Textkit Logo

The "Brittanian" Language

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.

Moderators: thesaurus, Jeff Tirey

The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:25 pm

"Brittanian" is my name for an imaginary language that exists in the alternate universe where the Romans successfully conquered the Germanic tribes, instead of being defeated by Arminius in the Teutoberg Forest. It has an Old English base, and was very heavily influenced by Latin, much like modern English was heavily influenced by French after the Norman invasion. <br /><br />What do you think the Brittanian language would be like? I have read about dead languages, living languages and even constructed languages. Has anybody ever addressed the idea of alternate universe languages?
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby benissimus » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:14 pm

I would imagine that English would be very much more watered down from Latin than it is now. You can look at Latin words like "occasio(n-)" and you have English "occasion", which is not such a change... but then look at words that English borrowed a really long time ago and we have words like "poor" from "pauper" and "nice" from "nescius" (that's actually a funny little etymological tidbit :)).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:41 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7622 date=1065129292]<br />I would imagine that English would be very much more watered down from Latin than it is now. You can look at Latin words like "occasio(n-)" and you have English "occasion", which is not such a change... but then look at words that English borrowed a really long time ago and we have words like "poor" from "pauper" and "nice" from "nescius" (that's actually a funny little etymological tidbit :)).<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Yes, but a lot of the Latin that English inherited came indirectly, from French. Would it look different if inherited directly?
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby bingley » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:29 am

It's quite possible that there wouldn't have been much influence at all. How much of a direct Latin influence is there on Welsh?
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Carola » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:47 am

Maybe it would be used like English is in India - a 2nd language used as a way of getting around a lot of dialects and minority group languages. In fact that is how Latin was used in Europe for many hundreds of years.
phpbb
Carola
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Alundis » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:57 am

I am trying to read A History of the English Language by Baugh & Cable when I have time. It states that there was in fact a extensive intercourse between the Romans and the Germanic tribes, whose languages eventually became the core of old English, and several hundred words of Latin origin are found in these Germanic languages, a borrowed termed the "Zero period". <br /><br />So perhaps the Brittanian language wouldn't be much different.
phpbb
Alundis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 1:56 am
Location: new jersey

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Keesa » Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:18 pm

In such an alternate universe, it might be possible to call English a Romance language. (It's considered a Germanic language right now, isn't it?) I think it would probably be much closer to Latin. <br /><br />The story of Hermann ;) was one of my favorites as a child-the book still opens right to it. :)
phpbb
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:58 pm

[quote author=Keesa link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7651 date=1065183502]<br />In such an alternate universe, it might be possible to call English a Romance language. (It's considered a Germanic language right now, isn't it?) I think it would probably be much closer to Latin. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />That's what I was thinking. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the major existing Romance languages are French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Rumanian. Rumanian territory was Slavic, French was Gallic (Celtic), Italian was Italic (duh), and Spanish and Portuguese were what, also Celtic? I know that Spanish was taken over by the Visigoths at one time, and Gothic is a Germanic language. French were taken over by the Franks, who were also Germanic, right? Or not? My knowledge is fuzzy here.<br /><br />Or would Brittanian sound more like one of the minor languages like Romansch?
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Keesa » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:45 pm

I don't know what Spain and Portugal are considered, but I don't think it's Celtic. I believe Spanish has a heavy Moorish influence, but I'm not sure there. <br /><br />I'm reading a book (well, a set of books, actually) about the history of England. I understand that it has some bits about the development of the language a little farther on, but I haven't gotten there yet. I"ll let you know when I do! <br /><br />(Also, thanks for starting this thread. Fascinating!)
phpbb
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby bingley » Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:39 am

