Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Saxon invasion?
#31
Quote:And still we have this thread in a Germano/latin language and not a "Celtic" language!

Or more specifically:

"English is a substratally Celticized (and thereby indirectly Semiticized), superstratally Romanized Low German dialect." (Theo Vennemann)
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#32
That all sounds Greek to me.
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#33
So ... we still don't know ... but there could have been a series of arrivals from the continent with ploughs and spears as necessary in large enough numbers to allow language & customs to prevail.

It's happening now... London's language has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. It's gone from English to a form of Pidgin English, the Lingua Franca to accomodate the plethara of languages now spoken there. It has been thus a longer time but fewer languages influenced it in the past.
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#34
Quote:That all sounds Greek to me.

Vennemann is saying that English is a low germanic dialect.

Superstratally romanised means latin words that entered english, mostly via French after the Normans. It is the language of the higher status when two languages come into contact. Hence Englsh often has two words for the same thing. We use the English word King for example but describe him as a regal. Without the romanised superstrate, we might have developed the word, kingly. A text may start with a foreword but ends with an epilogue. We tend not to use an OE word like endword.

A substratum is the language with a lower status when two languages come into contact. Vennemann's theory that insular celtic shows a semitic substratum is basically his own view. It doesn't receive much support. The view that certain dialects of english, eg. in the south west demonstrate a celtic substratum is based on middle english texts and phrases such as 'I do be going', rather than 'I am going' and other examples such as using the third person singular to describe an inanimate object, eg.

'If I take this brick and throw him up in the air, if he comes down, then we'll have to build the wall. But, if he do stay up there, then we can go home'.

This subject has arisen out of the studies on how the Irish and Welsh have learned to speak English in the 'Celtic Englishes' project where many examples have been identified of 'an odd way of saying things'.

But, those who claim that english itself has a celtic substrate base their work on modern english dialects and middle english texts and, as far as I know, no one has been able to demonstrate a substrate in Old English texts, and so it remains unproven.
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#35
Interesting Harry.
My Mom's family is Pennsylvania Dutch and i remember hearing two phrases that fit the examples you gave:

"Finger from Butter!" - comment on someone rude enough to use their finger to scoop up butter at the dinner table. Could just be poor English though.

The next is harder to explain away as poor English usage:

"Throw the cow over the fence some hay."

Steven
Reply
#36
Neither is very Dutch, I'd say.. , but maybe German Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#37
Quote:"Finger from Butter!" - comment on someone rude enough to use their finger to scoop up butter at the dinner table. Could just be poor English though.

No you're right, it's a literal translation. In modern german the idiom 'Finger davonlassen' means something like 'leave it alone'.

I even found the expression used in a german first aid website, 'Finger weg von Butter und Mehl', 'finger away from butter and flour', ie for burns. Don't put butter or flour on burn injuries.

Quote:The next is harder to explain away as poor English usage:
"Throw the cow over the fence some hay."

This is more complex and whilst I have seen this, I don't know much about it. English has a Subject Verb Object word order, eg. man bites dog is different from dog bites man. German has a Subject Object Verb word order which can make long german sentances very difficult for english speakers to understand. You have to wait until the end of the sentance to get the verb which gives the sentance some meaning. The above though starts with a verb and is a VSO word order.

Welsh and Irish have a VSO order and it is also used in english for formulating questions or in poetry or song, eg. 'drink I ale tonight?' It has more a rhetorical/poetic feel to its construction. I don't know enough about the germanic dialects but it would not be unusual to ask in german, 'drink we tonight a beer?' ie a question rather than 'tonight, we drink a beer' ie. a statement.
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#38
Quote:Neither is very Dutch, I'd say.. , but maybe German Big Grin

Yes, Pennsylvania Dutch is not Dutch, it's alemannic, düütsch as in Schwitzer Düütsch.
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#39
Hello all,

By the way, "I'm in Dutch" as they say.
I changed my email address at the same time this forum was revamped.
I've lost my seniority, number of posts, and everything.
And I'm too old a fart to start over.Cool Cool

Kiss Jackie Chan's quote goodby.

