest evidence of English in the South East is a glaring one. We are speaking it now. Now you prove to me that Celtic was spoken there. I can add (5) How is it possible that backwaters like Scotland/Cumbria/Wales/Cornwall are awash with Celtic inscriptions after the Roman withdrawal and yet barely one found in all the rest of heavily populated England? (See maps at the Celtic inscribed Stone project, CISP)

My main concern about all this is the recent embarrasment caused to a generation of American historians who stuck doggedly to the 11,000BC Clovis model of people populating America. Any evidence of spear points pre-11,000BC were institutionally and systematically discarded and ignored as being 'misdated'. It was impossible to do research into it due to the established belief. DNA proved conclusively that people had been in the Americas for over 27,000 years. Only then did the avalanche of artefacts and archaeology become available to back it up. The concern I have is that the same thing may have happened with research into English. The All-Celtic model of pre-Roman Britain should and must not be taken for granted until there is real proof, and a few Celtic sounding King names does not an all Celtic speaking population make.--92.4.172.62 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that Anglian is a Scandinavian (i.e. North Germanic) language, but it isn't. It's West Germanic. As I said, "butter" is found throughout West Germanic. "Street" is no longer around in the modern Scandinavian languages, but it's present in Old Norse. To (3), the DNA and archaeological evidence doesn't and can't prove anything about language. Evidence from DNA and archaeology has absolutely no bearing whatever on discussions of language. It's completely irrelevant to the issue. (4) People are speaking English in California and Australia today too; does that mean there were already Germanic speakers there in the first century AD? You know perfectly well what the evidence for Celtic in pre-5th century southeast England is, since you keep trying to deny its significance: the names on the coins. I know you keep pointing out it's possible for non-Celtic speakers to have Celtic names, but in the absence of any real evidence that they weren't Celtic speakers, the "possible" is not yet "plausible". To (5), who knows? Maybe they wrote on some biodegradable substance instead of stone. Frankly, if it is true the people in southeast Britain weren't speaking a Brythonic language in the early 5th century, it's more likely they were speaking Vulgar Latin than that they were speaking a Germanic language. To your last paragraph, it's the nature of science that it takes more than one unanswered question or one piece of inconvenient evidence to topple a long-established theory. And when the evidence against the long-established theory becomes overwhelming, there's nothing embarrassing about having to write a new one. But in this case, the evidence against the established theory is quite underwhelming. —Angr 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Going a bit off topic about Anglian, but Saxon is West Germanic/Lower German, not Anglian which is North Germanic. Angeln is in Denmark North of Schleswig Holstein and always has been part of the Scandinavian block. Runes which are Scandinavian are only found in Anglian areas up to 650AD, none in Saxon. Vikings conquered the Anglian areas easily due to the language similarity, no Vikings in South Coast Saxon areas where they spoke Lower Germanic dialects. This I believe is generally accepted.

With regard to underwhelming evidence, you can not deny that your only evidence for Celtic in England is the Celtic sounding King names on the Belgic A-F coins found in England. Have you any other evidence or pointers? I believe you are simply copying the opinions of some dated histories, without taking any modern opinions into account. Wikipedia should be about uptodate history, not the dated version. Its fine to speculate that Celtic was spoken in England, but to say it was unambiguously spoken is going too far. That is unfair to readers.

