When my mom was a little girl in the early 1930s, she knew another child in the neighborhood that couldn’t really speak very well because she was born deaf. However when the deaf child would speak, every kid in the neighborhood understood what she was saying and they would all act as translators to the adults in the neighborhood. None of the adults could understand this deaf child, however all the children could.
A similar thing happened with me and my classmates when we were younger! Our school housed all the deaf ed classes in our large school district, so we had a sizable hearing impaired student population. As kids we had absolutely no problem communicating with the hearing impaired kids, we would use miming and made-up signs, then eventually through exposure and a bit of effort through reading we started learning real signs. We all got along swimmingly! It's crazy how easily kids understand others and are able to translate both verbal and non-verbal communication.
@@shelbyb9965 Does not surprise me at all. Young kids have amazing language skills. They can learn any language (even sign language) they are exposed to. It's all about wanting to learn how to communicate. Later on, they might forget the new language, but after a while, once exposed to it again, it will all come back to them. Kids are basically polyglots. Also consider twins developing a language of their own, and nobody else will understand it.
@@shelbyb9965 That's amazing. I wish we could somehow trigger the child-like brain state in adults. It's great both from a learning point of view and for seeing the world with a sense of wonder and excitement.
Reminds me of a crazy thing that happened to me during my childhood. I'm Finnish, but I have distant relatives living in Sweden. Back when I was 5 years old our family visited those relatives and they had a child there similar age as me. I had known or spoken nothing but Finnish my entire live, he had known or spoken nothing but Swedish his entire live. But despite that, I still have vivid memories of us speaking and completely understanding each other, in my memories the kid absolutely spoke Finnish since I understood what he was saying, even though he spoke Swedish. We played there some videogame on PS1 and before that I had never even seen a videogame console, yet the other kid perfectly was able to teach me how to play. So there we were, playing together and speaking different languages to each other, yet understanding each other perfectly. Nowadays, if you were to speak Swedish to me, I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in Swedish to save my life, only time I actually knew some Swedish was during school.
@@Htrac I would hesitate to state it is exactly identical, but I know from experience that at least a close state can be achieved. I actually stumbled upon it through dabbling in zen meditation techniques and continued exposure to binaural beats in the region between alpha and theta over a few weeks. Be aware though, that while it feels amazing and unlocks a lot of spontaneity, imagination and creativity, it was not at all ideal for 'getting things done' in an adult manner. I found my job quite difficult to handle until I stopped applying the method and the effects faded. Also, people around may wonder if you are on drugs, or at least they will find you quite weird and not your normal self. I have never tried psychedelics, but from what I read they appear to have the potential to do somewhat similar things, i.e. increase brain plasticity, form new connections between brain regions that do not normally communicate directly, and boost neuronal growth in adults. There is quite a bit of research underway on many psychedelics now, and I believe psilocybin + therapy has already been approved as a treatment for persistent depression.
TL Yes. Sincerest best wishes to "Simon for your dissertation" and thank you for the immense enjoyment and of course education we gain from your videos. Surely this has got to be your career path, soon-to-be, Dr Roper.. You are a natural at producing these documentaries. With a production team behind you with pro gear and money, the world is your oyster!" How you fit it all in amazes me!
Something unrelated to the topic occurred to me I thought was worth mentioning. It's really very sweet (sorta') a demonstration of your humility that you feel the need to apologize for not doing something that you ordinarily do generously but which you are not under any obligation to do at all. (I hope that's clear) That's to say I think your presentations are a real gift we're fortunate to have at all...THANKS, Simon.
At a total lay idiot with linguistics, I'm finding all of your content really fascinating. I also love the conversational style of your videos, as opposed to the scripted, catch phrase-laden content that most UA-cam creators go with these days.
Actually, there are a lot of writings about it... I guess it all depends on what you mean by "Migration Period"... If you're looking at the "North" in general then you would be right. If you look at "East-Germanic" then there are a lot of texts.
Great video Simon. I'd love a reading list if ever you had time to put one together - recommended secondary sources covering 'dark ages' Britain. I've read a bit of Barry Cunliffe but that's about it!
I don't know why I missed this one at the time. I find all those questions about the migration period fascinating, especially how dialect leveling happened. I also wonder about how much contact people maintained with their original homelands in mainland Europe. As a Brit living in California, I sometimes encounter the attitude to ethnicity you refer to. I met a couple once where the woman said her husband was English. I asked him where he was from and he said it was more his dad who was English. "So, where's your dad from?" 'Well, it's actually more on HIS dad's side..." The wife then chips in to provide additional proof to her original assertion: "their last name's Butler."
10:10 the bit about cultural identity is interesting. I am from northwestern USA. My mom, Born in Iowa (midwest USA), touts her cultural identity strongly as Scottish even though our scottish heritage is many many generations back (not sure exactly how many, maybe 4 or 5 generations.) I think the european colonization of the US is so recent in our history most of us feel that we aren't "from here" even though we were born here. However, I'm sure everyone has differing opinions on this.
I really look forwards to your videos explaining a bit about IPA. It's just a lot to take in, and is probably easier to learn from another person than just reading about it. Excellent video.
Hi Simon. I’m a native English speaker originally from the US, but now I live in Mexico City where I am a Linguistics professor focussed on Zapotec languages. I enjoy watching your videos and learning more about the history of my own language. I was wondering: today Jutland is part of Denmark and so speaks a Northern Germanic variety, right? Would this mean that already diversified Northern and Western Germanic varieties were part of the input for old English? Or would this division not yet have been very solidified at the time of the migration(s)? Or are the modern people of Jutland descendants of people who moved there later from other parts of Scandanavia and spoke Old Norse or whatever? Btw, what you say about US notions of ethnicity based on genetics is correct. People find that shocking in Mexico where ethnicity is defined by language and culture. Cheers!
Funny enough how in Mexico, the Amerindians are of course considered Amerindian, but that all changes when they move to the city and their children speak only Spanish, they suddenly become mestizo (mixed) even though if they get a DNA test they'd come out as 99% indigenous. And then we have the exact opposite situation with some people who are white as milk and have European characteristics but will absolutely refuse to identify with Europe in any sense.
Hello, I am 8 months late to your question. I am a German speaker and yes, nowadays Danish is close to our Northern German accent continuum (which didn´t have the second consonant shift). The divergent features of Danish are softened consonants (only in Denmark) and the missing N´s in Northern Germanic (from drinkan to drykken, from in to i, the suffix on become o and so on). Modern Danish has lost more old grammar than German has lost. I do not speak Danish but still can understand most of it if it is written. Your question about a solidification appears to me a bit misleading. Languages are flowing and in a dialect continuum if they lack more or less phonetic transscription.
To understand history and language is akin to a mathematical key to the truth about the present. I appreciate your comprehensive “lectures” regarding these topics. I’m an American, thus I don’t have much exposure to the linguistic history of my own language except for what I learned in college. Thank you for your videos.
Simon, At 2:37, and the thought comes to mind with the statement of the migrators coming to Briton/Britannia for better agrarian/herding opportunities (perhaps even an awareness of the tin in the SW and other resources, too). The thought/question is: how established were the Britons in these areas? That is, if our friends the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians had the idea that opportunities were better, was this in terms of the basic arable/grazable lands that were unused or that the Britons had already domesticated a lot of the wild areas in Briton and it was just a matter of confiscating the towns, barns, fields and work animals and kicking out the natives? Wonder what you know (or would say later in the video) about this? Thank you!
There is evidence from names of streams, hills etc. that Celtic speech survived longer in the hills while Anglo-Saxon dominated the more fertile valleys. This suggests the Anglo-Saxons came in and seized the more fertile land, the Celts retreating to the hills.
In university I studied Chinese with some linguistics and English lit. I stuck with the Chinese and definately don't regret my choice, but hearing these videos makes me nostalgic, and I wish a bit that I had studied more early English linguistics... But I guess I can now, with you☺
The other reason the British have such a divergence of accents is that a hundred years ago most people stayed in and around their places of birth. In the US the regional accent is wider spread due to lots of intercommunication as in travel .
Except that in reality, the majority of people are travelling less than before. So there is a weird mix of local pressures forcing change, but with the pressure of understanding the media around us keeping some consistency. The same is happening here in Canada. For example, I am from BC's Fraser Valley, my wife is from Calgary Alberta, take the words "Bury" and "Pasta" I say "Burr-y", and "Paw-sta", and she says "Bear-y" and "Paa-sta", generally her vowels are more nasel and "American" to my hearing. But then there is where we live now on Vancouver Island where the "wh" is not pronounced in "where" "why" and "what", but yet I, my parents, and some of my friends do, although that seems to be a slowly dying trait (one which I think is almost entirely blamable on TV and radio personalities from Ontario and the USA. Divergence I think will happen more in the next 100 years, but I cannot guess what that will look like.
Not sure about that. These were seafaring people who could use the coastline and rivers to travel fairly quickly from one region to another. And prior to the Norman Conquest, there would have been far more free land for people to travel across. The re-settlement of Britain in the Dark Ages would have similarities with the re-settlement of America in later centuries.
Further back than a 100 years, once the industrial revolution & the railways came there was a huge shift away from the country to the towns & cities in the UK.
You're completely missing the point that, unlike the USA where almost everyone speaks English and has done for a century plus, the British Isles are islands made up of different countries with different languages (at least seven) and with them, different accents.
@@FreeManFreeThought same is happening in West Yorkshire, words like Aye for yes and older words that were used quite alot 30years ago have pretty much vanished because of pop culture and the Internet. But that's the way it goes, tho it's a little sad.
I can recommend the book Ridley Walker to watchers of this channel. It is a speculative story about life in Britain after Western Civilisation collapses in the near future. Spelled phonetically, Ridley Walker (the story's protagonist) uses his decayed version of English to describe the world around him. City's are avoided and railway lines have become orange rust smears through the wilderness. It's interesting how quickly you learn Ridley's dialect and how he has accommodated the remnants of a forgotten past into his cobbled together 'new dark ages' world view.
I'd be interested in a video about to what extent the Germanic migrants replaced the native Romano-Briton population vs mixing and merging with them. I've read contradictory things about that.
