|
Post by nellie on Oct 20, 2011 19:14:09 GMT -1
Dr. Oppenheimer agrees with Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and - this is the key - was spoken in England before the Roman invasion. (romanarmy.net) also here: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/I'm aware this is not a new concept for a good many of the Brython group, but it's a new theory to me ;D Can anybody enlighten me on the arguments for and against the possibilty of this? How viable is this theory?
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Oct 20, 2011 20:31:40 GMT -1
Dr. Oppenheimer agrees with Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and - this is the key - was spoken in England before the Roman invasion. (romanarmy.net) also here: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/I'm aware this is not a new concept for a good many of the Brython group, but it's a new theory to me ;D Can anybody enlighten me on the arguments for and against the possibilty of this? How viable is this theory? The problem here is that there seems to be a mis match between archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence. As if the different disciplines lead to different conclusions about the same period. Oppenheimer's contention that at least parts of Britain sopke a form of Germanic is based on genetic evidence about the Belgic people who he claims were Germanic rather than Celtic. Certainly the Romans seems to have lumped these peoples together. But Oppenheimer;s main point is that Germanic Celtic and later influences are all overlaid on the basic Basque origins of the British peoples. As he says: So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets. But that is based on genes rather than language and culture. It's important to bear that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Oct 21, 2011 6:36:13 GMT -1
Do language and culture always go hand in hand? What I'm getting at is, if there was an area of Britain that spoke a different language as suggested above, would the material culture that went with it also be different to surrounding areas? Is there any reason to suggest that the iorn age south of the thames differed in any way to the peoples north of it? Would people adopt a culture but not a language and vice versa?
I keep coming across this theory of a divide existing between the 'english' and the so-called 'celtic fringe' long before the notion of a saxon invasion. It keeps cropping up, if only presented as a divide of approach, with the south and south east being that much more open to ideas from across the continent and more open to change. Was this originally Francis Pryor's thought?
Getting a bit lost in it all :S
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Oct 21, 2011 9:41:23 GMT -1
Do language and culture always go hand in hand? As a fairly solid rule, yes. Language is the vehicle for culture. Language (or culture!) and genetics, however, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As soon as he moves away from genetics, Oppenheimer's theories are, frankly, bollocks. The evidence suggests that the genetic makeup of the British Isles has not changed significantly since the Neolithic, which is all fine and dandy. However, genetic continuity does not indicate cultural and linguistic continuity: in fact, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Oppenheimer seems to be under the impression that populations do not change their languages, rather language replacement only stems from population replacement. Evidence for language shift without wholesale population replacement is abundant throughout the world, an particularly in the British Isles: the Cornish, for example, did not stop speaking Cornish and start speaking English because they were slaughtered or driven off by Anglophone immigrants. He also seems to be under the impression that a lack of Celtic place-names in eastern England is an indication that there have been no Celtic speakers there. While few modern placenames in eastern England derive from Celtic, we have plenty of evidence for pre-Saxon Celtic placenames in the area: Camulodunum, Dubris, Noviomagus, Verulamium etc are all Celtic names, not Germanic. If during the Roman occupation of Britain this area was speaking some early form of English, why don't we have records of Germanic place names here? Overall, he doesn't seem to have the first clue about historical linguistics. Which is fair enough, he's a geneticist. I know sod all about genetics. On the other hand, I don't concoct wild theories about genetics and foist them on the unsuspecting public in paperback form. Were I to come up with such a theory, I'd make damn sure I read the relevant literature on the subject before publishing: something Oppenheimer clearly hasn't done. For example, claiming that speakers of a Celtic language arrived in the British Isles around 9000 BC is ludicrous, and indicates that he hasn't bothered to read the literature. Proto-Celtic's own parent language, Proto-Indo-European, probably wasn't even spoken at that time. (Furthermore, if I may comment on the quote from the article on romanarmy.net: "Dr. Oppenheimer agrees with Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary". There's nice, two geneticists agree on something they know nothing about. Glottochronology dates from the 50s, and was abandoned by linguists only shortly afterwards. Because it does not work. It's not a matter of being "too cautious", it's abandoning a tool that doesn't work. Would you try to fix a computer with the remote from your telly? No, because it wouldn't work, no matter how much two carpenters tell you that you're being "too cautious".) In summary: it's bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Oct 21, 2011 13:15:15 GMT -1
Deiniol - thanks! Not only have you cleared that up for me, you also gave me a giggle
|
|
|
Post by dumnorix on Oct 30, 2011 10:41:40 GMT -1
I've been having a lengthy discussion about it here. It's amazing what some people believe just because it's controversial.
|
|