Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots
NY Times ^ | July 1, 2003 | NICHOLAS WADE

Posted on 07/01/2003 5:48:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy

In November 1897, in a field near the village of Coligny in eastern France, a local inhabitant unearthed two strange objects.

One was an imposing statue of Mars, the Roman god of war. The other was an ancient bronze tablet, 5 feet wide and 3.5 feet high. It bore numerals in Roman but the words were in Gaulish, the extinct version of Celtic spoken by the inhabitants of France before the Roman conquest in the first century B.C.

The tablet, now known as the Coligny calendar, turned out to record the Celtic system of measuring time, as well as being one of the most important sources of Gaulish words.

Two researchers, Dr. Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge in England and Dr. Alfred Toth of the University of Zurich, have now used the calendar and other Celtic inscriptions to reconstruct the history of Celtic and its position in the Indo-European family of languages.

They say that Celtic became a distinct language and entered the British Isles much earlier than supposed.

Though the Gauls were strong enough to sack Rome in 390 B.C., eventually the empire struck back. The Romans defeated the Celts, both in France and in Britain, so decisively that Latin and its successor languages displaced Celtic over much of its former territory. In the British Isles, Celtic speakers survived in two main groups: the Goidelic branch of Celtic, which includes Irish and Scots Gaelic, and the Brythonic branch, formed of Welsh and Breton, a Celtic tongue carried to Brittany in France by emigrants from Cornwall.

Because languages change so fast, historical linguists distrust language trees that go back more than a few thousand years. Dr. Forster, a geneticist, has developed a new method for relating a group of languages, basing it on the tree-drawing techniques used to trace the evolutionary relationships among genes. His method works on just a handful of words, a fortunate circumstance since only some 30 Gaulish words have known counterparts in all the other languages under study.

Dr. Forster and his linguist colleague Dr. Toth have used the method to draw up a tree relating the various branches of Celtic to one another and to other Indo-European languages like English, French, Spanish, Latin and Greek. In an article in today's issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say that soon after the ancestral Indo-European language arrived in Europe it split into different branches leading to Celtic, Latin, Greek and English.

Within Celtic, their tree shows that Gaulish — the continental version of the language — separated from its Goidelic and Brythonic cousins, much as might be expected from the facts of geography.

The researchers' method even dates the fork points in their language tree, although the dates have a wide range of possibility. The initial splitting of Indo-European in Europe occurred around 8100 B.C., give or take 1,900 years, and the divergence between the continental and British versions of Gaelic took place in 3200 B.C., plus or minus 1,500 years, they calculate.

These dates are much earlier than previously estimated. "The traditional date of the Indo-European family has been 4000 BC for some time," Dr. Merritt Ruhlen of Stanford University said. Dr. Ruhlen said the new method "seems pretty reasonable" and should be useful in tracing back the earlier history of the Indo-European language.

Specialists have long debated which country was the homeland of the Indo-Europeans and whether their language was spread by conquest or because its speakers were the first farmers whose methods and tongue were adopted by other populations. The second theory, that of spread by agriculture, has been advocated by Dr. Colin Renfrew, a Cambridge archaeologist.

Dr. Forster, who works in Dr. Renfrew's institute, said in an interview that the suggested date 8100 B.C. for the arrival of Indo-European in Europe "does seem to vindicate Renfrew's archaeological idea that the Indo-European languages were spread by farmers."

Agriculture started to arrive in Europe from the Near East around 6000 B.C., much earlier than the traditional date proposed by linguists for the spread of Indo-European. This timing would fit with the lower end of Dr. Forster's range of dates.

Dr. Forster said that his estimated date of 3200 B.C. for the arrival of Celtic speakers in England and Ireland was also much earlier than the usual date, 600 B.C., posited on the basis of archaeological evidence.

Dr. Forster said his method of comparing groups of languages was unfamiliar to historical linguists, many of whom study how words in a single language have changed over time. Asked what linguists thought of his method he said: "To be honest, they don't understand it, most of them. They don't even know what I'm talking about."

The method has two parts. One is to draw a tree on the basis of carefully chosen words; the second is to date the splits in the tree by calibrating them with known historical events. This is similar to the way geneticists date their evolutionary trees by tying one or more branch points to known dates from the fossil record.

Dr. April McMahon, a linguist at the University of Sheffield in England, said that Dr. Forster's method "seems to me to be a good start" and that it was reasonable to base a language family tree on just a handful of well-chosen words. She had less confidence in the dating method, she said, because language changes in an irregular way based on social factors like the size of the speaker's group and its degree of contact with others.