I think it comes down to a question of what factors are needed for a culture change of an area,, in some cases all you need is a replacement of the "nobility" not a majority population change, it could even have started from a wealth imbalance of trading posts. Cultural changes don't have to be military either, marriages can bring societal change. Basically not every culture shift is military involving ar and populstion displacement some are slower, gentler intergenerational shifts. Love your videos by the way Simon :)
25 years ago I watched two Cumbrians in Holland become disconcerted when they started reading out the Dutch subtitles on TVs when we went out. They found it had a weird similar sound to Cumbrian dialect, they really found it odd could just about understand dutch as we traveled through the country, the first assumption was this was due to consumption of local produce. Carlisle is used in market testing due to its urban populations isolation from other 'citys' (if your counting the sheep), it has or did have a very low movement of population as well..The more you read history, the more you realize nothing really changes, this lack of movement and isolation appears to of preserved the toungue of an ancient invasion. Fascinating subject. Many thanks.
Please go on doing these sort of vlogs, I find them extremely interested. I’ve studied English filology in Spain ( i don’t know how you name it in English ) and I can say that I’ve learned more with your vlogs than in the uni.
@@isaacolivecrona6114 Philology is not a common occupation anymore, but the term is still used. Another youtuber (and philologist, though mostly teacher), Jackson Crawford, described the difference between a philologist and a historical linguistist as follows: A historical linguist analyzes texts and things to understand what ancient languages were like and how languages change and have changed; a philologist studies ancient languages and how languages change and stuff in order to understand ancient texts and literature and culture and such. In other words, philologists are basically historians/literary critics that focus on the linguistics side of things. I think this terminology is complicated by the fact that many people actually have various different related nameable occupations. For example, it is quite likely for someone to be both a historian and a philologist, and be deeply involved in archaeology (analyzing finds and using finds to interpret texts). Similarly, many historical linguists might also be philologists (Jackson Crawford has some linguistics background), or a philologist might be a general studier/teacher of literature (like J.R.R. Tolkien, who was an English professor and philologist). If you've ever read a translation of the Bible, or Beowulf, or Gilgamesh, or the Odessy, or the Analects of Confusious, you've consumed the work of philologists. Apart from writing the Lord of the Rings, etc., one of the things J.R.R. Tolkien is most famous for is his analysis of Beowulf as being a pre-christian story, possibly pre-migration, that was later christianized by the time it was written down by monks. As I understand it, 19th century linguistics was mostly historical linguistics, and studying old texts is a much older field of study than linguistics (in it's modern iteration at least), meaning that that's probably a large part of what linguistics grew out of, so that's probably part of what creates the semi-myth that "philologist" is just the old word for linguist.
My friend in Spain also studied this. The word wouldn't be used in English outside a technical context, but I know what she studied and it was Linguistics and Literature (and a wee bit of culture). In my university, the equivalent course was called Language and Cultural Sudies.
could you make a video about how cockney influenced the way we speak now please 🤗I'm very interested in the difference between London, the area around and the rest of the country. Do you think people in London used to speak the same Old English like in the North? many thanks ❤️
I tend to see those 'tribes' that are mostly mentionned, more as 'professional groups'. Certainly there is a geographic aspect involved. FE you won't find many sailors in uphill and more land-inwards areas. But when talking about Frisians, Jutes, Saksons and Angels i think it deserves a thought that those names may point to the activities/way of life by which those groups kept their livelihood. And while this certainly can be connected with different area's, the cultural (and language) differences between these groups could have been minimal, but specific jargon and customs adapted for their activities could have made it appear slightly other. For me the most plausible reason for such a folk-movement over sea, is the hardship their own former area's came into following major floods. While a big group just retreated more land-inwards, with conflicts as a result, others could have choosen to search continuing their live and activities on lands that were not (or less) flooded or populated yet. Another aspect to keep into account, is the fact of "historical displacements", as a result of real displacements that happened afterwards but better in memory. One of such can be the placement of the early Saksen in Germany, while they could have just resided at the seacost called by the Romans 'Litus Saxonicum'. This is at the coast of Calais. It is an historical fact that people from the densily populated Northern France and Flanders were transported to nowadays Germany to populate and cultivate less populated areas.
In love your videos long and short. I particularly liked your talks about proto indo European. I have been learning Spanish for years and occasionally hear something you say in proto germanic and see massive similarity. I wonder how visigothic sounded and how much it influenced early Spanish.
Really appreciate these uploads from school, keep them coming! Might I humbly suggest one of those cheap phone tripods to steady the frame? In any case, thanks for the fascinating content! *edit: typos
My last name Taber left Colchester in Essex for the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1632. I still consider myself a WASP as a result. Most people in the US will name off their ancestry as it gives insight into someone personal family culture.
I doubt that Americans really consider distant ancestors much more a part of their identity than British people do, except when it can be considered a "racial" difference or if there is a particularly stong cultural remnant in that family (like people who's family has remained speaking German since the 19th century). I think the reason it might seem that way is because of a linguistic difference in what the term "ethnicity" is used to describe. For example, it's pretty common for "white" people in the United States to know some basics about what (mostly) European countries their ancestors from, of which there are usually more than one. Sometimes the term "ethnicity" is used to describe this (although, "heritage" and sometimes "descent" or "ancestry" are probably more common). Most of these people, however, primarily identify as "American" (and maybe a region, city, or State, etc. like "Southern", "Pittsburger", " Texan", or "Cajun", and/or an ethno-religeous one like "Jewish" or ?"Catholic") and "white" (and also various other things like gender, occupation, and personality type that would never considered "ethnicity") , though, with their more specific " roots" often having very little effect on their culture, specifically (although it might affect their culture in the same way it does all mainstreem white-centered American culture or their regional variant thereof). I can think of a few reasons why "ethnicity" is used to describe this is in the USA: (1) Because of the idea that "American" or some regional identification doesn't constitute a "real" ethnicity, perhaps partially because of the US being perceived as young, but mostly because it's not considered specific enough, especially since the word "American" has a semi-official meaning of referring to either anyone who lives permanenty in the US, any U.S. citizen, or anyone born in the U.S. (2) The most official definition of an ethnicity in the U.S.A. is the census question that asks if you're "Hispanic" or "Non-hispanic". There's a natural desire to extend this terminology to specify what " ethnicities" fit into "non-hispanic". A simple thing would be to continue with language-based classification and create "Anglo", which would include most Americans. Another is to extend the idea of " ethnicity" being based on country/group-of-origin (of ancestors). This extends the pattern started by the actual "definition" of "hispanic", and makes it easy to just import whatever is considered "ethnicity" in other parts of the world. (3) The term "ethnicity" can be used to describe things that are often thought of as "races" in the U.S., just a little more flexibly, making commonly-made distinctions like "white" vs "black" vs "latino" into "ethnicity" differences. However, people often make often make a point that "race" is different from "ethnicity" (often paired with the claim that "latino" is an "ethnicity" not a race, as per the census, while still assuming all latinos are "brown"). This may contribute to the idea that "ethnicities" are more numerous than races, and support diving "whites" and "asians" into various different ethnicities Obviously, most "African Americans" don't have any more specific ancestry knowledge than that, although there are also some groups, like many Carribean immigrants, are considered "black" but from a (generally) post-slavery source that may create a different "ethnicity", at least if it isn't mixed by interemarriage and/or assimilated into "Black American" culture. Actual recent African immigrants are still pretty rare, which is why we can usually get away with the term "African American" referring to something else. Most Asians have a temoporally closer connection to their ancestral countries because of the Chinese Exclusion Act (more than just China was barred from immigrating), and also experience pressure to be grouped according to "race". The term "ethnicity" generally refers to Asian groups in such cases, like "Chinese", " Korean", "Vietnamese", "Hmong", " Indian", or "Arab". This is mostly just following the trend of other fairfly recent immigrant-groups, including from Europe, but seems to be lasting a bit longer due to racism factors and the desire to classify things all the same way. (Maybe " ethnically generally-white Americans" are a common thing, but if "generally-East-Asian" isn't common, then people don't get classified into it.) As "Hispanic" is the only "officialy" defined "ethnicity" in the U.S., this is commonly the terminology kept (though it often includes Brazilians and an implication of "Mestizo"-ness), even though specific nationality is often referred to also (at least by "hispanics" themselves), especially when it isn't Mexican or long-time non-Puerto-Rico U.S.-ian. As for "native americans", I think many people would agree that different " tribes" either consitute or are members of various different " ethnicities", and "tribe" is definitely an important concept for "native americans" themselves, but, in practice, "native american" (as a general term) is probably the most likely ethnic label for other groups to apply to such people, perhaps with exceptions for large groups in certain areas. *(btw., no, Indian's and Chinese people are generally not considered the same " race", as "Asian" generally refers only to East and South-east Asians. The U.S. government, however, has always used the term in it's etymological since of referring indiscriminantly to all of Asia, as I do here, as I believe travel restrictions may have affected the whole continent.)
What about migration of Germanic speakers into Romance areas, giving Spanish "norte" and "tirar" and Italian and Spanish "fango"? What other migrations were happening then?
Pierre Abbat Slavic migrations to the West and the Balkans began in the VI. century. It was a migration of epic importance, as Slav took the lands and assimilated the population living there.
@@wernermiguelkuhn6402 So did Avars and Bulgars... Odd how the Bulgars who were allegedly a Hunnic tribe ended up speaking Slavic in Bulgaria... ;) Did the Slavs even exist or are they just Baltics who were "Turkified" by the steppe nomads!?
I’m surprised by your comment. The existence of Slavs before the migration has been reported by ancient historians. Linguistic testimony of the linguistic exchange with their immediate neighbours, Germanic and Iranian speakers exists as well. The migration of Slavs, namely of the main tribes Antes and Sclaveni, has been very well documented. We shouldn’t mix up Slavs and Baltics (indoeuropeans autochthonous to Europe) and Turkic tribes, which migrated much later to Europe.
@@wernermiguelkuhn6402 We have to be careful about what we mean when we say ancient writers... 7th C. AD and so on is more like "early medieval" rather than ancient. I don't know of any truly ancient sources about the Slavs. A lot of labels apply to Slavs that probably shouldn't and the Stalinists certainly falsified history. What should we call "Radagost"...? Should we call him Radagost or should we call him Ardagast as his name was recorded!? He was a vassal of a certain Musokios who was King of the Antes... this is what the Byzantines record. But was he a Slav or was he really a Gepid? Afterall, Ardagast as a name sounds more Gepid than Slavic. There's a good book on the early Slavs called "The Making of the Slavs" by F. Curta... www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-of-the-slavs/AFD2FC388080F2ADC408D15C2230E5E4 The author seems to be of the view that the Slavs are a creation of historical writing. Or better yet... Invention, some migration and "ethnogenesis".
Getwulf I don’t know whether you’re following any agenda we are not aware of by denying the existence of Slavs, which appears sheer gross to me. I have come across Hungarians negating the existence of Romanians. I guess the internet offers the whole spectrum of “alternative views”. I presume we won’t find common ground. Farewell.
