Here's one for everyone....

[smee]

If it was possible to meet any five figures in history from any time - who would they be and why?

humor me - it's a history forum....besides I heard you guys like a little controversy.

[Sponsored Links]

[Hobbit]

Good one......

I'm going to have to think about that one.....a couple will be easy....the rest not so much so. There are far too many interesting people out there..... I could give you five from each century--how about that??;)

[Steven Hauser]

Smee,

I agree with Howard, It would be quite difficult to narrow a selection down to just 5. If not 5 per century how about 5 per major discipline?

Steven:uhh:

[John Bridge]

1. Thomas Jefferson

2. Benjamin Franklin

3. Guillaume le Conquerant. :)

4. Pericles

5. Michelangelo

Hell, I've got five more I like just as well as those five. :D

[Hobbit]

JB.....

You forgot to answer the entire question.;)

WHY??

I am still considering....Hmmm:think:

[Hobbit]

Okay.....

1. Moses
2. Jesus Christ
3. Julius Caesar
4. Plato
5. Aristotle
6. Galileo
7. King Arthur
8. W. Shakespeare
9. L. Beethoven
10. Frederick the Great
11. A. Einstein
12. C. Dickens
13. H. Thoreau
14. E.A. Poe
15. Samuel Clemmons
16. Thomas Jefferson
17. Rudyard Kipling
18. Theodore Roosevelt
19. Winston Churchill
20. Ansel Adams


Oh shoot.......you said five (5)!!!!

Now I have to start over!:(

[Steven Hauser]

OK,

Jesus Christ
Buddha
Albert Einstein
Mahatma Gandhi
Homer

The common factor for me is that each individual has made a unique contribution to humanity that has been long reaching and positive.

[smee]

I said an arbitrary number '5' because I was interested in 'why' you would pick a particular person...

I change my list - depends on the day - but I'm a chick, whaddya expect.

1. Alexander (and Aristotle) I know that's cheating but I was hoping to pop in on a lesson - two for one deal.

2. Julius Caesar - for obvious reasons - but I would like to meet up with him in Cisalpine Gaul - "On the Road" if you will.

3. Leonardo DiVinci - I bet he has a lot to say.

4. Shakespeare - hopefully while he is writing Hamlet or Macbeth.

5. Hitler - I didn't say they had to be good people or that you had to like them. But, obviously he was one of the most powerfully influential personages of modern times and his impact on us is still being felt.

bonus people - Howards idea.

Cleopatra
Jesus
Brutus
buddha
Winston Churchill
George Washington
Sitting Bull
Teddy Rosevelt
Simon DiMontfort
JRR Tolkien - I had to do it

there is a litany - and of course I could go on - but I was thinking about ones that if you could only choose (say) 5 to meet you would have to go thru a mental list....but more importantly..........WHY? That is the question! (forget Shakespear for the moment) really, I meant why.



:shades

[Hobbit]

Tolkien..indeed!!!!! As you probably have guessed, I am a fan of Tolkien.:D

Okay, I'm ready to try to cut my list to five.

1. Jesus Christ--regardless if you "believe" or not, his impact on the world has been huge. No one person or thing is bigger.

2. Aristotle--studied under Plato. Deductive reasoning. Empirical, commonsense thought.

3. Shakespeare--artistically speaking, probably the best user of dramatic word in history.

4. Thomas Jefferson--one of the best early thinkers in America. Without him this nation probably would not exist in its present form.

5. Theodore Roosevelt--a plain speaking, no nonsense guy...a firm grasp on reality..I admire him greatly!


Of course, I really want these too!!

Julius Caesar
King Arthur
Frederick the Great
Charles Dickens
Samuel Clemmons
Rudyard Kipling
Ansel Adams

Oh hell, I just thought of some more.:(

:):)

[smee]

J.R.R - oh, yeah. I have a few questions for that man!!!

I am a fan as well. How did you like the first two films? comments. I know it's the wrong forum for thi question, but hopefully, everyone can forgive the segue.

Nice list.

I've thought of many more - it's staggaring. But I just realized I want to meet those folks who painted the caves in Lascaux and Chavet about 17,000 years ago.

so Howard - what subject(s) do you teach?

[Hobbit]

Smee....

Yes, I've seen the films!!!! And, I think they are great!:) To truly appreciate them, you have to at least be aware of the first attempt to make the trilogy into film. It was some years back...(insert comments about age here!)..It was an abomination. Cartoon like characters and the plot line left everything to be desired. Aficionados left the theaters in droves. In fact, the Tolkien underground essentially doesn't recognize the existence of this attempt at film making.

The current movies however are great! I've recently re-read the trilogy and The Hobbit and the movies track the original text very closely. In fact, so closely I almost know what's going to happen next! These movies are definitely 5-star and deserve the accolades they receive!

Recently JB started to read The Hobbit. He was having some difficulty "getting into" the book. It is somewhat more menial than the trilogy but necessary if you are to understand the "how and why" of things that happen later.:)

Yeah, that list attempt was pretty dismal. You have to "settle." I think we ought to try it again a little later with maybe 15 or 20 people (in order). I know my list would change, but not sure how much.

You asked, so I'll tell you. I am the Evening Programs Coordinator at a college in NC. I have general oversight responsibility for the campus during the evening hours. I teach occasionally anywhere I'm needed on campus, but my work is mostly administrative in nature.

:):)

[John Bridge]

Had I known you all were going to cheat, I could have listed a hundred. :D

I have to tell you, though, I thought about a few of the people you folks listed. Hitler did come to mind, but I scratched him lest you think I'm wierd. ;)

I also thought of Winston Churchill. What a guy, eh? And, Smee, I thought of Caesar in Gaul and then when he worked his way around into North Africa, but he wouldn't be in the top five. And I considered Kublai Khan.

