the norman conquest applied mostly to the nobles.The people just carried on being anglo-saxon and were not so quick to give up their ways.Again,the "stubborness".The english can easily be mistaken for a german but I can spot a frenchie from a mile away.
The question is though, the Anglo-Saxons lived in Angeln Germany..I doubt that every last one of them migrated to the UK..so why did the language go extinct? did they just adopt German/Dutch/Danish as their language or what
@unhooked25 Actually, if you're English, then you have Saxon culture but are more than likely a Briton. Recent DNA testing shows that 80% of English people are Britons.
@Andrewmation855 I think the point is that the Saxons came in great numbers and assimilated the native British. There probably is no meaningful distinction today between 'Saxons and 'Britons' based on genetics, because there was so much intermarriage. The Welsh are 'modern' Britons, of course.
@ewancummins There are 3 clear YDNA markers which define A-S or Danish Viking. In E. York, Lincoln,Midlands, Anglia, and across the S. East these markers make up 65% include ad-mix of other La Tene/Cimbric markers from Germany, it's probably 80%. The proportion shift is in Lancs, Cumbria, Devon, and Cornwall, where there's what appears to be much more pre-Roman ancestry.
That's only YDNA & I agree with inter-marriage.
The Cornish must be prodiminately of Belgic & earlier people.
I'd be interested to know more about the genetic heritage from Roman soliders and merchnats in Britain. The Empire stationed soliders there who were originally from places as far away as Affrica and Mesopotamia. Of course, even a thousand foriegn soldiers would be a tiny drop in a big bucket. I'm not sure we'd even be able to detect any markers. I'm not an expert on genetics. Have you read about the Ivory Bangle Lady of York?
@Andrewmation855 That's not correct. Most geneticist conclude that there are 3 clear YDNA markers which define A-S or Danish Viking. In E. York, Lincoln,Midlands, Anglia, and across the S. East the these markers make up 65% include ad-mix of other La Tene/Cimbric markers from Germany it's probably 80%. The proportion shift is in Lancs, Cumbria, Devon, and Cornwall, where there's what appears to be much more pre-Roman ancestry.
my last name is Espinal and i was in google , trying to find my ancient kind and the family crest and history and it said Espinal is a name of ancient Anglo-Saxon orgin and comes from a family once having lived in the settlement of AspinWall, which was in the parish of Aughton in Lancashire county.The name Aspinwall literally means the aspen-well, referring to a well near a grove of aspen tress. Please reply if you know any important details
Shakespeare next to yes, believe me homer simpson gave the English language most of the words we speak today ... Shakespear .. beautiful ... homer simpson .. unbelievable
Shakespeare next to yes, believe me homer simpson gave the English language most of the words we speak today ... Shakespear .. beautifull ... homer simpson .. unbelievable
Is it bad that I knew he was reciting the first verses of Beowulf before he said so?
I performed the first few lines for a song once, initially in english and then I made an attempt at the anglo saxon original text...probably sounds nothing like how it should!
Now, if only those BEEEP Normans hadn't switched to Frænch - OR they had stayed where they belonged - , we would probably still be able to talk across the North Sea ;-)
Engelske folk haver mange (many) af vore (our) (w)ord(s), så I [ee, ~ye ] kan
se, hvad vi siger [seey-er, say ] over her(e) i(n) Danmark.
@Bjowolf2 Thanks to the French and Norman invasion, english is now a quite beautiful language and it's a very melodic language too. I think without that, English will sound German or like Scandinavian language, and I'm sure the English songs will be less popular than now. this language is a good mix. :)
Nah, don't think you are right. The Norman invasion ( NOT the French!) along w. Latin contributed a lot of new words to E, but they were added to an already thriving base language, which was a fusion of the closely related West Germanic Anglo Saxon ( Old E ) and the North Germanic Norse ( Old Scand. - ca. Icelandic even today! )
Of course it changed E a lot, but not in the way you assume. Mainly it gave E a huge vocabulary with sev. words for each concept + changed vowels.
The melodic accents already existed. Norw. & Swe. are far more melodic languages (like Scotish E)
than E. And Ger. is act. better than E to sing in with all its open vowels.
The pop. of E songs is mainly due to the large number of speakers & the vast vocab. that makes it easier to find a word that fits a line in a song. Most of the basic words in E. have close cognates in Scand. and/ or in German / Dutch ... The Fr. & L. parts are to a large part more like the glacing on the E cake.
And it's of course also due a long "E" trad. for writing good pop, jazz and rock songs ;-)
But there are tons of great songs in other languages, which unfort don't get much chance in the E speaking nations. Why these are not translated more often is a big mystery to me.
Even "my" more plain Danish (not melodic - except for some dialects) can sound beautiful - at least to us LOL ( It prob. depends on wether you are tuned into it and its sounds ) - even when sung! ( We have lots of lovely songs )
@Bjowolf2 Yeah, that's true. Something else that is fairly interesting - when most English people speak French, the French often confuse our accent with that of the Germans'. Says quite a lot I think.
@Bjowolf2 It also changed the construction of words. A huge amount of suffixes and prefixes of modern English language come from a Latin language...Norman/French. -age -ice, -tion, -ary, -ory, etc...pre- re- de-. In fact between 35% to 35% of today's English comes from French/Norman or latin via them.
@AuxaneD Which means that the French don't have their own language because they were originally German or Gaullish speakers. Whereas the core English tongue is Anglo-Saxon German with a bit of Danish Viking. Latin didn't come from the Normans, it came after from Johns' reign & later Plantagenets (yes ok French) English became dominate again by 1400. The most important lexicon change was from the Danish invasion in N. East England.
@AuxaneD Anglo-Saxon numbered approx 50,000 words with the French introducing about 10,000. About 17%.
The reason that there are so many words in English lang. is because of the industrialization & globalisation of English trade from the 16th century onwards, and we're still borrowing more words. It's as simple as that.
@ashleysoulful: disagree with you English now makes NO sense when you speak it..you speak in root words only with just a hint of past present and future.so you can't really say a lot like you can in all the other languages in the world..you use you for everything even though that you is possessive and means thine just the Netherlands version (jou) you say my.there's no such thing as my.it's min WITHOUT the e at the end unless you were saying mine woruld. English now is butchered
@ashleysoulful Anglo-Saxon German is better than modern English and modern French.
English wouldn't sound like high German. English is mostly like Frisian or sounds Swedish.
It was Danish Viking which was one of the most important espect to the lexicon change of English.
The Normans indirectly introduced more Latin with their invasion, but it was in Johns' reign & for 200 years of Plantagenet rule where 10,000 loan words were introduced. Anglo-Saxon German numbered 50,000
"Race" as used to mean white/black/asian is nonsense. But race in the older sense as kin or clan makes perfect sense - but that kind of sense is not popular in a world being driven towards atomised self-interest. The kin is the true self, something the individual obsessed modern age denies but it is no less true for that denial. That is why favouring kin is punished, and why family is under attack. A world of individuals is a world of whores with no love or loyalty to others.
@TobyW360 LOL...fuck dude, I’ve just had a look at your videos, and you’re just some geeky ginger kid with zits and scabs all over your pasty little face...lol
You have some front to put that face over the net...lol
@ManlnCognito LOL....fuck dude, i just looked at your comments and youre just some jealous snarled toothed britt whos pissed he doesnt have red hair and talks shit to people who watch old english videos on youtube, you have some balls to talk shit on the internet. Blocked.
@frantic1971 They're the opening lines of Beowulf, and in Kevin Crossley-Holland's translation they go "Listen! / The fame of Danish kings / in days gone by, the daring feats / worked by those heroes are well known to us."
this programmes was totally racist and tried tp portray england as britain "influence on our country ,they gave us our language" etc etc = they totally forgot about the welsh /brythonic and gaelic languages=typical english 'history' =a disgrace for the bbc yet again
@chrisjoneschrisjones because they tried tp portray england as britain "influence on our country ,they gave us our language" etc etc = they totally forgot about the welsh /brythonic and gaelic languages
First off there is no such thing as "race". Don't believe me, look it up. Secondly, Anglo Saxon is actually a mixture of another 6 if not more ppl. Where are the jutes, to name one. And then we entered middle English with the Norman invasion which changed our consonants and syntax.
