XPost: soc.culture.welsh, scot.scots, soc.culture.scottish   
   XPost: soc.culture.irish, soc.culture.breton, soc.culture.cornish   
   From: me@privacy.net   
      
   On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:28:38 -0000, "Walker"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Custos Custodum"  wrote in message   
   >news:u2ler2ps9a6t0g26l4r7rasoaeoara1n7c@4ax.com...   
   >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:33:14 -0000, "Walker"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>"Custos Custodum"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:hkvbr2l0g3tm9klspjfo5vihk5if6smbjl@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:23:16 -0000, "Walker"    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>To Fitlikeman. Sorry about top posting, but Cumbric never really "died",   
   >>>>>many Cumbric words exist in Scots and even standard English, as well as   
   >>>>>in   
   >>>>>place-names.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You'd be hard pressed to list more than a hundred that aren't place   
   >>>> names or dialect.   
   >>>Complete rubbish!   
   >>>>   
   >> OK, then. List them. In fact, I'll make it easy for you - list 50   
   >> words of standard, modern English, no place names, dialect or obscure   
   >> technical terms, that can be unequivocally traced to a Cumbric root.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Also English is nothing like Anglo-Saxon/Old   
   >>>>>English/Platdeutsch or whatever else you want to call it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nonsense. You're frothing again. The similarities are there to see for   
   >>>> anyone who takes the trouble to learn a little about both languages.   
   >>>Complete rubbish!   
   >>   
   >> Really? The core vocabulary of English is predominantly Germanic,   
   >> especially when one looks at older, obsolete forms. English shares its   
   >> strong/weak verb classification with modern German and presumably the   
   >> other Germanic languages too. Verbs that are strong in English are   
   >> usually strong in German, and the process of ablaut (e.g. sing, sang,   
   >> sung) is similar, if not identical, for both. English and German verbs   
   >> have only two 'true' tenses, the remainder being formed using   
   >> auxiliaries.   
   >> The comparison and position of adjectives follow the same pattern for   
   >> both languages.   
   >> English word order is generally SVO. German word order is more   
   >> flexible, but the verb is still in second place. What was Cumbric   
   >> (=Celtic?) word order? VSO?   
   >> And yet, despite all this evidence of common ancestry, you continue to   
   >> deny that English is essentially Germanic in origin and claim instead   
   >> that it is some sort of amalgam of Cumbric and Latin.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Ever noticed the   
   >>>>>prelieferation of Celtic auxillaries in English?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What proliferation? (I assume that's what you meant). If you are   
   >>>> talking about 'progressive' tenses (I believe linguists call them   
   >>>> 'aspects' nowadays) then yes, it is possible, even probable, that they   
   >>>> are due to Celtic influence, as English is unique among the Germanic   
   >>>> languages in possessing such a feature.   
   >>>This response (antwort) negates your claim that English grammar and   
   >>>vocabulary is similar to that of German.   
   >>   
   >> How does it do that? All I have done is to concede that 'progressive'   
   >> tenses (e.g. I am running) are not found in other Germanic languages   
   >> and are probably the result of Celtic influence. I would guess that   
   >> most languages exhibit external influences that are not shared by even   
   >> their closest relatives.   
   >>   
   >>>What absolute rubbish you write!   
   >>   
   >> It's still far short of the utter fantasy that you promote as   
   >> 'academic research'.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Is that how Germans speak   
   >>>>>German?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, but German verbs closely mirror their English counterparts in most   
   >>>> other respects. Hardly surprising, given their common ancestry.   
   >>>>   
   >>>Complete rubbish!   
   >>   
   >> So prove me wrong! I have already indicated the main areas of   
   >> similarity. Simply contradicting me adds nothing to your already   
   >> flimsy case.   
   >Wright, who was a famous 19th. century philologist and linguist, proved that   
   >English arose from a mish-mash of Low German, Danish, Norse, and Welsh, to   
   >which were added French and Latin words.   
      
   What claims did he make for the Welsh influence, and what proof did he   
   offer? Your use of 'Low German' in this context is misleading and runs   
   counter to current academic practice.   
      
   >Anglo-Saxon is ancient Saxon and   
   >100% German.   
      
   Well, duh! Actually, 'Anglo-Saxon' is an umbrella term used to   
   describe the closely related Germanic dialects of the Angles and   
   Saxons who settled these shores shortly after the Romans left. Related   
   to modern German through their common ancestry, it is the foundation   
   of modern English and is usually called 'Old English' nowadays.   
      
   >Gobineau's theory of the recial supremecy of Germans is not   
   >even accepted by Germans now-a-days, why try to flog old Anglo-Saxonist   
   >rubbish?   
   >   
   Who gives a toss about Gobshite's theories? You're frothing again.   
   Time for your medication.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)