HI Simon. My surname is Woolner and is very pre-dominant in East Anglia and pre-dates the 7th century and is described as Old English/Germanic. The earliest spelling I could find were Vulnoth or Wulfnoth. The surname means wolf daring or wolf brave/bold. Even my half brothers surname Cobbold which is also old Germanic/English and pre-dates the 7th century. This surname means battle famed or famed in battle and is also pre-dominant in the East Anglia region. Does this make us Angles rather than Saxons? (tongue in cheek)
Interesting. I'm curious how much research you've done on the languages of the Continental Saxons and Frisians. The reason that I ask is that (in my amateur historian understanding) Old Saxon is relatively well defined, and very distinct from Old Frisian. This is despite the 2 groups living very close to each other in what's now Lower Saxony. Old Saxon is much closer to modern Low-German than Frisian is. The Frisians seemed to have lived in the coastal and marshy areas (as well as on the Western bank of the Rhine), while the Saxons lived further inland, predominantly on the Eastern side of the Rhine. Linguistically -- Old English seems to be very, very close to Old Frisian -- to the point of even being mutually understandable with Modern Frisian! ( ua-cam.com/video/OeC1yAaWG34/v-deo.html ) Going back further in time, I did see a recent paper that analysed Old Frisian compared to what we know of the Celtic Language family, and it suggested that Frisian seems to have developed as an early Germanic Language spoken with a Celtic accent. Essentially Germanic as a second language for some Celtic tribes that remained on the East bank of the Rhine after the Germanics displaced the Celts. But I digress -- It seems that the Frisians made a much bigger linguistic contribution to English than the Saxons. Your theory about the different villages doesn't seem to take this into account or address this question. While it may not be the case here, I often see Anglo-Saxon research end at the Channel Coast, since I've found very little detailed research published in English about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Frisians. Never the less, it seems that "Anglo-Saxon" is a bit of a stereotype that glosses over the cultural and linguistic differences between the the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians.
I read in an article on proto English that Southern English was derived from proto Western Flemish (Belgian) but much earlier than the Roman period that's why English is closer to Frisian than German. The older place names in England that the Ronans recorded or Lantinised appear to have a proto English / Flemish origin than Brythonic Celtic origin. I'll see if I can find the link and post it here
the cultural identity thing is interesting. On one hand elsewhere in Bede he actually lists a long list of other tribes who came to Britain besides the usual three: Frissians, Rugians, Danes, Huns, Old Saxons and Bructeri. Yet by the late seventh century distinct cultural identities had obviously formed between Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on one hand and Britons on the other. So two hundred years earlier when the former Diocese, provincial and civitas structure was breaking down there must have been forces that caused some areas to develop and different cultural identity. An this despite significant continuation of population and occupation and the disparate nature of the incomers.
I'm Canadian, but most of my ancestry (as recently as my grandparents on one side) is English, so I am an example of someone considering themselves "English" as well as Canadian. People put more weight on their ancestry in Canada & the US because we are nations of settlers and immigrants without a strong ethnic identity of our own, we all came from somewhere else somewhere down the line. Also we are young countries (at least from the European Settler perspective), and don't have the long histories that many Europeans seem to take for granted. Apparently my last name is an ancient Anglo-Saxon name, variants of it have been traced back to the 700s.
My mother's last name is Pattishall (with a silent h). It comes from Paetta's Hill, Paetta (sp?) being an Anglo Saxon tribal leader who settled what is now Pattishall village in northamtonshire.
@@caromurp1 My last name is Fawcett, apparently it meant multi-coloured hill in Old English. The name comes from Northern England (where much of my ancestry is from along with the West Midlands), but is also found in Ireland, and all over Canada & the USA.
LOVE THA VIDIO MATE. As a Euroamerican (from Oregon) I’ve always been kind of, idk, disappointed by the lack of an Ethnic Identity for me and my family. I’m not a nationalist by any stretch, in fact I’m a transgender lesbian anarcho-communist and am at all times Opposed to nation-states and nationalism, i still find myself wanting for some sort of ethnic identity, not as a political object upon which to rally, but just as a fun little thing, if you know what i mean. I guess bc im lgbt, i consider identity to be something to be Celebrated, and since i consider Whiteness as an identity to be a farse, and i absolutely hate the idea of being “american” i’m left yearning.
The lack of ethnic identity among white Americans is just that - a lack of IDENTITY with their ethnicity, not an actual lack of ethnicity. White English speaking Americans are ethnic Anglos, same as Canadians, Australians, etc.
Hey Gabby, just thought I'd pitch in as an ancom pan fella meself. I'm half Irish half Dutch, and am not nationalistic generally. I find nothing hypocritical about being interested and proud of the culture and country you see yourself as a part of. What I find important however is to be equally critical of the same culture. I'm interested and proud of the Irish sense of rebellion against authority and the Irish hospitality and interest for new people. I'm also interested and ashamed of the Irish propensity to silence and ostracise those in the community who are "strange", and our fearful reverence for catholicism. Nationalism can so often devolve into a blind worship of the country and state that makes you hate everyone else and makes you unable to hate the bad parts of your own identity.
@@Clumsy-vp3if I don't think you can call all white americans as ethnic anglos, loads of people moved from Europe elsewhere than England. From Ireland, from Germany, from Spain, from France, from all of the Nordic countries (northern Michigan has quite a sizeable population who are direct descendants of Finns) etc. and so on. You might say they are culturally anglos, but not ethnically. That's how I see things at least.
Good video, Simon. So you talk about how the Germanic tribes who came to England settled in relative to each other, but what about how they settled with the people who were already there? I've read that the early Germanic tribes first came over either as traders and/or as hired mercenaries working first for the Romans and then for the post-Roman Britannic warlords. Did these people already in England have any effect on the migrants, or were the Germanic people so insular that they chose not to intermingle?
Simon - one often reads that Kent was a Jutish kingdom, Wessex was Saxon, and East Anglia and Northumbria were Angle kingdoms. Given your statement about people being all mixed in together, do you then think this is incorrect?
Never dull, always interesting and not a little idiosyncratic. I heard, and saw a video somewhere on UA-cam, that there was no Germanic migration as such, but a topping off of the ruling elite by Germanic interlopers when the Romans left. This idea has been supported by DNA. Archaeologists cannot find evidence of a mass Germanic migration and the sense I get is that Britain was linguistically divided between a Celtic and Germanic population. It would make sense that the lands opposite Germanic-speaking areas of the continent and Scandinavia would also be Germanic, just as it makes sense that the lands opposite Celtic-speaking areas, such as Brittany, would be Celtic-speaking. A linguistics professor I know said that Anglo-Saxon was changing even before the arrival of the Normans, which supports the idea that Celts were having to learn Anglo-Saxon, and probably adapting it to their speech and language patterns. Have you heard anything of any of this?
Could you someday explain how the guttural g-sound could change into a f-sound. I am a native Dutch speaker and we have words like 'lachen' (to laugh), 'ik lach' means 'I laugh'. The English spelling shows that originally that guttural G was also part of English and that pronunciation must have been somewhat alike. There are many more examples, like 'Ik kuch' means 'I cough'. How is it possible that a sound produced in the back of the throat jumps to the front teeth and the lower lip. That can never be a gradual process. How did that happen. Is there a hypothesis?
Sometimes a phoneme will change to one that is formed in a similar part of the mouth, but other times it will change to a phoneme that just sounds similar, even though it is formed very differently. In Old English the 'gh' sound, /x/, is a soft-sounding fricative, which in addition to being unvoiced makes it similar to /f/ when heard. Similar to how in modern English a final /t/ is often spoken as the glottal stop.
You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't the same happened in Dutch, German and some other western European languages, like French and Danish, with the sound R? As far as I know the trill R was a part of all those languages, yet nowadays they do the "throat R". So if I'm correct they moved the sound for R from front to the VERY back.
@@EdricoftheWeald Yes, that makes sense. In the southern provinces of the Netherlands and in Flanders they use that soft sounding fricative, it is more like letting air escape through your throat. Like the 'h' in human. The f sound also sounds like air escaping, but between the front teeth and the lower lower lip. I am convinced. So it is a bit similar to Cockneys replacing te th sound with an f sound. The essence is letting air escape..
Where did I could get information about this period? (Books, names of historicians specialized on this topic) because I search on the internet and the article with more information it's Wikipedia, I' like another source, thanks
Is there a way of estimating how much of the land involved in the migration had been uninhabited up to that time (thus not in any manner "invaded")? Or did it all involve a bit of pushy-shovey? (P.S. Just a little louder, perhaps? Some devices have a surprisingly limited audio range. Thanks!)
If the newcomers were attracted by good farmland etc, it's highly unlikely that the areas they fancied taking had been uninhabited before they turned up. By definition, taking over desirable areas of land will have meant "pushy shovey" with Brythonic speaking Romano Britons. You could only really get a proper estimate via archaeology. But it seems a safe assumption that the land they wanted will have had prior owners.
Isn’t the whole invasion/mass migration theory increasingly discredited nowadays; there being little to no archaeological or DNA evidence to support it. I think the prevailing theory is now more along the lines of small bands of mercenaries arriving from NW Europe and over time becoming a dominant but small elite (like Vangarian Guards or Janissaries). There is one contentious theory that argues Britain may have already had Germanic speaking tribes in the east of the country with the Celtic/Brythonic more predominant in the West. I don’t think it has much support, but Roman writers talked about Belgae being in SE England. And SE England is definitely closer to the Belgae area described by Caesar, which may have been a mix of Gallic and Germanic languages
I suspect that the migration may have been due to utter desperation rather than opportunism. It may have not been so much that they wanted to come over as that they were left with no choice other than leaving.
I suppose we can compare the lower dialect variation and variety of the US, vis a vis the UK, and propose the quadrifurcation (Jute, Frisian, Saxon, Angle) should be viewed as a similar standardisation of (and into) regional tongues.
For the US accent, think Cajun English. I worked with a Cajun kid once and he was very difficult to understand without making a real effort. A Southern accent is a heck of a lot easier to understand.
You talked about the “Palatization of Northumbrian dialects”, what does this mean ? I’m from Yorkshire I want to know where my accent comes from. You said you have a link to a video on this ? Many thanks.
I have a question? It seems to me that we can safely assume that the Juts came from nowadays Denmark, the Frisians from the Netherlands, the Saxons from Western Germany. But what may be the geographical origin of Angles? Does anyone have any clue? Thank you in advance.