Of course there's such a thing as race. Don't allow emotion to cloud rationality. There are empirical data to prove differences between races, and empirical data to prove similarities. Humans can be grouped, loosely, into phenological and genetic categories, the largest of which are the "races" (Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids), and the smallest of which is the individual human. All strata are viable - man, family, tribe, nation, ethnicity, race, species, ad infinitum.
@ExNihilMetal Your rant still doesn't define the term 'race'. You beat around the bush about how to classify humans, why not try shoe size or better still, IQ, in which case you'd probably find yourself at the bottom of the barrel. Take your social constructs that cushion your insecurities, and shove them up your arse.
I love how "imparting knowledge" is a "rant" to you. Essentially, you're upset that anyone could have any notion of classifying human beings into groups (oh, how demonic! We're all "individuals", after all, aren't we?) and so you produce a series of straw men in an attempt to mask what until the ridiculous modern notion of human "equality" had been unquestioned fact (and what remains, to this day, fact, though questioned by peons such as yourself).
@ExNihilMetal 1. "Knowledge" is objective, not the kind of 'socio-political\racial consensus group' that you suggest. So is the meaning of 'equality' and 'individuals'.
Your inability to argue must outweigh my ignorance, or you're of the level of intelligence that your "opinion" suggests. You still have provided no points against "race" other than "it's arbitrary", which statement is blatantly false, and which statement I disproved before you'd even stated it.
In future, when you want to come closer to truth, start from a neutral perspective (as I did, long ago), and work your way from there. Look at reality objectively and without emotion.
@ExNihilMetal You really are quite stupid, for your illiteracy and ignorance jump out of your comments. 'Race', as you suggest, is a construct to classify humans. The fact that it is arbitrary makes it as useless a construct as your existence. The fact of the matter is that your "opinion" is illogical, flawed, and superbly dumb.
In the future, try not to show off your ignorance, trying to pass it as "knowledge".
Please re-read my first comment to which you replied, where I show how race is not "arbitrary". Also, what is this "illiteracy" to which you refer? Finally, if there is any rational basis for your belief in the uselessness of the term and non-existence of the actuality of "race", please provide data which suggest that a categorisation of humans in this way is intrinsically malignant/obfuscatory/baseless. We're not all bigots on the internet; some of us are open-minded.
@ExNihilMetal There is plenty of rational basis and data to not simply "believe" but demonstrate the malignancy and arbitrariness of racial classification. I suggest you start with Thomas Hylland Eriksen and move on to Cornell West to begin with, let me know when you've read a few books and I'll suggest some more authors for your reading list. Race is a construct to categorize and systematically subordinate the "others" - it has no biological meaning or significance.
After cursory reading, it seems to me that these writings are trying to deny the validity of race by showing that races aren't defined obviously (i.e. there is no "race gene"). This is kind of stupid, really - at that point, you might as well say that "species" is a social construct, or even "genus" - they're relatively loose groupings by which we categorise living beings. However, like race, they're based on phenotypes and genotypes (primarily the latter) - observable traits.
@ExNihilMetal First off, neither Eriksen nor West gets into "race genes" - they're more concerned with the social creation of the meaning of race and who belongs to what race. Secondly, your suggestion of "relatively loose groupings" has no specific meaning - is a pigeon different from a wolf? if yes, then they belong to different species. is a Turk different from a Greek for them to be classified as different species? Definitely not. social consensus (is not equal to) the scientific method.
I used the "no race gene" as another example (sorry, I meant "e.g."), and then showed that all of these categories are linguistic, and don't correspond to anything in nature. Is a pigeon different from a dove? Well, yes and no - genetically, they're incredibly similar, so much so that they can mate and produce offspring (which, on occasion, can reproduce themselves). However, phenotypically, they're very different, in terms of size, colouring, and, to top it all off, behaviour.
@ExNihilMetal Firstly, the biological definition of 'race' does not argue that different races are different species. What it does argue is that different human populations can be divided into subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens [Linnaeus, Blumenbach etc.]. Secondly, this argument is absolute nonsense because genetic analyses prove that there is more biological variation within populations than among them [Lewontin, 1970].
@ExNihilMetal Regarding the arbitrariness of this racial classification bullshit, some racist 'scientists' (self styled fools) choose skin colour for their categorization of races, while some other choose blood types. Some choose hair texture while still others choose cranial volume. There are some other incompetent racists that choose IQ. Well, let me ask you this: How long would a city dweller from Munich survive in the Arctic or Sahara when compared to an Inuit or an Afar? IQ is SUBJECTIVE.
Fascinating summary of a wide range of research. What on earth does it have to do with the topic on hand, in anything but the broadest sense? If anything, he seems to support the idea that disparate populations will grow more different with time, thus leading to the concept of further distinctions than "species" between organisms (I think "race" is a pretty good word to use here. Less clinical than "subspecies", though that's what it is).
@ExNihilMetal If you couldn't figure out what the article has to do with the topic of classification of human populations into distinct races, let me lay it down for you: There is more biological variation WITHIN populations than there is AMONG them. Translation: There is more biological (genotypic and phenotypic) variation within "the Caucasian race" than there is among, say, the Caucasian and Mongoloid "races".
@ExNihilMetal Also, you say that "with time" "disparate" populations will grow more different. True. But unfortunately for you, human populations have not been "disparate" for the millions of year for them to evolve into different species. If anything, human populations have stayed in contact and have increasingly come in more genetic contact throughout Homo sapiens sapiens' evolution. Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face.
For the majority of the time homo sapiens sapiens (that's a subspecies, by the way) has existed more or less as it is now, populations have been spread far apart and have had little contact. It's only within the past five thousand years that we can definitely say that there has been inter-tribal/inter-communal relationships. Last time I checked, 5,000 < 50,000.
@ExNihilMetal (Because you're the racist "geneticist" here. Duh) Where's your source that says that its only within the five thousand years that "we can definitely say" that there have been substantial contact between human populations? My source that confirms that ALL humans belong to the same species and subspecies is mtDNA and Y-chromosome evidence. You've still got a lot of reading to do boy.
@ExNihilMetal Time for your next reading assignment,
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Marcus W. Feldman. "The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution". Nature Genetics 33, 266 - 275 (2003).
Furthermore, we can observe genetic divergence between generations, let alone tens of generations or hundreds. This is "evolution". It's not much, of course, but it still counts as evolution, which is why I said, way back when, that every stratum of classification was viable, from a binary "organism/non-organism" grouping down to each "individual". Somewhere between those two extremes are kingdom, genus, species, race, ethnicity, tribe, family, any number of other definitions.
@ExNihilMetal Sure it counts as evolution, but for the creation of a species, or even a subspecies requires that populations remain out of contact for millions of years. Humans have, throughout prehistory and history, been in contact with each other. A few thousand years are mere seconds in evolutionary terms, specially when it comes to genetic divergence among species or subspecies. Race, ethnicity, tribe, nation, clan etc. are social constructs of "us" and the "others".
'... millions of years': no. You need to research this. I don't even know where you should begin, this is just so categorically wrong, especially considering modern theories that evolution happens over various "leaps", rather than continuously.
'Race, ethnicity, tribe, nation, clan etc. are social constructs of "us" and the "others".': duh. So are "species", "kingdom", "genus", and so on. They are classifications: the goal of classification is to categorise.
@ExNihilMetal Evolution does occur in leaps, but species or subspecies are not formed in leaps - there can't be a subspecies of snails "evolving" in a single generation - THAT is categorically wrong.
Social classification and biological classification are two different animals altogether. sociology (is not equal to) biology. DUH.
The mutation(s) which will cause the next evolution(s) of snails will occur within a relatively short space of time, not over millions of years.
"Social classification", as you call it, comes from (and basically is, but for different terminology) biological classification: there is biological basis for the classification of humans into all of these seperate groups (who were your parents, who were their parents, and their parents, etc.).
@ExNihilMetal Mutation is not the only source of evolution, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection equally contribute to evolution. Evolution of distinct species is not simply a jump or a leap, its a series of factors that may or may not take millions of years. Given the biological homogeneity of human populations worldwide, you're argument is completely baseless.
@ExNihilMetal Social classification is based on social measures of differences, which have no biological basis. Your "who were your parents, their parents, and their parents, etc." argument cannot go back even 500 years to justifiably classify humans into distinct groups based on ancestry. Case in point, how do you classify the immensely heterogeneous populations in modern North America that have North American Native, European, African, and Asian ancestral lineages? What race is that??