I don't know what was spoken in what is now Romania before the Romans came, but I have heard that in some ways Romanian is much closer to Latin than Italian is, because the Romanians took to the mountains and managed to avoid the incoming Slavs.<br /><br />I believe the pre-Roman language in Spain and Portugal was Celtiberian, but how exactly it's related to the Celtic languages I don't know.<br /><br />The Franks and Visigoths were Germanic-speaking peoples, yes. However, the Germanic influence on the French language seems to have been slight, and confined to a few vocabulary items. No doubt Skylax can tell us more.<br /><br />Spanish, as Keesa said, was more influenced by Arabic, brought in by the Moors.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Episcopus » Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:38 pm

There was a language of Gaul called Gaullish or Gallish but then it was replaced by latin and the tribes spread and that language came to britain making the universal brittanian language (it's called many things) and after this welsh scottish etc. came about. <br />I was talking to the welsh teacher the other day about it :)
phpbb
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:06 pm

[quote author=Keesa link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7681 date=1065221145]<br />I don't know what Spain and Portugal are considered, but I don't think it's Celtic. I believe Spanish has a heavy Moorish influence, but I'm not sure there. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />I'm not saying that Spanish is Celtic. It is obviously a Romance language. I'm just saying that at one time, before Spanish evolved, the Iberian peninsula was settled by people who spoke a Celtic language. How much (if at all) the Celtic language influenced what became Spanish, I don't know. <br /><br />And yes, Arabic influenced Spanish, but it's still obviously a Romance language, and my superficial knowledge of Spanish (two years in high school a long time ago) would lead me to conclude that Arabic's influence was rather superficial. Place names, loan words, and such.<br /><br />[quote author=Keesa link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7681 date=1065221145]<br />I'm reading a book (well, a set of books, actually) about the history of England. I understand that it has some bits about the development of the language a little farther on, but I haven't gotten there yet. I"ll let you know when I do! <br />[/quote]<br /><br />What I know so far is that the traditional story is that Angles, Saxons and Jutes, all speakers of Germanic languages, came to Britain. The modern theory that I've read is that this was probably Angles, Saxons, Ripuarian Franks, and Frisians, but still all Germanic speakers. Later came Danes, speaking their dialect of Old Norse. And their were occasional raids by Norse-speaking Vikings, but these probably didn't affect the language too much. Later, after 1066, came the Normans, who spoke an early form of French (although the Normans were originally also Vikings!) <br />
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:17 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7713 date=1065285499]<br />There was a language of Gaul called Gaullish or Gallish but then it was replaced by latin and the tribes spread and that language came to britain making the universal brittanian language (it's called many things) and after this welsh scottish etc. came about. <br />I was talking to the welsh teacher the other day about it :)<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Are you talking about British Gaelic or something like it? Because I think you're talking about something completely different than I am. The "Brittanian" language that I'm talking about is an imaginary one, that would have evolved if the Old Germanic languages that evolved into English were heavily influenced by Latin.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Episcopus » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:20 pm

I understood that yours was imaginary but I was just saying assuming that I had something relevant to add. heh clearly I didn't but "ibi itis" - there you go ;D<br />me interficio!
phpbb
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:59 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=6;threadid=764;start=0#7747 date=1065381600]<br />I understood that yours was imaginary but I was just saying assuming that I had something relevant to add. heh clearly I didn't but "ibi itis" - there you go ;D<br />me interficio!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I thought that you thought that by "Brittanian", I was referring to Brythonic (Brittonic) Gaelic. While not directly relevant to what I was asking, the question of Brythonic Gaelic is interesting. Why didn't it have more effect than it did on English? Is this because the Anglo-Saxons so completely displaced Celtic speakers from most of England?<br />
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Emma_85 » Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:23 pm

Yes, and also the Anglo-Saxons where the rulers, no one can get very far in life if all they can speak is the language of the 'losers' or if they sound like they're descended from the 'losers'. Something you may have to think about when making your language... how comes Latin didn't just replace the old language, how did Latin influence the language? Through trade or domination?
phpbb
User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Re:The "Brittanian" Language

Postby Lex » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:48 pm

Emma_85 wrote:Yes, and also the Anglo-Saxons were the rulers, no one can get very far in life if all they can speak is the language of the 'losers' or if they sound like they're descended from the 'losers'.


