Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
M J Harper wrote:
>
> Let’s try and nail this invader/change of language business
> once and for all.
>
> We might conveniently start with two cases involving
> English-speakers and with which even my sternest critic
> (Doug) would agree:
> 1. The English invasion of North America
> 2. The English invasion of the Indian sub-continent
> The first led to a language change and the second did not.

Vastly different situations.

> Now we’ll enter all the caveats that waste so much time:
> Yes, it’s true that there are still pockets of Native
> American language-speaking in North America

In spite of official policies (prior to and during the early years of the 20th century) aimed at completely eliminating native populations and their descendants and ridiculing their culture to encourage to abandon it in favor of English.

> Yes, it’s true that plenty of people in the Indian
> sub-continent can speak English, some even as a first language

11 million second language speakers compared to 364 million native speakers and 23 million second language speakers of Hindi which is only 50% of the population of India which does not include the rest of the sub-continent. So, relatively few.

> Yes, it’s true that English has picked up various Hindi,
> Urdhu etc loan-words
> Yes, it’s true that all the languages of the Indian
> sub-continent have picked up various English loan-words
> Yes, it’s true that there are slight variations in North
> American English, English English and English as she is spoke
> in India
>
> NEVERTHELESS it is an observable fact that the language got
> changed in North America and it remained static (to use
> Ishmael’s term) in India.

By the same reasoning, you could say, and more accurately, that the ancestry of the people in North America "got changed" and it "remained static" in India.

The observable fact was not "that the langauge got changed," but that 1. speakers of native languages in North America were reduced by wars and illness so that their population did not grow at the same rate as that of the more recent immigrants/invaders, 2. non-English speaking immigrants encouraged their children to learn English thus out-populating the descendants of Native Americans, and 3. the children of native speakers were, in many cases, forcibly removed from their families and placed in orphanage-like schools where speaking their native language and learning about their native culture was prohibited and ridiculed, forced instead to speak English and admire English speaking cultural heros. This practice persisted well into the 20th century while the active policies to exterminate the population was discontinued, as far as I know, at the end of the 19th century.

Although the native populations of India suffered from wars, it was the British visitors and not the natives who were more proned to suffer from local illnesses, there was no massive immigration of non-English speaking European immigrants who encouraged their children to speak English, and the natives were not, to my knowledge, placed on reservations, where their children were taken from them and forced to speak English.

On the one hand, the native generations following the invasion were reduced and forced to speak English while the descendants of the invaders multiplied, reinforced by the descendants of other immigrants who adopted English, and on the other hand, the native generations following the invasion were not reduced and were not forced to speak English while the descendants of the invadors did not multiply rapidly and were not re-inforced by other immigrants who adopted English.

So neither the language nor the ancestry of the people in the Indian sub-continent "got changed."

> OK, are we all together so far? Excellent.
>
> My book says that Model 2 (languages remaining unchanged when
> a country is occupied by invaders speaking a different
> language) is the norm.
> Orthodoxy also says that Model 2 is the norm.

Under what circumstances is that model the norm?

If a country were simply occupied by invaders, the invaders not mingling with the natives, not forcing them to learn a new language and culture, not purposefully devising ways to extinguish them and make way for settlers from their home country, then Model 2 would clearly be the norm. The natives of the occupied country would likely borrow words from the invaders, but the substrate language of the natives would remain the same.

> Where we take issue is that when Orthodoxy requires a
> Creation Myth i.e. when it requires an explanation for the
> origin of a language spoken by a particular people, it
> sometimes unwarrantably slips in a Model 1 (language changed
> by invaders).

So, correct me if I'm wrong, orthodoxy says that English, the language that we speak, was derived from Germanic languages, the languages of the Jutes, Angles and Saxons who invaded this country and occupied it for centuries as a rulling class. Orthodoxy says (without justificaton) that the native Celtic population encouraged their children to speak the language of these Germanic newcomers?