I chose Jefferson because I once offered his name in response to the querry, "Who, more than anyone else in history, would you like to spend an hour with?" I can just imagine how tremendously interesting his conversation would be. I've read just about everything he wrote.

Ben Franklin? Same as Jefferson. Interesting -- fascinating -- conversation.

William the Conqueror. I'd like to know who he actually was and what drove the Normans to invade England.

Pericles. If you have to get back into antiquity, why not? ;)

Michaelangelo. I think I'm the oldest here. I used to read novels by Irving Stone years ago. I read the Agony and the Ecstacy, and I've been a Michaelangelo fan ever since. I viewed the Pieta when it was on exhibit at the Louvre in the early sixties. You just can't imagine the exquisitness of the carving. Photos don't do it justice. The guy was a master. :)

[smee]

Howard - I agree. I have read the books (in high school) and then before the first movie came out. I look at the Hobbit as the Prologue...not to say anything against it. I remember the cartoons, pretty lame. I think the movies are outstanding.

Hey John - it was howard who started the whole cheating thing - and he's an educator!:confused: :D

on your list....I can't BELIEVE I forgot William the Conqueror.... aaack! I do wonder what really happened in fact, I wouldn't mind meeting Harold for that matter...history gipped him ( in my humble opinion)

All your "people" would indeed be worth "hanging out with" and of course I could go on and on....

Okay - So, I'm wierd (Hitler) is that what you're trying to say, huh?

Maybe I should have said - give me the top good, the bad and the ugly folks in history you'd like to meet?:bang:

[John Bridge]

No, not wierd at all. I would love to have spent a few hours with Adolf in a Munich beer hall back in the thirties. :)



BTW, I did finish reading The Hobbit. I have not had a lot of time to read lately, but the Trilogy is on the list. ;)

[Hobbit]

Good deal JB.:)

I know you'll enjoy the Ring Trilogy! It's a masterful tale.

:):)

[flatfloor]

The first fire maker
The wheel maker
The first horseback rider
Inventor of Damascus Steel
Astrologers, Mayan and Egyptian

[John Bridge]

Flatfloor,

The other requirement is that you name them. :D

I do know who invented the wheel. He was an Assyrian. I think his name was Omar or something like that. :)

[bbcamp]

The name of the first firemaker: OOOHHHH$#@$#^^%@!!!

Also invented language, profanity, and that universal first-aid therapy, shaking hand violently at wrist while hopping on one foot.


The first horseback rider: Bubba. I believe it was he who first said (prior to mounting the horse), "Hold my meade and watch this!" Notably, his last words, too.





Who says flipping between the History Channel and Comedy Central is a waste of time? :D

[Steven Hauser]

:D :rofl: :yeah:

[flatfloor]

:D

[sdaniels7114]

If we're going to suspend the naming requirement, Id like to meet the guy who killed Hoffa and the other guy who shot Kennedy, if he ever existed. Obviously I'd need to have a few cops along for this meeting or maybe I'd disappear:eek:

Seriously though, I always did want to meet Jimmy Dolittle. I'm sure he rolled over in his grave when they selected Alec Baldwin to play him in Pearl Harbor.:mad:

[flatfloor]

Coulda been worse....Jim Carey :p

[bbcamp]

I believe that historical events, no matter how insignificant, are somehow linked together in ways that are lost to us.

Take, for example, that un-named person at the dawn of time who, upon cracking open an oyster and seeing that pile of snot, said, "Gee, that would be good with a little hot sauce!" Thus, hot sauce was invented.

And later that evening, after Mr. Un-named Person consumed several oysters, Mrs. Un-named Person said, "What? Not again! Go to sleep!" Thus, the headache was invented!

[smee]

you'd most like to meet in all the existence of the universe?

does that work for everybody?


let's keep the ever popular number 5......


:D

[bbcamp]

How 'bout that guy who de-railed the very first thread?:shake:

[Stoneguy]

1: John Bridge (Hell, it is his site)

2: Lowell George. My feet have never been the same since he died. One incredible songwriter & musician.

3: John Belushi. One hell of a funny guy

4: John Lennon. Who else's songs made such an impact on "that" generation.

5: Brian Briggs. He sort of reminds me of myself when I was a young squirt.

Next time I list 5 I will widen my horizons a bit.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[John Bridge]

What the hell you buckin' for, David? :D

It's easy to meet me. Most people are more interested in steering clear of me. :D

[tileguytodd]

OK i'll give this a shot,but i am not sure if 5 is enough.I'm sure you will find this an eclectic mix :)

Oh, by the way, I dont think King Arthur is a real historical person.(unless you count sean connery) ;)

OK
#1- Jesus Christ (for all the reasons already mentioned)
#2 -Thoreu-(if he were alive today would the world pay attention to him?)
#3 -James J Hill-(Founder of the Great Northern Railroad father to the Burlington Northern/Santa fe) Now theres a guy who gets things done!!
#4-Jim Bridger-all around mountain man/ explorer.i think he would have an interesting outlook on life in these here united states
#5-Abraham Lincoln-There s a reason he had all those wrinkles.Someone s got to make the tough decisions,he did and because of it,Hitler was defeated 80 years later.If he had not made those decisions,where would the world be??

(#4 was a toss up between Jim bridger and Theaodore Roosevelt.Seeing as Teddy had been mentioned and i had another Ex president in mind that was a world shaper,I went with JB (notice a coincidence in them initials :) )

[Hobbit]

Todd.........

Interesting mix of people..! I studied the mountain men..early on..years ago. Jim Bridger is, historically speaking, one of the biggest of them. There is certainly more written about him than most of the others.