Quite true. This is probably why Welsh and other Gaelic languages have disappeared (or almost disappeared) in Great Britain.

Emma_85 wrote:Something you may have to think about when making your language...


Well, I don't actually intend to create a conlang any time soon, if ever. I would think that a passable knowledge of both Latin and Old Saxon would be prerequisites to something like this, and I have neither. But framing questions to myself this way helps me to think about language formation, which I find interesting in and of itself.

Emma_85 wrote:how comes Latin didn't just replace the old language, how did Latin influence the language? Through trade or domination?


I'm thinking in terms of an analogy; Latin is to Brittanian what Old French is to Modern English. So for whatever reason Old French didn't replace Old English, that's why Latin didn't replace Old Saxon in this imaginary past. And instead of Normans speaking Old French coming into England, it would have been Latin-speaking Romans coming into England (or perhaps even into Saxony before the Saxons emigrated to England), so the Latin would have influenced the old language through domination.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Postby bingley » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:51 am

Yes, and also the Anglo-Saxons where the rulers, no one can get very far in life if all they can speak is the language of the 'losers' or if they sound like they're descended from the 'losers'.


And yet we speak something that is more allied to (Anglo-Saxon) English than (Norman) French, so there must be more to it than that. Incidentally, there is a theory that the Celtic influence on English, particularly in vocabulary, is much greater than is generally recognised, simply because when the compilers of the OED were writing etymologies Celtic languages were the last place they looked for etymons. When I read the article on this, I thought there might well have been an effect, but not as great as the writer wanted to make out.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Keesa » Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:06 pm

I've wondered about that. Why wouldn't Celtic have influenced English more? I don't know much yet, but so far there don't seem to be many similarities. And where do the Celtic languages come from? I assume that there was a heavy Viking influence, but I don't even know that for sure.
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby Lex » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:07 pm

Keesa wrote:I've wondered about that. Why wouldn't Celtic have influenced English more? I don't know much yet, but so far there don't seem to be many similarities.


My theory is that the Anglo-Saxon speakers literally displaced the Celtic speakers; they were either killed or ran off to places like Wales and Scotland. This is sheer conjecture on my part, though. I don't know enough about that part of history to be sure.

Keesa wrote:And where do the Celtic languages come from? I assume that there was a heavy Viking influence, but I don't even know that for sure.


The Celtic languages were quite widespread on mainland Europe at one time, and probably reached England from pre-Roman France. The Vikings spoke old Norse, which is a Germanic language, so Celtic is not directly related the the language of the Vikings. There may have been some Old Norse influence on Norman French, though. "Norman" is a contraction of "Norse man"; the Norman ruling class were originally Vikings.
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Postby benissimus » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:30 pm

There is certainly room for Celtic to have influenced Old English. The problem with dictionaries is that with etymologies, they tend to stop once they get back to Latin, Greek, Old English or other ancient languages, or something that looks like an Indo-European root, when no doubt it could have gone back much further or taken another path before going all the way back to I-E. I don't think the Anglo-Saxons could have displaced the Celts so entirely... the Celtic Empire was huge and I think it is safe to assume that it was also quite powerful. Since they also adopted their national names (i.e. Britain) and many of their personal names, it seems more like assimilation, though I could be wrong.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby bingley » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:56 am

My theory is that the Anglo-Saxon speakers literally displaced the Celtic speakers; they were either killed or ran off to places like Wales and Scotland. This is sheer conjecture on my part, though. I don't know enough about that part of history to be sure.


This was the standard theory until recently but apparently new studies have shown that there was much more continuity in the population than was previously thought. The book I was reading about this is at home and I'm at work so I'll get more info tonight.

Most of the acknowledged Celtic-derived words in English are placenames and words for topographical features. Avon, tor, lough, and so on. Again, my list is at home.

And where do the Celtic languages come from? I assume that there was a heavy Viking influence, but I don't even know that for sure.


