XPost: soc.culture.welsh, soc.culture.cornish, soc.culture.irish   
   XPost: soc.culture.scottish   
   From: innes8@verizon.net   
      
   "Chess One"  wrote in message   
   news:shfwi.2547$tU4.1087@trndny03...   
   >   
   I should correct my own text before others do...   
      
   > from the northern European plains, with its updated version 600 years   
   > later which we call Anglo Norman [which is Saxon via a 500 year sojourn in   
   > France].   
      
   More precisely, the Normans were Viking settlers inter-married in France,   
   and their Saxon originated in Scandinavia.   
      
   > scarpering Romans, but those who remained were, even after 400 years of   
   > occupation, still culturally Celt, thereby the forms and rhythms of new   
   > speech in A. Sax were modulated by the 'Welsc', the 'foreigners' who   
   > already lived here.   
      
   plus supplementary Latin of the literate, the 'pan-European language'   
      
   > culture. History continues this way, with more war for about 200 years,   
      
   Scholastic history [of war] continued 2,000 years! This is in   
   contradistinction to any anthropological mention of culture - little of that   
   showed up in books until about 1950, and then was not taught in schools   
      
   > rara avis! how often is anything mentioned about the lives of the people.   
      
   > is literally not even seen... and some impossible people from a   
   > psychologically basis be suggested to us with seemingly random fantasy   
   > placard sound-bites about the old folks.   
      
    with an improbable proposal of a fantasy psychological basis   
      
   > The roots of English language are simply old, and 'modern languages' are   
   > just novel forms of what to large extent was already incorporated some   
   > 1000 years ago. To understand this is the path to the past, though as   
   > above, we have hardly travelled it in any cogent manner, nor adequately   
   > explained it to ourselves - that is, we Anglo-Celts have not th'n beys   
   > danvonas sylwyans   
      
   This essay or homily, merely reports on the /written/ record, and should be   
   understood as a value - ie, were the cultural artifacts of the Celts   
   recorded in writing rather than in Works?   
      
   Almost all academic study ignores the Works and references texts, as if that   
   was where core information lay. The absurdity of this systemic approach to   
   history is revealed by the treatment meted out to the astronomer royal, Sir   
   Norman Lockyer, when he presented his finding on stellar alignments from   
   monoliths to the Archaeology departments of major English universities.   
      
   They not only abused him severely, but did not even look at his evidence /in   
   vivo/, but rather dismissed the paper-Idea of it since, as ani fül no, the   
   Celts and their forbears were ignerunt savages, etc.   
      
   But people with advanced knowledge of astronomy can navigate, and move on   
   the waters beyon sight of the coast. Received history is predicated on the   
   'ignerunt savage' version, and certainly not on the Giants of the Gardens of   
   the Hesperides. In short, much received history is 'pathic' [Heidigger]or   
   speculated without evidence or experience, book-bound, and acultural.   
      
   PI   
      
   > Phil Innes   
   >   
   >   
   >> --   
   >> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)