With regard to Vulgar latin(spoken mainly by Roman soldiers) , your theory is too big a bite to swallow. That implies that your common farmer/peasant in darkest Suffolk is speaking vulgar latin. Are you suggesting that that your poor average peasant had to undergo 4 separate languages from 50AD-1066? ie Celtic, then Vulgar Latin, then Anglo-Saxon(incomprehensible to modern English speakers), then finally modern English?(middle English is very easy to read). Is that reasonable? Surely the idea that they spoke one language..English all that time is more believable. The evidence is everywhere, but is understandbly ignored/misanalysed. eg the Gold Coin found in Suffolk dated to 330AD with Germanic runes on it. The British Museums analyst in an attempt to explain this ambiguity states that "it must be" an import from Shleswig-Hostein. However it has Constantine on its reverse! Why would people outside the Empire be putting a Roman emporor on their coins? It must be presumed it is a local coin made by locals until proven otherwise. There are countless examples like this, in comparison to the...basic lack of Celtic thereof.--92.4.250.237 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking about different things with regard to Anglian – I'm talking about the Anglian dialects (Mercian and Northumbrian) of Old English, not about the language of the runes in Denmark. The names on the coins is not the only evidence for Celtic in southeast England: the names of towns, rivers, and tribes in the area are also Celtic. But you can't deny that the only evidence for Germanic in southeast England is the one gold coin you linked to above (and this is the first time you've presented any evidence at all for Germanic in Britain before the mid-5th century). Given a choice between several dozen coins, towns, rivers, and tribes with Celtic names on the one hand and a single coin with a Germanic inscription on the other hand, I think it's clear which conclusion the evidence points more readily to. I don't actually believe the peasants of the area were speaking Vulgar Latin (though why couldn't they? The peasants of France, Spain, and Romania all managed to pick it up); I only brought that up to make the point that Vulgar Latin is more likely than a Germanic language, since we know there were Latin speakers around, and there's no evidence (apart from your gold coin) there were Germanic speakers around. —Angr 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does 92.4.250.237 have references to the opinions of respected experts published in reliable sources? That is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not include original research or original synthesis—no matter how “true” someone thinks it is. —teb728 t c 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would guess 92.4.250.237 has been reading 'Origins of the British'[1], by Stephen Oppenheimer, or some analysis of it or similar. While primarily focusing on DNA analysis of the origins of the occupants of various parts of the British Isles, the book includes some serious analysis of the possibility of a Germanic language pre-dating the Romans in southern/eastern Britain (unfortunately it appears not mentioned in any detail on that link). This includes using the research of a number of linguists, geneticists and archaeologists. I will expand on it at some point, but briefly there is more evidence than 92.4.250.237 puts forward, or Angr seems to be aware of (or accepts) for the presence of a Belgic/Germanic people and language in areas of southern/eastern Britain/England prior to the Romans (not disimilar to the coastal 'lingua franca' mentioned below by 87.81.230.195). Not only Caesar - and I believe it is odd for Angr to dismiss such a major primary contemporary source as "mistaken" and then refer to "all evidence" thus ignoring Caesar entirely - but Roman miiltary records referring to the Sussex/Kent/Essex/Suffolk coast as the "Saxon Shore" (i.e. why 'Saxon' before the Anglo-Saxons arrived?); linguistic analysis of early English texts such as Beowulf and Alfred pointing out greater divergence between the two than should be expected in the timescale and a closer relationship with elements of North Germanic than West Germanic; also the infact relatively limited number of 'celtic' placenames in the south east, with at least as many of unknown origin.