In the beginning (well not quite but close enough) there was Indo-European, probably spoken in what is now the Ukraine or Southern Russia. With migrations, conquests and so on Indo-European broke up to form other languages, just as the Romance languages developed out of Latin. One branch became Sanskrit and the languages of Northern India. Another branch became Iranian. Another branch became Greek. Another branch became the Italic languages, including Latin. Another branch became the Germanic languages (including eventually Old English, Old High and Low German, Old Norse, Gothic, and so on), and another branch became the Celtic languages.

The earliest Celts we know of lived on the Danube in the 5th century BC but spread out into most of what is now Western Europe. The Romans knew them as Galli (Gauls). Italy north of the Po was called Cisalpine Gaul (Gaul this-side-of-the-Alps). In the third century BC Gauls were used as mercenary troops by some of the Successor Kings who fought over Alexander the Great's empire. Some of these troops settled in parts of modern Turkey and were known as Galatians (hence Paul's letter to the Galatians). There seem to have been two main migrations of Celtic speakers into Britain. The first wave (4th century BC?) reached Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Ireland. Gaelic, Erse, and Manx developed from the language of this wave. A second wave settled in Southern England and Wales. Their language later developed into Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. The Romans conquered the Gauls. As the Germanic tribes took over the Western Roman empire in the 5th century, they took over the Gauls as well. In continental Europe the Celtic languages died out except in what is now Brittany, where the Celtic language was kept going by refugees from Britain (the similarity of name is no coincidence). As I said above, there seems to have been some continuity of population, but the Celtic languages have only really kept going in the far west.

The Vikings spoke Scandinavian languages, which are part of the Germanic branch of Indo-European. Starting from the 8th century AD, Vikings from Denmark, Norway and Sweden moved out raiding and trading everywhere their boats could carry them. One lot, the Rus, went down the rivers from the Baltic to found Russia. Another lot came to N. France to found Normandy (North Man dy). Many Vikings settled in Eastern England (the Danelaw) and this had a huge impact on the English language. There is one theory that says that this is when and why Old English started losing its inflections. The stems were similar enough in Old English and the Viking languages, but the grammatical subtleties of inflections were too different, and so the two groups had to find other ways of making themselves understood.

Then came 1066. The Normans (Vikings) who had settled in N. France had taken to using the local French dialect rather than keeping their own language. So that was what they brought over to England with them, resulting in the Germanic-Romance hybrid we know and love today.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Lex » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:46 pm

bingley wrote:This was the standard theory until recently but apparently new studies have shown that there was much more continuity in the population than was previously thought. The book I was reading about this is at home and I'm at work so I'll get more info tonight.


May I have the name of this book? I'd be interested in reading it sometime.

bingley wrote:The Vikings spoke Scandinavian languages, which are part of the Germanic branch of Indo-European. Starting from the 8th century AD, Vikings from Denmark, Norway and Sweden moved out raiding and trading everywhere their boats could carry them. One lot, the Rus, went down the rivers from the Baltic to found Russia.


You're not saying that Slavic languages descended from Old Norse, are you??
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Postby bingley » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:41 am

Lex wrote:
bingley wrote:This was the standard theory until recently but apparently new studies have shown that there was much more continuity in the population than was previously thought. The book I was reading about this is at home and I'm at work so I'll get more info tonight.


May I have the name of this book? I'd be interested in reading it sometime.


The Anglo-Saxons edited by James Campbell. It stresses continuity between Romano-Celtic Britain and AS England, and then AS England and Norman England. I have also seen on TV a programme about genetic population studies which backed up this idea of continuity of population. I forget the name of the programme, though.

Lex wrote:
bingley wrote:The Vikings spoke Scandinavian languages, which are part of the Germanic branch of Indo-European. Starting from the 8th century AD, Vikings from Denmark, Norway and Sweden moved out raiding and trading everywhere their boats could carry them. One lot, the Rus, went down the rivers from the Baltic to found Russia.


You're not saying that Slavic languages descended from Old Norse, are you??