Incidentally, your comment about Arthur.....While it is difficult to establish his exact lineage and therefore his title (King??), his reality is not in question (IMO). Arthurian legends have been written and rewritten down through the ages. It is difficult to separate truth from embellished story. However, there are a couple of remaining historical works (actual accountings of happenings) and several early historical pieces of literature that place Arthur alive and well around the turn of the sixth century. It is reported that he led troops into battle many times "alongside Kings" (there were something like twelve major battles???...??? documented). The common thread running throughout these early accountings was a leader named Arthur (or Arthyr..several known spellings), always fighting for the same side and against known enemies of early Britain. Forgetting Arthurian legend, the early writings of the period that have survived make fascinating reading. Of course, the Arthurian legends are great too!!;)

Smee...help me out here. Tell us what you know about this period in Britain. Say,..550 to 650 AD. Oh, and Smee, if I'm too far off here, let me down gently, Okay!!;):)

:):)

[John Bridge]

My guess is that during that period there was no written language save Latin. There are records of a sort of cuniform from about the Fifth Century. But your archaic spelling of Arthur couldn't have occurred until about the 11th or 12th Century (I think). What I do know is that by the time my friend William landed in England in 1066, a language was in place. Not sure what the language consisted of, but it was in place. That language was not written, as far as I know, but it was widely spoken.

We are talking about an obscure period in our history here. Our understanding of that period is, well, a little dim, what? :D

[Hobbit]

Interesting JB......

Here is what I know....admittedly not much!;)

I know nothing for sure about the spelling I used for Arthur. It is only one of several that I have seen used. Have not tried to date it..or the others.

There are several accounts of this period, that I deem to be somewhat historical, that far precede your dates. One is by a monk in Britain from around mid-sixth century sometime. Don't recall his name. Another was a Welsh historian named Nenious..sp? (Nennius..sp?). This one was eighth century (IIRC). There are other accounts in literature dating from this period as well. I know the early writings were almost all (??) Latin. However, there is one account of a very early book written in a early "British" language. I don't know a lot about it, but will try to uncover some more information.

There were at least two languages in the general area in addition to Latin. With the "defeat" or "expulsion" of the Romans around 500 AD (???) The residents started to assume some of their individuality. There was an early Welsh language as well as a Breton language. The first appearance of a written manuscript in either language??....I'm not sure. I can tell you that history dates the Arthurian era to somewhere between 500 and 600 AD. Exact dates vary somewhat, depending on who is talking. The early literature (a lot of which is lost to us...we know of its existence because the remaining works refer to it) speak directly to Arthur in some cases and refer vaguely to him in others. These pieces are mostly in Latin, although there is at least one reference to an early British language (see above).

Now I have to do some more research......:)

:):)

[smee]

Hey Guys -

Well, Howard you're on track and so is John. 400 - 600 A.D are generally known to historians as "the Lost Centuries" which is a little ambiguous. There is a great deal of information and more and more is coming from the archeaological record.

So, What about Arthur?
In considering what we do know, and the course of events at that time so little known. No satisfactory answer is to be had. Arthurs late and continuing fame is largely due to Geoffrey of Monmouth in his fictional history of the kings of england written 1130(ish). The only early references to him are as follows:
1. A statement in a Welsh poem thought to be of about 600; that someone was not arthur but thought to be a later interpolation.
2. A list in the Nennian collection of twelve battles fought by Arthur, there described not as a king but as dux bellorum (commander in wars).
3. Two references in annals appended to the same collection: one, to his being at the battle of Mount Badon (here dated at 516) and there 'carrying the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and nights on his shoulders'; the other, to his death at the battle of Camlann, 537.
These annals do not indicate whether he was a kind, and in any case are likely to derive from contemporary materials. That's all we have. And on that little all the imagination of the learned and unlearned has run riot.

he is thought to be a Roman, in fact some think the last Roman emperor of Britain or a British ruling federation. Maybe there was such an army, and the ideas to work out are inexhaustible, and sometimes ridiculous. However, it does provoke speculation on a time where the realization of how many great men and great events must have taken place between the fifth and six centuries of which we no nothing at all.

Most of the above comes from a book by James Campbell called the Anglo Saxons. pg 27 detailing the period of 400-600.
if you are interested in this time - this is a fantastically rich book - and it has a lot of pictures :D

My personal opinion in having studied this period at length.
I think that 'Arthur' whoever he was existed a lot...meaning - there were probably some great feats by great men in arms(not just one) and the stories were told and retold. Maybe he was one man who stuck out, or for some reason the stories got told to the right person...the one person in west england who could write? But, to take a line from my favorite yarn (howard) "History became legend, legend became myth....." and for a thousand plus years he became the hero figure we all need to believe was a real person.

This period is a facinating time - and the late Anglo Saxon (pre- Norman) period is incredibly diverse and sophisticated. There was a unique set of laws and societal codes in place that the British Anglo Saxons developed that is often overlooked because of the Norman invasion\propaganda machine and the attempted suppression of everything Anglo Saxon. Only now are we able to appreciate the diversity in that culture. That guy William did conquer, ain't no mistake, and in doing so helped usher in an age of knights and castles we all consider romantic and endlessly exciting. But, he didn't stamp out everything from the Anglo Saxons, what came before him was a whole culture, a whole way of life that brought to life well, Arthur for one, and if you studied it's effects - there are some very specific anglo-saxon laws and language in use today.

okay - that's not .02 is it. More like a book. jeeze loooeeeze.
sorry about the length.

[smee]

Howard - you probably know this.

Tolkien was a linguist - and Anglo Saxon history and language was his area of expertise.

The ring trilogy and the hobbit are steeped in Anglo Saxon lore.

Arthur could be a bastardized word in the dialect or language of the area and the period in Wales where he is supposed to have come from...?

[John Bridge]

Geez, I hate to think of Arthur as a Roman. :( My Latin is very rusty, but I know "Don't let it be forgot . . ." would come out all wrong in Latin. :D

I have read that there were some written languages floating around the area during the centuries leading up to Norman times. There were, of course the Angles and the Saxons. There were also Jutes from someplace in Germany. They very possibly had the written word, but I don't think there is a lot of evidence of it. The Scandinavians probably did not read and write, either.