Geneticists often assume that the rate of mutation will average out over time, so that if one or two branch points in a tree can be dated by fossil evidence, the timing of the other branch points can be inferred.

Dr. Forster says he assumes that the rate of language change can also be averaged over time. But Dr. McMahon says she thinks that historical time, being much shorter than evolutionary time, is less friendly to averaging and that linguists should not even try, at least yet, to put dates on language trees.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anthropology; archaeoastronomy; archaeology; celts; epigraphyandlanguage; europe; french; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; history; irish; language; megaliths
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 last
To: ZULU
To a degree. But I think that the Renaissance with its rebirth of interest in Rome and Greece is responsible for a lot of that. I don't think feudalism was a Roman concept.

I was wrong. You are correct. The middle Ages would seem to be a Germanic period with a development towards the Roman influenced world of today.

The German-Celts did have allegiances first to tribe and then to sept then clan etc. as seen in the overKings of Ireland and England (even though one was Celtic and the other Saxon). You're also correct that the idea of a nation state disintegrated after the fall of Rome replaced by clans, tribal affiliations etc. all leading up to the super-clan you might call it, of Christendom. Must have been something -- until the 7th century all of western Eurasia and North Africa and large chunks of the middle east were Christendom.
151 posted on 02/17/2004 12:17:41 AM PST by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
At any rate, as far as the Roamsn were concerned, they appeared to have regarded them a distinct people and they were there and we were not.

True. I suppose the Romans saw both initially as northern barbarians, with the ones closer to them more civilised (due, the Romans no doubt said to themselves, the civilising influence of Rome). After all, Caesar, in his commentaries talks about his armies destroying the Helvetians (who came from what is now modern day Switzerland), but not thoroughly -- he was worried that the even more barbaric Germans would come down from the north and occupy helvetian land if it was unoccupied (rather the devil you know than the devil you don't, eh?).

However, we do tend to see things in the nation-state view we have in modern times (the Charlemagne not being French bit) -- There was no France until after the English were kicked out in the 15th century (which incidently, by ensuring the English kings had no escape in France created the nation state of England as well). Most other states were also created in the late Middle ages like Poland, but the real concept of a nation-lingustic-ethnic-state didn't come about until the last century. And now we're moving back to being multi-ethnic entities.
152 posted on 02/17/2004 12:38:39 AM PST by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
However, most of those multi-ethnic states were in the Eurasian Caucasian-dominated region. does anyone know of any multi-ethnic states in the Far east or Africa or the Americas? My knowledge of far eatern Eurasian history is sketchy and of pre-15th century sub-saharan Africa is nil.
153 posted on 02/17/2004 12:40:44 AM PST by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I guess you have to be familiar with arcane rules of philology and lingusitics to really understand this stuff.

I'm not.

You have an impressive linguistic command. I can on;ly read and write English and Latin and a little classical Greek. I remember little of my school-year German and Spanish, having never had the opportunity to use them while growing up.
154 posted on 02/17/2004 4:14:24 AM PST by ZULU (GOD BLESS SENATOR JOE MCCARTHY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

LA


155 posted on 09/29/2004 10:12:48 PM PDT by Murtyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Just posting the updated contact information. This was already in the catalog. And, it's one of those two-and-a-half sheets to the wind topics...
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

156 posted on 12/01/2004 10:05:54 PM PST by SunkenCiv ("All I have seen teaches me trust the Creator for all I have not seen." -- Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

What about the Albanian? Also one of the surviving branches of the IE.


157 posted on 12/01/2004 10:12:38 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Hmmm . . . I have a couple of degrees in linguistics and have had several classes in historical linguistics. I even addressed the possibility of improved reconstruction methods in my Masters thesis. So, just based on what I've read, lectures I've attended, and research I've conducted, I have a couple of serious doubts.

First, the 8100 BC date seems way out of line. Most Indo-Europeanists agree that the Indo-European diaspora began 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. To suggest that a proto-Celtic appeared some 10,000 years ago is stretching things beyond the bounds of credibility. I don't know of any archeological data that would back up such a claim.

Second, basing such a conjecture on a mere 30 words is extremely doubtful. In linguistics, we have something called the Swadesh List (named after Maurice Swadesh, a linguist who first came up with the idea). The Swadesh List is a listing of either 100 or 200 of the most commonly used words in a language. The usefulness of a Swadesh List to a historical linguist is this list of words will have a greater retention time in a language than other, less used words will. Even if these 30 words were absolutely the most common words used in ancient Celtic -- extremely doubtful -- the total number of them is so small that there is a significant chance that loss due to language change would have reduced any sample to the level of background noise in only a few millenia. And given the almost certainty that these 30 words were simply those that were available due to archeological discovery, it once again stretches the bounds of credibility beyond the breaking point.