The essence of the ideas is that 'pre-English' is an entirely separate early branch of Germanic, more closely related to Old Norse than to West Germanic. From the Oppenheimer page: He reports work on linguistics by Forster and Toth which suggests that Indo-European languages began to fragment some 10,000 years ago (at the end of the Ice Age). Oppenheimer claims that Celtic split from Indo-European earlier than previously suspected, some 6000 years ago, while English split from Germanic before the Roman period, see Forster, Polzin and Rohl. Tying in with the genetic and archaelogical focus of the book, the idea is that eastern Britain had long and ongoing contacts with other areas of northern Europe, while western Britain related to the Atlantic coast. This then gives a basis for the celtic/anglo-saxon 'divide' - archaeological, cultural, linguistic - being older (though less genetically based than expected) than post-Roman Anglo-Saxon invasion, which isn't significantly supported by DNA (or archaeological) evidence. Redmark (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppenheimer is a British physician, not a respected expert in the history of English, and his book is not a reliable source. Therefore his theories are not eligible for inclusion in the article. You say that he used the research of linguists: If they are respected experts, then their research published in reliable sources may be eligible for inclusion. —teb728 t c 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lamentable tendency in recent years for non-linguists (and sometimes even linguists, who ought to know better) to make claims about historical linguistics based on archaeology and/or genetics rather than on linguistic data. If there is direct linguistic evidence for a Germanic language in southeast Britain before the fifth century, and this evidence is discussed in a peer-reviewed, published reliable source, then go ahead and add it. —Angr 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet this very wiki page does precisely the same (with little attribution in many cases) in setting a framework for the linguistic evidence: "brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops", "the varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of England", "then influenced by two waves of invasion", "Cohabitation with the Scandinavians resulted in a significant grammatical simplification and lexical enrichment of the Anglo-Frisian core of English"... Each of these statements - from just the first two paragraphs - rely on non-linguistic evidence, not all of which is universally accepted. Granted, they follow the conventional most broadly accepted version, but it is not universally accepted or without disagreement or controversy. If the conventional history is challenged then the basis for the linguistic analysis is inevitably also challenged if it depends too heavily on the history. Later in the article, the statement "Our main source for the culture of the Germanic peoples (the ancestors of the English)" seems to have no place in an article on language and is unclear in it's meaning and inaccurate (ancestors how - genetically? Largely incorrect. Culturally? Far too simplistic. etc).

This article as a whole relies too much on such non-linguistic evidence, yet some contributors reject any amendment based on alternative non-linguistic evidence. For what it's worth, the Oppenheimer book cites work by the linguist April McMahon, who in turn cites (and treats seriously) the work of non linguists and 'non traditional' methods of analysis. Some of this work, while recognised by the authors as in an early stage and based on limited word lists with further work required, places Old English variously in West Germanic, in North Germanic or an earlier branch with two way influence borrowing (earlier than either Anglo Saxon and Viking influences) with other languages from both families (e.g Frisian).Redmark (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Written English

When did English become a written language?124.99.205.23 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's some unreferenced info I found: An Anglo-Saxon inscription dated between 450 and 480 AD is the oldest sample of the English language. During the next few centuries four dialects of English developed:

   * Northumbrian in Northumbria, north of the Humber
   * Mercian in the Kingdom of Mercia
   * West Saxon in the Kingdom of Wessex
   * Kentish in Kent 

During the 7th and 8th Centuries, Northumbria's culture and language dominated Britain. The Viking invasions of the 9th Century brought this domination to an end (along with the destruction of Mercia). Only Wessex remained as an independent kingdom. By the 10th Century, the West Saxon dialect became the official language of Britain. Written Old English is mainly known from this period. It was written in an alphabet called Runic, derived from the Scandinavian languages. The Latin Alphabet was brought over from Ireland by Christian missionaries. This has remained the writing system of English. 124.99.205.23 13:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Anglo-Saxon literature.--Doric Loon 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Language Evolution

Nature (449 (11 October 2007) pp 713 to 716) includes a letter concerning the evolution of verbs in the English language over the past 1200 years. It addresses the rate at which verbs evolve to use the dental suffix (ie become "regular" in using the "-ed" ending to signify past tense). The researchers adduce that the half-life of an irregular verb scales as the square root of its usage frequency. From this they postulate half lives varying between 300 years for rarely used verbs up to 38,800 years for the most common verbs used (be, have). Really good read. Should this be part of the article or simply a reference? Quartic 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say at best, add it as an External link at Germanic weak verb, if it has a URL. It's only a letter to the editor, right, not a peer-reviewed article? And while Nature is fine for the natural sciences, I've never been impressed by their coverage of linguistics. —Angr 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a letter, not a peer-reviewed article. No URL. Thanks for your analysis / advice. I'll take no further action now. Quartic 13:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet?

