# Why isn't English a Romance language?



## cirrus

This thought is bugging me and despite being steeped in linguistics and history I can't find an answer.  France, Spain, Catalunya, Galicia, Portugal all speak languages based on Latin roots.  This goes back to the days of the Roman occupation.  

I live in London which was founded by the Romans who occupied England for hundreds of years. The path of a whole network of Roman roads still stride across the country today.  However the workings of English are resolutely Germanic.  I know that English has any amount of Latin borrowings but these are from much later on - via Norman French, well over 600 years after the Roman occupation finished.  
How come England ended up speaking a Germanic language as opposed to a modified form of Latin?   What was so differerent about England? Presumably there must have been some sort of lingua franca based on a rough and ready version of latin at least in the cities.  Why didn't this survive?  Was Latin usage so superficial? Were the people who lived in what is now England less bothered about what language they spoke - the Welsh still speak Brythonic and kept their language despite repeated invasions from the north and the east. 

I would love to hear what is your take on this.


----------



## DearPrudence

Well, that could help you: 
Unaided by the Roman army, Roman Britannia could not long resist the Germanic tribes who arrived in the 5th and 6th centuries, enveloping the majority of modern day England in a new culture and language and pushing Romano-British rule back into modern-day Wales and western extremities of England, notably Cornwall and Cumbria. Others emigrated across the channel to modern-day Brittany, thus giving it its name and language (Breton). But many of the Romano-British remained in and were assimilated into the newly "English" areas. (wikipedia)

So basically, the basis of English is not Latin, it borrowed only a very few names (names of places, though I can't think of any example right now) but a Germanic language. 

I hope it helps.


----------



## cirrus

But my point is that vandals and goths and umpteen other tribes swept through other parts of Europe and latin survived.

EDIT
I have just realised this might be in the wrong place, can one of you lovely moderators shift this into the cultural discussion area please?


----------



## Outsider

I am not an expert on this, but I will try to give you a brief overview. The Roman province of Britannia corresponded more or less to what is today England and Wales. It did not include Scotland or Ireland, where independent nomadic or semi-nomadic Celtic peoples lived. Latin was, or course, the language spoken in Britannia, but the local inhabitants were (for the most part) the descendents of Celts whom the Romans had subjugated, and it's quite possible that, as in other Roman provinces, local languages kept being used for a while. Nevertheless, the origin of English lies elsewhere.

In the early 5th century, the Roman Empire collapsed in Western Europe. During a particularly cold winter, bands of Germanic tribes crossed the Rhine river in Gaul (France), which had frozen, and started taking over the provinces of the Romans. The Roman armies tried to resist the invasion, and Britannia was left without a garrison; the Romano-Britons had to fend for themselves.

What happened next is a bit difficult to make out, due to the lack of documental evidence. Most of what we know is from histories and legends written a couple of centuries later. Suffice it to say that the Romano-Britons were quickly attacked by peoples from the North (Scotland) whom they called the Picts, and also by Germanic tribes from the continent who crossed the channel and started slowly settling down in the Southeast, called the Jutes, the *Angles*, and the *Saxons*.

You've probably guessed what happened next. For a few centuries, the Britons, who by now had abandoned Latin (and, it seems, most cities), and reverted back to using their old Celtic tongue, had to fight the Germanic invaders, who slowly gained terrain and imposed their language -- a Germanic dialect which became Old English -- on the locals. Some of the Celts crossed the channel in the opposite direction, and found a new home in what is today the French province of Brittany. The rest were pushed more and more to the Southwestern part of the Island, in other words, to Wales. 

Later on, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms merged into one, England, which conquered Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, bringing English to the rest of the British Isles.

That's the rough sketch of it. You can find a lot more details in history books that deal with this period. The history of the British Isles, and of England in particular, in the first half of the Middle Ages, is quite complex and interesting, with wave after wave of invasions from various peoples (the Vikings came next, remember?) Here's a nice start.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cirrus said:
			
		

> But my point is that vandals and goths and umpteen other tribes swept through other parts of Europe and latin survived.


The Vandals and Friends also swept through North Africa but they don't speak Vandal there. The Arabs came an imposed their language after. Just like the Angles and Saxons etc. did in Brtain.

When Germanic tribes came to latinized areas they generally adopted the Roman tongue. The reason many of these people invaded Rome was because they wanted to be a part of it not because they wanted to destroy it.

Even the Norse who came to Normandy abandonned Norse in favor of Romance. That might have been because of population issues too (they might have been mostly men who married the local Romance-speaking women who talk their children Romance) but the Franks did the same thing. The Franks took over Gaul and learned the Gallo-Romance. They thought it was a prestige language.

When the Angles got to Britain the Romans had snuck out the back door and left very little Rome behind. The Angles could not do what the Franks did because was no Roman language to adopt. The Romans had time to latinize Gaul and Hispania. The Roman occupation of Britannia was short and not at all thorough.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> For a few centuries, the Britons, who by now had abandoned Latin (and, it seems, most cities), and reverted back to using their old Celtic tongue...



I don't think there is much evidence that the Britons ever learned Latin wholesale in the way that the Celt-Iberians did. Latinization took place over a long period of time and in some places we can see that it was more complete than in others. It was also a voluntary thing and in some places their was more of an incentive to learn the language of the Romans, 

A big cosmopolitan center like Córdoba, yes. A small garrison town like London, not so much.

Now when we look at entire regions, one can say that in Northern France, latinization was not as strong as in the South and in some parts of the Iberian peninsula it met stiff restistance (Eusakadi). In more isolated areas, Germanic was able to step in (Helvetia) and in other places still, the Romance never took over. Greece, for example, never gave up Greek!


----------



## Outsider

Thank you for the corrections. Here's an interesting detail, from the extended entry of Wikipedia:



> Perhaps in memory of this eventual defeat by the Anglo-Saxons, the modern Welsh word for England, "Lloegyr", means "the lost lands". "Welsh" in the English language originally meant "foreigner".


----------



## maxiogee

The Irish for *Welsh* is *Breathnach* and if that isn't close to "Briton" I don't know what is.
The Irish for *English* (person) is *Sasanach* and if that isn't close to "Saxon" I don't know what is.


----------



## fenixpollo

I agree with residente -- the Romans were a presence in Gaul and Hispania for much longer than in Brittania, and their influence did not extend throughout the British Isles. 

I also think that distance from Rome and transportation issues made contact with Latin-speaking culture less direct, rapid and immediate.


----------



## cirrus

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The Irish for *Welsh* is *Breathnach* and if that isn't close to "Briton" I don't know what is.
> The Irish for *English* (person) is *Sasanach* and if that isn't close to "Saxon" I don't know what is.


 
Welsh is a form of Brythonic. The language of the ancient Britain was a form of Brythonic.  You can see its influence in some English place names for example there any amount of rivers called Avon.  In Welsh the word for river is Afon (the f pronounced as you would an English V).   In Welsh the English are called Saith which means Saxon.


----------



## Brioche

cirrus said:
			
		

> This thought is bugging me and despite being steeped in linguistics and history I can't find an answer. France, Spain, Catalunya, Galicia, Portugal all speak languages based on Latin roots. This goes back to the days of the Roman occupation.
> 
> How come England ended up speaking a Germanic language as opposed to a modified form of Latin? What was so differerent about England?
> 
> I would love to hear what is your take on this.


 
Quite simply, when the English (Angles), along with the Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Vikings invaded Britain they replaced the local language (whether British/Welsh or Latin) with their own Germanic languages.

The British (Celtic) speakers were pushed to the west - Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Strathclyde.  Cumbria comes from the same root as Cymru, the Welsh name for Wales.

In Glasgow, a thousand years ago, the locals spoke Welsh.

It should not be forgotten that large areas of Germany were part of the Roman Empire for a long time - Cologne (Köln), Augsburg, Trier, Koblenz, Wiesbaden, Regensburg, Passau, Mainz were all Roman towns. But they speak German in those areas to-day.

There are many place names in England derived from old British.


----------



## cirrus

I have been doing more research on this.  What is interesting is that according to studies of mitochondrial DNA it seems that the genetic make up of people for example in the W Midlands didn't seem to have changed significantly from Roman times to the late 19C.  

This suggests that people changed languages as opposed to moving.

La Reine Victoria contributed the following:

Not a great deal is known about the Romano Britons as far as language is concerned. Pre 43AD, the native Britons were Celts who spoke (but didn't write) 'Brythonic'. This has been scantily recorded in some Roman writings of the 1st century. 

However, we must remember that the invaders were lusty Romans. Far away from warmer climes they obviously needed their home comforts more than ever. Therefore the bachelors would have been happy to marry the indigenous women. We assume, therefore, that Latin and Brythonic became intermingled - any offspring would have had to listen to a Latin speaking father and Brythonic speaking mother so a compromise must have been reached in favour of the mother's language, since she would have spent the most time with the children.

Going by historical facts we know that the Romans left Britain circa 410AD. Those 410 years were long enough to have totally changed the language in Britain.

The conquest of Gaul was met with less resistance than that encountered in Britain. The strength of the Roman influence over the Gauls, and the appreciation by the Gauls of Roman culture, were enough to make the natives adopt Latin as their language (became Romance). Also, there was the (earlier than in Britain) influence of Christianity which came from Rome. All Christian worship was conducted in Latin - understood, accepted and adopted. 

To sum up. The Britons, being an insular race, made up of tribes, battled fiercely with the Roman invaders but eventually came to realize that the invaders had a lot to offer them in lifestyle improvement, and settled happily with them. Even those taken into slavery were well treated. Marriages took place as mentioned above, thus the language changed - but not to true Latin or Romance.

The last para seems to hit it on the head and perhaps explains why Germany south of Porta Wesfalica (the nominal northern limit of Roman control) didn't end up speaking a latin dialect.  In short the north was cold and the natives weren't friendly, not a place where you would want to stay unless you absolutely had to.  Even today the popular German dream is a Platz in der Sonne - a place in the sun, reflects the urge to escape the winter and judging from the amount of UK ex pats along the Costas remains the same for us too.


----------



## T.D-K

In keeping with Maxiogee's response, 

The Welsh for *English* is *Saesneg*.

Also, I found this link to be a useful precis on the subject.

http://www.homestead.com/englishheathenism/textintroduction.html


----------



## Fernando

I would say:

1) The romanization of Britain was less intense than that of Hispania, Gaul or even Africa.

2) The population of Britain was scarce, and many of them emigrated to Gaul (Brittany). Britons were swept by Anglo-saxons, while millions of hispanics and gauls "ate" (from a cultural point of view) the few thousands invaders.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cirrus said:
			
		

> Going by historical facts we know that the Romans left Britain circa 410AD. Those 410 years were long enough to have totally changed the language in Britain.


Rome did not conquer all of Britain in the year 0. Adrian's Wall tells us this process was never complete. 

Whether or not it was "plenty of time" is also tricky. There is no set formula for how much time it takes for a conquering people to change the language of the conquered and sometimes even the opposite happens.


----------



## cirrus

The point isn't whether all of Britain was invaded, I know that it wasn't.  Gaelic survived in Scotland just as Welsh survived in Wales.  

However ancient British didn't survive as a language in what is now England which was colonised, although not to the same extent as other more flourishing centres to the south.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

*It boils down to this:*

Whatever language the Romans left in Britain, it was not deeply entrenched enough to survive the Anglo-Saxons. The language they left in Hispania survived the Goths and the Arabs in the Meseta, the language they left in Gaul survived the Franks and the Norse in Northern France and, even though they spent twice as long in Britain, what language they left in Dacia survives to this day.


----------



## maxiogee

I doubt that 
(a) the 'locals' had enough contact with the Romans to allow them to assume Latin as their language
(b) they had any use for the Roman writing - and in the absence of a written element any language is going to find it hard to get a serious foothold.
(c) there was an all-island language. The England of the time would have had few cities and a huge amount of small settlements, trading between them would have been limited to a few people who moved about. If a few of them had picked up Latin and tried to use it with their contacts around the country it would have had to have fallen on receptive ears.

The English tried for over 800 years to wipe out the Irish language in Ireland - actively seeking to eliminate it, and it didn't work. It is seriously damaged, but there are areas on the west coast where it survives. How could a small army of Romans do in a few hundred years what a whole nation of soldiers, landlords, judges, and officials couldn't manage in a smaller area over a much longer period?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> in the absence of a written element any language is going to find it hard to get a serious foothold.



I don't think this is true. The Spanish Empire spread Spanish at a time when most people were illiterate. I think where you're right is in the incentive to speak a language. People in Ireland who learned English all those years ago did so for the same reason people are learning English today; it seemed practical. And those who just go on speaking Gaelic really don't feel an urge to learn English.

I think that since there is no British-Romance that the incentive was never strong enough or ever became so much a part of the culture of Britain that it could result the arrival of the Germanic peoples.

I think it's interesting to note the the Vikings came to Ireland and Scotland too and they were never ever to wipe out Gaelic and impose their Germanic language. People switch languages, I think, when they feel the have an urgent need or gain an advantage from doing so.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I doubt that
> (a) the 'locals' had enough contact with the Romans to allow them to assume Latin as their language


Other posters have already written above that the Romano-Britons spoke mostly a Celtic language (Briton). Now that I think about it, it makes sense, because no doubt one of the activities of the Britons was trading with Scotsmen from across the border, and with Irishmen, in times of peace. Since the languages of the three peoples were _similar_, it made sense to keep Brythonic in use, so that they could talk to their neighbours. 
Another point which has already been made is that Britain was occupied for a shorter period of time, and less thoroughly Romanized, than the provinces closer to the Mediterranean.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> (b) they had any use for the Roman writing - and in the absence of a written element any language is going to find it hard to get a serious foothold.


Roman writing was definitely used in Roman Britain, to write Latin.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> (c) there was an all-island language.


I doubt that, too, but I don't think anyone has made that claim in this thread.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think where you're right is in the incentive to speak a language. People in Ireland who learned English all those years ago did so for the same reason people are learning English today; it seemed practical. And those who just go on speaking Gaelic really don't feel an urge to learn English.


And what would be that incentive for the Britons/Welsh to learn Old English, in the High Middle Ages?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> And what would be that incentive for the Britons/Welsh to learn Old English, in the High Middle Ages?


I don't know. But I think that if they learned English *that*'s the proof that they had an incentive. I don't see how the decision to learn English was any different then. I want my kids to learn English because I want them to have a good life. I think they thought the same thing.

You change the language of a country by killing everybody there, throwing them out, or giving the people there enough reasons to learn your language. If not, you learn theirs or the place just becomes multilingual. 

In Britain, the Englisc-speakers convinced just about all of the locals since it's clear they did not wipe them out and most people in Britain speak Englisc natively. Just turn on the BBC.


----------



## Outsider

Looking back at the latest posts...



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> The English tried for over 800 years to wipe out the Irish language in Ireland - actively seeking to eliminate it, and it didn't work. It is seriously damaged, but there are areas on the west coast where it survives. How could a small army of Romans do in a few hundred years what a whole nation of soldiers, landlords, judges, and officials couldn't manage in a smaller area over a much longer period?





			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> People in Ireland who learned English all those years ago did so for the same reason people are learning English today; it seemed practical.


...I'm a bit unsure of where this conversation is going. It looks to me that you and Maxiogee aren't talking about the same thing. *Maxiogee* argued that even though they tried for 800 years, the English couldn't eliminate Irish from Ireland entirely. You seem to be talking about a later period, when English _did_ succeed in largely superseding Irish. And then I stepped in, still thinking about the Middle Ages, and kept talking about Brythonic. I fear we may be talking past each other...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Looking back at the latest posts...
> 
> 
> ...I'm a bit unsure of where this conversation is going. It looks to me that you and Maxiogee aren't talking about the same thing. *Maxiogee* argued that even though they tried for 800 years, the English couldn't eliminate Irish from Ireland entirely. You seem to be talking about a later period, when English _did_ succeed in largely superseding Irish. And then I stepped in, still thinking about the Middle Ages, and kept talking about Brythonic. I fear we may be talking past each other...


Well, I don't think we are talking past each other. *maxiogee *is saying that the Romans could not have absent-mindidly done in three or four hundred years what the English could not completely accomplish, despite trying very hard, in 800. 

I agree with that. I think the Romans were in Britain for too short a time and they did not romanize the place as throroughly as they did elsewhere.

What I am saying is that people drop one language for another when there is something in it for them. When there isn't, they don't.

Both what *maxiogee *says and what I have said kind of supports this idea. Some people in Ireland thumbed their noses at English and these people were in places where they didn't need English or the English. In most of Britain, which was the original question, people learned Englisc because there was something in it for them.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think we are talking past each other. maxiogee is saying that *the Romans could not have* absent-mindidly done in three or four hundred years what the English could not completely accomplish, despite trying very hard, in 800.
> 
> I agree with that. I think the Romans were in Britain for too short a time and they did not romanize the place as throroughly as they did elsewhere.


Well, it didn't take them much longer than 800 years to Romanize Hispania, Gaul, etc. thoroughly enough, did it? 
I think they could have done it in Britain, had they tried as hard as they did elsewhere.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that *people drop one language for another when there is something in it for them*. When there isn't, they don't.