By the time William arrived in 1066, most of the Scandinavians were in the North and along the west coast of the English island. The rest of the lot had more or less merged together in the southern portions of the island. There was a language, but I've never seen reference made to a written language.

I know a little more about the Norman period itself. The Normans did learn to speak the local language, or at least certain Normans did. It seems the English absolutely refused to change over to Norman French. So if you were aristocracy and you wanted to convey something to a local, you had better be able to speak at least a few words of his language. The very fact that the English language flourished while Norman French ultimately languished is testament to this trend. :)

The irony of that whole episode is that nobody knows who the Normans were prior to their settling in France. It's almost for sure they had no written language before they adapted French to their needs. In the space of a couple hundred years they educated themselves while other branches of their race continued elsewhere in ignorance and obscurity. Quite a feat, indeed. :)

[bbcamp]

John, the Normans were Vikings! They were called the Norse (North) men, which became corrupted into Norman.

[flatfloor]

The first known Norman was St. Brendan the Boisterous' great Grandfather Rolf the Rowdy. :p

[bbcamp]

Jim, I think you've corrupted this database!

[flatfloor]

A lot you know. :nya:

(How's that for a snappy come back?) :D

[John Bridge]

Bob,

I know that Norman is short for Northman or something like that, and I know they were Vikings. But nobody knows exactly where they came from nor why they took up residency where they did. In fact, nobody seems to know a hell of lot about them until they invaded England. :)

It's like the Angles and the Jutes. They were Germanic, but that's about it.

[cx]

I'm a little surprised that on your list you have Jefferson and Franklin, but not Madison, JB.

[bbcamp]

Jim: Oh, yeah! (sinking to your level) :D

John: If you were raised in a fjord in Norway, wouldn't you invade France, and Russia, for that matter? Wouldn't you be at least a little irritable?

[flatfloor]

bb: I'll have you know you on your best day you couldn't sink to my level. :p

[John Bridge]

Kelly,

When this thing commenced, the limit was five names. Madison is certainly one of my favorite guys, but I wonder where he would have been without Jefferson. :)

[jjwq8]

OK so I'm late with this but here is an extract from the encyclopedia of authentic hinduism, that may or may not, lay some of the arguments over early "english"

"The Germanic languages.
Around 800-700 BC some ancient tribes lived along the North Sea and southern Scandinavia. They were later on called the Germanic people. After about 500 years they spread towards the south and five main groups were formed, North Germanic, North Sea Germanic, Rhine-Weser Germanic, Elbe Germanic and East Germanic. They all developed their own dialect. In a few centuries their population increased and to accommodate themselves into a larger area of land they started moving all over. It was called the great German tribal migration of the 4th century AD.

The North Germanic people moved towards Jutland and the North Sea Germanic group crossed the North Sea and settled in England (they were Angles, Saxons and Jutes). The Elbe group spread up to Switzerland and Austria, the Rhine-Weser group spread further around the river Rhine and Weser, and the East Germanic group that was centered around Vistula and Oder moved to different locations. They had their own dialect and when they mixed and migrated many more dialects appeared with a considerable change in their own system of pronunciation and spellings. People who settled in a particular area developed their own language. In this way a number of languages appeared in Europe. They were all called the Germanic languages.

There is no written record of the parent Germanic language. The earliest record of its Runic language is between 200-600 AD where there are only short inscriptions on some object or on the memorials of the dead. Another ancient record of a Germanic language is the Gothic translation of the Bible written in the 4th century. There are some parts of the Old Testament and more of the New Testament. Some parts are translated into Latin. In fact, the knowledge and the word formation of Gothic language came into light through these writings. Germanic languages could be categorized into East Germanic, North Germanic and West Germanic languages. They adopted the Latin alphabet."

Now while you're at it please do not forget our very own young punk Queen Boedicia (pronounced Boodicker), main rap artist for the Iceni (modern translation - Hackney) peoples in the east. A gentle folk much taken with horse breeding and general dismemberment. Greatest achievement, other than shortening many a roman legionaire, creating the hackney horse, from where the modern language gets the hackney (horse drawn) cab.

[jjwq8]

John
your latin .......

Charles will amend the motto on the Royal Standard to read....

"Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Asbestos"

Translation


"Screw you Jack I'm fireproof"

He needs to be. First English monarch to throw away a rose in favour of a dog.

[smee]

Barry Cunliff wrote a book entitled "Facing the Ocean"

"It's an exceptionally well-illustrated book describing the history and activities of the peoples who lived along Europe's western seaboard between 8,000 B.C. and 1,500 A.D. The author, a professor of archaeology at Oxford, believes that the Atlantic Ocean profoundly influenced the psychology and culture of those who lived on its edge. In many cases, they interacted more with each other than with peoples living in the interior of the continent; the seas became a link rather than a barrier. Maps of trade routes and archaeological finds illustrate these connections. The photographs, many of them in color, are first class"

As some of the peoples we are discussing were sea going folks -this is a particularly apropos illustration of perhaps how and more importantly why they kept moving around.

Jeremy - did\do you study history, are a teacher, or history hobbyist?

that Queen B - she was the Queen B! Yeah, she'd be a good one to have on the list.

[John Bridge]

Geez, Linda, you keep talking about the coastal peoples being seafaring and all, first thing you know Flatfloor's gonna be back in here telling us Irish monks discovered the New World. :D

I wonder if it's possible we can just skip Charles and move right on to Harry. Or is it William? ;)

[smee]

well, didn't they?

I mean they invented beer and champagne - you figure they'd be out bobbin' lookin' for a party (or the new world - whichever came round first) :loaded:

[flatfloor]

See John...see!! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/huepfen/jumping-smiley-002.gif

[jjwq8]

Yanks are incredibly ill informed..
Every nerd knows that the new world was first discovered by Bill Gates. The SOB runs it fercrissakes!