@ExNihilMetal Mixing races teach us respecting differences, which you should learn from us. By the way: normans + celts + vikings + saxons + angevins = UK. You're mixed too. The difference is that your people have been inbreeding for a long time, so they seem to be homogeneous, but that doesn't mean that you're not mixed.
No, it forces us to bear mixing, whether it produce good or bad results. I respect the differences between peoples far more than you do - I don't want to snuff them out. Instead, I want to embrace the differences, even though this requires that peoples maintain their own separate lands where their own separate cultures can continue without interference.
As if the Normans (Danes), Vikings (Norwegians/Swedes), Saxons (Germans), and Angevins (also Germans) are ethnically different any more than in passing, and as if these tribes aren't almost entirely the same as the Western/Northern Celts. There's a massive difference between mixing between tribes and mixing between races - the latter is within race, thus there is already very little fundamental genetic divergence between contemporary individuals.
@ExNihilMetal What the hell... "Normans (Danes), Angevins (also Germans)" All false. Vikings settling in Normandy were Vikings (Danes), 3 centuries after, when they were called Normans they were culturally as Christians and French speakers (Norman whether modern or old was and is a dialect of Langue d'oïl = French), in their ADN (they mixed and breeded with the local population and were only a small number, there with the mission to protect French coast from other Viking invasions...) French!
As if the Normans (Danes), Vikings (Norwegians/Swedes), Saxons (Germans), and Angevins (also Germans) are ethnically different other than in passing, and as if those tribes aren't almost exactly the same as the Celts. There's a huge difference between mixing between tribes and mixing between races. The former is within race, thus there is very little fundamental genetic divergence between contemporary individuals.
@ExNihilMetal Poor uneducated guy... the scientifical idea of race is dead since the 19th century, after Taylor's study on human culture and also by Malinowski's studies on Funtionalist Antropology. Frans Boas killed the geografical, biological and racial determinism even more in his works like "The Mind of Primitive Man", "Primitive Art" and "Race, Language and Culture". So it's more than proven that there are tons of factors that contribute to the development of some people, which go far....
@ExNihilMetal beyond your race determinism. Even Weber made it clear that is impossible to a single characteristic (like race) to explain the level of development of a people, there are infinite causes which can never be fulled explained. And there are also the Frankfurt School or Critical Theory, that even criticizes what people call underdevelopment. And the HGP also proves that from the 35000 genes we have, only 10 define what we call races, making "race" a scientifically inacurate term.
@ExNihilMetal And you also said that mixing races fuked us up, buy you don't even know how the dyinamics of miscigenation worken in our tupiniquim lands. There are some works that might help you understand a little bit of the complex characteristics of Brazilian culture and race in Brazil like "Raízes do Brazil" from Sérgio Buarque de Holanda and "O Povo Brasileiro" from Darcy Ribeiro.
@zedasilva3 So, study a little more about the subject before making so harsh statements. Be respectful and humble if you want to learn. God bless you.
To be fair, I was in an antagonistic mood when I said that. It'd be more fair to say "so-called multiculturalism has ruined every civilisation to accept the notion since Sumer". Egypt; Greece; Rome; China; Britain. I could list a lot more, but I have neither the space nor the time.
It's also funny how "monoculturalist" states are more successful, even now (excluding recent troubles, Japan is a good example).
@zedasilva3 "It's also funny how "monoculturalist" states are more successful, even now" That might be the reason why the United States are so much poorer than you [sarcasm off] ;D
Technically it does. Breeding outside of the races lessens genetic diversity leaving us more open to disease. Unfortunately breeding inside ones own race is becoming a less attractive option, but if there were major divides in races nowadays, you could "revive" them. As it is they all decay at the same rate with no hope.
Not a study of history then I take it. Whenever there is a difference, one party concedes. That's how it's always been and always will be in this world. There is no "half way point", there is only opposites and stronger and weaker parties. More's the pity
@ExNihilMetal is scientifically prove that races doesn't exist. They can't be catalogate because the genetic difference between me and my neighbour can be bigger than between me and an african. The genetic demonstrates today that the origin of the human race is in african continent and there we found the most important genetic variety, the rest of the humans in the world takes genes from this variety absolutely casually, not allowing a uniform genetic regroup in a well-defined territory.
Look up Neanderthal/Sapiens mixing in Cro-Magnon and European populations of Homo Sapiens. It's recently been proven that every single human on the planet, excluding sub-saharan Africans and Australian Aboriginals, shares "at least" 1-4% of his/her DNA with Neanderthal DNA.
The idea that you can be more genetically divergent from your neighbour than from someone of a different race is based on a misunderstanding of the facts and terminology being used. Please do more research.
@ExNihilMetal Look, I'm Mastering in History..I sure u that Cro-Magnon ABSOLUTELY is not the mix between Sapiens and Neanderthal..!!!Cro-Magnon is a group of sapiens,bringing some type of genes,that left africa and then passed from the Asia to Europe...they've never cruzed with Neanderthal,ABSOLUTELY NEVER...We have nothing of neanderthal in our genetic...and that's the why Neanderthal disappeared.POINT.This theory of Neanderthal today is definitely REJECTED.Maybe is u that misunderstand.Study!!
@ExNihilMetal And than i sure u that the theory i told u before OUT OF AFRICA(i admit in a really poor way..sry but the comment is really short)is the theory today accepted from all the genetists and historians..!Obviously not by crazies and racists..that continue to sustain theories old and obsolete,proved for their falsity by 50 years of Genetic!in this case is better that we stop to talk.
However I repeat that CroMagnon=Sapiens+Neanderthal is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!
Please, research it. It's quite a recent discovery, and, obviously, it's "controversial", because people such as yourself so adamantly wish that the world were a different way to how it actually is.
@ExNihilMetal oh my god...I repeat..the matter of the neanderthal it's not a recent discovery...don't invent something that does not exist...it's quite controversial old theory and more it's absolutely genetic prove that we not descend from neanderthal and even we have not any of them...coz sapiens(cro-magnon) and neanderthal never cruzed between them..infact more than genetic we have costums completely different that prove that they never cruzed!
@ExNihilMetal and then i don't wish nothing...i don't wish a better world or what...i see,i study and i trust in fact and science result...not on theory invented by some derangeds of the scientific world!so pls study and do not believe in everything that u want to hear.I see that my comments have no result so pls the conversation is once and for all. Good Bye.
@ExNihilMetal Man we already told about that...we can't catalogate that.....only fenotipes...and fenotipes r not able to categorize...r not genes...!we can't do these categories....nation, tribe, ethnicity....we have not a peculiar genetic type that permit that....n repeat...i can have a mix of genes more similar to an african man that to the guy that lives next to me......it's genetic..if u want to do pseudo science than urs is the right way
actually race is a scientific fact, the human species is divided into several races and furthur subraces, for instance, europeans are a distinct race, further divided into germanic,norse,celtic and slavic sub races, africans are a distinct race of people, further divided into bantu, zulu and many other sub races,
race does exsist, ignoring it and pretending we are all one big race is racist and is the cause of almost all racial tension around the world
@vwbora1point8T Wouldn't that be "Ich will nach Hause kommen" in modern German? I was taught that "nach Hause" is an idiomatic way of saying "home" even though "nach" would generally only be used to refer to places that would have a name on a map such as a city or a country.
@vwbora1point8T I'm not trying to be a douche but it's "Ich will nach Hause gehen :-). "nach" is used idiomatically and wollen is a modal verb and modal verbs don't use "zu" with secondary verbs.
@ManlnCognito english are germanic anglosaxons a mixture of germans and scandinavians
north of england is angloscandinavian both germanic same race germanic people look alike i could be dressed like a viking blonde mustache and chin brown curly wavy rufous hair blue eyes broad shoulders long head oval shape round chin small nose
Beowulf - Beo=Bee, Wulf=Wolf Beewolf=Bear. The Eo is known to be a diphthong, so if it ended up as Bee then it probably started more like the Noel Coward over-'refined' pronunciation in "eOh aI seay, Cheps" than any 'Bayo-wulf'.
