search pnForum latest posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts

to previous topic Print topic to next topic

Start ::  Cornwall24 Discussion ::  Cornish Language, Culture and History ::  Flag Stolen
Moderated by: Admins

Goto page : Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page
Bottom 

Flag Stolen

marhak Posted: 01.05.2008, 08:42

marhak

registered: Jun. 2006
Posts: 4470

Status: offline
last visit: 09.01.09
We know - they did that to us.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Panini Posted: 01.05.2008, 09:12

Panini

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 65

Status: offline
last visit: 20.05.08
KéighlánEngland has a few official saints, St Alban is one of ours who is actually English. And jezza, your obviously one of them people who knows nothing of history and stuff and goes around acting all proud to be English and give us a really bad name. Its not that we cant be bothered to leanr other peoples languages, in England we arent taught-like in other countrys-to speak other languages at very young ages, so we only pick up a small amount of their language when we finally learn in secondary school. And England has a terrible habit of invading other countries and making them speak Englishedited by: Kéighlán, Apr 30, 2008 - 09:34 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't St. Alban a British Celt? I seem to remember St Alban's martyrdom taking place during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Septimus Severus in 209. And aren't the Anglo-Saxons thought to have arrived in Britain in the 5th century?
Top  Profile send PM
 
KarlT Posted: 01.05.2008, 12:13



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
Yes, he was. But the "English" people of today are in large part descended from those same British Celts.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Nosdan Posted: 01.05.2008, 13:16

Nosdan

registered: Sep. 2006
Posts: 1193

Status: offline
last visit: 09.01.09
Really??? Have you proof of that?

Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Top  Profile send PM
 
Panini Posted: 01.05.2008, 14:23

Panini

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 65

Status: offline
last visit: 20.05.08
KarlTYes, he was. But the "English" people of today are in large part descended from those same British Celts.

The "English" people of today may in fact be largely descended from British Celts. But do you think, then, that it is justifiable to backdate English history to include everything that happened before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons?
Top  Profile send PM
 
KarlT Posted: 01.05.2008, 15:46



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
Panini
KarlTYes, he was. But the "English" people of today are in large part descended from those same British Celts.

The "English" people of today may in fact be largely descended from British Celts. But do you think, then, that it is justifiable to backdate English history to include everything that happened before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons?


Rather depends on how you define "English". If you mean "the history of the English people of today" then yes, the Celtic and Romano-British periods are part of that history. But if you're using the term more restrictively, to mean the elements brought in by the Anglo-Saxons, then of course not. So for most purposes no, but it does mean that English people, as heirs of a culture which derives from the Romano-British culture of St Alban as well as the Anglo-Saxon culture of the invaders, can claim to have a stake, as it were, in St Alban.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Kéighlán Posted: 01.05.2008, 16:34

Kéighlán

registered: Apr. 2008
Posts: 440

Status: offline
last visit: 23.11.08
Righty, well, ask Marhak, he knows history and stuff lol. And there must be some English people today who have celtic ancestry, (i do, just look at my name) and the English are not only Anglo-saxon Germans. We have French, Danish, Norwegian and maybe even Swedish and Finnish ancestry. And i imagine not all celts moved towards Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc some must of stayed and integrated then ''mated'' with the newcomers.(English)

walk with Jesus! just look out for speedboats.
Top  Profile send PM Homepage
 
KarlT Posted: 01.05.2008, 16:52



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
Erm - that's rather what I was saying.
Top  Profile send PM
 
moonshine Posted: 01.05.2008, 23:27

moonshine

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 1171

Status: offline
last visit: 23.10.08
QuoteErm - that's rather what I was saying.


You have to keep it simply for the simple people.

So there's Duchy originals still in Cornwall and a right mish mash up-country.
Top  Profile send PM
 
marhak Posted: 01.05.2008, 23:47

marhak

registered: Jun. 2006
Posts: 4470

Status: offline
last visit: 09.01.09
I think there might have been an Anglo-Saxon presence (but not determined settlement) a bit earlier than the 420-450 AD main movement from Germany/Low Countries/Scandinavia. The Roman built "Saxon Shore" forts are about a century earlier and seem to have been trading posts for maritime trade across the North Sea, possibly run by AS entrepreneurs. Hard to prove that, though, but it seems feasible.

I have another theory (again unproven, so I merely offer it up)about the so far unanswered question of why south-western (Dumnonian) Britons colonised both Brittany and Galicia in the mid 5th century. There seems to have ben no real internal pressure that would force our people to move. Anglo-Saxon immigration had only just begun and that was 300 miles away, so wouldn't have affected Dumnonia in the slightest.

For this theory we go back to pre-Roman prehstory when we were an integral part of the Atlantic sea trading that had been operative since at least the early Neolithic (roughly when Celtic languages developed from Indo-European in those same areas, from Spain to Scotland, as a lingua franca of the trading nations, according to Cunliffe, Renfrew and others). It continued uninterrupted for 4500 years, until ended by one Gaius Julius Caesar in 56 BC. From then on, it was the Roman Empire that ran all import/export trade to and from Britain even before the Claudian invasion of 43 AD. That came to a close after the Roman withdrawal in 410 AD.