Linda, my father was an Oxford Don who devoted his life to history, family and teaching challenged children. I qualify on two counts (well one and a bit).

[John Bridge]

Er, uh, Jeremy, me lad, Bill Gates runs not only the New World but the older part too. Which operating system are you using? ;)

[jjwq8]

ya mean I have a CHOICE????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hobbit]

JB..Smee...

I thought I would throw this into the pot about the early written languages. As we discussed earlier, there are few references to early written languages other than Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Sanskrit (maybe a couple others). But the question was about Britain during the Arthurian era and if there was a written language other than Latin in use during this time. I have found several references to the two early languages that I mentioned previously, Welsh and Breton.

Both of these languages survive today. Welsh traces itself to the Celtic language in use during the sixth century. There are surviving written documents/manuscripts that date to the middle 800's. The Breton language is somewhat earlier than that. Earliest suviving manuscripts date to the late 700's. Both of these are somewhat later than the Arthurian period we spoke of, but allowing that language doesn't appear overnight, it seems at least possible that an early British written language could have existed sixth century as alluded to in the early Arthurian works.

This information from: BWRDD YR IAITH GYMRAEG (Welsh Language Board) and SAV-HEOL "Sav-heol is an association regulated by the law of 1901 and based in Rennes, Brittany. It aims to teach (evening classes) and promote the Breton language in the Rennes area and beyond....Sav-heol is a member of Kuzul ar Brezhoneg as well as the UPRACB and is included in the Mercator-Education database."

[jjwq8]

What do you mean early English is dead?
Every time I return to civilization I see it utilized everywhere, though almost exclusively out of an aerosol paint can.

[John Bridge]

I thought Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) said that about the fool. You tellin' me he plagiarized it from the Bard? :D


This is getting more interesting, Howard. I spent quite a bit of time in France, most of it in the Loire Valley. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to explore Brittany.

Tell me, though, is the Breton language connected directly to early English?

[Hobbit]

Connected directly....? I don't think so. More a parallel development with related background.

My understanding is that both Welsh and Breton make up a group of languages (along with Cornish which is now extinct...(terminology???)) They are all descendants of British, the Celtic language of the ancient Britons of Caesar’s day. The emergence of Welsh, Cornish, and Breton from British as separate languages probably took place during the 5th and 6th cent. A.D. and was a result of the Germanic invasions of Britain...Welsh and Breton have discarded the originally numerous Indo-European cases for the noun and use only one case. Both employ the Roman alphabet for writing.
This group of three languages was called Brythonic. This group is one of three groups of languages that make up the Celtic sub-family of the Indo-European family of languages. English is also a member of the Indo-European family of languages.

Interestingly JB, What we now term Bretons settled on the Brittany (Bretagne) peninsula in the 4th and 6th centuries A.D., emigrating in waves from Cornwall and Wales under the pressure of Saxons, Angles and Jutes, peoples who had by then started migrating to Britain.

So, if what we learned here is correct, both Breton and Welsh diverged from Roman British 400-500 AD and used the Roman alphabet. So it seems increasingly plausible that an early British written language could have been in place during Arthurian times 500-600 AD, somewhat before the earliest known Breton and Welsh manuscripts.

[jjwq8]

John,
Probably, and he wouldn't be the first, given that Wee Willy snaffled it and paraphrased from the good book (Bible, not Martha Stewarts guide to ethical home improvement). It resides in Proverbs, but you always sound so much more pretentious if you quote Billy Boy instead of a religious tract.

[jjwq8]

Howard,
Pronouncements of extinction of language are not always factual.
My wife Magda is an Assyrian, a language first written in cuneiform that was subsequently adapted to utilize the Hebrew script.
When we were first married I went into Heffers Bookshop in Cambridge to see if I could find anything that might help me learn the language. I found a book on Assyrian Grammar and grabbed it. As I was to learn, a Professor of Middle and Near Eatern language saw what I had taken and asked if I was a student. When I explained why I needed the book he expressed surprise that the language was still spoken. So we gave Magda a pop test, selecting words and phrases tranlated from the cuneiform in the book. She batted 1000. The language had not changed in thousands of years.
This Acadmic went away having learnt an important object lesson.
Perhaps his field of expertise had so limited his view that he closed himself off to the rest of world?

[Hobbit]

Jeremy...great story.:) I certainly realize what you are saying is true. Extinction implies non-existence...you'll note my questioning of the term in the previous post.

I think what was intended by my sources (I wasn't quoting directly) was to indicate the status of the language with respect to cultures or other political sub-divisions in the world today. Latin is considered a "dead" language, but we know that there are still individuals who speak a form of it today even though there are no nations or cultures that utilize it.

I am sure the same holds true of Cornish and a lot of the little known languages around the world. I can find no indication of anyone who speaks Cornish as their language of choice..but I don't doubt there are individuals some where who have had the language passed to them.

:):)

[jjwq8]

Howard,
Little known languages?
You mean the Queen's English? :shades:

[smee]

hey guys -

I don't know much about this subject, and the very little only as it relates to history.

I do remember however hearing (somewhere) that Basque language is a very old language with no connection to latin and they ( linguists) are not sure of it's origins?
I also know that languages are disappearing at alarming rates in the world today. Seems that English is washing out the worlds linguistic culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note: oxbow books in UK sends me a newletter of new books every month...

Here's a catchy title for ya'll -

"Just who was the Queen of Sheba and what did she want with Solomon" by Ralph Ellis

The title alone makes you want to check it out, doesn't it.
:yeah:

have a happy and Safe 4th of July everyone.

[Hobbit]

No Jeremy, I mean......

Aramaic....New Assyrian empire...7-4th century BC.

Armazic....variant of Aramaic...1-2nd century AD.

Assan....Siberian...18th century AD.

Cayuse....Native American...1930's.

Chemakum....Native American...1940's.

Kamas....S. Siberian...18-19th century AD.