There isn't really 'Anglo-Saxon'. There is Angle and Saxon with internal dialects. Int hte North there is Æþelstæn, in Mercia Aþelstan, in Wessex Eaþelstean - and in German Edelstein (Noble Stone)
@ManlnCognito What? No need to be so crude. You should always make sure you're being accurate with what you say when you are trying to teach people something. Where do you come off telling me to shut the fuck up? This is supposed to be an educational setting... so there you go... education.
@ManlnCognito Firstly, all you have to do is look at it and you would see it is theodcyninga and not perqueninga...Secondly, while we will never know precise pronunciation and accents, we can derive very accurate reconstructions based on linguistic evolution as any linguist could tell you. The letter he mistakes for a P is a Þ which we know for a fact represents "th."
@LordTharrion Does this guy claim to be an expert? Does he say this was how it was pronounced? He's a TV presenter. How would anyone know what old English sounded like? who are you to judge and pass comment?....why are you Americans so judgemental and obnoxious?
@ManlnCognito Americans judgmental? Look who's passing judgment, good sir! I merely said "'Trying to speak' being the key phrase"... That means i was AGREEING with him! My point (once again) is that when you are trying to teach someone... BE ACCURATE, Know about what you are talking! This is the SAME problem America has. The History Channel makes the same exact mistake!
@ManlnCognito It was, in fact, you who were jumping to premature conclusions. Also, as I said, no one knows exactly what it sounded like... that being said, "th" does not sound like a "P" in any period of the english tongue.
@LordTharrion How do you know it wasn't? You have said yourself that no one knows what old English sounded like so this video no more "crashes and burns" than any other, There were also probably regional variations of the language just like there is today.
@ManlnCognito Where do come come by the belief that "p" is a regional variation on "th." Languages follow vary specific sound shifts. Dental sounds are always dental, labail always labial. Th hard and soft and d and t. P F and V. there were countless regianal variations which liead to different accents and eve to Scots, but theodcyninga cannot etymologically become percueninga.
@ManlnCognito And even so, Beowulf wasn't written in a regional dialect, it was written in a standardized poetic form comprised mostly of West Saxon and some Anglian. It was a standard litterary version and not subject to such variations.
@LordTharrion But we are not talking about written Anglo Saxon we are talking about the spoken language. Take a modern poem and get someone from different ends of Britain to read the same words and it will sound different. Yet both are being true to their own regional pronunciations of certain words. If we cant standardise modern English how can we judge what was the correct pronunciations of a 1000 year old language
@ManlnCognito Firstly, regional dialects are composed of slang and vowel differentiation. Secondly, I was correcting this man's quotation of Beowulf which was written down in a standardised literary dialect of OE and therefore, this entire discussion has been around that dialect. If you think we were discussing something else, you are sorely mistaken and have been fighting a lost cause.
@ManlnCognito And Modern English has been standardised in the exact same way; litterary. American English and British English are two different standardisations however their is a cross barrier standard form which is used between the two making a standard English dialect. It has been standardised (point=moot) and as fro the rest... research some etymology for both our sakes.
@LordTharrion You are wrong and you know it, 1 for being so judgemental and 2 for not admitting that standardised text can be read out load differently according to regional dialects. I've got a strong northern English accent. I've been to the states and many people couldn't understand a word I was saying. I could have read a local newspaper out load and they wouldn't have understood me.
@ManlnCognito ME? I am not trying to standardise anything. Beowulf was written in the standard litterary dialect of the time. It is not a "written language" rather it was a written representation of said dialect. It is more likened to writing in Scots vs. the Queen's English than reading an American paper in a North English accent.
@ManlnCognito And you are missunderstanding me. I am not being judgmental, I agreed that he was "trying" and nothing more. You are being judgmental in CALLING me judgmental- FACE IT. And I'm sorry if Americans are so "judgmental" but even more sorry that the English are so SENTITIVE! Judgment is saying that Americans are obnoxious, not saying he was wrong.
@ManlnCognito U never denied that you can read standardised languages in different accents... that is blatantly obvious. But dialects are distinctly set apart from accents. And once again, I was simply correcting his mistake, not passing judgment, and you are being obnoxious for insisting i am judgmental.
the norman conquest applied mostly to the nobles.The people just carried on being anglo-saxon and were not so quick to give up their ways.Again,the "stubborness".The english can easily be mistaken for a german but I can spot a frenchie from a mile away.
rw5791 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The question is though, the Anglo-Saxons lived in Angeln Germany..I doubt that every last one of them migrated to the UK..so why did the language go extinct? did they just adopt German/Dutch/Danish as their language or what
silenteyesspy 3 months ago
Really bad reading of Old English (not 'Anglo-Saxon') :(
Hragelgefratwodnes 3 months ago
Ik thenk dit U varneld en duu foretlet, dit U nott?
apologeticsman 3 months ago
@apologeticsman: why did you write half Netherlands and half English
silenteyesspy 3 months ago
@silenteyesspy I thought I was writing gibberish, just in fun. Apparently, I speak Dutch and didn't know it
apologeticsman 3 months ago
@unhooked25 Actually, if you're English, then you have Saxon culture but are more than likely a Briton. Recent DNA testing shows that 80% of English people are Britons.
Andrewmation855 3 months ago
@Andrewmation855 I think the point is that the Saxons came in great numbers and assimilated the native British. There probably is no meaningful distinction today between 'Saxons and 'Britons' based on genetics, because there was so much intermarriage. The Welsh are 'modern' Britons, of course.
ewancummins 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ewancummins There are 3 clear YDNA markers which define A-S or Danish Viking. In E. York, Lincoln,Midlands, Anglia, and across the S. East these markers make up 65% include ad-mix of other La Tene/Cimbric markers from Germany, it's probably 80%. The proportion shift is in Lancs, Cumbria, Devon, and Cornwall, where there's what appears to be much more pre-Roman ancestry.
That's only YDNA & I agree with inter-marriage.
The Cornish must be prodiminately of Belgic & earlier people.
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
I'd be interested to know more about the genetic heritage from Roman soliders and merchnats in Britain. The Empire stationed soliders there who were originally from places as far away as Affrica and Mesopotamia. Of course, even a thousand foriegn soldiers would be a tiny drop in a big bucket. I'm not sure we'd even be able to detect any markers. I'm not an expert on genetics. Have you read about the Ivory Bangle Lady of York?
ewancummins 3 months ago
@Andrewmation855 That's not correct. Most geneticist conclude that there are 3 clear YDNA markers which define A-S or Danish Viking. In E. York, Lincoln,Midlands, Anglia, and across the S. East the these markers make up 65% include ad-mix of other La Tene/Cimbric markers from Germany it's probably 80%. The proportion shift is in Lancs, Cumbria, Devon, and Cornwall, where there's what appears to be much more pre-Roman ancestry.
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
Actually the Saxons came from saxony which is in Germany.
norseczar27 4 months ago
Stubbornness of attitude...now I know where I get it from. :)
SanFranGirl1982 5 months ago
Comment removed
JackyB92 5 months ago
Comment removed
JackyB92 5 months ago
my last name is Espinal and i was in google , trying to find my ancient kind and the family crest and history and it said Espinal is a name of ancient Anglo-Saxon orgin and comes from a family once having lived in the settlement of AspinWall, which was in the parish of Aughton in Lancashire county.The name Aspinwall literally means the aspen-well, referring to a well near a grove of aspen tress. Please reply if you know any important details
bleachfan178 6 months ago
We are Anglo Saxon and couldn't be prouder. If you can't hear us now, we'll yell a little louder. And we owe no one an explanation or an apology.
unhooked25 6 months ago
and the rest of this...?
ryko26 7 months ago
He looks like Anthony Hopkins' twin brother...
Daniel0889 7 months ago
Anglo Saxon sounds amazing.
alrdd 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shakespeare next to yes, believe me homer simpson gave the English language most of the words we speak today ... Shakespear .. beautiful ... homer simpson .. unbelievable
TheNisSeee 8 months ago
Shakespeare next to yes, believe me homer simpson gave the English language most of the words we speak today ... Shakespear .. beautifull ... homer simpson .. unbelievable
TheNisSeee 8 months ago
Is it bad that I knew he was reciting the first verses of Beowulf before he said so?
I performed the first few lines for a song once, initially in english and then I made an attempt at the anglo saxon original text...probably sounds nothing like how it should!