On the Migration Period, don't you have to begin with the Roman military withdrawal from Britain? The resulting power vacuum led to raiding from Ireland, and the security situation led Britons to recruit people from Jutland to provide the services once provided by the Roman legion. During the same time period, a British captive in Ireland (Patrick) escaped and then returned as a Christian missionary whose work led to a permanent change in Irish culture. Isn't it against this broad historical backdrop involving a major change in Roman imperial policy that the Migration Period has to be understood?
Could you speak on the relative admixture between Romano-British/Celtic and proto-English settlers? DNA suggests 60-90% of English DNA is 'native'. Archaeology suggests significant continuity in settlements for example. Also, there are some claims that there was some Germanic settlement already in the pre-migration period. Do you think the whole frame of 'the migration period' might oversimplify the period?
I think this is a valid point. Most archaeological thinking these days is definitely against the idea of a mass migration and any sort of extermination of the local "british" by the incomers - there is just no evidence to date. Some of the existing (Roman identified) tribes purportedly had strong links or even came from across the channel, for example the Belgae and Atrebates; its also hard to see how the Cantii could not have had close ties across the channel given their location. Add to this the foederati troops, workers etc from continental europe brought into Britain by the Romans during their time in control. So is it not also possible that these tribes (and maybe many others in the south and east) did not speak Celtic Brythonic but in fact a form of proto old english? This may explain in part why so few place names (which are normally very persistent) have Brythonic roots.
@@tapere7277 I'd forgotten all about this comment; thanks for the reply. It is fascinating to consider. The old Stephen Oppenheimer theory has been mostly disproven, but something more localised seems very possible. Cross-channel migration and exchange was probably the norm even through the Roman period. Cantii would be the top candidate, especially given the links that later emerged between Kent and Frankia. I suppose genetics wouldn't be conclusive either because of the shared genetics either side of the channel anyway.
An American here. I used to have reserve military duty at a place that was a 30 minute drive from my hometown and I could not understand the First Sergeant to save my life. After about 2 years I could understand him. He had a thick rural accent.
My take on the current controversy, identity in the early Germanic late Imperial times. I'm take my cues from Wells and Heather. Identity did matter but it can be transitory. Wells comes out and says that identities were changing in the conclusion of Barbarians to Angels. Heather in Migration and Development says that tribal identities were not arbitrary or fluid but the were long altered by proximity to the Limes and Rhine. Both point to the change in grave goods from the first century into the fourth, population increase and agrarian increase. So basically tribal identity was important but subject to change over a long period that was caused by the economy and politics of the adjacent empire, Huns etc.
According to Wikipedia, "The Standard Average European Sprachbund is most likely the result of ongoing language contact in the time of the Migration Period and later, continuing during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance." One example of the Sprachbund is "a periphrastic perfect formed with 'have' plus a passive participle (e.g. English I have said)". Anecdotally, Spanish also expresses perfect aspect in this manner. "He comido" = "I have eaten". France also has (or had, until recently) a dialect continuum. My host when I studied in Toulouse informed me that the village next to his town, Moissac, had a different pronunciation of the word for "horse".
First "harja", then "raichan"; what is it with early Germanic people and labeling things with what they are? (Speculating in a vacuum, it seems a lot more likely that the " harja" on the comb would the name of the owner than the word "comb". Why would you label a comb " comb"? Maybe if you were learning runes? At least the deer bone one makes a little more sense, since it's pretty hard for most people to tell exactly what animal a particular bone came from.)
Hi Simon, really enjoying your videos! ...but can you bring the audio up a bit please? There could be a setting in the phone or maybe in youtube (my computer speakers are crap!) Thanks again for the cool videos!
If you look at the way the norse Vikings invaded and occupied foreign lands, that should give us an idea of the tactics the anglo-saxons, who most likely believed in the same gods as the norse. With slight variations. We can assume their cultures were similar enough that the Anglo-Saxon invasions most likely resembled the later viking invasions. They were just more successful then the Vikings and they won their own nations.
Ok. So I find it incredibly difficult to believe that people living in different tribes, probably battling amongst each other throughout their history, wouldn't have a sence of ethnic identity. People in the past saw physical differences between races of people in very stark terms. Its constantly described throughout history by people exploring foreign lands. And I just dont believe that anyone would give up their land and property for anyone without a fight...
Also worth pointing out that the "Saxons" settled both sides of the channel including Normandy. So they pretty much controlled the cross-channel trade. Not a bad slice of the late Roman pie.
The last item on PM today had a piece about a tribute to Terry Jones and preservation of the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales and Middle English. I know that's a bit late in your world, but good to hear nevertheless: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dybp
Simon Roper - I hope You know , that anglos was a middle-east tribe , hired to replace Native Roman Legions (as they wanted to go home to Italy and also there was unrest in Rome)in Brits Britain(well and other tribes). The problem was , that , when Roman Empire colappsed , they did not get back to middle east , but took over Brits. And "saxons"(stolen name from original tribe) were actually sasanids(also middle=east tribe , they name is in Sus-sex,as well in Polish lenguage We call them they real name sas).Same later with franks(also middle-east).anglos and sasanids are destroyers who wiped out Brits !!!!!!!(mostly).
Most people who Identify themselves as "Franco -American," see that as less an ethnic division than just something interesting about their history and family. Regional divisions are more significant to most people than those of distant ancestry. Really strong ethnic divisions in the US are based on citizenship and race. I'm American first, then white American, then New England, then colonial, then English.
Out of curiosity, how far back do you know your own ancestry? Mine is about half welsh/irish and half german, going about 120 and 270 years respectively
Ethnic identity for white people whose ancestors settled in the US many generations ago is itself quite varied. Generally in New England, people can associate quite strongly with their familial roots (particularly, though not exclusively, Irish and Italian), including neighbourhoods still segregated along those lines. Other European national identities (mainly Polish, Ukrainian, and Scandinavian) are more common though taken less seriously in the Midwest. It is mostly reflected in family names and perhaps recipes and a few annual traditions. The West Coast, and particularly California, are filled with 'generic' Americans, and the standard US accent comes from there, at least partly through Hollywood and television conferring both ubiquity and status to it. Historically these places were the destination of 'Manifest Destiny', fueled in equal measure by intentional empire building and resource exploration, including oil and petroleum. There was a blending of identities which is likely analogous to that of the Migration Period, to which Simon alluded. The South (roughly coterminous with the Confederacy and a few states beyond it) has the oldest cultural association with American settlement, and there people generally don't know or care where their ancestors are from originally because they've been in America for many generations. There is some animosity between Appalachia and the coastal lowlands in the states between Georgia and Pennsylvania, reflecting the historical animosity between the Celtic settlers of the mountains and the English aristocrats who owned the plantations, but few people register the conflict in those exact terms. If Californians are 'generic Americans', Southerners are 'specific Americans'. So specifically American in fact that their biggest point of identification comes from the time that they took up arms against it. The Civil War, and the Confederacy which instigated it, is something like a filter which sieved out any ethnic divisions which might have existed previously for them. Jewish, Hispanic, and other ethnicities at least occasionally considered 'white' require a more thorough treatment than I am equipped to provide here. But this all goes to Simon's point that certainty over the ethnography of the Germanic migrators is a bit foolish.
Hello Simon, I am very interested in your videos. Can you tell me what the actual DNA mix is in modern Britain ? For example what proportion of people in Britain have Anglo Saxon DNA as compared to Scandinavian etc . I have watched a number of videos about this and there does not seem to be any consensus. Can you enlighten me? As long as you have time of course.
Almost everyone in Britain has a mish mash of many genetic groupings ranging from West Germanic, Indian, Norse, French, Brythonic, Gael, Caribbean, Pakistani, et cetera. Which people have more of one gene group than another is difficult to ascertain even with a large sample size.
@@cacamilis8477 OK, thanks for replying. It is just that I have seen these TV programs Where people pay to have an analysis of their DNA origins. Are these tests therefore bogus ?
You're missing an important element. The climate was forcing the northern germanic/west germanic peoples to migrate due to poor crops/cold periods of weather during the Roman period, which led to its dissolution in the western part of the empire.
@@Haru23a he's English, not Irish. And the Republic of Ireland is the partitioned part of Ireland. The north remained part of the UK, the south was partitioned off because they were given independence by the rest of the UK, rather than repress their population's wishes for self rule
When my mom was a little girl in the early 1930s, she knew another child in the neighborhood that couldn’t really speak very well because she was born deaf. However when the deaf child would speak, every kid in the neighborhood understood what she was saying and they would all act as translators to the adults in the neighborhood. None of the adults could understand this deaf child, however all the children could.
A similar thing happened with me and my classmates when we were younger! Our school housed all the deaf ed classes in our large school district, so we had a sizable hearing impaired student population. As kids we had absolutely no problem communicating with the hearing impaired kids, we would use miming and made-up signs, then eventually through exposure and a bit of effort through reading we started learning real signs. We all got along swimmingly! It's crazy how easily kids understand others and are able to translate both verbal and non-verbal communication.
@@shelbyb9965 Does not surprise me at all. Young kids have amazing language skills. They can learn any language (even sign language) they are exposed to. It's all about wanting to learn how to communicate. Later on, they might forget the new language, but after a while, once exposed to it again, it will all come back to them. Kids are basically polyglots. Also consider twins developing a language of their own, and nobody else will understand it.
@@shelbyb9965 That's amazing. I wish we could somehow trigger the child-like brain state in adults. It's great both from a learning point of view and for seeing the world with a sense of wonder and excitement.
Reminds me of a crazy thing that happened to me during my childhood. I'm Finnish, but I have distant relatives living in Sweden. Back when I was 5 years old our family visited those relatives and they had a child there similar age as me. I had known or spoken nothing but Finnish my entire live, he had known or spoken nothing but Swedish his entire live. But despite that, I still have vivid memories of us speaking and completely understanding each other, in my memories the kid absolutely spoke Finnish since I understood what he was saying, even though he spoke Swedish. We played there some videogame on PS1 and before that I had never even seen a videogame console, yet the other kid perfectly was able to teach me how to play. So there we were, playing together and speaking different languages to each other, yet understanding each other perfectly. Nowadays, if you were to speak Swedish to me, I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in Swedish to save my life, only time I actually knew some Swedish was during school.
@@Htrac I would hesitate to state it is exactly identical, but I know from experience that at least a close state can be achieved.
I actually stumbled upon it through dabbling in zen meditation techniques and continued exposure to binaural beats in the region between alpha and theta over a few weeks. Be aware though, that while it feels amazing and unlocks a lot of spontaneity, imagination and creativity, it was not at all ideal for 'getting things done' in an adult manner. I found my job quite difficult to handle until I stopped applying the method and the effects faded. Also, people around may wonder if you are on drugs, or at least they will find you quite weird and not your normal self.