My theory is that Dumnonian entrepreneurs deliberately set up colonies in Galicia and Brittany as the two most strategic points on that old sea trading route, in order to restart and run it. We know from finds at Tintagel and other places that the old trading sea lanes were back in full swing by 450-500 AD and, if my theory is right, WE were in charge of them.



edited by: marhak, May 01, 2008 - 10:49 PM
Top  Profile send PM
 
KarlT Posted: 02.05.2008, 09:40



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
Marhak - when you say "roughly when Celtic languages developed from Indo-European in those same areas" are you suggesting that the Celtic languages originated there, rather than further east around the Danube and then spreading West? I can see the idea of proto-Celtic as a Lingua franca for those areas, but I would see it as coming via migrations from the IE homeland somewhere between Eastern Europe and the Caspian; the people themselves would originally have spoken a non-Indo European Neolithic language, perhaps akin to Basque and/or Pictish*, and switched to Celtic as it increased in economic importance.

Perhaps it's a matter of definition. A dialect of Indo-European was introduced to the Atlantic coasts; at what point we call it "Celtic" is arbitrary. Most linguists, though, as I understand it, call it at least Proto-Celtic from an earlier stage when it first differentiated from proto Indo-European, probably in Eastern Europe.

I think the biggest problem I have with your Dumnonian entrepreneur theory is that I'm not sure that there was a strong enough communication, generation on generation, of history through the Roman period for the Dumnonians of the fifth century to actually know about the sea trading practices of half a millenium earlier. It's not exactly "Hey, cool, the Romans are gone, we can pick up where we left off", is it? That the post-Roman trading routes were the same might mean no more than that they were natural routes to use.

*There were apparently two Pictish languages - a Celtic one and a non Indo-European one. I'm talking about the latter.



edited by: KarlT, May 02, 2008 - 09:47 AM
Top  Profile send PM
 
KarlT Posted: 02.05.2008, 09:46



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
Mike
Kéighlán1
yes it is illegal in some parts. i just didn't care it was St Georges day.
2
I had eggs thrown at my flag most probably because it's an English flag.


Where is it illegal to fly the CStG flag in England?


Nowhere. It's the Daily Mail version of reality, which bears little resemblance to the actual one.

QuoteWho would throw eggs at your flag in England?


The same sort of people who throw eggs at anything.
Top  Profile send PM
 
marhak Posted: 02.05.2008, 14:29

marhak

registered: Jun. 2006
Posts: 4470

Status: offline
last visit: 09.01.09
Karl, that's the old idea which has now been kicked well into touch. There is no mention of Danube area Celts until around 600 BC - which is pretty darn late. Apparently the Atlantic Celts have no genetic link with the later central European ones, who merely spoke a Celtic language. We imported their art and technology, and that's all. The general consensus now is that Celtic languages developed on the Atlantic coasts of Europe and Britain between 5000 and 4000 BC, and that there were no major movements of people in or out of Britain until the Claudian invasion gave the native Britons, with all those millenia of unbroken continuity, a hell of a shock.

The Romans were our first illegal immigrants, followed by the English, then the Danes, then the Normans.



edited by: marhak, May 02, 2008 - 01:30 PM
Top  Profile send PM
 
marhak Posted: 02.05.2008, 14:33

marhak

registered: Jun. 2006
Posts: 4470

Status: offline
last visit: 09.01.09
With the price of eggs as they are, they must have more money than sense.
Top  Profile send PM
 
KarlT Posted: 02.05.2008, 15:47



registered: Oct. 2007
Posts: 60

Status: offline
last visit: 13.05.08
marhakKarl, that's the old idea which has now been kicked well into touch. There is no mention of Danube area Celts until around 600 BC - which is pretty darn late. Apparently the Atlantic Celts have no genetic link with the later central European ones, who merely spoke a Celtic language. We imported their art and technology, and that's all. The general consensus now is that Celtic languages developed on the Atlantic coasts of Europe and Britain between 5000 and 4000 BC, and that there were no major movements of people in or out of Britain until the Claudian invasion gave the native Britons, with all those millenia of unbroken continuity, a hell of a shock.

The Romans were our first illegal immigrants, followed by the English, then the Danes, then the Normans.edited by: marhak, May 02, 2008 - 01:30 PM


Can you point to where I might find more on this "general consensus"? Under this new consensus, how did Indo-European get from its place of origin to the Atlantic coasts, there to develop into Celtic?

I wouldn't expect the Atlantic Celts to have a genetic link to the Continental ones under the old model; I would expect languages to move more than people, as different circumstances create different prestige languages.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Goto page : Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page


Users online:
P_Trembath - morvran - ThingsThatGoFlirInTheShla - srule - Allister - Nev

This list bases on the users active in the last 60 minutes
Cornwall24 2006 (c) web design & web hosting by a-connect
Sponsors: Cornwall hotels, Cornwall self-catering, Cornwall restaurant guide,Devon
Cornwall 24 news feed
Cornwall 24 News and Views