The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Robert Vermaat]

Perhaps initially, yes. Certainly moreso under Caesar than Augustus.
But by the time of Claudius, you see him wanting to introduce Gallic
senators, to widen the enfranchisement of the Empire. You can hardly
claim to see the same kind of evidence of enfranchisement being
extended from Anglo-Saxon kings towards native Britons, certainly
not within a century of the initial conquest, c. 450. English-Welsh
mutual cultural and linguistic hostility continues even today, and for
several centuries the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms remained hostile
to native Britons and vice-versa. Why, even in 1066, Harold II, the
Saxon king of England, had been busy beating-up on the Welsh only
a few months before turning his attention towards Hastings. :lol:

...

Well, ten times as much lexical copying took place as in Britain.
Give it up, Robert. No matter what spin you put on the figures,
40 is still at least ten times more than 3. 8) And it is surely important
what words are being adopted. If they are more commonly
used words, or of more prestige, then they carry more weight.
If Romans adopted Gallic words for important, everyday items, then
the adoption increases in value. But look at what words the Anglo-
Saxons adopted from Brittonic: Coombe and Brock - the words for a
type of valley, common in the west of Britain, and the word for 'Badger'. Hardly mainstream words like 'father', 'mother', 'food', 'drink' etc.

Hardly the things I am adressing Mike.
Of course the Romans treated the Celts different than the English did, but that may also provide an answer.

For one, the Romans had been in touch with Celtic people for centuries even before Caesar conquered Gaul. And during those centuries and the centuries that followed, 'just' a few hundred (let's be generous) words enetred Latin. One would expect a much higher number, even when we totally disregard any comparison with the British situation. Why so few? Maybe Coates' answer, that the Romans did not need 'new' words, applies here? I just don't know. I hope the linguists find an answer to that, because it will certainly be an aid to (in part) tell why hardly any British words entered English.

In the meantime, no-one has a lexicon of 7rth c. English words in his library, which means that anyone who claims that more British words existed in English during the 7th c. is as much hypothesising and speculating as someone who (based on 21st knowledge) claims that there were as few as we know today.

But OF COURSE no mainstream words like 'father', 'mother', 'food', 'drink' etc. would have done that. Coates is clear about that, the English never needed replacemnts words for those, so why adopt them.