MagnusBruce 9 months ago 3
Now, if only those BEEEP Normans hadn't switched to Frænch - OR they had stayed where they belonged - , we would probably still be able to talk across the North Sea ;-)
Engelske folk haver mange (many) af vore (our) (w)ord(s), så I [ee, ~ye ] kan
se, hvad vi siger [seey-er, say ] over her(e) i(n) Danmark.
Hav en god dag alle mine engelske frænder ;-)
Bjowolf2 9 months ago 9
@Bjowolf2 Thanks to the French and Norman invasion, english is now a quite beautiful language and it's a very melodic language too. I think without that, English will sound German or like Scandinavian language, and I'm sure the English songs will be less popular than now. this language is a good mix. :)
ashleysoulful 9 months ago
@ashleysoulful
Nah, don't think you are right. The Norman invasion ( NOT the French!) along w. Latin contributed a lot of new words to E, but they were added to an already thriving base language, which was a fusion of the closely related West Germanic Anglo Saxon ( Old E ) and the North Germanic Norse ( Old Scand. - ca. Icelandic even today! )
Of course it changed E a lot, but not in the way you assume. Mainly it gave E a huge vocabulary with sev. words for each concept + changed vowels.
Bjowolf2 9 months ago
@Bjowolf2
The melodic accents already existed. Norw. & Swe. are far more melodic languages (like Scotish E)
than E. And Ger. is act. better than E to sing in with all its open vowels.
The pop. of E songs is mainly due to the large number of speakers & the vast vocab. that makes it easier to find a word that fits a line in a song. Most of the basic words in E. have close cognates in Scand. and/ or in German / Dutch ... The Fr. & L. parts are to a large part more like the glacing on the E cake.
Bjowolf2 9 months ago
And it's of course also due a long "E" trad. for writing good pop, jazz and rock songs ;-)
But there are tons of great songs in other languages, which unfort don't get much chance in the E speaking nations. Why these are not translated more often is a big mystery to me.
Even "my" more plain Danish (not melodic - except for some dialects) can sound beautiful - at least to us LOL ( It prob. depends on wether you are tuned into it and its sounds ) - even when sung! ( We have lots of lovely songs )
Bjowolf2 9 months ago
I was of course only joking about those "Frænch" speaking Normans ;-)
( act. they weren't really speaking Fr., but a related language! ) I of course meant no offense to the French speaking people of the World.
E is a fairly easy lang. for us in Scand. to learn. It's as if we already know most of the basics in
advance and don't have to think very much - just add extra words to our vocabulary - mostly of of Fr. , L or Gr.
origin - plus some extra grammar. Like an extension of our lang.s act.
Bjowolf2 9 months ago
@Bjowolf2 Norman is French , it's a dialect of French (or the official linguistic term for it Langue d'oïl !) :)
AuxaneD 9 months ago
@Bjowolf2 Yeah, that's true. Something else that is fairly interesting - when most English people speak French, the French often confuse our accent with that of the Germans'. Says quite a lot I think.
VendeeD85 1 month ago
@Bjowolf2 It also changed the construction of words. A huge amount of suffixes and prefixes of modern English language come from a Latin language...Norman/French. -age -ice, -tion, -ary, -ory, etc...pre- re- de-. In fact between 35% to 35% of today's English comes from French/Norman or latin via them.
AuxaneD 9 months ago
@AuxaneD Which means that the French don't have their own language because they were originally German or Gaullish speakers. Whereas the core English tongue is Anglo-Saxon German with a bit of Danish Viking. Latin didn't come from the Normans, it came after from Johns' reign & later Plantagenets (yes ok French) English became dominate again by 1400. The most important lexicon change was from the Danish invasion in N. East England.
Any Latin isn't English, it's Anglicized
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
@AuxaneD Anglo-Saxon numbered approx 50,000 words with the French introducing about 10,000. About 17%.
The reason that there are so many words in English lang. is because of the industrialization & globalisation of English trade from the 16th century onwards, and we're still borrowing more words. It's as simple as that.
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
@ashleysoulful: disagree with you English now makes NO sense when you speak it..you speak in root words only with just a hint of past present and future.so you can't really say a lot like you can in all the other languages in the world..you use you for everything even though that you is possessive and means thine just the Netherlands version (jou) you say my.there's no such thing as my.it's min WITHOUT the e at the end unless you were saying mine woruld. English now is butchered
silenteyesspy 3 months ago
@silenteyesspy What? Hardly.
VendeeD85 1 month ago
@VendeeD85: hit is swa treow min frend..
silenteyesspy 1 month ago
@ashleysoulful Anglo-Saxon German is better than modern English and modern French.
English wouldn't sound like high German. English is mostly like Frisian or sounds Swedish.
It was Danish Viking which was one of the most important espect to the lexicon change of English.
The Normans indirectly introduced more Latin with their invasion, but it was in Johns' reign & for 200 years of Plantagenet rule where 10,000 loan words were introduced. Anglo-Saxon German numbered 50,000
LeeHoxton1 3 weeks ago
His pronounciation is terrible... a Saxon would have no idea what he was saying.
EngliscHerewulf 10 months ago
"Race" as used to mean white/black/asian is nonsense. But race in the older sense as kin or clan makes perfect sense - but that kind of sense is not popular in a world being driven towards atomised self-interest. The kin is the true self, something the individual obsessed modern age denies but it is no less true for that denial. That is why favouring kin is punished, and why family is under attack. A world of individuals is a world of whores with no love or loyalty to others.
fishintheflow 10 months ago
he doesn't speak ænglisc well
guisauco93 10 months ago
I just love David Dimbleby!
TheVideosOfInterest 1 year ago
every single word sounds like harry potter's spells :P
zaikapasaica 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito that's nice
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan Oh I forgot to say in agony. you racist piece of shit
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito What the fuck?! Why am I racist?
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito Why am I racist?
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan You made racist anti English comments.
Where are you from?
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito racist anti england comment? You've been drinking to much of your local water my friend.
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan I’m not your friend,
“English twats”
Now where are you from so I can insult your people
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito
The fact that you are a twat has nothing to do with race. Don't call me a racist you snotty hypocrite.
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan You are a cowardly racist bigot...and probably a paedophile to.
Now what rat and aids infested shithole of a country do you come from?
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito This just gets better and better. You're really showing just how intellegent you are now. You better back off bud.
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan I dont back off bitch...bring it on
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito haha tough guy on youtube
TobyW360 11 months ago
@TobyW360 LOL...fuck dude, I’ve just had a look at your videos, and you’re just some geeky ginger kid with zits and scabs all over your pasty little face...lol
You have some front to put that face over the net...lol
ManlnCognito 11 months ago
@ManlnCognito LOL....fuck dude, i just looked at your comments and youre just some jealous snarled toothed britt whos pissed he doesnt have red hair and talks shit to people who watch old english videos on youtube, you have some balls to talk shit on the internet. Blocked.
TobyW360 11 months ago
@TobyW360 Blocked? coward...lol
ManlnCognito 11 months ago
@TobyW360 play nice
stealth1692 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stealth1692 why are you telling me?
TobyW360 11 months ago
@ManlnCognito play nice
stealth1692 11 months ago
All you english twats do is argue. Why can't you just be proud of your heritage?
Fluffijan 1 year ago
Can someone translate what he is saying at the beginning of this clip?
frantic1971 1 year ago
@frantic1971 They're the opening lines of Beowulf, and in Kevin Crossley-Holland's translation they go "Listen! / The fame of Danish kings / in days gone by, the daring feats / worked by those heroes are well known to us."
Astron278 1 year ago
this programmes was totally racist and tried tp portray england as britain "influence on our country ,they gave us our language" etc etc = they totally forgot about the welsh /brythonic and gaelic languages=typical english 'history' =a disgrace for the bbc yet again
chrisjoneschrisjones 1 year ago
@chrisjoneschrisjones And yet I don't see how it was racist.
AdamAus85 1 year ago
@chrisjoneschrisjones because they tried tp portray england as britain "influence on our country ,they gave us our language" etc etc = they totally forgot about the welsh /brythonic and gaelic languages
chrisjoneschrisjones 1 year ago
So basically the Anglo-Saxons spoke Lord of the Rings languages :)
FuroraCeltica 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
prettypearlygirl100 1 year ago
First off there is no such thing as "race". Don't believe me, look it up. Secondly, Anglo Saxon is actually a mixture of another 6 if not more ppl. Where are the jutes, to name one. And then we entered middle English with the Norman invasion which changed our consonants and syntax.