I have never tried psychedelics, but from what I read they appear to have the potential to do somewhat similar things, i.e. increase brain plasticity, form new connections between brain regions that do not normally communicate directly, and boost neuronal growth in adults. There is quite a bit of research underway on many psychedelics now, and I believe psilocybin + therapy has already been approved as a treatment for persistent depression.
Good luck with the dissertation!
Thanks a lot! :)
To heck with the dissertation. Make more videos instead. :)
I'm sure you killed it
TL
Yes. Sincerest best wishes to "Simon for your dissertation" and thank you for the
immense enjoyment and of course education we gain from your videos. Surely this has got to be your career path, soon-to-be, Dr Roper.. You are a natural at producing these documentaries.
With a production team behind you with pro gear and money, the world is your oyster!" How you fit it all in amazes me!
Christ, Baldric's modern English has come a long way, already!
Something unrelated to the topic occurred to me I thought was worth mentioning. It's really very sweet (sorta') a demonstration of your humility that you feel the need to apologize for not doing something that you ordinarily do generously but which you are not under any obligation to do at all. (I hope that's clear) That's to say I think your presentations are a real gift we're fortunate to have at all...THANKS, Simon.
but you now have?
Really enjoy history of linguistics, thank you for your well reasoned, and engaging discussions.
At a total lay idiot with linguistics, I'm finding all of your content really fascinating. I also love the conversational style of your videos, as opposed to the scripted, catch phrase-laden content that most UA-cam creators go with these days.
Imagine raising this kid. Bright lad
The whole Migration Period is a giant mess and its a damn shame there aren't more writings on the period
I know right. Like a tribe of 60 000 following a single guy and ransacking towns as they make their way to settle roman lands, it doesnt make sense
Actually, there are a lot of writings about it... I guess it all depends on what you mean by "Migration Period"... If you're looking at the "North" in general then you would be right. If you look at "East-Germanic" then there are a lot of texts.
@@ethank.6602
Which guy and which guy are talking about...!? ;)
@@getwulf9293.. Maybe he's referring to Ragnar Lothbrok
@@redpillsatori3020 Which has nothing to do with the migration period
Great video Simon. I'd love a reading list if ever you had time to put one together - recommended secondary sources covering 'dark ages' Britain. I've read a bit of Barry Cunliffe but that's about it!
Me too
American guy here. New Englander. I enjoy your presentations. Thank you. Very interesting
As a German speaker, it's always interesting to see new connections between the languages, like Reh (deer) in this video.
Did you ever consider becoming a narrator? Your voice sounds very nice.
Hear hear.
Sir, you are a pleasure to hear. Thank you.
I don't know why I missed this one at the time. I find all those questions about the migration period fascinating, especially how dialect leveling happened. I also wonder about how much contact people maintained with their original homelands in mainland Europe.
As a Brit living in California, I sometimes encounter the attitude to ethnicity you refer to. I met a couple once where the woman said her husband was English. I asked him where he was from and he said it was more his dad who was English. "So, where's your dad from?" 'Well, it's actually more on HIS dad's side..." The wife then chips in to provide additional proof to her original assertion: "their last name's Butler."
Cant wait for the regional accents video, this is something that has always fascinated me.
likewise!
10:10 the bit about cultural identity is interesting. I am from northwestern USA. My mom, Born in Iowa (midwest USA), touts her cultural identity strongly as Scottish even though our scottish heritage is many many generations back (not sure exactly how many, maybe 4 or 5 generations.) I think the european colonization of the US is so recent in our history most of us feel that we aren't "from here" even though we were born here. However, I'm sure everyone has differing opinions on this.
I really look forwards to your videos explaining a bit about IPA. It's just a lot to take in, and is probably easier to learn from another person than just reading about it. Excellent video.
Indian Pale Ale?
@@beeswing51 International Phonetic Ale :)
Hi Simon. I’m a native English speaker originally from the US, but now I live in Mexico City where I am a Linguistics professor focussed on Zapotec languages. I enjoy watching your videos and learning more about the history of my own language. I was wondering: today Jutland is part of Denmark and so speaks a Northern Germanic variety, right? Would this mean that already diversified Northern and Western Germanic varieties were part of the input for old English? Or would this division not yet have been very solidified at the time of the migration(s)? Or are the modern people of Jutland descendants of people who moved there later from other parts of Scandanavia and spoke Old Norse or whatever? Btw, what you say about US notions of ethnicity based on genetics is correct. People find that shocking in Mexico where ethnicity is defined by language and culture. Cheers!
Funny enough how in Mexico, the Amerindians are of course considered Amerindian, but that all changes when they move to the city and their children speak only Spanish, they suddenly become mestizo (mixed) even though if they get a DNA test they'd come out as 99% indigenous.
And then we have the exact opposite situation with some people who are white as milk and have European characteristics but will absolutely refuse to identify with Europe in any sense.
Hello, I am 8 months late to your question. I am a German speaker and yes, nowadays Danish is close to our Northern German accent continuum (which didn´t have the second consonant shift). The divergent features of Danish are softened consonants (only in Denmark) and the missing N´s in Northern Germanic (from drinkan to drykken, from in to i, the suffix on become o and so on). Modern Danish has lost more old grammar than German has lost. I do not speak Danish but still can understand most of it if it is written. Your question about a solidification appears to me a bit misleading. Languages are flowing and in a dialect continuum if they lack more or less phonetic transscription.
Good luck with your dissertation, Simon! I really enjoy your videos.
To understand history and language is akin to a mathematical key to the truth about the present. I appreciate your comprehensive “lectures” regarding these topics. I’m an American, thus I don’t have much exposure to the linguistic history of my own language except for what I learned in college. Thank you for your videos.
Simon,
At 2:37, and the thought comes to mind with the statement of the migrators coming to Briton/Britannia for better agrarian/herding opportunities (perhaps even an awareness of the tin in the SW and other resources, too).
The thought/question is: how established were the Britons in these areas? That is, if our friends the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians had the idea that opportunities were better, was this in terms of the basic arable/grazable lands that were unused or that the Britons had already domesticated a lot of the wild areas in Briton and it was just a matter of confiscating the towns, barns, fields and work animals and kicking out the natives?
Wonder what you know (or would say later in the video) about this?
Thank you!
There is evidence from names of streams, hills etc. that Celtic speech survived longer in the hills while Anglo-Saxon dominated the more fertile valleys. This suggests the Anglo-Saxons came in and seized the more fertile land, the Celts retreating to the hills.
i dont know how i got to your video and i have no idea what you’re talking about. But your voice is so calm, love that
In university I studied Chinese with some linguistics and English lit. I stuck with the Chinese and definately don't regret my choice, but hearing these videos makes me nostalgic, and I wish a bit that I had studied more early English linguistics...
But I guess I can now, with you☺
The other reason the British have such a divergence of accents is that a hundred years ago most people stayed in and around their places of birth. In the US the regional accent is wider spread due to lots of intercommunication as in travel .
Except that in reality, the majority of people are travelling less than before. So there is a weird mix of local pressures forcing change, but with the pressure of understanding the media around us keeping some consistency. The same is happening here in Canada. For example, I am from BC's Fraser Valley, my wife is from Calgary Alberta, take the words "Bury" and "Pasta" I say "Burr-y", and "Paw-sta", and she says "Bear-y" and "Paa-sta", generally her vowels are more nasel and "American" to my hearing. But then there is where we live now on Vancouver Island where the "wh" is not pronounced in "where" "why" and "what", but yet I, my parents, and some of my friends do, although that seems to be a slowly dying trait (one which I think is almost entirely blamable on TV and radio personalities from Ontario and the USA.
Divergence I think will happen more in the next 100 years, but I cannot guess what that will look like.
Not sure about that. These were seafaring people who could use the coastline and rivers to travel fairly quickly from one region to another. And prior to the Norman Conquest, there would have been far more free land for people to travel across. The re-settlement of Britain in the Dark Ages would have similarities with the re-settlement of America in later centuries.
Further back than a 100 years, once the industrial revolution & the railways came there was a huge shift away from the country to the towns & cities in the UK.
You're completely missing the point that, unlike the USA where almost everyone speaks English and has done for a century plus, the British Isles are islands made up of different countries with different languages (at least seven) and with them, different accents.
@@FreeManFreeThought same is happening in West Yorkshire, words like Aye for yes and older words that were used quite alot 30years ago have pretty much vanished because of pop culture and the Internet. But that's the way it goes, tho it's a little sad.
I can recommend the book Ridley Walker to watchers of this channel.
It is a speculative story about life in Britain after Western Civilisation collapses in the near future.
Spelled phonetically, Ridley Walker (the story's protagonist) uses his decayed version of English to describe the world around him.
City's are avoided and railway lines have become orange rust smears through the wilderness.
It's interesting how quickly you learn Ridley's dialect and how he has accommodated the remnants of a forgotten past into his cobbled together 'new dark ages' world view.
I've read it and it is good! Weird Punch and Judy references.
Great to see you back! Simon! 😁👍👍👍👍
I'd be interested in a video about to what extent the Germanic migrants replaced the native Romano-Briton population vs mixing and merging with them. I've read contradictory things about that.
I think it comes down to a question of what factors are needed for a culture change of an area,, in some cases all you need is a replacement of the "nobility" not a majority population change, it could even have started from a wealth imbalance of trading posts. Cultural changes don't have to be military either, marriages can bring societal change. Basically not every culture shift is military involving ar and populstion displacement some are slower, gentler intergenerational shifts. Love your videos by the way Simon :)
25 years ago I watched two Cumbrians in Holland become disconcerted when they started reading out the Dutch subtitles on TVs when we went out. They found it had a weird similar sound to Cumbrian dialect, they really found it odd could just about understand dutch as we traveled through the country, the first assumption was this was due to consumption of local produce.
Carlisle is used in market testing due to its urban populations isolation from other 'citys' (if your counting the sheep), it has or did have a very low movement of population as well..The more you read history, the more you realize nothing really changes, this lack of movement and isolation appears to of preserved the toungue of an ancient invasion. Fascinating subject. Many thanks.
Lou McK Yes, this is how I navigate France.
Very interesting, Simon! Having viewed a couple of your videos on Old English, I subscribed and look forward to watching more.
Please go on doing these sort of vlogs, I find them extremely interested. I’ve studied English filology in Spain ( i don’t know how you name it in English ) and I can say that I’ve learned more with your vlogs than in the uni.
I don’t think many use the word ‘philology’ anymore. Makes me think of Nietzsche and language aficionados in the 19th century.
