|
 |
Language Mysteries | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room |  | |
| Teango Triglot Winner TAC 2010 & 2012 Senior Member United States teango.wordpress.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5337 days ago 2210 posts - 3734 votes  Speaks: English*, German, Russian Studies: Hawaiian, French, Toki Pona | Message 41 of 49 06 May 2010 at 9:15pm | IP Logged | ||
|
With regards to the Celts' mysterious faint trace in the English language today, we can suggest many possible causes for the lack of footprints in the sand. In reading about the history of early Britain recently, the general consensus seems to be that the Celts were both ruthlessly oppressed and treated as the lowest in society and routed from their homes. First under the Roman sandal, and then by the various Germanic tribes such as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, not forgetting the invasions and occupation of the Danelaw and Norsemen too.
However, history has a funny way of repeating its various bloody cycles of change, and revisiting the sins of one generation or conqueror upon another further down the road. After the Norman invasion, the Saxon kings and nobility also suffered a similar fate at the hands of their new rulers, just as the Celtic tribes before them. Those that didn't intermarry had their lands taken and were forced to flee northwards or abroad in fear of their lives. So you can imagine, after so many successive ruthless conquerors from various lands, just where any remaining Celts may have come in the general pecking order by the time Anglo-Norman language started to become formalised into Middle English. As writing and language was very much in the power of the elite throughout history, i.e. in the hands of the educated, we need to turn our eyes to the two most powerful influences on the country during this time - the ever-changing often-viscous aristocracy (i.e. the line of kings), and the Roman Catholic Church with its vast network of monasteries and churches. As we can guess from all that's already been said above, the main influence on language after 1066 in England was French and Latin (with a touch of Greek), and also whatever remained of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular and influences of the Danelaw etc. Celtic words, in a similar stream as the words of the original inhabitants of England before Celtic occupancy, have therefore sadly ebbed away on the tide of time and conquest. However there are still quite a few words of Celtic or Proto-Celtic origin if you take a thorough look at modern English today and walk along the fringes of the language (e.g. Gaulish words, Irish words, Scottish Gaelic words). Whisky, budget, ambassador, car, truant and even trousers are all supposed to have their roots in the Celtic language. And even new Celtic words sometimes fall into popular usage or reference - for example, I was amused to discover this week that the "Sliveen" (bad guy aliens) in the recent series of Dr Who actually originates from the Irish word "slíbhín" (meaning "an untrustworthy or cunning person"). What's amazing in all this is how all these languages and cultures of ancient people and civilizations long gone, no matter how heavily oppressed or routed in history, still breathe and voice their values and philosophies through completely new and wonderful languages thousands of years later, continuing to influence the lives and minds of new generations to come, and subtly demonstrating this amazing connection to one another through words. :) Edited by Teango on 06 May 2010 at 9:23pm 7 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| montmorency Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4609 days ago 2371 posts - 3676 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Danish, Welsh | Message 42 of 49 19 September 2011 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | ||
One of the saddest things to me, as a Briton, born in the heart of England (although with partial Irish and probably partially Scottish ancestry), is that we (in England) have never celebrated the Celtic heritage around us. I've always thought that English schoolchildren should be taught at least the rudiments of Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic. And there is simply no excuse for not teaching Cornish children Cornish. It is true that we no longer suppress these languages in their native countries like we used to, and indeed (at least in Wales), they have been actively encouraged, but I'm really talking about awakening the consciousness of the English in England to what was also their own heritage. 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| sipes23 Diglot Senior Member United States pluteopleno.com/wprs Joined 4651 days ago 134 posts - 235 votes Speaks: English*, Latin Studies: Spanish, Ancient Greek, Persian | Message 43 of 49 30 September 2011 at 10:15pm | IP Logged | ||
Sorry to necropost this, but John McWhorter has suggested a reason for this in his book, Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. He has suggested that they did leave rather a strong trace: the destruction of the nominal case system. Just not the vocabulary (and I'm sure he addressed that, but I don't remember it). Or maybe the Danes up north did it. Anyway, he has suggested that a high number of adult learners of English bleached many of the complications out of the grammar over time. A trend that hasn't changed, so English grammar is likely to stay its course. McWhorter also suggested that the same thing happened to the Germanic verb way back when. I'd say more about it, but I don't know that I know enough to have a qualified opinion on McWhorter's "adult learners strip grammatical complications out of language" notion. I will though point out that Latin likely had many adult learners in the army and lost its case system. Persian also was used as a lingua franca for many centuries and has a pretty analytical grammar structure. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 4837 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 44 of 49 30 September 2011 at 10:46pm | IP Logged | ||
|
What about continious tenses, question tags and short answers? They could appear in
English because of celtic influence. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| CS Groupie United States Joined 4909 days ago 49 posts - 74 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Icelandic, Latin, French | Message 45 of 49 01 October 2011 at 12:33am | IP Logged | ||
|
The Germanic languages long ago developed a strong stress accent, usually on the primary syllable, which probably
has something to do with their rather analytic nature today. PIE was largely suffixing. As far as mysteries go: Is the connection between Na-Dene and the Yeniseian languages real? From an archeological viewpoint, what factors allowed the speakers of Proto-IE, Proto-Bantu, etc. to spread? The Olmec script and its possible relation to the mayan glyphs is another fascinating problem. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| sipes23 Diglot Senior Member United States pluteopleno.com/wprs Joined 4651 days ago 134 posts - 235 votes Speaks: English*, Latin Studies: Spanish, Ancient Greek, Persian | Message 46 of 49 05 October 2011 at 5:20pm | IP Logged | ||
McWhorter mentioned at least question tags. I think continuous tenses too. Anyway, I like his reasoning enough that I'm willing to believe what he says until better evidence comes along. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Lugubert Heptaglot Senior Member Sweden Joined 6648 days ago 186 posts - 235 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Danish, Norwegian, EnglishC2, German, Dutch, French Studies: Mandarin, Hindi | Message 47 of 49 05 October 2011 at 5:41pm | IP Logged | ||
There is almost by definition absolutely no archaeological evidence that the speakers spread. Or, for that matter, how the languages spread. Methods of making pottery, burial customs and ways of cultivating plants can be traced to a certain extent. Perhaps genetics can hint at people movements. But we can't tell which language(s) those travellers spoke. Languages, like pottery fashion etc., can spread from neighbour to neighbour without major movements. I'm days away from my books, but you should try Colin Renfrew: Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6612-5 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| outcast Bilingual Heptaglot Senior Member China Joined 4730 days ago 869 posts - 1364 votes Speaks: Spanish*, English*, German, Italian, French, Portuguese, Mandarin Studies: Korean | Message 48 of 49 11 November 2011 at 3:05am | IP Logged | ||
|
One that will probably never be revealed:
-Did the Neanderthals have a language proper? Obviously they made sounds, my guess is they probably articulated "word" like sounds too, given the shape of their vocal tract on fossil evidence. Also, given the evidence that chimps do have several different calls or sounds for specific situations (enemy tribe, food, leopard, snake, etc), I would assume Neanderthals also assigned specific meaning to their vocalizations, whateve they may have been. ... But did they have the mental capacity to assign structure? Perhaps short of a language, or did they go all the way. IF they did have a language, did it influence in any way Homo Sapiens language in Europe, Caucasus, Near East? Is there even a single word or grammatical structure today that could be traced to them? Of course, we will never know. Just adding another mystery. 3 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