Best,
alanus
Reply
#40
Guy Halsall on his blog makes some interesting comments on the use of DNA studies here
http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/...ieval.html

regards
Ingvar
Ingvar Sigurdson
Dave Huggins
Wulfheodenas
Reply
#41
Quote:Guy Halsall on his blog makes some interesting comments on the use of DNA studies here
http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/...ieval.html

regards
Ingvar

I wouldn't bother to read what these guys say about the studies as they mostly don't appear to have read them themselves, at least not accurately. Just read the study if you want to know what it says.

eg. from the link:

"Most famous, however, has been the intrusion of the study of DNA into the investigation of the migrations, especially in England. It has, for example, been suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries."

from the study itself:

"We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place. If a background migration rate of 0.3% is allowed between Central England and Friesland, then the need for a mass migration event disappears."

from the link:

"Moving beyond the methodology used, yet further problems arise concerning the analyses’ assumptions. One is that migration is something that happened in discrete periods, so that, for example, the fifth and sixth centuries are often known as the period of the migrations (an appellation long criticised). Thus, in this view, demonstrable population-mixing can be dated to such specific blocks of time. Yet migration is a constant of human existence."

from the paper itself:

"We explored various population genetic models (see Materials and Methods) to evaluate whether or not a large Anglo-Saxon migration event is needed to explain the extremely high Central English-Frisian affinity."

and then goes on to explain the various methods, mass migration event in the neolithic, constant background migration etc. etc. Yet the author in the link makes no mention of these. In particular, with reference to his 'migration is a constant of human existence', Weale found that in order to explain the observed results in terms of constant migration, a background migraton rate three times higher than the internal migration rate within the European Union rate observed over the last 20 years would be required and that this 'implausibly high' migration rate would have had to have been continuous since the neolithic.

Furthermore, the author misses out a key observation namely, that the english/welsh geographic border is also a genetic border. It never offered itself as 'proof' and simply stated:

"The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. Such an event would simultaneously explain both the high Central English-Frisian affinity and the low Central English-North Welsh affinity."

All the models are explained and all the data is available and the software used is stated. As with all science, the fundamental requirements for repeatable and verifiable experiment are met. This paper has never been contested or challenged on any technical grounds by any peer scientist. It has been, as seen on this link, challenged by people with no technical expertise and without exception, all the challenges that I have seen have been made by people who do not appear to have even read it.

best
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#42
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Authun, or perhaps I have overlooked any referance to any one specific study as you indicate in your replies to the points made by Halsall. But, even if flawed as you suggest, it is in my humble opinion still worth reading even if it is just to develop a rounded picture of the subject of this thread and form one's own opinion on the subject.

best
Ingvar
Ingvar Sigurdson
Dave Huggins
Wulfheodenas
Reply
#43
Quote:Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Authun, or perhaps I have overlooked any referance to any one specific study as you indicate in your replies to the points made by Halsall. But, even if flawed as you suggest, it is in my humble opinion still worth reading even if it is just to develop a rounded picture of the subject of this thread and form one's own opinion on the subject.

best
Ingvar

The line "It has, for example, been suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries." identifies it as Weale's 'Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration'. The only other study was Capelli's the following year which sampled the British Isles.

He makes some valid general points, eg. "The similarities between the DNA of England and Germany might result from migration from Germany in the late antique period but, as intimated, it might stem from such movement at many other times and, indeed, from movement in the opposite direction." but, if he read the study, he would quickly learn that those instances have been dealt with. That's why I say it looks as if he hasn't read it.

Nor does he appear to understand the science. Here he writes about ancient DNA:

"my understanding of the scientific situation at that time was that there was profound scepticism about the possibility of extracting usable DNA from ancient skeletal samples because of the dangers of contamination. As I understand things now, developments in science have reduced those dangers and there is apparently now the possibility even of using old skeletal data from excavations conducted years ago, to extract usable samples. "

There was no scepticism, just an acknowledgment of the difficulties with contamination and amplification. These have largely been overcome with mtDNA and there are several ancient mtDNA studies, mostly from Denmark, but yDNA degenerates so that in most cases extraction is not possible, even today. No amount of technological improvements will solve this.

His bias against the science is clear: "The problem with the use of modern genetic data (quite apart from the fact that it seems to me to be principally aimed at getting the researcher in question into the headlines) ..." There are a great number of studies published in the peer science, mostly by researchers who he hasn't heard of. He only knows of the studies that were publicised in the media and hence makes the remark wholly in ignorance of the all the other studies.