👍 thank you
@@isaacolivecrona6114 Philology is not a common occupation anymore, but the term is still used. Another youtuber (and philologist, though mostly teacher), Jackson Crawford, described the difference between a philologist and a historical linguistist as follows: A historical linguist analyzes texts and things to understand what ancient languages were like and how languages change and have changed; a philologist studies ancient languages and how languages change and stuff in order to understand ancient texts and literature and culture and such. In other words, philologists are basically historians/literary critics that focus on the linguistics side of things.
I think this terminology is complicated by the fact that many people actually have various different related nameable occupations. For example, it is quite likely for someone to be both a historian and a philologist, and be deeply involved in archaeology (analyzing finds and using finds to interpret texts). Similarly, many historical linguists might also be philologists (Jackson Crawford has some linguistics background), or a philologist might be a general studier/teacher of literature (like J.R.R. Tolkien, who was an English professor and philologist).
If you've ever read a translation of the Bible, or Beowulf, or Gilgamesh, or the Odessy, or the Analects of Confusious, you've consumed the work of philologists. Apart from writing the Lord of the Rings, etc., one of the things J.R.R. Tolkien is most famous for is his analysis of Beowulf as being a pre-christian story, possibly pre-migration, that was later christianized by the time it was written down by monks.
As I understand it, 19th century linguistics was mostly historical linguistics, and studying old texts is a much older field of study than linguistics (in it's modern iteration at least), meaning that that's probably a large part of what linguistics grew out of, so that's probably part of what creates the semi-myth that "philologist" is just the old word for linguist.
My friend in Spain also studied this. The word wouldn't be used in English outside a technical context, but I know what she studied and it was Linguistics and Literature (and a wee bit of culture). In my university, the equivalent course was called Language and Cultural Sudies.
Love this topic! Thanks for the insight!
could you make a video about how cockney influenced the way we speak now please 🤗I'm very interested in the difference between London, the area around and the rest of the country. Do you think people in London used to speak the same Old English like in the North? many thanks ❤️
I tend to see those 'tribes' that are mostly mentionned, more as 'professional groups'.
Certainly there is a geographic aspect involved. FE you won't find many sailors in uphill and more land-inwards areas. But when talking about Frisians, Jutes, Saksons and Angels i think it deserves a thought that those names may point to the activities/way of life by which those groups kept their livelihood.
And while this certainly can be connected with different area's, the cultural (and language) differences between these groups could have been minimal, but specific jargon and customs adapted for their activities could have made it appear slightly other. For me the most plausible reason for such a folk-movement over sea, is the hardship their own former area's came into following major floods.
While a big group just retreated more land-inwards, with conflicts as a result, others could have choosen to search continuing their live and activities on lands that were not (or less) flooded or populated yet.
Another aspect to keep into account, is the fact of "historical displacements", as a result of real displacements that happened afterwards but better in memory.
One of such can be the placement of the early Saksen in Germany, while they could have just resided at the seacost called by the Romans 'Litus Saxonicum'. This is at the coast of Calais. It is an historical fact that people from the densily populated Northern France and Flanders were transported to nowadays Germany to populate and cultivate less populated areas.
In love your videos long and short. I particularly liked your talks about proto indo European. I have been learning Spanish for years and occasionally hear something you say in proto germanic and see massive similarity. I wonder how visigothic sounded and how much it influenced early Spanish.
Really appreciate these uploads from school, keep them coming! Might I humbly suggest one of those cheap phone tripods to steady the frame? In any case, thanks for the fascinating content!
*edit: typos
My last name Taber left Colchester in Essex for the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1632. I still consider myself a WASP as a result. Most people in the US will name off their ancestry as it gives insight into someone personal family culture.
I doubt that Americans really consider distant ancestors much more a part of their identity than British people do, except when it can be considered a "racial" difference or if there is a particularly stong cultural remnant in that family (like people who's family has remained speaking German since the 19th century). I think the reason it might seem that way is because of a linguistic difference in what the term "ethnicity" is used to describe. For example, it's pretty common for "white" people in the United States to know some basics about what (mostly) European countries their ancestors from, of which there are usually more than one. Sometimes the term "ethnicity" is used to describe this (although, "heritage" and sometimes "descent" or "ancestry" are probably more common). Most of these people, however, primarily identify as "American" (and maybe a region, city, or State, etc. like "Southern", "Pittsburger", " Texan", or "Cajun", and/or an ethno-religeous one like "Jewish" or ?"Catholic") and "white" (and also various other things like gender, occupation, and personality type that would never considered "ethnicity") , though, with their more specific " roots" often having very little effect on their culture, specifically (although it might affect their culture in the same way it does all mainstreem white-centered American culture or their regional variant thereof).
I can think of a few reasons why "ethnicity" is used to describe this is in the USA: (1) Because of the idea that "American" or some regional identification doesn't constitute a "real" ethnicity, perhaps partially because of the US being perceived as young, but mostly because it's not considered specific enough, especially since the word "American" has a semi-official meaning of referring to either anyone who lives permanenty in the US, any U.S. citizen, or anyone born in the U.S. (2) The most official definition of an ethnicity in the U.S.A. is the census question that asks if you're "Hispanic" or "Non-hispanic". There's a natural desire to extend this terminology to specify what " ethnicities" fit into "non-hispanic". A simple thing would be to continue with language-based classification and create "Anglo", which would include most Americans. Another is to extend the idea of " ethnicity" being based on country/group-of-origin (of ancestors). This extends the pattern started by the actual "definition" of "hispanic", and makes it easy to just import whatever is considered "ethnicity" in other parts of the world. (3) The term "ethnicity" can be used to describe things that are often thought of as "races" in the U.S., just a little more flexibly, making commonly-made distinctions like "white" vs "black" vs "latino" into "ethnicity" differences. However, people often make often make a point that "race" is different from "ethnicity" (often paired with the claim that "latino" is an "ethnicity" not a race, as per the census, while still assuming all latinos are "brown"). This may contribute to the idea that "ethnicities" are more numerous than races, and support diving "whites" and "asians" into various different ethnicities
Obviously, most "African Americans" don't have any more specific ancestry knowledge than that, although there are also some groups, like many Carribean immigrants, are considered "black" but from a (generally) post-slavery source that may create a different "ethnicity", at least if it isn't mixed by interemarriage and/or assimilated into "Black American" culture. Actual recent African immigrants are still pretty rare, which is why we can usually get away with the term "African American" referring to something else. Most Asians have a temoporally closer connection to their ancestral countries because of the Chinese Exclusion Act (more than just China was barred from immigrating), and also experience pressure to be grouped according to "race". The term "ethnicity" generally refers to Asian groups in such cases, like "Chinese", " Korean", "Vietnamese", "Hmong", " Indian", or "Arab". This is mostly just following the trend of other fairfly recent immigrant-groups, including from Europe, but seems to be lasting a bit longer due to racism factors and the desire to classify things all the same way. (Maybe " ethnically generally-white Americans" are a common thing, but if "generally-East-Asian" isn't common, then people don't get classified into it.) As "Hispanic" is the only "officialy" defined "ethnicity" in the U.S., this is commonly the terminology kept (though it often includes Brazilians and an implication of "Mestizo"-ness), even though specific nationality is often referred to also (at least by "hispanics" themselves), especially when it isn't Mexican or long-time non-Puerto-Rico U.S.-ian. As for "native americans", I think many people would agree that different " tribes" either consitute or are members of various different " ethnicities", and "tribe" is definitely an important concept for "native americans" themselves, but, in practice, "native american" (as a general term) is probably the most likely ethnic label for other groups to apply to such people, perhaps with exceptions for large groups in certain areas.
*(btw., no, Indian's and Chinese people are generally not considered the same " race", as "Asian" generally refers only to East and South-east Asians. The U.S. government, however, has always used the term in it's etymological since of referring indiscriminantly to all of Asia, as I do here, as I believe travel restrictions may have affected the whole continent.)
What about migration of Germanic speakers into Romance areas, giving Spanish "norte" and "tirar" and Italian and Spanish "fango"? What other migrations were happening then?
Pierre Abbat Slavic migrations to the West and the Balkans began in the VI. century. It was a migration of epic importance, as Slav took the lands and assimilated the population living there.
@@wernermiguelkuhn6402 So did Avars and Bulgars... Odd how the Bulgars who were allegedly a Hunnic tribe ended up speaking Slavic in Bulgaria... ;) Did the Slavs even exist or are they just Baltics who were "Turkified" by the steppe nomads!?
I’m surprised by your comment. The existence of Slavs before the migration has been reported by ancient historians. Linguistic testimony of the linguistic exchange with their immediate neighbours, Germanic and Iranian speakers exists as well. The migration of Slavs, namely of the main tribes Antes and Sclaveni, has been very well documented. We shouldn’t mix up Slavs and Baltics (indoeuropeans autochthonous to Europe) and Turkic tribes, which migrated much later to Europe.
@@wernermiguelkuhn6402 We have to be careful about what we mean when we say ancient writers... 7th C. AD and so on is more like "early medieval" rather than ancient. I don't know of any truly ancient sources about the Slavs. A lot of labels apply to Slavs that probably shouldn't and the Stalinists certainly falsified history. What should we call "Radagost"...? Should we call him Radagost or should we call him Ardagast as his name was recorded!? He was a vassal of a certain Musokios who was King of the Antes... this is what the Byzantines record. But was he a Slav or was he really a Gepid? Afterall, Ardagast as a name sounds more Gepid than Slavic. There's a good book on the early Slavs called "The Making of the Slavs" by F. Curta... www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-of-the-slavs/AFD2FC388080F2ADC408D15C2230E5E4
The author seems to be of the view that the Slavs are a creation of historical writing. Or better yet... Invention, some migration and "ethnogenesis".
Getwulf I don’t know whether you’re following any agenda we are not aware of by denying the existence of Slavs, which appears sheer gross to me. I have come across Hungarians negating the existence of Romanians. I guess the internet offers the whole spectrum of “alternative views”. I presume we won’t find common ground. Farewell.
1200 points for pronouncing Appalachian correctly.