Kaurna....Australian...1931 (Reclamation in progress)


AND many, many others......

[jjwq8]

OK Howard I give in.

Let'sask this then.

If a dialect is esoteric enough to be unintelligible to the rest of the population, could it be classed a new language? I am thinking specifically of the Geordie accent in north east England, that to the rest of the populace sounds like Japanese.

[Hobbit]

Interesting, but...???

I guess all languages are derivations of some sort. I know their are some regional, colloquial variations of English (American version) that are firmly rooted in the U.S.;) Some of these are very difficult to understand to the ones of us who speak nothing but the Crown's English.;);)

Combine these regional "dialects" with a speaker who has a quick tongue and they are indeed almost impossible to decipher. New language....?? Hell, I don't know. Some would argue so.

:)

[John Bridge]

Thank you, folks. This seems a wonderful opportunity to derail this thread a bit and get it closer to the history I've focused upon these many years. ;)

Regional dialects in North America.

How do you suppose George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the other founders sounded to their cousins in England? :)

Do you think at that time there was a distinct difference in dialect between New England and the Old South, say Virginia and the Carolinas?

Do you think I should start a new thread for this?

:D

[RandyL]

I think all you people should start your own language 'cus I haven't understood a thing yous have been talking about since around page 2......:dunce:

[jjwq8]

Randy

I have been in this thread for some time and have just gone back through it and I'm with you.

for the rest of you, the idea that started the thread?

Only person in history who'd talk to me is the only one I'd really like to meet. My father. Too much left unsaid before he left.

[jjwq8]

And having ruminated over a good lunch I will add one more to my list.

Given the opportunity.

God.

Anyone else is irrelevent.

[smee]

jeremy -

do you mean Jesus of Nazareth?

because of course - true to the nature of learning....who is God?
which god?
there are and have been many.

I know this is a MAJOR segue from the original question.

[smee]

John -
are you talking pre revolution? I think that if you are talking before there was more prevelant linguistic relationship with England. If you are talking about after - I would have to say that the war changed that forever. I think Americans would have made a concious choice to separate themselves in every way. and the sympathizers would have been pressured to do the same.

So, I think there are two distinct answers!?
whaddaya think?



:confused:

[Hobbit]

Good question JB.

I think that early on our founders probably sounded much like their European counterparts. Their language was probably less formal or stilted because of the environment but very recognizable.

However, I don't think it would have been too long before we started developing our own speech patterns. Our version of English developed with the help of the speech patterns of the early settlers from many different countries. And as much as these settlers came from different places, they also settled in different places and usually together in communities. This "regionalization" is probably what accounts for most of the "dialects' or "accents" that we observe today.

I think the New England and Southern dialects were not as prevalent pre-revolution. I think they became more pronounced as the country got a little older and more influence was felt from different areas of the world (France, Spain, Mexico, Africa, island cultures, etc.), probably early 1800's. I have no particular reason to believe this, just seems logical!;)

:):)

[John Bridge]

Everything is theory, of course, but I don't have any reason to believe there were important dissimilarities between North and South. And except for certain American words that were adapted from various Indian dialects, you would not have been able to tell a Tom Jefferson or a Ben Franklin from a Townsend or a Cornwallis.

I don't really know when things began to change rapidly, but I suspect Howard is correct and that it began post Revolution. There are just no references to marked differences in speach.

So back to the origanal theme. I agree with Smee in that "God" is subjective. I suspect that Jeremy is referring to the god of the Old Testament, though. :)

On another tack, we have an opportunity to speak with and know some icons of the future. How can we identify them, though? :)

[jjwq8]

Smee,

I may be irreverent and have a mistrust of much of the hocus pocus that passes for canonical rite, but I am convinced that there is but one God.

The possibility of multiple Dieties is anomolous. If we accept that God created Generic Man in his own image and we have so much trouble agreeing on anything, then what chance multiple deities, with the power to undo one another's work, and remember that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

For the rest of the discussion on dialect, as an Auslander, may I be permitted to observe that much of the accent I hear from the New England area is often indistinguishable from West Country England.

Another thought for you to pursue. Are accent and dialect inseparable?

[smee]

On the ever subjective subject of God. Jeremy I appreciate your beliefs. I am agnostic but have respect for the purpose of belief and respect each persons right to choose.

I believe in Evolution and it's idiocyncracies. Man very early on developed a system that helped him to define things in his world he didn't understand. In time, that came to evolve into cultural myths the world over - and although different the world over - the similarities are unmistakable which makes me think it's in us, our make up so to speak as human beings, in our humanity that we ended up with countless religions, myths and beliefs to address our questions of mortality.

On language. the dialect vs accent - seems to me one does not exist without the other.

If you put a group of people out on an island(this isn't a guy walks into a bar joke) an Englishman, American, a Swede a South African, an Australian and a Gaelic speaker ( or any combination you like for this exercise) - how much time do you think would go by before they 'developed' a unique language? As they talked and learned how each communicated - which words or ways of speaking them would predominate? Would one way of saying things override others. how would language manifest itself. If each person had no other person who spoke as they do?

is that an influence of dialect or over time development of language?

Linda

[John Bridge]

This may be very obvious, but I have to say it. It could take several generations to reach a single unique language or dialect, even on the desert island.

Especially if it's weighted with hard-headed Brits.

:D

[jjwq8]

Linda,

My belief in the one God does not extend to the theologic definition of creation or much of the lore that goes to make the various tomes of refernce therefore.

My belief is that God and Mother Nature (for want of a better term) are one and the same. For all of the horrors that nature may visit upon us, there is always (enetually) an antidote; and for all of the beauty there are insufficient horrors to demean it.
Many years ago, my father and I drove off into the desert, walked away from the car and sat in the summer heat. In complete and total silence. My father, in a whisper, said he could easily understand how three of the worlds great religions came out of the desert. I try to repeat the trip from time to time. It is soberingand, refreshing, (and a good excuse for a beer).