Are you saying then that the English language is actually derived from the languages of these Celtic populations who, at best, borrowed extensively from their Germanic rulers?

I suppose it's possible. Has anyone done the necessary linguistic research to refute the claim that the substrate of English is Germanic? The orthodox view of the History of English, as I understand it, has the Germanic languages of Britain, not merely the language of the invading Jutes, Angles and Saxons, but also the North Germanic Danes and Vikings who colonized Northumbria and other parts of the British Isles, forming a sort of standardized Pidgin Germanic that eventually developed into a Germanic Middle English lacking most of the case and gender endings of other Germanic languages.

Isn't there a better case for a Germanic language comprising the substrate of English than a Celtic language?

If the norm is model 2, but model 1 has clearly occured before (North America being the most recent example) then isn't it possible too that Model 1 occurred in Britain during the first millennium AD and the only thing lacking in the orthodox explanation are the atrocities comperable to what English speakers did to the native populations of America, the systematic extermination of Celts?

The fact that such atrocities actually occurred in relatively modern times and the vast majority of English speakers less than 100 years later are completely oblivious to it leaves plenty of room for similar incidents occurring in the more distant path between Germanic invaders and Celtic natives and the subsequent amnesia and creation of a myth to explain how the language of the Anglo-Saxons came to be dominant in Britain.

Regards,
nonconformist.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
AOM: Anomoly One 138 AOM-Presenter 03-Apr-03 16:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 jameske 03-Apr-03 20:02
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 81 Doug 03-Apr-03 22:44
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 105 M J Harper 03-Apr-03 23:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 Nobody 04-Apr-03 00:16
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 76 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 00:29
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 Nobody 04-Apr-03 01:07
Cymri 197 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 04:59
Re: AOM: Anomaly One 93 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 03:31
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 98 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 04:17
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 108 nonconformist 04-Apr-03 05:20
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 93 Doug 04-Apr-03 06:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 123 HectorChico 04-Apr-03 10:26
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 97 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 12:56
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 113 DPCrisp 04-Apr-03 13:27
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 107 HectorChico 04-Apr-03 14:58
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 113 M J Harper 04-Apr-03 16:30
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 69 AOM-Presenter 04-Apr-03 16:31
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 130 nonconformist 05-Apr-03 02:15
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 117 AOM-Presenter 05-Apr-03 04:57
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 127 nonconformist 05-Apr-03 08:56
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 118 M J Harper 07-Apr-03 02:24
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 96 nonconformist 07-Apr-03 07:17
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 108 AOM-Presenter 07-Apr-03 15:00
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 72 nonconformist 08-Apr-03 00:27
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 99 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 01:01
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 nonconformist 08-Apr-03 03:50
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 95 DPCrisp 08-Apr-03 13:52
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 65 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 15:05
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 102 nonconformist 10-Apr-03 02:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 145 stickler 10-Apr-03 10:09
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 99 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 10:59
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 88 stickler 10-Apr-03 12:32
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 16:01
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 120 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 16:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 116 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:26
Spellinge 114 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 15:41
Re: Spellinge 107 stickler 10-Apr-03 15:50
Pronounciation 103 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 16:19
Re: Pronounciation 110 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:33
Re: Pronounciation 108 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 18:35
Re: Pronounciation 121 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 09:39
Re: Spellinge 87 DPCrisp 10-Apr-03 16:34
Re: Spellinge 131 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:34
Re: Spellinge 108 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 09:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 14:29
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 107 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 15:16
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 94 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 11:35
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 90 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:19
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 111 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:33
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 95 Doug 12-Apr-03 08:21
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 85 Doug 08-Apr-03 17:20
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 103 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 18:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 87 Doug 08-Apr-03 21:23
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 84 M J Harper 08-Apr-03 22:23
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 14:10
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 86 stickler 10-Apr-03 15:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 81 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 16:30
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 108 stickler 10-Apr-03 17:52
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 81 M J Harper 11-Apr-03 22:37
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 111 nonconformist 12-Apr-03 03:46


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.