German: I will zu Haus zu kommen.
I want to the house to come.
English: I want to come home.
vwbora1point8T 1 year ago
@vwbora1point8T
Of course there's such a thing as race. Don't allow emotion to cloud rationality. There are empirical data to prove differences between races, and empirical data to prove similarities. Humans can be grouped, loosely, into phenological and genetic categories, the largest of which are the "races" (Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids), and the smallest of which is the individual human. All strata are viable - man, family, tribe, nation, ethnicity, race, species, ad infinitum.
ExNihilMetal 1 year ago 25
@ExNihilMetal Love the post, not so much the out-dated anthropological categories of the "races."
cbrusharmy 1 year ago
@ExNihilMetal Your rant still doesn't define the term 'race'. You beat around the bush about how to classify humans, why not try shoe size or better still, IQ, in which case you'd probably find yourself at the bottom of the barrel. Take your social constructs that cushion your insecurities, and shove them up your arse.
0synesthete0 1 year ago
@0synesthete0
I love how "imparting knowledge" is a "rant" to you. Essentially, you're upset that anyone could have any notion of classifying human beings into groups (oh, how demonic! We're all "individuals", after all, aren't we?) and so you produce a series of straw men in an attempt to mask what until the ridiculous modern notion of human "equality" had been unquestioned fact (and what remains, to this day, fact, though questioned by peons such as yourself).
THAT was a rant, you wanker.
ExNihilMetal 1 year ago
@ExNihilMetal 1. "Knowledge" is objective, not the kind of 'socio-political\racial consensus group' that you suggest. So is the meaning of 'equality' and 'individuals'.
Your ignorance is quite abysmal indeed.
0synesthete0 1 year ago
@0synesthete0
Your inability to argue must outweigh my ignorance, or you're of the level of intelligence that your "opinion" suggests. You still have provided no points against "race" other than "it's arbitrary", which statement is blatantly false, and which statement I disproved before you'd even stated it.
In future, when you want to come closer to truth, start from a neutral perspective (as I did, long ago), and work your way from there. Look at reality objectively and without emotion.
ExNihilMetal 1 year ago
@ExNihilMetal You really are quite stupid, for your illiteracy and ignorance jump out of your comments. 'Race', as you suggest, is a construct to classify humans. The fact that it is arbitrary makes it as useless a construct as your existence. The fact of the matter is that your "opinion" is illogical, flawed, and superbly dumb.
In the future, try not to show off your ignorance, trying to pass it as "knowledge".
0synesthete0 1 year ago
@0synesthete0
Please re-read my first comment to which you replied, where I show how race is not "arbitrary". Also, what is this "illiteracy" to which you refer? Finally, if there is any rational basis for your belief in the uselessness of the term and non-existence of the actuality of "race", please provide data which suggest that a categorisation of humans in this way is intrinsically malignant/obfuscatory/baseless. We're not all bigots on the internet; some of us are open-minded.
ExNihilMetal 1 year ago
@ExNihilMetal There is plenty of rational basis and data to not simply "believe" but demonstrate the malignancy and arbitrariness of racial classification. I suggest you start with Thomas Hylland Eriksen and move on to Cornell West to begin with, let me know when you've read a few books and I'll suggest some more authors for your reading list. Race is a construct to categorize and systematically subordinate the "others" - it has no biological meaning or significance.
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@0synesthete0
After cursory reading, it seems to me that these writings are trying to deny the validity of race by showing that races aren't defined obviously (i.e. there is no "race gene"). This is kind of stupid, really - at that point, you might as well say that "species" is a social construct, or even "genus" - they're relatively loose groupings by which we categorise living beings. However, like race, they're based on phenotypes and genotypes (primarily the latter) - observable traits.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal First off, neither Eriksen nor West gets into "race genes" - they're more concerned with the social creation of the meaning of race and who belongs to what race. Secondly, your suggestion of "relatively loose groupings" has no specific meaning - is a pigeon different from a wolf? if yes, then they belong to different species. is a Turk different from a Greek for them to be classified as different species? Definitely not. social consensus (is not equal to) the scientific method.
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@0synesthete0
I used the "no race gene" as another example (sorry, I meant "e.g."), and then showed that all of these categories are linguistic, and don't correspond to anything in nature. Is a pigeon different from a dove? Well, yes and no - genetically, they're incredibly similar, so much so that they can mate and produce offspring (which, on occasion, can reproduce themselves). However, phenotypically, they're very different, in terms of size, colouring, and, to top it all off, behaviour.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Firstly, the biological definition of 'race' does not argue that different races are different species. What it does argue is that different human populations can be divided into subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens [Linnaeus, Blumenbach etc.]. Secondly, this argument is absolute nonsense because genetic analyses prove that there is more biological variation within populations than among them [Lewontin, 1970].
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Regarding the arbitrariness of this racial classification bullshit, some racist 'scientists' (self styled fools) choose skin colour for their categorization of races, while some other choose blood types. Some choose hair texture while still others choose cranial volume. There are some other incompetent racists that choose IQ. Well, let me ask you this: How long would a city dweller from Munich survive in the Arctic or Sahara when compared to an Inuit or an Afar? IQ is SUBJECTIVE.
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Your next reading assignment, Lewontin, R. C. (1970). "The Units of Selection". Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18.
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@0synesthete0
Fascinating summary of a wide range of research. What on earth does it have to do with the topic on hand, in anything but the broadest sense? If anything, he seems to support the idea that disparate populations will grow more different with time, thus leading to the concept of further distinctions than "species" between organisms (I think "race" is a pretty good word to use here. Less clinical than "subspecies", though that's what it is).
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal If you couldn't figure out what the article has to do with the topic of classification of human populations into distinct races, let me lay it down for you: There is more biological variation WITHIN populations than there is AMONG them. Translation: There is more biological (genotypic and phenotypic) variation within "the Caucasian race" than there is among, say, the Caucasian and Mongoloid "races".
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Also, you say that "with time" "disparate" populations will grow more different. True. But unfortunately for you, human populations have not been "disparate" for the millions of year for them to evolve into different species. If anything, human populations have stayed in contact and have increasingly come in more genetic contact throughout Homo sapiens sapiens' evolution. Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face.
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@0synesthete0
(How is this unfortunate for me?)
For the majority of the time homo sapiens sapiens (that's a subspecies, by the way) has existed more or less as it is now, populations have been spread far apart and have had little contact. It's only within the past five thousand years that we can definitely say that there has been inter-tribal/inter-communal relationships. Last time I checked, 5,000 < 50,000.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal (Because you're the racist "geneticist" here. Duh) Where's your source that says that its only within the five thousand years that "we can definitely say" that there have been substantial contact between human populations? My source that confirms that ALL humans belong to the same species and subspecies is mtDNA and Y-chromosome evidence. You've still got a lot of reading to do boy.
0synesthete0 9 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Time for your next reading assignment,
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Marcus W. Feldman. "The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution". Nature Genetics 33, 266 - 275 (2003).
0synesthete0 9 months ago
@0synesthete0
Furthermore, we can observe genetic divergence between generations, let alone tens of generations or hundreds. This is "evolution". It's not much, of course, but it still counts as evolution, which is why I said, way back when, that every stratum of classification was viable, from a binary "organism/non-organism" grouping down to each "individual". Somewhere between those two extremes are kingdom, genus, species, race, ethnicity, tribe, family, any number of other definitions.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Sure it counts as evolution, but for the creation of a species, or even a subspecies requires that populations remain out of contact for millions of years. Humans have, throughout prehistory and history, been in contact with each other. A few thousand years are mere seconds in evolutionary terms, specially when it comes to genetic divergence among species or subspecies. Race, ethnicity, tribe, nation, clan etc. are social constructs of "us" and the "others".
0synesthete0 10 months ago
@0synesthete0
'... millions of years': no. You need to research this. I don't even know where you should begin, this is just so categorically wrong, especially considering modern theories that evolution happens over various "leaps", rather than continuously.
'Race, ethnicity, tribe, nation, clan etc. are social constructs of "us" and the "others".': duh. So are "species", "kingdom", "genus", and so on. They are classifications: the goal of classification is to categorise.