John,
Of course there is a preponderance of Brits. The guys will need something to drink fercrissakes.:D

Now here is another (semi serious) thought.

Put five similar guys but from vastly different countries and cultures on the same island, with a serious supply of booze.
Either they will end up killing themselves or they will far more rapidly breach the language barrier.

Drunks appear capable of conversing with one another irrespective of language and culture.

[smee]

guys - I know it would take generations, how many, who knows.
I was thinking in terms of fast forward...for the sake of argument.

Jeremy - great story about your dad. Seems from what little you've said of him, you were lucky to have had him in your life. He sounds extraordinary.

God, mother nature, the powers that be. I can relate to that. But, if you're going to interview God. Have a conversation with God ( for those of you joining us now - the point of this thread being who would you like to meet if you could meet anyone)
it sounded as tho he, it, they would take the ever ready form of the white haired ancient male being...

unless of course you picture George Burns instead

:D :D

linda

[smee]

I am reading a book on the Dark Ages in Britain. I am reading about the middle to late 900's. The part I read last night details the struggles with the Northumbrian Viking kings and the power struggles with the Anglo Bretwalda or number one King if you will.

It mentions this Viking King Eric (not the red) and how at one point he was exiled. On his travels which may have taken him to as far as Samarkand, they discuss the monstrous slave trade going on and how the Vikings were very instrumental in providing Spains Moors and the rest of the Middle Eastern World with Irish, English and Welsh slaves as well as slaves from the "Slavic" part of the world (the world Slav is derived from Slave).

There is one record of somewhere around 30,000 Irish\English slaves going to Egypt.

The slaves taken weren't always the lowest portion of society, often they were aristocratic and of course the fact that they were Christian didn't bug the Vikings one bit. It appears it was the biggest trade going on at the time.

So, being that there was mass movement of peoples - some could have been literate? I wonder if there is any way to determine if locally it integrated with the local language? Could some words have gotten into the common tongue?

I know, I know - infinite conjecture.

on a side note: there is a growing movement to portray the Vikings as less destructive than they were, to emphasize that they often settled, colonized, and tried to peacefully integrate. However the truth isn't as rosy as that. The destruction and upheavel that the Viking invasions caused was very real. They were the bully's of the Dark Ages. It's very victorian to romantisize some of the more brutal peoples and events of the past. An interesting exercise of history and always I would think the hardest test of a historian. To stick to the facts Jack!!!!

I digress :yeah: sorry....

Linda

[Hobbit]

Isn't it amazing to realize what terrific trials the world went through before we were here? And how little we actually know about the times that came before.

When I was growing up, the Vikings were legendary. Stories abound of men and ships sailing off to discover new lands, living off the land and the sea. Sturdy folk, cut of a rough hewn cloth. Of course we now know that everything we read wasn't "history" at all. A bellicose group intent on ruling the seas and riding roughshod over anyone in their way.:(

I often wonder how much of what we read today under the guise of history is truly reported. There is precious little evidence to support the writings. How much of reality is actually imbedded in the history we study. History is written by the victor. Perception is a strange thing.;)

[jjwq8]

Damn Linda I knew it,

Irish labour built the pyramids!

(well almost).

Could you imgine the comments upon arrival.

"Bejayzus Murphy, tis a divil of a lot o' sand!"

"Bloody roight Paddy, an' oim fer gittin de hell away before day bring in de cement!"

:D :D

you may find this link of interest if it is otherwise unknown to you.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/honorius.htm

fascinating stuff. :)

[John Bridge]

Excellent site. I'm sorry you turned me onto it. Spent two hours reading and will have to go back. ;)

[smee]

Jeremy - yep, dem spuds get 'round, doan they.

BTW - when an Irishman says "reckon" - where did he get that from exactly? Isn't that an American slang word? I hear it a lot from me irish pals here and in IRE - and I heard it a lot in Scotland tooo - whaddya make a that?

Good link. I have been there, but it was good to go back!

here's one for ya'll ~

http://www.usu.edu/history/fran/links.html (http://)

I got a million of em :shades:

Linda.

[smee]

Okay - my link didn't work

:confused:

http://www.usu.edu/history/fran/links.html

here it is. Enjoy!

[jjwq8]

Linda,

Your American slang aint!

Meriam Webster:

Main Entry: reck·on
Pronunciation: rekn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): reckoned; reckoned; reckoning \-k()ni\; reckons
Etymology: Middle English rekenen, rikenen, from Old English -recenian (as in gerecenian to recount, narrate); akin to Middle Dutch rekenen to reckon, Old High German rehhann, Old English reccan to give heed -- more at RECK
transitive verb.

[jjwq8]

Sorry for this, but I have just finished reading a diverting piece of artifice by Steven Baxter, called Evolution.

It posits an interesting future and may appeal to the esoteric in you.

Took me damn near forever to read coz my PDA version got corrupted and I only managed to reload it a few days back. Why am I putting this note here?

Everyones future is someones history.

[John Bridge]

Being an old small boat sailor, I can pass on another use for reckon. The term "dead reckoning" has been around a long time as far as I know and has been used on both sides of the Atlantic. Dead reckoning is navigating without instruments.

[jjwq8]

John,
I always thought that came from pitching scurvied stiffs over the side and watching which way they drifted.

The polynesians were remarkable sailors who navigated by a mixture both dead and celestial reckoning.

[bbcamp]

Dead reckoning, coming from the phrase "If you reckon wrong, you're dead!" Or so my flight instructor tole me.