Dr MacMahon sounded like she was being polite and non-confrontational. When stating that it was reasonable to base a language family tree on a few well chosen words, she was most likely referring to the Swadesh list. Not 30 words that were unearthed by chance.

It bears pointing out that Merrit Ruhlen is not a mainstream historical linguist. Known as one of the "Long Rangers" for his claims of being able to reconstruct protoforms back into the very distant past, his views on language reconstruction vary starkly from almost all other historical linguists.

It is likely -- virtually certain -- that Drs. Foster and Toth's research will be shredded to pieces in the process of peer review.

158 posted on 12/01/2004 10:57:37 PM PST by Cooltouch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cooltouch

Thanks for your perspective...I shall ping you another time to similar threads.


159 posted on 12/02/2004 2:35:01 AM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
That's a good example. There are also languages like Basque (with no known relatives) and Lithuanian (some say the closest language to original IE, given that it has far closer phonetic similarities with Sanskrit than it does with German or Russian).

Both are spoken by peoples that rarely ever had political autonomy.

160 posted on 12/02/2004 5:56:16 AM PST by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: free_european; Fierce Allegiance; Salamander; Cogadh na Sith; Dubh_Ghlase; shibumi; sandbar; ...

Celtic Ping list!

Let me know if you want on/off this list.


161 posted on 03/15/2005 2:02:10 PM PST by MacDorcha (When I say "democratic" I don't mean "Athenian Mob Rule")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd Bn, 11th Mar

You are evil.

[I like that in a person]....;))


162 posted on 03/15/2005 6:04:46 PM PST by Salamander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.

Please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

163 posted on 07/25/2005 9:41:23 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

or even more curiously, the romans conquered britain started about a century after caesar's conquest of gaul, yet the brytonic branch of gaelic survived as the british language in non-saxon areas, not the provincial latin that must have been spoken by some in towns.

The only possible contribution I have read about the Franks to provincial latin was that their population density might account for the distinct pronunciation of french in the nothern part of france compared to the signature sound of other roman tongues (spanish/italian/romanish/portugues/catalan).


164 posted on 08/07/2006 10:22:41 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

that and the absolute disinterest in what remains of writings in antiquity of interest in philology of barbarian tongues. I think there are cases (gothic for sure) where only the need to translate the bible insured any quantity of written material survived, which obviously post-dates the era in question.


165 posted on 08/07/2006 10:27:54 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

i too find the loss of most or all of the declension system and grammatical features of many western european I-E languages odd, though in the case of english it has been suggested that mercian english was so heavily influenced by norse immigration in the time of the danelaw that that alone impacted the language in favor of simplification.

As for why acc. and dative noun declensions, dual-case pronouns, gender and all adjective and adverb declension simply vanished, I do find it puzzling. Romance lang. have lost everything BUT gender, and even some west and north germanic tongues without the varied influences english have had have given up some aspects of the structure. I guess icelandic is the best remaining germanic example.

In the case of romance I wonder if having so many people learning latin as a second language in the provinces at some point, where they certainly never could grasp the myriad grammatical forms, resulted in the next generation never hearing the language declined correctly and the growth of prepositions as a tool to form sentences understandably. Not sure how much germanic immigation on a percent of population there was into italy in late empire/early dark age time on which to add to this, but it is an interesting idea, particularly for france and iberia - immigration (in an era where education was non-existent for many) would result in the langauge being rationalized if too much population displacement occured.


166 posted on 08/07/2006 10:48:12 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

maybe i read your comment wrong. i also find the ingredients necessary to form such an insanely complex system as proto-indo-european grammar hard to imagine, given that it probably happened in a stone-age society.


167 posted on 08/07/2006 10:51:10 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

i just saw the date on your post. these 3-year old pings do create some confusion. i have occasionally posted a response just to find i had posted something similar a couple of years before on the same thread.


168 posted on 08/07/2006 11:03:15 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123
Thanks for the reply and actually addressing the point that I raised. Yes, I understand why language simplication happens (e.g., the Danish influence on Anglo-Saxon reducing the importance of case markers, the Romance Languages being a sort of "Latin for Dummies", etc.) but, like you said, what baffles me is a stone age culture developing all of that complexity in the first place. All I can guess is that being verbal cultures without writing and a lot of recreation options, they did a lot of talking and thus had a motive for inventing the distinctions and the time and practice to learn and retain them.
169 posted on 08/08/2006 1:24:21 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

i thought about this some more. granted that I do not know what ancient structures other language families had which might resemble this insane complexity, and if this is in fact common in proto-language groups.

random thoughts - case markers would greatly word usage needed to communicate, but the practical value of gender in nouns, for example, eludes me. then i think about declining adjectives to match case, person, and gender of strong or weak nouns and i cannot fathom it.

the oddest thing is that this stuff evolved in the earliest stages of proto-I-E, given that case markers are similar or identical throughout pretty much all ancient branches of the family. apparently it was very important to help that stone age people communicate ideas effectively. I do wonder if they had what we would call prepositions at all or to any degree.

Would be interesting to know the thoughts of a native-tongue speaker of a language with most or all of its declensions still in use on this topic. All I can offer is that giving up the genitive in english would be a hassle and wordy as heck, romance-style.


170 posted on 08/08/2006 2:17:06 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
It is a staggering mistake to say that English is one of 4 early offshoots from the ancestral Indo-European language.

Damn right! He meant to say 'Merican.

171 posted on 08/08/2006 2:22:40 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I believe the Romans so detested the Carthaginians because of their practice of child sacrifice.


172 posted on 08/08/2006 2:44:24 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

or most likely spanglish -- english always adapts and adds in more words, eh hombre?


173 posted on 08/08/2006 6:07:05 PM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Troy was 1000 BC -- way before proto-Celtic. You could call them Indo-Europeans, but then the Greeks were also Indo-Europeans. at the time of the Illiad, northwestern Anatolia would have been partially Hittitie / Mitanni


174 posted on 08/08/2006 6:11:09 PM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Urnfield Culture (aka, Celtic) began circa 1200 BC.

The Ironage begins 1000 BC - 750 BC in many places. This is when the sea-going Celts came to be known in the Mediterranean. According to Galician sources the last Celtic invasion of Ireland departed from the coast of Spain circa 700 BC (some sources place this at 500 BC, and all that means is the "invasion" might well have occurred over a very long span of time.

175 posted on 08/08/2006 6:20:11 PM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
The Phoenicians excelled at trade. The Carthagenians excelled at war.

Not really, one Hannibal does not a war machine make. The Carthaginians were traders in the western mediterranean, just as it's mother country, the city of Tyre were traders in the eastern mediterranean. They made pacts with the Berbers inland of them and with the Ibero-Celts in Hispania, but they were not known for their warring capabilities. When Rome attacked, the Carthaginians relied on their allies for fighting on land. On the sea, well, the main fighting was ramming ships. Then Hannibal came along.....
176 posted on 08/08/2006 6:20:24 PM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

German comes from the word Germane and referred to the those tribes who originally had been known to live in the Ukraine but moved westward into Celtic territory.

Thus Germans refer to the original Scythians, not those latter known by that name because they displaced the Germane (original) peoples.

The habit of Lederhosen is a direct linkage to the Scythian horsemanship.


177 posted on 08/08/2006 6:35:13 PM PDT by Prost1 (uit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I see this thread has picked up again, after a hiatus of some months. I'll have to go back to the beginning and re-read the original article, before responding.


178 posted on 08/08/2006 8:36:33 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Leaning on the everlasting arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

"German comes from the word Germane and referred to the those tribes who originally had been known to live in the Ukraine but moved westward into Celtic territory."

I believe German comes from the Latin word Germanus and I think it has some connection to a term meaning "brothers".
The German name for themselves was something like Teutones and the modern German word Deutsch is derived from it.

I do not believe the Germans came from Ukraine. I believe you are confusing the Goths, a Germanic tribe with "the Germans". The Goths originally came from Scandinavia, settled on the shores of the Baltic Sea for a time and controlled the lucrative amber trade with Greece and Ancient Rome. LAter they moved into Ukraine and lived there for some time before being driven west by the Huns and tribes allied with them. A portion of the Goths themselves, the later Ostrogoths, were actually forcibly recruited into the Hunnish Army along with various Turkic, Iranian and other Germanic people.

The Germans originally came from northern Europe and moved west, east and south, displacing the Celtic people from Switzerland, southern Germany and Austria until temporarily stopped by the Romans.

"Thus Germans refer to the original Scythians, not those latter known by that name because they displaced the Germane (original) peoples."

Again, I don't agree. The original Scythians were an Iranian people related to the ancient Persians and Sanskrit speaking invaders of India.

"The habit of Lederhosen is a direct linkage to the Scythian horsemanship."

Why on earth would anybody want to ride a horse in short pants? Horsehair can be very irritating. The Scythians, Mongols, Huns, Goths, Turks and other horse people always worse full pants.

I haven't got the slightest idea where Lederhosen came from. I think it means Leather Pants in German.

Why does this topic seem to interst so many people and why does it keep regurgitating itself? That's interesting in itself.


179 posted on 08/09/2006 7:05:29 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
It is totally absurd to think of a people coming out of Scandinavia en masse. This is another false assumption of early "historian" which is still perpetuated.

And, no, I am not thinking of the Goths. The Franks came from the area as well. As legend has it, Trier was founded by a descendant of Troy and became one of the "Palaces" of the Franks.

Deutsch refers to Tribe in the same way as Tuatha refers to tribe. "Ich bin Deutscher" means "I am a tribesman". "Aber was fuer ein Deutscher?" means "But which tribe?" "Ja, ich bin Hessisch" means "I am Hessian". Underlying the meaning is that of "Volk" or people. So the order of the language is People, tribesman, tribe.

As an aside, the curiosity of saying Deutscher is that the languages spoken must have been far closer than they are today. Considering that a vocabulary of 10,000 words was probably max, it is not unreasonable to suggest that German, Keltic and possibly other languages were more similar than conjectured.

Back to the basics. Europe was lightly populated as a result of the last Ice Age. Forests covered much of the landscape, wolves and bears were found throughout. People would have had to stay close to fresh water sources that would have provided their principle transportation, as well. Northern Europe and Germany was marshy or plains. Tribes moved as they used up the local resources. There is no substantive proof that Cold, dark, unfriendly Scandinavia could support the large numbers of peoples supposedly appearing suddenly from there.

To the contrary. The people north of the Black sea followed the sea routes north and established settlements and colonies.

Sorry for being long-winded.
180 posted on 08/09/2006 5:01:05 PM PDT by Prost1 (uit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


181 posted on 08/09/2008 11:10:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Oberon; Pharmboy

English is the world’s language because it’s the language of the most powerful nation and because we created the internet. Will it remain? Possibly, but remember that our American English is a much simplified form of British English, and it’s getting simpler still, with reduction in tenses, superfluous letters etc.


182 posted on 03/09/2012 10:35:38 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Perhaps I should have waited a few years to respond in keeping with the character of this thread, but, although the Internet catalyzed English adoption further, English has been the world language before the Internet due to it's (essentially) global use in science, entertainment and business.
183 posted on 03/09/2012 11:43:25 AM PST by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
English has been the world language before the Internet due to it's (essentially) global use in science, entertainment and business.

I agree with you that the Internet catalyzed or speeded up English adoption. But note that English has been "the" world language only since the 70s or so -- when the influences of Anglophone culture spread, but even then there was no need to learn English in communist countries or China and even in India and Africa the "need" was far less when trade with Anglophonia :) was minimal or through middle-men

English as the language of science is also fairly recent as the major discoveries until the Industrial age were written (in Europe at least) in Latin as lingua franca.

Entertainment is also an interesting point -- we Americans tend to over-estimate how spread our culture is -- it's only been recent phenomenon since the 80s and more so since the 90s. When I moved to Poland, most people didn't know some of the staples of 70s and 80s tv-land, so my references were known. However they all knew Friends and surprisingly Alf. in my travels in India, China and the Middle East, this was again the case.

184 posted on 03/09/2012 6:28:39 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]


 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


185 posted on 04/29/2012 7:36:55 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...
Note: this topic is from July 1, 2003. Thanks Pharmboy.
Seems like a good time for a re-ping. :')
In November 1897, in a field near the village of Coligny in eastern France, a local inhabitant unearthed two strange objects... The other was an ancient bronze tablet, 5 feet wide and 3.5 feet high. It bore numerals in Roman but the words were in Gaulish, the extinct version of Celtic spoken by the inhabitants of France before the Roman conquest in the first century B.C. The tablet, now known as the Coligny calendar, turned out to record the Celtic system of measuring time, as well as being one of the most important sources of Gaulish words. Two researchers, Dr. Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge in England and Dr. Alfred Toth of the University of Zurich, have now used the calendar and other Celtic inscriptions to reconstruct the history of Celtic and its position in the Indo-European family of languages.

186 posted on 04/29/2012 8:20:10 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks...I think of all the threads I’ve posted, I have learned the most (from Freepers) on this thread.


187 posted on 04/30/2012 5:43:01 AM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: unread
And we defeated Mexico, but we are going to end up speaking Mexican for sure!!

Sad, but true. In my area the social service positions require a person to be bilingual: Spanish and English. This is the Upper Midwest, not Texas, Oklahoma or Florida.

188 posted on 04/30/2012 9:07:20 AM PDT by madison10 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Very cool!


189 posted on 04/30/2012 1:24:10 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson