The Origins Of Modern English!

Language, something most of us take for granted, it comes so easily when you're a child. Children are able to learn any language if introduced to it at a very early age. But there are so many languages in the modern world, so surely anyone who is bilingual would have a distinct advantage in the job market you would think. I've noticed as a UK national, that most other countries are way ahead of us when it comes to learning other languages. I've been abroad a few times and I've noticed that not only do a surprising amount of people talk in English as their second language, they do so surprisingly well.

So, where did this language of ours come from? Most of us will have heard that English is derived from Proto-Indo-European, but what does that mean? It's sugeested that a race of white people from the Caucus Mountains area (hence Caucasians) expanded out and reached the Indus Valley where they formed the Vedic culture. They then brought back that language to Europe.

The Celtic language was borne from Proto-Indo-European in 2 forms P-Celtic and Q-Celtic, as was Old English which was brought to the UK by Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes). As the Kings of England spoke English that language became widespread although probably intermingled with Celtic. The Viking incursions into Britain added many other words to our vocabulary, as did the Norman invasion. You'd be surprised at how many English words have a French origin. The final contributor was Latin, writers like Shakespeare and Marlowe found the English language prohibitive in scope so introduced many Latin words into their writing, which we still use to this day.

So modern English is really a hotch-potch of languages, but all from a common ancestor: Proto-Indo-European! The odd thing is, that English is changing. There are so many regional accents in England, that the traditional well-spoken English is becoming a rarity, with slang words continually polluting the word pool. Strangely enough, the best spoken English in the UK is in Inverness, up here in the North of Scotland, and Doric (the dialect I grew up with) is considered to be the closest thing to Old English still in existence. We use words like "nicht" and "brither", which are pronounced pretty much the same way as the Anglo-Saxons said them, betraying their Germanic origins. It's a funny old thing, language!

Wave Upon Wave Upon Wave!

I'm currently half-way through reading David Miles "The Tribes of Britain", and it's fascinating reading. I guess that it's particulalry tailored for me in the sense that I'm a keen genealogist as well as deeply intersted in history. Probably should have done a history degree, still might!

The book examines the inhabitation of the British Isles from pre-history right up until the modern day. What is truly fascinating, is just how wrong our ingrained perceptions of our own history are. For instance, the Roman invasion of Britain. It would not be uncommon for many British citizens living today, to suppose that they had some Roman ancestry, seeing how the Romans invaded Britain and ruled it for almost 400 years. Well that assumption would be mistaken, for the majority of the Roman army weren't Roman in the sense we would regard them to be. The majority of the army were legions from Northern France, Belgium, Spain and North Africa even. There were very few Italians in there.

Secondly, the Romans formed garrisons across the country, with some men undoubtedly taking local women for wives, but it's doubtful that men who were already married would have brought their families across with them. In all likelihood, recruits from British tribes would soon begin to form local garrisons, avoiding bringing more troops across from the continent where they were engaged in fierce fighting with the Germanic tribes.

The Norman invasion follows a similar pattern. While many individuals possess names of Norman origin, it is unlikely that they are descended from any of the knights who accompanied William the Conqueror to Britain. Those knights were aloof Frenchmen, the majority of whom married the daughters of their fellow knights, and kept it that way for centuries. They merely replaced the Anglo-Saxon Chieftains who ruled previously. Their input to the gene pool was minimal.

Even the Viking incursions into the British Isles, which occured sporadically over 2 centuries, but intensified towards the end left little impact genetically, even in the Scottish Isles, the DNA demonstrates only 25% of Scandinavian genes.

The fact is, that the majority of the British people are mainly descended from the original inhabitants of the British Isles, who were not even Celts as you would suppose, I'm talking about the original Neolithic and Iron Age inhabitants, who only adopted the Celtic customs and dress. Yes, even the English when tested demonstrated 80% DNA belonging to the original Brtish tribes. That other 20% has in all likelihood been brought in by foreign traders who settled in this land since the Norman invasion, particularly those from Flanders and Brabantia, who brought their much needed skills over here.

So, where does that leave us genetically? Does it really matter? Perhaps our most recent peaceful influxes from overseas will have a much greater impact than anything that's gone before. It's getting to the point, here at least in NE Scotland, where the local people may soon be a minority. You might think I'm joking, I'm not, and at the risk of sounding xenophobic, I don't think this country can handle the number of immigrants coming in if it's sustained at present levels. It will reach a tipping point! And when it does, I'll blog it!

They Were Giants In Those Days!

What are we to make of the legends, myths and historical accounts of Giants walking upon the Earth? The Bible tells us that the race of the Nephilim, were Giants descended from the heavens who had interbred with human women. Norse, Hindi, Greek, Germanic and Celtic legends all speak of Giants who generally terrorised anyone who crossed their paths.

But, is it possible that they really existed? In a physical sense, science tells us that the mass to height ratio would not allow a being say 12 to 15 feet tall to be able to support itself, with the gravitational pull exerted on it. Theoretically, a Giant would have much slower body movements than us, and would be unable to throw a spear or hunt effectively.

Well, that's what the science says, but then haven't the skeletons of giants been unearthed all over the planet? Yes, they have, in Polynesia, New Zealand and North America, with many hushed up discoveries occuring in other countries. As with the New Zealand discoveries, as I've mentioned before, the Maori Chieftains were first to become aware that Giant red-haired skeletons had been discovered at Waipoua Forest in the 70's-80's. As has occured in many locations globally, the Maoris didn't want any evidence presented publicly which would indicate that other civilizations had persisted in New Zealand prior to the Maoris. The New Zealand Government bent over backwards to hide the evidence, even creating a new law allowing archaeological information to be withheld from the public for 75 years. The excavations at Waipoua Forest were swiftly terminated and the site made completely secure.

So, on the one hand, science tells us that Giants could not have existed, but skeletal finds suggest that they did indeed. Is it possible therefore that the gravitational forces acting upon us, were once far less than they are now? It would certainly explain a lot, and it would account for any Giant peoples having died out. They simply would have been unable to survive with an increased gravitational pull. I'm surprised there hasn't been more research on the DNA of the finds so far, but then again perhaps certain people would prefer those conclusions kept under wraps for now, and probably forever!