Basically he has heard of Weale's study, hasn't read it (properly) and is stating his opinions based on that in ignorance of the rest of the science.

I don't think it is possible to get a well rounded picture from that.

best
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#44
We misunderstand each other Authun, and indeed on the face of it, it would seem that you have a better grasp of the current state of DNA studies and science then Professor Halsall. The blog is delivered in a cautionary tone and reminds us that identity can not just be measured in dna and has many variables, it is this that I considered worthy of consideration when developing a fuller understanding of the complexities surrounding the topic of this thread.

best
Ingvar
Ingvar Sigurdson
Dave Huggins
Wulfheodenas
Reply
#45
Quote:I wouldn't bother to read what these guys say about the studies as they mostly don't appear to have read them themselves, at least not accurately. Just read the study if you want to know what it says.

eg. from the link:

"Most famous, however, has been the intrusion of the study of DNA into the investigation of the migrations, especially in England. It has, for example, been suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries."

from the study itself:

"We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place. If a background migration rate of 0.3% is allowed between Central England and Friesland, then the need for a mass migration event disappears."
Hi Harry,

That study quote continues with "However, we note that this is an extremely high rate even by modern standards and would have to have been maintained continuously over thousands of years." In the preceding paragraph: "The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. Such an event would simultaneously explain both the high Central English-Frisian affinity and the low Central English-North Welsh affinity. If we use a rate of 0.1%, as observed over the past 25 years, to represent an extremely high value for continuous background migration between Central England and continental Europe, then we estimate that an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool at that time is required."

Therefore Halsall is correct, the authors have "suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries". In most sciences the 'best explanation' is 'proof'.


Quote:from the link:

"Moving beyond the methodology used, yet further problems arise concerning the analyses’ assumptions. One is that migration is something that happened in discrete periods, so that, for example, the fifth and sixth centuries are often known as the period of the migrations (an appellation long criticised). Thus, in this view, demonstrable population-mixing can be dated to such specific blocks of time. Yet migration is a constant of human existence."

from the paper itself:

"We explored various population genetic models (see Materials and Methods) to evaluate whether or not a large Anglo-Saxon migration event is needed to explain the extremely high Central English-Frisian affinity."

and then goes on to explain the various methods, mass migration event in the neolithic, constant background migration etc. etc. Yet the author in the link makes no mention of these. In particular, with reference to his 'migration is a constant of human existence', Weale found that in order to explain the observed results in terms of constant migration, a background migraton rate three times higher than the internal migration rate within the European Union rate observed over the last 20 years would be required and that this 'implausibly high' migration rate would have had to have been continuous since the neolithic.
Again Halsall is correct. How do the authors know this is not of the effect of several migrations (in Neolithic or later)? They don't, they just assume it's one big migration:

"Next, we assumed that an Anglo-Saxon migration event did take place 60 generations ago (i.e., 1,500 years BP assuming 25 years per generation) and asked how big an event would be needed to explain the Central English-Frisian genetic similarity."


Quote:All the models are explained and all the data is available and the software used is stated. As with all science, the fundamental requirements for repeatable and verifiable experiment are met. This paper has never been contested or challenged on any technical grounds by any peer scientist. It has been, as seen on this link, challenged by people with no technical expertise and without exception, all the challenges that I have seen have been made by people who do not appear to have even read it.
Halsall does not challenge it on technical grounds. Who's not reading whom? Big Grin


Quote:His bias against the science is clear: "The problem with the use of modern genetic data (quite apart from the fact that it seems to me to be principally aimed at getting the researcher in question into the headlines) ..." There are a great number of studies published in the peer science, mostly by researchers who he hasn't heard of. He only knows of the studies that were publicised in the media and hence makes the remark wholly in ignorance of the all the other studies.
There's no bias. Halsall continues (why the '...' ?) with "is that it is framed around questions aimed at a view of post-imperial history from over a century ago." And that is a problem indeed. For Weale et al an Anglo-Saxon is biologically so and that's so 19th-centurish!

As for the "great number of studies", apparently there are few genetic studies about Anglo-Saxon invasion (you mentioned two). If Weale et al hadn't addressed the Anglo-Saxon (or some other major) migration, arguably their study would have enjoyed less popularity.
Drago?
Reply


Forum Jump: