XPost: soc.culture.welsh, soc.culture.cornish, soc.culture.irish   
   XPost: soc.culture.scottish   
   From: innes8@verizon.net   
      
   "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   news:9Ywxi.33617$1G1.29537@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...   
   >   
   > "Chess One"  wrote in message   
   > news:Mxqxi.635$563.246@trndny08...   
   >>   
   >> "The Highlander"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> 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].   
   >>>   
   >>> Anglo-Norman is NOT Saxon.   
   >>   
   >> Agree. The Normans were from Scandinavia, no? Tired of plundering Paris   
   >> they settled down with nice French girls - who would not? Which is the   
   >> import of the 500 year sojourn, or a bit longer even.   
   >>   
   >>>>More precisely, the Normans were Viking settlers inter-married in   
   >>>>France,   
   >>>>and their Saxon originated in Scandinavia.   
   >>>   
   >>> Saxon is a language found in places like Saxony, which is in Germany,   
   >>   
   >> Various forms of A. Sax originate across the northern Rhine. There are   
   >> several, and mutually incomprehensibe. Is this also your understanding?   
   >>   
   >>> not Scandiavia.   
   >>   
   >> Which is what I said above - that these raiders settled in France with   
   >> their Norsc variant of Saxon, which was the same as Viking, since they   
   >> were, and given 500 years belended that into the French - that is indeed   
   >> why we accuse them of any Saxon-base to their language. Agree?   
   >   
   > I don't think many people would agree with that. What was being pointed   
   > out is that what the Normans would have spoken, before the soujorn to   
   > France, was not Saxon. Surely the Normans would have spoken Norse or   
   > something   
      
   Did I not mention Norsc, I'm sure I did.... which /is/ a Saxon form, as is   
   recogned in English, it is what was spoke in the Danelaw.   
      
   > closely related too Norse? Certainly something a lot more closely related   
   > to Norse than any kind of Anglo-Saxon would have been. You seem to be   
   > suggesting that Norse was a variant of Anglo-Saxon and hence all can come   
   > under the lable Saxon  They are all from the Germanic family but what you   
   > suggest makes as much sense as saying the Gaels in the Scottish Islands   
   > speak Welsh.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> Well, that was a fascinating wander through the garden of your mind,   
   >>> but there seem to be some grievous misunderstandings in your view of   
   >>> history and geography. Have you ever visited a Celtic country; sat   
   >>> down with the people; listened to their version of their history, or   
   >>> is this all packaged and readied for consumption in Detroit or   
   >>> Minneapolis?   
   >>   
   >> I am a Celt. Are you somewhere 'overseas' as in generations overseas?   
   >> Illustrate your points, should you have any that sensibly contest mine,   
   >> beyond this assertive stuff, or continue to illustrate that other thing,   
   >> which I think, is not born of any confidence   
   >   
   > This one will be interesting! I'm going off to get my stubbie and sannies.   
   > Now Highlander you may not have spent as much time looking down on all the   
   > lovely locks in Scotland {presumably at Fort Augustus}   
      
   A presumption of rhetorical convenience? What a bunch of wallies we have   
   here - it is Scotland the Whaaaa...?!?!   
      
   > so watch the language as you prove your credentials.There are bairns in   
   > the room. And a lady........but she's from Norfolk so she's heard that   
   > kind of langauge before :-)   
      
   Lus Phàra liath.   
      
   What you protest now, from your presumptions? Heuch, was it ever betrayed by   
   such.   
      
   Phil Innes   
      
   > Allan   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)