ExNihilMetal 9 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Evolution does occur in leaps, but species or subspecies are not formed in leaps - there can't be a subspecies of snails "evolving" in a single generation - THAT is categorically wrong.
Social classification and biological classification are two different animals altogether. sociology (is not equal to) biology. DUH.
0synesthete0 9 months ago
@0synesthete0
The mutation(s) which will cause the next evolution(s) of snails will occur within a relatively short space of time, not over millions of years.
"Social classification", as you call it, comes from (and basically is, but for different terminology) biological classification: there is biological basis for the classification of humans into all of these seperate groups (who were your parents, who were their parents, and their parents, etc.).
ExNihilMetal 9 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Mutation is not the only source of evolution, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection equally contribute to evolution. Evolution of distinct species is not simply a jump or a leap, its a series of factors that may or may not take millions of years. Given the biological homogeneity of human populations worldwide, you're argument is completely baseless.
0synesthete0 9 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Social classification is based on social measures of differences, which have no biological basis. Your "who were your parents, their parents, and their parents, etc." argument cannot go back even 500 years to justifiably classify humans into distinct groups based on ancestry. Case in point, how do you classify the immensely heterogeneous populations in modern North America that have North American Native, European, African, and Asian ancestral lineages? What race is that??
0synesthete0 9 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Come to Brazil and you'll see that race is something that just don't exist.
zedasilva3 11 months ago
@zedasilva3
Correction: "Come to Brazil and see how race mixing fucks everything up."
ExNihilMetal 11 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Mixing races teach us respecting differences, which you should learn from us. By the way: normans + celts + vikings + saxons + angevins = UK. You're mixed too. The difference is that your people have been inbreeding for a long time, so they seem to be homogeneous, but that doesn't mean that you're not mixed.
zedasilva3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zedasilva3
"Mixing races teach us respecting differences".
No, it forces us to bear mixing, whether it produce good or bad results. I respect the differences between peoples far more than you do - I don't want to snuff them out. Instead, I want to embrace the differences, even though this requires that peoples maintain their own separate lands where their own separate cultures can continue without interference.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@zedasilva3
"You're mixed too".
As if the Normans (Danes), Vikings (Norwegians/Swedes), Saxons (Germans), and Angevins (also Germans) are ethnically different any more than in passing, and as if these tribes aren't almost entirely the same as the Western/Northern Celts. There's a massive difference between mixing between tribes and mixing between races - the latter is within race, thus there is already very little fundamental genetic divergence between contemporary individuals.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal What the hell... "Normans (Danes), Angevins (also Germans)" All false. Vikings settling in Normandy were Vikings (Danes), 3 centuries after, when they were called Normans they were culturally as Christians and French speakers (Norman whether modern or old was and is a dialect of Langue d'oïl = French), in their ADN (they mixed and breeded with the local population and were only a small number, there with the mission to protect French coast from other Viking invasions...) French!
AuxaneD 9 months ago
@AuxaneD
I was cooking one day, and made tomato soup. Most of it was tomatoes, but I put some basil in as well. Basil!
ExNihilMetal 9 months ago
@zedasilva3
"You're mixed too".
As if the Normans (Danes), Vikings (Norwegians/Swedes), Saxons (Germans), and Angevins (also Germans) are ethnically different other than in passing, and as if those tribes aren't almost exactly the same as the Celts. There's a huge difference between mixing between tribes and mixing between races. The former is within race, thus there is very little fundamental genetic divergence between contemporary individuals.
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Poor uneducated guy... the scientifical idea of race is dead since the 19th century, after Taylor's study on human culture and also by Malinowski's studies on Funtionalist Antropology. Frans Boas killed the geografical, biological and racial determinism even more in his works like "The Mind of Primitive Man", "Primitive Art" and "Race, Language and Culture". So it's more than proven that there are tons of factors that contribute to the development of some people, which go far....
zedasilva3 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal beyond your race determinism. Even Weber made it clear that is impossible to a single characteristic (like race) to explain the level of development of a people, there are infinite causes which can never be fulled explained. And there are also the Frankfurt School or Critical Theory, that even criticizes what people call underdevelopment. And the HGP also proves that from the 35000 genes we have, only 10 define what we call races, making "race" a scientifically inacurate term.
zedasilva3 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal And you also said that mixing races fuked us up, buy you don't even know how the dyinamics of miscigenation worken in our tupiniquim lands. There are some works that might help you understand a little bit of the complex characteristics of Brazilian culture and race in Brazil like "Raízes do Brazil" from Sérgio Buarque de Holanda and "O Povo Brasileiro" from Darcy Ribeiro.
zedasilva3 10 months ago
@zedasilva3 So, study a little more about the subject before making so harsh statements. Be respectful and humble if you want to learn. God bless you.
zedasilva3 10 months ago
@zedasilva3
To be fair, I was in an antagonistic mood when I said that. It'd be more fair to say "so-called multiculturalism has ruined every civilisation to accept the notion since Sumer". Egypt; Greece; Rome; China; Britain. I could list a lot more, but I have neither the space nor the time.
It's also funny how "monoculturalist" states are more successful, even now (excluding recent troubles, Japan is a good example).
ExNihilMetal 10 months ago
@zedasilva3 "It's also funny how "monoculturalist" states are more successful, even now" That might be the reason why the United States are so much poorer than you [sarcasm off] ;D
Not gonna be posting anymore
Goobdbye
Jesus loves you
^^
zedasilva3 10 months ago
@zedasilva3
Technically it does. Breeding outside of the races lessens genetic diversity leaving us more open to disease. Unfortunately breeding inside ones own race is becoming a less attractive option, but if there were major divides in races nowadays, you could "revive" them. As it is they all decay at the same rate with no hope.
FraggingBard 10 months ago
@zedasilva3
"Mixing races teaches us differences"
Not a study of history then I take it. Whenever there is a difference, one party concedes. That's how it's always been and always will be in this world. There is no "half way point", there is only opposites and stronger and weaker parties. More's the pity
FraggingBard 10 months ago
@ExNihilMetal is scientifically prove that races doesn't exist. They can't be catalogate because the genetic difference between me and my neighbour can be bigger than between me and an african. The genetic demonstrates today that the origin of the human race is in african continent and there we found the most important genetic variety, the rest of the humans in the world takes genes from this variety absolutely casually, not allowing a uniform genetic regroup in a well-defined territory.
NiniQenti 6 months ago
@NiniQenti
Look up Neanderthal/Sapiens mixing in Cro-Magnon and European populations of Homo Sapiens. It's recently been proven that every single human on the planet, excluding sub-saharan Africans and Australian Aboriginals, shares "at least" 1-4% of his/her DNA with Neanderthal DNA.
The idea that you can be more genetically divergent from your neighbour than from someone of a different race is based on a misunderstanding of the facts and terminology being used. Please do more research.
ExNihilMetal 6 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Look, I'm Mastering in History..I sure u that Cro-Magnon ABSOLUTELY is not the mix between Sapiens and Neanderthal..!!!Cro-Magnon is a group of sapiens,bringing some type of genes,that left africa and then passed from the Asia to Europe...they've never cruzed with Neanderthal,ABSOLUTELY NEVER...We have nothing of neanderthal in our genetic...and that's the why Neanderthal disappeared.POINT.This theory of Neanderthal today is definitely REJECTED.Maybe is u that misunderstand.Study!!
NiniQenti 6 months ago
@NiniQenti To say that we have no Neanderthal DNA is actually untrue. Some modern humans carry between 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA.
DecmanReturns 4 months ago
@ExNihilMetal And than i sure u that the theory i told u before OUT OF AFRICA(i admit in a really poor way..sry but the comment is really short)is the theory today accepted from all the genetists and historians..!Obviously not by crazies and racists..that continue to sustain theories old and obsolete,proved for their falsity by 50 years of Genetic!in this case is better that we stop to talk.
However I repeat that CroMagnon=Sapiens+Neanderthal is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!
NiniQenti 6 months ago
@NiniQenti
Please, research it. It's quite a recent discovery, and, obviously, it's "controversial", because people such as yourself so adamantly wish that the world were a different way to how it actually is.
ExNihilMetal 6 months ago
@ExNihilMetal oh my god...I repeat..the matter of the neanderthal it's not a recent discovery...don't invent something that does not exist...it's quite controversial old theory and more it's absolutely genetic prove that we not descend from neanderthal and even we have not any of them...coz sapiens(cro-magnon) and neanderthal never cruzed between them..infact more than genetic we have costums completely different that prove that they never cruzed!