That can mean too many different things... For example, if I point a gun at your head and ask for your wallet, you'll probably hand it over to me, because there will be 'something in it for you', namely a hope of survival. 
(I'm not claiming that this was how English spread across the British Isles; it's just the first crude analogy that leapt into my mind.)
In any case, I must disagree with this statement you made earlier:



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> People in Ireland who learned English all those years ago did so for the same reason people are learning English today; it seemed practical.


But the reasons why English might have 'seemed practical' to the Britons of 1000 years ago, or to the Irish of 200 years ago, were very, very different from the reasons why most people find it practical today. It's not at all the same kind of thing.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, it didn't take them much longer than 800 years to Romanize Hispania, Gaul, etc. thoroughly enough, did it?
> I think they could have done it in Britain, had they tried as hard as they did elsewhere.


I don't think that's how it worked. I don't know about Britain but in Hispania the Romans didn't try very hard to make the locals speak Roman. It was the locals who tried very hard to learn Roman because it was a good idea. And the Romans came in larger numbers. I guess the issue of what the Romans did in Britania is for someone else to say. It's not my area of expertise.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> But the reasons why English might have 'seemed practical' to the Britons of 1000 years ago, or to the Irish of 200 years ago, were very, very different from the reasons why most people find it practical today. It's not at all the same kind of thing.


I don't think so. That doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right. It's just my opinion.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't know about Britain but in Hispania the Romans didn't try very hard to make the locals speak Roman. It was the locals who tried very hard to learn Roman because it was a good idea. [...] I guess the issue of what the Romans did in Britania is for someone else to say. It's not my area of expertise.


Then how can you know whether the Romans tried harder to promote their language in Hispania than in Britannia, and whether the locals tried harder to learn Latin in the former than in the latter?



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> And the Romans came in larger numbers.


That could be a part of the explanation, but, as you noted yourself regarding the Viking invasions, immigration by itself does not explain the switch from a language to another.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Then how can you know whether the Romans tried harder to promote their language in Hispania than in Britannia, and whether the locals tried harder to learn Latin in the former than in the latter?



I read that they didn't try very hard in Hispania and that it was the locals r who were eager to speak Latin. (Ralph Penny's _A History of the Spanish Language_ says that the Romans *couldn't have* forced the locals and that it just happened for economic and social reasons). 

I think that's plausible and if you compare when, how and why the Romans went to Brittania with when, how and why the Romans went to Iberia I think it becomes clearer. 

My opinion is that Romans went to Iberia to settle  and that they went to Brittania, about 300 years later, to keep some legions busy (off the emperor's you-know-what).

I also think the answer is in the question. The Romans conquered a great deal of territory but not all of those places speak Romance. I think we can conclude that in the places where it survives it was firmly entrenched and who ever came after felt that they had something to gain by dropping their language and picking up Latin. That didn't happen in Brittania and I think it's because their wasn't much "Rome" there when the Englisc speakers got there and I think History backs that up.

I think I would put Brittania in that category not because that's what happened but because there is no proof of Brittanic-Romance. 

So, this might sound dumb, but, the places where Romance is still spoken are the places where romanization was most thorough and the places where it does not survive is where the Romans had less of a presence or where other languages were on a more equal footing (like Greece).

I know that's like saying an apple is an apple but it's the best I can do.


----------



## DaleC

I researched this question once. The question is about history, and the big picture is that most of the answer is lost to us because the historical records for Anglo-Saxon times are scanty. The most obvious reason for Latin not to have displaced the ancient British language is the island of Britain's remoteness. 

I hope this is not taken the wrong way, but I find two things about your question very odd. First, it's about British history and in a span of years an educated British person who's been considering the issue for a considerable time should be able to dig up something in Encyclopedia Britannica and a large public library. Second, the wording of your question is misleading because I had to read through several sentences before I got to the phrasing that revealed your true inquiry, that you were talking about history and not about language classification! 



			
				cirrus said:
			
		

> I live in London which was founded by the Romans who occupied England for hundreds of years.
> 
> How come England ended up speaking a Germanic language as opposed to a modified form of Latin? What was so differerent about England?
> 
> Was Latin usage so superficial? -- Apparently, yes.


 
This question is addressed in a handful of the multitude of books about the history of the English language. I forget which book I read. 

The archaeology of Roman Britain cannot yet tell us the full story of how Romanized (Romanised) Roman Britain was. In particular, how sociologically restricted or general the Romanization was. While on the continent it seems that the Gauls and Iberians lost their ancestral languages, the Britons did not, and it's even possible that Latin was not widely spoken outside the towns. I think it's also not known (or at least hasn't known as far as very recently) which was the main language of the Latin speaking, town dwelling Britons, British or Latin. Certainly, the British language was the main language outside the towns. 