No, that was just an aside because I thought it was mildly interesting that Rus was originally the name of a Viking group. Does anyone know what traces this left on the Russian language?
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Keesa » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:55 pm

First of all, thanks to Bingley for that incredible and informative post!! :shock: Wow!

bingley wrote:
No, that was just an aside because I thought it was mildly interesting that Rus was originally the name of a Viking group. Does anyone know what traces this left on the Russian language?


Let's see what I can add to this discussion. Not too long ago, I saw a PBS program on the Vikings which had some interesting information on this very subject. The show was stressing the culture of the Vikings, as opposed to the traditional burn-and-loot idea of the Vikings. As the show said, most of the written history of the Vikings was kept by the monks the Vikings were burning and looting, and they weren't really the best people to record the Vikings' better side. :wink:

The show gave the usual bit about the Viking raids on England and the Vikings in North America, all things that I learned about in school years ago, but it went farther and spoke of the Vikings actually establishing trade routes all through northwestern Russia, right through the center, and all the way to Constantinople and the Turkish empire. Apparently, according to this program (and you may know differently than I do) the Vikings, who had an excellent culture of their own, had a heavy influence on Russian languages, customs and artifacts. I don't remember exactly which way it worked, if the name Russia came from the Viking Rus or the Viking Rus came from a word the people in what is now Russia used to describe the Vikings, but I do remember a relation being drawn between the two. Unfortunately, the show was on a couple of months ago, and my memory is rather hazy...we may have taped it, actually, as part of our schooling, and if we still have it hanging around, I'll watch it again and see what else I can glean. :)
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby Lex » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:33 pm

bingley wrote:
Lex wrote:May I have the name of this book? I'd be interested in reading it sometime.


The Anglo-Saxons edited by James Campbell. It stresses continuity between Romano-Celtic Britain and AS England, and then AS England and Norman England. I have also seen on TV a programme about genetic population studies which backed up this idea of continuity of population. I forget the name of the programme, though.


Thank you. Come to think of it, I heard something about an ancient man's remains that were found preserved in England, and DNA was able to be obtained. They actually proved that a man in the local area had a large number of the same genetic markers.

Maybe the difference is in the number of people who migrate, and the extent to which they isolate themselves. If the Anglo-Saxons intermarried heavily with the Celts, then assuming they were the dominant "race" in the area, it would stand to reason that the Anglo-Saxon language would start to displace the Celtic. However, if the conquering people set themselves up as "nobles", as the Normans did, and don't marry "beneath their station", then it would seem more logical that the languages wouldn't mix so much. Also it would obviously depend on numbers; how many Normans were there relative to the Anglo-Saxons? How many Anglo-Saxons relative to Celts?

bingley wrote:
Lex wrote:You're not saying that Slavic languages descended from Old Norse, are you??


No, that was just an aside because I thought it was mildly interesting that Rus was originally the name of a Viking group. Does anyone know what traces this left on the Russian language?


OK, I thought you were saying there was a direct genetic link, which seemed a stretch to me.

I have read (in J.P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, in case your interested) that the influence was mostly in loanwords. For example, the Russian word for bread is "xleb", where "x" is a guttural. I don't know Old Norse, but the Old English word for bread is "hlaf", where I believe the "h" is also somewhat guttural. And since "b" is a voiced "p", and since a "f" is a sort of aspirated "p", it's not to hard to imagine something like "hlaf" becoming "xleb".

More possibly interesting trivia about "hlaf". A cognate for "hlaf" is Modern English is "loaf". Combine "daege" (cognate with "dough"), or "kneader", with "hlaf", and you get "hlafdaege", which becomes "hlafdige". By Middle English, this became "lady". Add "weard", which is "ward" or "guardian", and you get "hlafweard", or "hlaford", which eventually became "lord". Also, for you Christians out there, "hlafmaesse" or "loafmass", became "Lammas" (which, of course, has no linguistic relationship to "llamas". :wink: ).
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

Postby Kalailan » Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:25 pm

Dunno how britannian would sound, but maybe you would like to make it up?


http://www.zompist.com/kit.html

<Kalailan knows that this link doesn't have much of a connection to the topic, but nevertheless want to share it>
Kalailan
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Postby Keesa » Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:56 pm

Neat site! I have my own ways of working out my languages, but it's neat to look through, even so.