[sdaniels7114]

Are you certain of that, John? I know next to nothing about sea navigation; but, in the air, ded reckoning relies heavily on the compass and clock. I was taught that it's short for deduced. The technique involves knowing what an airplane will do in still air and then adjusting for the effect of wind to be able to fly blind to the destination. The inductive method that is used to back it up is called pilotage, that's simply a mater of following roads and other landmarks. It would be odd if the definition of the word is completely reversed depending on being on the sea or in the air. Then again, maybe that's why I've come across both ways to spell it over the years. I always thought that ded and dead were the same thing:confused:

[Hobbit]

Well, I've stayed out of this reckoning thing, but....
As a retired professional aviator (US Army), I will reitirate what Steve said (mostly)(and I believe JB as well in his own way..)

There are two methods by which aviators are taught to navigate in VFR (visual flight rules) conditions without the use of nav aids. They are "pilotage" and "dead reckoning." Pilotage is, as Steve said, using landmarks visible from the air to mark your course across the ground. Dead reckoning is simply a time-distance problem. The pilot gathers known information about conditions along the proposed flight path, and along with known aircraft performance data calculates a vector and a speed across the ground that the aircraft will follow to the destination. Knowing the distance to the destination allows the pilot to calculate the air time required. Flying the calculated course for the calculated time should put the aircraft at the calculated distance (destination).

However, sorry Steve, no pilot would ever assume to be able to fly "blind" to any destination in this manner. Too many variables, too many unknowns. It is strictly a VFR technique backed up with plenty of vision!.;) The process is used during IFR planning to calculate proposed enroute times but never relied on for navigation.

:):)

[John Bridge]

I was not clear when I said no instruments. I should have said no instruments save a compass and a clock. The instruments I was thinking about were a sextant, a chronometer and reduction tables. Nowadays, of course, those tools have become obsolete in favor of global positioning systems.

So I agree that dead reckoning on the sea is about the same as it is in the air. You aim at point and guess at how long it will take you to overtake it. Air currents act the same as sea currents, etc. Hopefully you spot a known landmark, maybe, and plot another dead reckoning course from there. There are no landmarks at sea, though, and if you're within sight of land it's no longer navigating. It's piloting or "passage making." :)

About the worst thing you can call an oceangoing yachtsman is a "coastwise sailor." :)

[sdaniels7114]

Howard, you should have seen the first post I had in mind. It never made it to the board cause I figured most nobody here would understand it, yourself excepted. Terms like Isogonic lines, WCA, and mercator projections were used. Besides the class I spoke of on the other thread, I have no less than 18 undergrad credit hours in navigation under my belt. :D I figured to keep it simple so anyone could follow. I did say you could, theoreticaly, fly blind, I never meant to say you should :) That would be stupid. I also mentioned pilotage as a way to back it up. The two together are still the primary means for civilian student pilots to get around. You might be thinking of VOR's and GPS's, but the ease of screwing them up and how dependant newbies seem to get toward godlike nav gear keeps most of my fellow flight instructors from teaching them too soon.

[flatfloor]

Jeremy's research on the word reckon confirmed what I suspected, the word was introduced to this country by Scotch and Irish immigrants, primarily those living in the South.

[Hobbit]

Steve...

Well, alrighty then....;)

I'm sure you have the correct grasp of this. I was merely trying to help, and avoid a false impression.:)

I am a civilian commercial, instrument, multi and a military rotary, instrument UT/IFE. Aeronautical Science ERAU.

JB....Somehow I figured you had it right!!;)

Seems like it would be much tougher on the water...everything looks the same...plus the effects of the water currents as well as the air currents to calculate.

Coastwise sailor...indeed!!:D:D

[flatfloor]

Whuts a ERAU, Early Reckless Airplane User? :p

[Hobbit]

Jim, Jim...

Some people work hard at what comes naturally to you..;);)

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.

[flatfloor]

Knew a guy went there, graduated from there and Sam Houston Inst. Technology. He's now in charge of graffiti removal for Liberian Airlines. :D

[Hobbit]

:shades::rolleyes: :shake: :tongue:

[flatfloor]

:)

[sdaniels7114]

Wasn't someone talkin about history around here somewhere?:D

[jjwq8]

Not so you'd notice ;)

[John Bridge]

Where's Smee? She's the only serious historian we seem to have aboard. ;)

[John Bridge]

Just another tid bit on the nav scene. Most ocean going small boat sailors still do take sun sights every day around noon. I should think only the realy lazy ones depend on . . . .

:D

[jjwq8]

Serious is a condition unknown outside the "Schluter" discussion.

[smee]

Okay - so I was right about the spuds, er Irish 'Reckoning' in America - not to forget the Scots toooo.

So, here's a thought - does a crow reckon? :nod: :confused:
It sure was fun to throw out that reckon business and watch you guys just take it and run!!!!! In fact, I learned a lot about how one navigates by the same program both on the ground and in the air.

and flatfloor - what in the world are you thinking - comparing a woman to an elephant? that's a meyday!!!!


:D ;)

[John Bridge]

Flatfloor has no class. Everybody knows that.

;)

[jjwq8]

Smee,
Crow reckoning. For the sake of argument I will assume you are referring to the avian variety rather than the Native American.
Some years back the BBC aired a series called Super Nature, that inter alia dealt with how homing pigeons home.
It appears their skulls contain tiny pockets of iron linked to their sensory systems that is sensitive to the earth's magnetic fields and they basically memorize home plate.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why the Terminator keeps coming back. Metal subframing.:D

[smee]

( I saw that show actually - which is what I referenced!)

I believe we should all refer to Jeremy as "the Architect" from here on - referencing yet again.

:bow:


Linda
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A fruit is a vegetable with looks and money. Plus, if you let fruit rot, it turns into wine, something Brussels sprouts never do
- PJ O'Rourke

[jjwq8]

Below the belt Linda.

Call me any abusive obscene thing you like but NEVER NEVER NEVER call me Architect.

I don't know Client's want, I don't care what Client's want and I sure as *!@t would try and tell them what they think they need.
My professional ethic, as defined by Architects by the way, is the one goes onto the battlefield after the war, rob tjhe dead, bayonette the wounded, and declare the result a lie.
:D
And I am damn good at it too. :D