What about the influence of the internet? I have the feeling that an article exists, but shouldn't this page link to it? If one doesn't, I'll make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroetransfer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is an overview of the evolution of the English. Without a major expansion, talking about the influence of the internet would be overly specific.

The influence of the internet on vocabulary and on the world-wide spread of English is touched on at English language. If there were a link to a more specific article, I would think it should be from there.

The effect of English on the internet is discussed at English in computer science. --teb728 t c 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Am I to take it then that there is no page specifically discussing this? I'll begin researching and maybe a long time from now I'll have enough to lay the groundowork for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroetransfer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern English?

Is the Oliver Twist passage really a prime example of Modern English? It uses conventions that, while still grammatically correct, are not in common use today (i.e. using semicolons in the place of commas, single quotes in spoken dialogue, and the double colon ["said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:" instead of "said, ...", which would be considered standard today). While I know that by definition, that is an example of Modern English, English has evolved over the last 150 years and that is no longer what you would see in literature today. Perhaps a quote from a newer source is warranted?

EvilReborn (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to call "modern" only the times you're living in. The present becomes the past, the language you're speaking nowadays may very soon becomes old-fashioned, but it's still "modern english". Because it's very likely that in a 150 years from here, your descendents will be able to understand it. The 1996 film "Romeo + Juliet" used the original language of shakespeare (minus the accent, maybe) and everybody could understand. But if you make a movie that takes place in England in the 11th century, I think you'll need subtitles, or dubbing. ;) I think it's important to understand that "modern" is much larger than the last 5 years; that "modern english" has been spoken for a long time. And I think it's better to choose the most interesting text of the language (either it was written in the 19th century or in 2008) over the most recent.
Cheers. karlalabma 18:56, 1 january 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Anglo-Saxon" really Frisian?

If we accept the paradigm of the Germanic invasions/migrations being predominently made up of (in descending order?) Angles, Saxons and Jutes, plus some Franks and a small admixture of Frisians, it seems odd that the resultant "Anglo-Saxon" or Early English language is most closely related to Frisian, rather than being derived from the majority(?) Angle and/or Saxon, or being (at least for a time) a geographical patchwork of Angle, Saxon and Jutish. I remember reading somewhere a suggestion that, because the Frisians were coastal dwellers and therefore prominent in sea trade and transportation, their tongue was used as a Lingua franca (!) by the other groups and for this reason became the common tongue of the newly settled lands. Is this idea worth tracking down source-wise and incorporating into the article, or has it been discredited? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it before. Sounds interesting. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the longer discussion above, this idea would seem to be largely non-linguistic so far, or at least dependent on new forms of analysis not (yet) widely accepted by many traditional linguists. Personally I believe that this article is already based on largely non-linguistic evidence, but I won't be making any edits until/unless I track down more of the direct linguistic analysis than just it's use in other sources (e.g. Oppenheimer). It is really quite an immature area of research which may either fade away or provide more significant, linguistic, evidence.

Briefly out of interest, the idea is that proto-Germanic would be established rather earlier than conventionally thought in the usual areas plus parts of what is now southern/eastern England - i.e. the Brythonic language was not pushed out of those areas, but didn't have any significant presence in them in the first place, with the inhabitants being more 'Belgic' than 'Celtic'. Trading and cultural contact for those areas would be predominantly with the continent and Scandinavia for a significant period of time, with particularly close ties between 'English' and 'Frisian' areas and language groups, but also some Old Norse input. On this basis, the limited post-Roman Anglo-Saxon (and Jutes etc) migration brought some changes to an existing Germanic language, rather than replacing a Celtic one.Redmark (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a distinctly linguistic idea—if Frisian was used as a lingua franca, there would be distinct and clear linguistic evidence for it. I think you misunderstand what is linguistic, perhaps?

If your idea is to be included, you'll need to find a reliable source which supports it; preferably a book published by a reliable press by a respected Germanic Philologist. Short of that, if you can find a moderately reliable source attributing that view to any professional linguist, it may be included with attribution. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)