HI Simon. My surname is Woolner and is very pre-dominant in East Anglia and pre-dates the 7th century and is described as Old English/Germanic. The earliest spelling I could find were Vulnoth or Wulfnoth. The surname means wolf daring or wolf brave/bold. Even my half brothers surname Cobbold which is also old Germanic/English and pre-dates the 7th century. This surname means battle famed or famed in battle and is also pre-dominant in the East Anglia region. Does this make us Angles rather than Saxons? (tongue in cheek)
Interesting. I'm curious how much research you've done on the languages of the Continental Saxons and Frisians. The reason that I ask is that (in my amateur historian understanding) Old Saxon is relatively well defined, and very distinct from Old Frisian. This is despite the 2 groups living very close to each other in what's now Lower Saxony. Old Saxon is much closer to modern Low-German than Frisian is. The Frisians seemed to have lived in the coastal and marshy areas (as well as on the Western bank of the Rhine), while the Saxons lived further inland, predominantly on the Eastern side of the Rhine. Linguistically -- Old English seems to be very, very close to Old Frisian -- to the point of even being mutually understandable with Modern Frisian! ( ua-cam.com/video/OeC1yAaWG34/v-deo.html ) Going back further in time, I did see a recent paper that analysed Old Frisian compared to what we know of the Celtic Language family, and it suggested that Frisian seems to have developed as an early Germanic Language spoken with a Celtic accent. Essentially Germanic as a second language for some Celtic tribes that remained on the East bank of the Rhine after the Germanics displaced the Celts. But I digress -- It seems that the Frisians made a much bigger linguistic contribution to English than the Saxons. Your theory about the different villages doesn't seem to take this into account or address this question. While it may not be the case here, I often see Anglo-Saxon research end at the Channel Coast, since I've found very little detailed research published in English about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Frisians. Never the less, it seems that "Anglo-Saxon" is a bit of a stereotype that glosses over the cultural and linguistic differences between the the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians.
Here's a more complete version of the video that I linked to: ua-cam.com/video/ykSnLQEFfm0/v-deo.html
I read in an article on proto English that Southern English was derived from proto Western Flemish (Belgian) but much earlier than the Roman period that's why English is closer to Frisian than German. The older place names in England that the Ronans recorded or Lantinised appear to have a proto English / Flemish origin than Brythonic Celtic origin. I'll see if I can find the link and post it here
the cultural identity thing is interesting. On one hand elsewhere in Bede he actually lists a long list of other tribes who came to Britain besides the usual three: Frissians, Rugians, Danes, Huns, Old Saxons and Bructeri. Yet by the late seventh century distinct cultural identities had obviously formed between Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on one hand and Britons on the other. So two hundred years earlier when the former Diocese, provincial and civitas structure was breaking down there must have been forces that caused some areas to develop and different cultural identity. An this despite significant continuation of population and occupation and the disparate nature of the incomers.
I'm Canadian, but most of my ancestry (as recently as my grandparents on one side) is English, so I am an example of someone considering themselves "English" as well as Canadian. People put more weight on their ancestry in Canada & the US because we are nations of settlers and immigrants without a strong ethnic identity of our own, we all came from somewhere else somewhere down the line. Also we are young countries (at least from the European Settler perspective), and don't have the long histories that many Europeans seem to take for granted. Apparently my last name is an ancient Anglo-Saxon name, variants of it have been traced back to the 700s.
My mother's last name is Pattishall (with a silent h). It comes from Paetta's Hill, Paetta (sp?) being an Anglo Saxon tribal leader who settled what is now Pattishall village in northamtonshire.
@@caromurp1 My last name is Fawcett, apparently it meant multi-coloured hill in Old English. The name comes from Northern England (where much of my ancestry is from along with the West Midlands), but is also found in Ireland, and all over Canada & the USA.
@Cazzie S Haha, no relation so far as we're aware.
Fascinating. Thanks for making this
Just one bit of advice: lay your phone on a surface to reduce screen shake. Love your vids!
LOVE THA VIDIO MATE. As a Euroamerican (from Oregon) I’ve always been kind of, idk, disappointed by the lack of an Ethnic Identity for me and my family. I’m not a nationalist by any stretch, in fact I’m a transgender lesbian anarcho-communist and am at all times Opposed to nation-states and nationalism, i still find myself wanting for some sort of ethnic identity, not as a political object upon which to rally, but just as a fun little thing, if you know what i mean. I guess bc im lgbt, i consider identity to be something to be Celebrated, and since i consider Whiteness as an identity to be a farse, and i absolutely hate the idea of being “american” i’m left yearning.
The lack of ethnic identity among white Americans is just that - a lack of IDENTITY with their ethnicity, not an actual lack of ethnicity. White English speaking Americans are ethnic Anglos, same as Canadians, Australians, etc.
Hey Gabby, just thought I'd pitch in as an ancom pan fella meself. I'm half Irish half Dutch, and am not nationalistic generally. I find nothing hypocritical about being interested and proud of the culture and country you see yourself as a part of. What I find important however is to be equally critical of the same culture. I'm interested and proud of the Irish sense of rebellion against authority and the Irish hospitality and interest for new people. I'm also interested and ashamed of the Irish propensity to silence and ostracise those in the community who are "strange", and our fearful reverence for catholicism. Nationalism can so often devolve into a blind worship of the country and state that makes you hate everyone else and makes you unable to hate the bad parts of your own identity.
@@Clumsy-vp3if I don't think you can call all white americans as ethnic anglos, loads of people moved from Europe elsewhere than England. From Ireland, from Germany, from Spain, from France, from all of the Nordic countries (northern Michigan has quite a sizeable population who are direct descendants of Finns) etc. and so on. You might say they are culturally anglos, but not ethnically. That's how I see things at least.
so the surname Roe/Rowe is Anglo origin, I thought it was Norse since as Roe it is still a common surname in Norway/Denmark?
You ought to do a livestream Q&A sometime so we can send you superchats :) Then you could buy a tripod for your phone lol
Or the binding for the dissertation :-)
Jeff Ebdy both!
your voice is very soothing ^^
love you man . thanks for the vids
@Joey Stratner nice
Good video, Simon. So you talk about how the Germanic tribes who came to England settled in relative to each other, but what about how they settled with the people who were already there? I've read that the early Germanic tribes first came over either as traders and/or as hired mercenaries working first for the Romans and then for the post-Roman Britannic warlords. Did these people already in England have any effect on the migrants, or were the Germanic people so insular that they chose not to intermingle?
Simon - one often reads that Kent was a Jutish kingdom, Wessex was Saxon, and East Anglia and Northumbria were Angle kingdoms. Given your statement about people being all mixed in together, do you then think this is incorrect?
and different regions have differeny word usage...in the US appalachian has several subdialects, regional differences for example.
Never dull, always interesting and not a little idiosyncratic. I heard, and saw a video somewhere on UA-cam, that there was no Germanic migration as such, but a topping off of the ruling elite by Germanic interlopers when the Romans left. This idea has been supported by DNA. Archaeologists cannot find evidence of a mass Germanic migration and the sense I get is that Britain was linguistically divided between a Celtic and Germanic population. It would make sense that the lands opposite Germanic-speaking areas of the continent and Scandinavia would also be Germanic, just as it makes sense that the lands opposite Celtic-speaking areas, such as Brittany, would be Celtic-speaking. A linguistics professor I know said that Anglo-Saxon was changing even before the arrival of the Normans, which supports the idea that Celts were having to learn Anglo-Saxon, and probably adapting it to their speech and language patterns. Have you heard anything of any of this?
Could you someday explain how the guttural g-sound could change into a f-sound. I am a native Dutch speaker and we have words like 'lachen' (to laugh), 'ik lach' means 'I laugh'. The English spelling shows that originally that guttural G was also part of English and that pronunciation must have been somewhat alike. There are many more examples, like 'Ik kuch' means 'I cough'. How is it possible that a sound produced in the back of the throat jumps to the front teeth and the lower lip. That can never be a gradual process. How did that happen. Is there a hypothesis?
Sometimes a phoneme will change to one that is formed in a similar part of the mouth, but other times it will change to a phoneme that just sounds similar, even though it is formed very differently. In Old English the 'gh' sound, /x/, is a soft-sounding fricative, which in addition to being unvoiced makes it similar to /f/ when heard. Similar to how in modern English a final /t/ is often spoken as the glottal stop.
You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't the same happened in Dutch, German and some other western European languages, like French and Danish, with the sound R? As far as I know the trill R was a part of all those languages, yet nowadays they do the "throat R". So if I'm correct they moved the sound for R from front to the VERY back.
@@EdricoftheWeald Yes, that makes sense. In the southern provinces of the Netherlands and in Flanders they use that soft sounding fricative, it is more like letting air escape through your throat. Like the 'h' in human. The f sound also sounds like air escaping, but between the front teeth and the lower lower lip. I am convinced.
So it is a bit similar to Cockneys replacing te th sound with an f sound. The essence is letting air escape..
Probably the four dialects levelled out into "Platt Deutsche?"
Simon can you share some details of your dissertation? Was it successful? I hope so!
Where did I could get information about this period? (Books, names of historicians specialized on this topic) because I search on the internet and the article with more information it's Wikipedia, I' like another source, thanks
Is there a way of estimating how much of the land involved in the migration had been uninhabited up to that time (thus not in any manner "invaded")? Or did it all involve a bit of pushy-shovey?
(P.S. Just a little louder, perhaps? Some devices have a surprisingly limited audio range. Thanks!)
If the newcomers were attracted by good farmland etc, it's highly unlikely that the areas they fancied taking had been uninhabited before they turned up. By definition, taking over desirable areas of land will have meant "pushy shovey" with Brythonic speaking Romano Britons.
You could only really get a proper estimate via archaeology. But it seems a safe assumption that the land they wanted will have had prior owners.
@@stevecoombs6419 With respect, I disagree. A limited early population makes it a reasonable question, in my opinion. Thanks for your feedback.
Isn’t the whole invasion/mass migration theory increasingly discredited nowadays; there being little to no archaeological or DNA evidence to support it. I think the prevailing theory is now more along the lines of small bands of mercenaries arriving from NW Europe and over time becoming a dominant but small elite (like Vangarian Guards or Janissaries). There is one contentious theory that argues Britain may have already had Germanic speaking tribes in the east of the country with the Celtic/Brythonic more predominant in the West. I don’t think it has much support, but Roman writers talked about Belgae being in SE England. And SE England is definitely closer to the Belgae area described by Caesar, which may have been a mix of Gallic and Germanic languages
I suspect that the migration may have been due to utter desperation rather than opportunism. It may have not been so much that they wanted to come over as that they were left with no choice other than leaving.
I suppose we can compare the lower dialect variation and variety of the US, vis a vis the UK, and propose the quadrifurcation (Jute, Frisian, Saxon, Angle) should be viewed as a similar standardisation of (and into) regional tongues.
Good informative video, very interesting.
For the US accent, think Cajun English. I worked with a Cajun kid once and he was very difficult to understand without making a real effort. A Southern accent is a heck of a lot easier to understand.