And, Lex-a fascinating discourse on word-word whats? Mutations? Reverse geneaologies? Anyway, it was neat! I just love studying where words came from and the histories and relationships of languages!
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby Lex » Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:38 am

Keesa wrote:And, Lex-a fascinating discourse on word-word whats? Mutations? Reverse geneaologies? Anyway, it was neat!


Etymology?

Keesa wrote:I just love studying where words came from and the histories and relationships of languages!


Yeah, I love that stuff too. It's useless, as far as I can tell, but quite fascinating. Maybe the uselessness is a plus; it's something that takes you completely away from day-to-day tedium.

Oh, BTW, I was reviewing that chapter in the Indo-European book that I mentioned earlier, and it was the Goths who it is believed introduced Germanic loan words to Slavic (or Proto-Slavic), not the Old Norse (although the Vikings might very well have been responsble for the word "rus", for all I know).
I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!
User avatar
Lex
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: A top-secret underground llama lair.

For the etymologically inclined

Postby bingley » Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:09 am

bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Keesa » Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:50 pm

Lex wrote:
Keesa wrote:And, Lex-a fascinating discourse on word-word whats? Mutations? Reverse geneaologies? Anyway, it was neat!


Etymology?



Etymology! That's the word. Thanks! :D


There's nothing like a completely useless course of study to relax one's mind. But studying where words came from helps you to understand them better, I think, which is always a good thing.
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby tdominus » Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:54 am

Nice posts, Bingley :)

Keesa, Many linguists would say that celtic and italic form a group. As Bingley has shown, the Celtic languages aren't classified as Germanic languages.

The issue of the Celts' genetics with comparison to those of the Germanic tribes, especially those who entered England, is much more complicated. Some have even suggested that the Romans called the Germans germanus because they were the pure Celts!
tdominus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:15 pm
Location: Terra Australis

Postby Keesa » Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:03 pm

I guess someday I'll have to research that. It's definitely a subject that interests me, that's for sure.

How do you think English pronounciation would be different now if there had been a direct and extended Roman influence? Do you think it would have changed at all?
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby benissimus » Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:18 pm

British pronunciation of vowels is not really so different from Latin and the consonants are not a great deal different from the Romance languages. So, I would imagine that pronunciation would not be much different except for maybe some of the strange English sounds might have disappeared or diminished (i.e. the SH-sound) not to mention that if Romans had been here there would have never been Norman invasions.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby Keesa » Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:02 pm

benissimus wrote:British pronunciation of vowels is not really so different from Latin and the consonants are not a great deal different from the Romance languages.


I don't know. I have trouble pronouncing it. I find a lot of the sounds to be different from the way I'm used to pronouncing them. I think I just must speak with a strange accent or something...either that, or everyone else does. :D
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby bingley » Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:38 am

Rather than put the Latin influence on English further back, this site examines the question of what would English have been like without the Norman conquest.

http://www.geocities.com/wordwulf/niw_englisc.htm

Quote:

This is the home page of the NIW ENGLISC language, a project designed to reconstruct a native dialect of the English language using its Anglo-Saxon roots. The project begins with the living language, the surviving elements of Old English, and goes on to reconstruct as much of the lost vocabulary as possible, but with the pronunciation it might have had if spoken today.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Keesa » Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:31 pm

WOW! That is so neat... How do you come up with all these websites, Bingley? You must spend most of your life just browsing the Internet!

That's very cool! 8)
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Postby bingley » Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:58 am

No, I can't take the credit for this one. It was mentioned on another board I frequent.

But I do spend waaaaaaaaay too much time on the internet, yes.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta


Return to Open Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 23 guests