Mysteries :  The Official 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
>> It is true that the majority of historians and even linguists
>> believe that English is derived from Anglo-Saxon and that the
>> language changed drastically between 1100 AD and 1400 AD, but
>> they do so in spite of orthodox linguistic theory
>> which, more in line with what you maintain, claims that
>> languages don't change that drastically in such a short time.
> It sounds like you're not really arguing at all then. But
> what's their excuse? They must be wrestling with a
> faulty paradigm - that has already blinded them.

Yes, I'm not really arguing, or perhaps it would be more accruate to say that I'm agreeing more than I'm arguing. I'm more convinced that Mr. Harper is on the right track, I'm just unable at this point to accept all of this assertions, especially regarding linguistic change which is something I've invested a great deal of time into studying. The differences however might be due in part to a confusion of terms.

Before I heard about Mr. Harper's book and participated in this thread, I was as blind as anyone else to the contradiction here. Anglo-Saxon is drastically different from Middle English. The time span between the usage of Anglo-Saxon and Middle English is relatively short, shorter than the time that separates us from English speakers in 1630 when thousands migrated to America. It makes little sense that Anglo-Saxon would have been brought to England as a foreign language and then change so drastically in such a short period of time.

From an "exterminationist" point of view, assuming it was people speaking Anglo-Saxon, who virtually wiped out all the native inhabitants of the land, you wouldn't expect the Anglo-Saxon of 1100 AD (Middle English) to be much different from the Anglo-Saxon of Beowulf 300 or 400 years earlier. But it is strikingly different, so the "exterminationist" point of view has got to go.

From the orthodox linguistic point of view, assuming that a Celtic language was spoken prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon warriors and these Celts weren't wiped out, you'd expect the people to speak a form of Celtic and nothing similar to Anglo-Saxon or English at all, but they speak English, so that idea is out.

From the orthodox historian's point of view, assuming that a Celtic language was spoken prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon warriors but CONTRARY to orthodox linguistic theory they native Celts abandoned their language in favor of Anglo-Saxon, you would expect the English of 1100 AD to be a bastardized version of Anglo-Saxon with all sorts of Celtic loan words, but that doesn't describe English, so that theory has go to go.

So now what are we left with?

1. We know that the people spoke something similar to Modern English in 1100 AD. (not the same, but similar)

2. We know that these people were there hundreds of years earlier and weren't wiped out.

3. We know that they would have spoken a language very similar to what was spoken in 1100 AD just as we speak something very similar to what was spoken 400 years ago when the first English speakers emigrated from England to America, Africa, Australia, India and so forth.

4. Therefore, we know that the language they spoke at the time the Anglo-Saxons arrived was neither Celtic nor Anglo-Saxon because those languages are too dissimilar to the English of 1100 AD.

5. Therefore, it makes more sense that the people who spoke English around 1100 AD were descended from (or at least largely so) a people who settled in the area much earlier than arrival of the foreign Anglo-Saxon rulers, perhaps as long ago as the first arrival of the Celts along the coastal regions of the Atlantic and the arrival of the various Germanic tribes in the interior of the continent.

6. But we also know that English is an Indo-European language and more closely related to German than to any other Indo-European language, so.... provisionally,... I would say that the orthodox family tree of Indo-European languages must be revised so that the ancestors of English speakers are seen to have branched off from the Germanic languages much earlier than is commonly assumed.

Indo-European languages
Anatolian languages (including Hittite, etc.)
Albanians (derivation uncertain)
Armenians (who remained in or migrated to Armenia)
Greeks (who migrated to Macedonia)
Iranians (who remained in or migrated to Iran)
Indic people (who remained in or migrated to the
Indian subcontinent)
Tocharians (who remained in or migrated to Central
Itals (who migrated to the region around Italy,
Dalmatia, Sardenia, Sicily, etc.)
Celts (who, along with the Phoenicians, settled
primarily along the coasts of Western Europe
and America)
Balts (who settled in the region of the Baltic)
Slavs (who settled in the steppes of Eastern Europe)
Norse Vikings (who settled in Northern Europe)
Goths (east Germans, now extinct)
West Germans (who settled in central Western Europe)
Old English speakers (who settled in England)

Now, the above is basically the orthodox view except for the addition of Old English speakers as a separate branch from the West Germans. So rather than the three branches of Germanic languages, there evidently ought to be four or more (depending on where you put the Frisians.)

> > On the other hand, no linguist or historian (or at least no
> > respected ones I know of) claim that the various Romance
> > languages including French developed from Latin...
> > ...Latin generally not considered a Romance language.
> Then why is my dictionary chock full of etymologies citing
> Latin then French as precursors?

It would have been more accurate for them to have everywhere said "akin to" rather than "derived from" or if they said "derived from" then from Proto-Italic and not Latin.

> >'s learning it as a child when the change occurs
> That's funny, because my son has picked up the patter of his
> chosen peer group, but as a child spoke the way he was taught.

According to studies done on the subject, your native dialect is not set until you reach the age of 13 or so. Decades ago, before people did so much moving around, dialectologists could pinpoint the location where you grew up before the age of 13 depending on how you pronounced something like "Mary, merry, and marry." For example, you could have lived in Leeds almost all your life, but if you grew up in Reading, you would pronounce your words slightly differently from someone who actually grew up in Leeds. Such minute differences in dialect are not, however, germain to the subject at hand except to point out that language does change ever so slightly from one generation to the next.

> > As time goes on, their descendants will understand less
> > and less of it because their mommies were not your mommy
> > and their mommies never taught them a "dead" langauge.
> But how long will that take, bearing in mind that (as we have
> just seen) Chaucer is not that hard to read? (I find the fact
> that it is poetry to be the biggest hurdle, not the English
> he uses.)

What puzzles me is that my agreements are interpreted here as arguments against the premise. Is it possibly I'm not communicating in the same language here?

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
AOM: Anomoly One 137 AOM-Presenter 03-Apr-03 16:39
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 jameske 03-Apr-03 20:02
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 79 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 97 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 122 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 126 nonconformist 05-Apr-03 08:56
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 117 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 144 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 106 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 107 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 09:47
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 M J Harper 10-Apr-03 14:29
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 106 AOM-Presenter 10-Apr-03 15:16
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 93 DPCrisp 11-Apr-03 11:35
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 89 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:19
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 111 nonconformist 11-Apr-03 22:33
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 94 Doug 12-Apr-03 08:21
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 84 Doug 08-Apr-03 17:20
Re: AOM: Anomoly One 102 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 107 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.