The Last Kingdom brought me here.
You talked about the “Palatization of Northumbrian dialects”, what does this mean ? I’m from Yorkshire I want to know where my accent comes from.
You said you have a link to a video on this ?
Many thanks.
Interesting stuff. Keep it coming
I have a question?
It seems to me that we can safely assume that the Juts came from nowadays Denmark, the Frisians from the Netherlands, the Saxons from Western Germany.
But what may be the geographical origin of Angles? Does anyone have any clue?
Thank you in advance.
@MrNorthernSol
Thanks, this helps.
On the Migration Period, don't you have to begin with the Roman military withdrawal from Britain? The resulting power vacuum led to raiding from Ireland, and the security situation led Britons to recruit people from Jutland to provide the services once provided by the Roman legion. During the same time period, a British captive in Ireland (Patrick) escaped and then returned as a Christian missionary whose work led to a permanent change in Irish culture. Isn't it against this broad historical backdrop involving a major change in Roman imperial policy that the Migration Period has to be understood?
Could you speak on the relative admixture between Romano-British/Celtic and proto-English settlers? DNA suggests 60-90% of English DNA is 'native'. Archaeology suggests significant continuity in settlements for example. Also, there are some claims that there was some Germanic settlement already in the pre-migration period. Do you think the whole frame of 'the migration period' might oversimplify the period?
I think this is a valid point. Most archaeological thinking these days is definitely against the idea of a mass migration and any sort of extermination of the local "british" by the incomers - there is just no evidence to date. Some of the existing (Roman identified) tribes purportedly had strong links or even came from across the channel, for example the Belgae and Atrebates; its also hard to see how the Cantii could not have had close ties across the channel given their location. Add to this the foederati troops, workers etc from continental europe brought into Britain by the Romans during their time in control. So is it not also possible that these tribes (and maybe many others in the south and east) did not speak Celtic Brythonic but in fact a form of proto old english? This may explain in part why so few place names (which are normally very persistent) have Brythonic roots.
@@tapere7277 I'd forgotten all about this comment; thanks for the reply. It is fascinating to consider. The old Stephen Oppenheimer theory has been mostly disproven, but something more localised seems very possible. Cross-channel migration and exchange was probably the norm even through the Roman period. Cantii would be the top candidate, especially given the links that later emerged between Kent and Frankia. I suppose genetics wouldn't be conclusive either because of the shared genetics either side of the channel anyway.
An American equivalent would be Bayou/Louisiana accent.
There are so many accents in Louisiana, I have to ask which ones you're describing
An American here. I used to have reserve military duty at a place that was a 30 minute drive from my hometown and I could not understand the First Sergeant to save my life. After about 2 years I could understand him. He had a thick rural accent.
@@CrypticConversions just out of curiosity, ft. Polk?
@@PMickeyDee No. Columbus, Ohio.
@@CrypticConversions I was just curious since the original comment was on La, I could definitely see that being a situation at Fort Polk
My take on the current controversy, identity in the early Germanic late Imperial times. I'm take my cues from Wells and Heather. Identity did matter but it can be transitory. Wells comes out and says that identities were changing in the conclusion of Barbarians to Angels. Heather in Migration and Development says that tribal identities were not arbitrary or fluid but the were long altered by proximity to the Limes and Rhine. Both point to the change in grave goods from the first century into the fourth, population increase and agrarian increase. So basically tribal identity was important but subject to change over a long period that was caused by the economy and politics of the adjacent empire, Huns etc.
More audio, please. I've got you at max volume and still can only barely make out what you're saying.
thats the art of it
According to Wikipedia, "The Standard Average European Sprachbund is most likely the result of ongoing language contact in the time of the Migration Period and later, continuing during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance." One example of the Sprachbund is "a periphrastic perfect formed with 'have' plus a passive participle (e.g. English I have said)". Anecdotally, Spanish also expresses perfect aspect in this manner. "He comido" = "I have eaten".
France also has (or had, until recently) a dialect continuum. My host when I studied in Toulouse informed me that the village next to his town, Moissac, had a different pronunciation of the word for "horse".
What kind of laptop do you need to replace yours and would an XP laptop work?
Could you make a video reading the bee movie script. I love your voice
First "harja", then "raichan"; what is it with early Germanic people and labeling things with what they are?
(Speculating in a vacuum, it seems a lot more likely that the " harja" on the comb would the name of the owner than the word "comb". Why would you label a comb " comb"? Maybe if you were learning runes? At least the deer bone one makes a little more sense, since it's pretty hard for most people to tell exactly what animal a particular bone came from.)
Love studying Glottochronology.
Hi Simon, really enjoying your videos! ...but can you bring the audio up a bit please? There could be a setting in the phone or maybe in youtube (my computer speakers are crap!) Thanks again for the cool videos!
Thank you!
If you look at the way the norse Vikings invaded and occupied foreign lands, that should give us an idea of the tactics the anglo-saxons, who most likely believed in the same gods as the norse. With slight variations. We can assume their cultures were similar enough that the Anglo-Saxon invasions most likely resembled the later viking invasions. They were just more successful then the Vikings and they won their own nations.
Occhams razor should lead us to this conclusion..
but in beowulf they describe tribes. frisians start a fight at a party and he is said to be a Geat. and why wold you call someone hafdan?
Ok. So I find it incredibly difficult to believe that people living in different tribes, probably battling amongst each other throughout their history, wouldn't have a sence of ethnic identity. People in the past saw physical differences between races of people in very stark terms. Its constantly described throughout history by people exploring foreign lands. And I just dont believe that anyone would give up their land and property for anyone without a fight...
It may be popular to believe that racism is a modern idea. But that's just plain ridiculous.
Four kingdoms? Frisian kingdom?
There are some Frisian leaders known from the 7th and early 8th century, called King of the Frisians by the Franks.
@@xyzxyz3540 I didn’t know that. I forgot what this video was about tbh 😂
Also worth pointing out that the "Saxons" settled both sides of the channel including Normandy. So they pretty much controlled the cross-channel trade. Not a bad slice of the late Roman pie.
The last item on PM today had a piece about a tribute to Terry Jones and preservation of the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales and Middle English. I know that's a bit late in your world, but good to hear nevertheless: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dybp
Simon Roper - I hope You know , that anglos was a middle-east tribe , hired to replace Native Roman Legions (as they wanted to go home to Italy and also there was unrest in Rome)in Brits Britain(well and other tribes). The problem was , that , when Roman Empire colappsed , they did not get back to middle east , but took over Brits. And "saxons"(stolen name from original tribe) were actually sasanids(also middle=east tribe , they name is in Sus-sex,as well in Polish lenguage We call them they real name sas).Same later with franks(also middle-east).anglos and sasanids are destroyers who wiped out Brits !!!!!!!(mostly).
WTF. Obviously you did smoke the wrong stuff in the morning. Do you have any sources for your „facts“?
Most people who Identify themselves as "Franco -American," see that as less an ethnic division than just something interesting about their history and family. Regional divisions are more significant to most people than those of distant ancestry. Really strong ethnic divisions in the US are based on citizenship and race. I'm American first, then white American, then New England, then colonial, then English.
When the North Europeans went to Britain, did they migrate with wives and children?
I'm guessing the evolutionary psychologists might be able to shed some light on how much is innate and how much is conditioned.
Out of curiosity, how far back do you know your own ancestry? Mine is about half welsh/irish and half german, going about 120 and 270 years respectively
Ethnic identity for white people whose ancestors settled in the US many generations ago is itself quite varied. Generally in New England, people can associate quite strongly with their familial roots (particularly, though not exclusively, Irish and Italian), including neighbourhoods still segregated along those lines. Other European national identities (mainly Polish, Ukrainian, and Scandinavian) are more common though taken less seriously in the Midwest. It is mostly reflected in family names and perhaps recipes and a few annual traditions.
The West Coast, and particularly California, are filled with 'generic' Americans, and the standard US accent comes from there, at least partly through Hollywood and television conferring both ubiquity and status to it. Historically these places were the destination of 'Manifest Destiny', fueled in equal measure by intentional empire building and resource exploration, including oil and petroleum. There was a blending of identities which is likely analogous to that of the Migration Period, to which Simon alluded.
The South (roughly coterminous with the Confederacy and a few states beyond it) has the oldest cultural association with American settlement, and there people generally don't know or care where their ancestors are from originally because they've been in America for many generations. There is some animosity between Appalachia and the coastal lowlands in the states between Georgia and Pennsylvania, reflecting the historical animosity between the Celtic settlers of the mountains and the English aristocrats who owned the plantations, but few people register the conflict in those exact terms. If Californians are 'generic Americans', Southerners are 'specific Americans'. So specifically American in fact that their biggest point of identification comes from the time that they took up arms against it. The Civil War, and the Confederacy which instigated it, is something like a filter which sieved out any ethnic divisions which might have existed previously for them.
Jewish, Hispanic, and other ethnicities at least occasionally considered 'white' require a more thorough treatment than I am equipped to provide here. But this all goes to Simon's point that certainty over the ethnography of the Germanic migrators is a bit foolish.
How's Baldric doing? Has he gotten a shelter put up yet?
Yay a new video!
Loved it!
Hello Simon, I am very interested in your videos. Can you tell me what the actual DNA mix is in modern Britain ? For example what proportion of people in Britain have Anglo Saxon DNA as compared to Scandinavian etc . I have watched a number of videos about this and there does not seem to be any consensus. Can you enlighten me? As long as you have time of course.
Almost everyone in Britain has a mish mash of many genetic groupings ranging from West Germanic, Indian, Norse, French, Brythonic, Gael, Caribbean, Pakistani, et cetera. Which people have more of one gene group than another is difficult to ascertain even with a large sample size.
@@cacamilis8477 OK, thanks for replying. It is just that I have seen these TV programs Where people pay to have an analysis of their DNA origins. Are these tests therefore bogus ?
At least 60 % celt so it should be our identity really ; i guess there's King Arthur thing!?
You're missing an important element. The climate was forcing the northern germanic/west germanic peoples to migrate due to poor crops/cold periods of weather during the Roman period, which led to its dissolution in the western part of the empire.
“More simple”!? Should that not be “simpler”?
these videos are so interesting. what country are you from?
UK
Andy Jarman ah thank you
He's from Island but British partition zone
@@Haru23a he's English, not Irish.
And the Republic of Ireland is the partitioned part of Ireland.
The north remained part of the UK, the south was partitioned off because they were given independence by the rest of the UK, rather than repress their population's wishes for self rule
@@Haru23a He’s from Surrey!
Keep up man! Love your videos!