NiniQenti 6 months ago
@ExNihilMetal and then i don't wish nothing...i don't wish a better world or what...i see,i study and i trust in fact and science result...not on theory invented by some derangeds of the scientific world!so pls study and do not believe in everything that u want to hear.I see that my comments have no result so pls the conversation is once and for all. Good Bye.
NiniQenti 6 months ago
@NiniQenti
Thank you for remaining (generally) civil :)
ExNihilMetal 6 months ago
@ExNihilMetal Man we already told about that...we can't catalogate that.....only fenotipes...and fenotipes r not able to categorize...r not genes...!we can't do these categories....nation, tribe, ethnicity....we have not a peculiar genetic type that permit that....n repeat...i can have a mix of genes more similar to an african man that to the guy that lives next to me......it's genetic..if u want to do pseudo science than urs is the right way
NiniQenti 4 months ago
@vwbora1point8T
actually race is a scientific fact, the human species is divided into several races and furthur subraces, for instance, europeans are a distinct race, further divided into germanic,norse,celtic and slavic sub races, africans are a distinct race of people, further divided into bantu, zulu and many other sub races,
race does exsist, ignoring it and pretending we are all one big race is racist and is the cause of almost all racial tension around the world
VigisKane 1 year ago
@vwbora1point8T - actually many of the grammatical changes pre-dated the Normans,and were a result of interaction with the Danes of the Danelaw.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@vwbora1point8T Wouldn't that be "Ich will nach Hause kommen" in modern German? I was taught that "nach Hause" is an idiomatic way of saying "home" even though "nach" would generally only be used to refer to places that would have a name on a map such as a city or a country.
:-)
singingcanoe 1 year ago
@vwbora1point8T I'm not trying to be a douche but it's "Ich will nach Hause gehen :-). "nach" is used idiomatically and wollen is a modal verb and modal verbs don't use "zu" with secondary verbs.
ilikehairbands 1 year ago
I like the way that anglo saxon sounds.
AlienSexRanger 1 year ago 6
Anglo saxon sounds so much like welsh and irish!
waitingforbrain 1 year ago
@waitingforbrain it sounds nothing like Welsh and irish
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ManlnCognito that's your opinion, have you ever listened to irish?
waitingforbrain 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito english are germanic anglosaxons a mixture of germans and scandinavians
north of england is angloscandinavian both germanic same race germanic people look alike i could be dressed like a viking blonde mustache and chin brown curly wavy rufous hair blue eyes broad shoulders long head oval shape round chin small nose
celtic4ever18 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito i thought they were celts ?
mickbmx 1 year ago
@mickbmx No the angles - saxons were Germanic
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@waitingforbrain you crazy irish and welsh Celts
celtic4ever18 1 year ago
Beowulf - Beo=Bee, Wulf=Wolf Beewolf=Bear. The Eo is known to be a diphthong, so if it ended up as Bee then it probably started more like the Noel Coward over-'refined' pronunciation in "eOh aI seay, Cheps" than any 'Bayo-wulf'.
There isn't really 'Anglo-Saxon'. There is Angle and Saxon with internal dialects. Int hte North there is Æþelstæn, in Mercia Aþelstan, in Wessex Eaþelstean - and in German Edelstein (Noble Stone)
Saiaton 1 year ago
I want to know who decided english would'nt have all that feminine/masculine language bollocks ...so I can honour their grave.
temporaldisplacement 1 year ago 3
He should introduce each episode of Question Time like that!
channelhoplite 1 year ago
normans brought the romanic element in our language thats gay!
0LuckyInternetUser0 1 year ago 22
@0LuckyInternetUser0
No they didn't. The Normans bough their french shit into English.
Also, all European languages (including non-Indoeropean Hungarian and Finnish) are influenced by Latin, because of Christianity.
MiracleKD18 1 year ago 2
@MiracleKD18 and so are you.
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@0LuckyInternetUser0 you are an idiot my friend
Fluffijan 1 year ago
@Fluffijan
thx man u are also an idiot
0LuckyInternetUser0 1 year ago
"Trying to speak" being the key phrase. It's Theodcyninga not perqueninga... (crash and burn)
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion shut the fuck up
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
Comment removed
SLICSfootbaby 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito What? No need to be so crude. You should always make sure you're being accurate with what you say when you are trying to teach people something. Where do you come off telling me to shut the fuck up? This is supposed to be an educational setting... so there you go... education.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion If this guy got it so wrong, maybe you could post a video showing us how Anglo Saxon was really spoken one thousand years ago.
If not...Shut the fuck up.
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito Firstly, all you have to do is look at it and you would see it is theodcyninga and not perqueninga...Secondly, while we will never know precise pronunciation and accents, we can derive very accurate reconstructions based on linguistic evolution as any linguist could tell you. The letter he mistakes for a P is a Þ which we know for a fact represents "th."
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion Does this guy claim to be an expert? Does he say this was how it was pronounced? He's a TV presenter. How would anyone know what old English sounded like? who are you to judge and pass comment?....why are you Americans so judgemental and obnoxious?
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ManlnCognito Americans judgmental? Look who's passing judgment, good sir! I merely said "'Trying to speak' being the key phrase"... That means i was AGREEING with him! My point (once again) is that when you are trying to teach someone... BE ACCURATE, Know about what you are talking! This is the SAME problem America has. The History Channel makes the same exact mistake!
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito It was, in fact, you who were jumping to premature conclusions. Also, as I said, no one knows exactly what it sounded like... that being said, "th" does not sound like a "P" in any period of the english tongue.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion How do you know it wasn't? You have said yourself that no one knows what old English sounded like so this video no more "crashes and burns" than any other, There were also probably regional variations of the language just like there is today.
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito Where do come come by the belief that "p" is a regional variation on "th." Languages follow vary specific sound shifts. Dental sounds are always dental, labail always labial. Th hard and soft and d and t. P F and V. there were countless regianal variations which liead to different accents and eve to Scots, but theodcyninga cannot etymologically become percueninga.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito And even so, Beowulf wasn't written in a regional dialect, it was written in a standardized poetic form comprised mostly of West Saxon and some Anglian. It was a standard litterary version and not subject to such variations.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion But we are not talking about written Anglo Saxon we are talking about the spoken language. Take a modern poem and get someone from different ends of Britain to read the same words and it will sound different. Yet both are being true to their own regional pronunciations of certain words. If we cant standardise modern English how can we judge what was the correct pronunciations of a 1000 year old language
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito Firstly, regional dialects are composed of slang and vowel differentiation. Secondly, I was correcting this man's quotation of Beowulf which was written down in a standardised literary dialect of OE and therefore, this entire discussion has been around that dialect. If you think we were discussing something else, you are sorely mistaken and have been fighting a lost cause.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito And Modern English has been standardised in the exact same way; litterary. American English and British English are two different standardisations however their is a cross barrier standard form which is used between the two making a standard English dialect. It has been standardised (point=moot) and as fro the rest... research some etymology for both our sakes.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@LordTharrion You are wrong and you know it, 1 for being so judgemental and 2 for not admitting that standardised text can be read out load differently according to regional dialects. I've got a strong northern English accent. I've been to the states and many people couldn't understand a word I was saying. I could have read a local newspaper out load and they wouldn't have understood me.
ManlnCognito 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito ME? I am not trying to standardise anything. Beowulf was written in the standard litterary dialect of the time. It is not a "written language" rather it was a written representation of said dialect. It is more likened to writing in Scots vs. the Queen's English than reading an American paper in a North English accent.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito And you are missunderstanding me. I am not being judgmental, I agreed that he was "trying" and nothing more. You are being judgmental in CALLING me judgmental- FACE IT. And I'm sorry if Americans are so "judgmental" but even more sorry that the English are so SENTITIVE! Judgment is saying that Americans are obnoxious, not saying he was wrong.
LordTharrion 1 year ago
@ManlnCognito U never denied that you can read standardised languages in different accents... that is blatantly obvious. But dialects are distinctly set apart from accents. And once again, I was simply correcting his mistake, not passing judgment, and you are being obnoxious for insisting i am judgmental.
LordTharrion 1 year ago