As for the post-Roman period, we also don't know the history nor the sociology and ethnology of why Celtic culture, the British language in particular, just shriveled up under Anglo-Saxon colonization. In fact, the virtually total disappearance of the British language in England is wildly unusual historically. The invaded were -- as a whole -- more advanced on every level (technology, social organization) that the invaders. The normal outcome of conquest by barbarians is assimilation of the barbarians. Short of that, a blending of cultures. What happened in England is bizarre: the English language today has no more than 14 and 17 words of British language origin (depending on which scholar is counting). All of them denote either terrain features or farming tools. The only one that wasn't obsolete centuries ago already is "mattock". 

The only known source for the history of Britain from the fall of the Roman Empire to about 650 is Bede's chronicle of England, which that Englishman wrote (or commissioned?) a full two centuries after the start of the barbarian invasions. It is nothing but a recounting of oral traditions, written 100 to 150 years after the final victory of his ancestors. The best hope for new facts and insight into that period of history lies with archaeology. 

A factual note on language identities. Welsh and Breton are really descendants of British, quite literally. In 423 A.D., the main language spoken in the southern two thirds or so of the island of Britain was the Celtic language we call British. The Old Welsh and Old Cornish languages were simply dialects of British. British survived for over 500 years in present day northern England and southwestern Scotland, which were never part of the kingdom of England until well after 1066. British survived as a community language in Cornwall until about 1600, and its descendants survive in Brittany and Wales today.


----------



## cirrus

DaleC said:
			
		

> I had to read through several sentences before I got to the phrasing that revealed your true inquiry, that you were talking about history and not about language classification!


 
That's the way the thread has got diverted/ developed and why I have come back several times to try to get it back to language.  If you look at my first post after the background this para goes to the heart of it. 



			
				cirrus said:
			
		

> How come England ended up speaking a Germanic language as opposed to a modified form of Latin? What was so differerent about England? Presumably there must have been some sort of lingua franca based on a rough and ready version of latin at least in the cities. Why didn't this survive? Was Latin usage so superficial? Were the people who lived in what is now England less bothered about what language they spoke - the Welsh still speak Brythonic and kept their language despite repeated invasions from the north and the east.
> 
> I would love to hear what is your take on this.


 
Often people post without having read all the way through a thread.  I have to admit my urge to participate has poor brakes too.  Still, any amount of interesting takes have come up in the thread.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> Roman writing was definitely used in Roman Britain, to write Latin.


 But the Britons wouldn't have been involved in either the writing or the reading of that.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I doubt that, too, but I don't think anyone has made that claim in this thread.


 No, that's a claim all of my own invention.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> And what would be that incentive for the Britons/Welsh to learn Old English, in the High Middle Ages?


 They didn't "learn" it, they grew into it - and as I said about English in Ireland, it took many centuries to become a distinct language.


--edit--
it has been said earlier that....


> People in Ireland who learned English all those years ago did so for the same reason people are learning English today; it seemed practical


ehhhhhh mmmmmmhhh, how do I put this politely? 
They learned English because they could be severely punished for speaking Irish. They learned English because the teaching of Irish was outlawed.
"it seemed practical" understates the case many fold!


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally posted by* Dale C*
> The archaeology of Roman Britain cannot yet tell us the full story of how Romanized (Romanised) Roman Britain was. In particular, how sociologically restricted or general the Romanization was. While on the continent it seems that the Gauls and Iberians lost their ancestral languages, the Britons did not, and it's even possible that Latin was not widely spoken outside the towns. I think it's also not known (or at least hasn't known as far as very recently) which was the main language of the Latin speaking, town dwelling Britons, British or Latin. Certainly, the British language was the main language outside the towns.


 

Donning my archaeologist's hat: 

Apart from archaeological investigations already carried out, which have established Roman occupation, the whole of the British Isles has been the subject of several aerial surveys. By the observation of field crop marks, which show up as rectangles, circles, etc., all sites of ancient occupation are now on record. These sites include those of the earliest Scottish and Irish settlers (never Romanized). Wales had only partial Roman occupation.

For those who don't know about 'crop marks' (although I'm sure most of you do) these occur as a result of the bedrock having been dug into - for making defence ditches and, later, foundations for dwellings. Over the centuries the dug bedrock was naturally back-filled with soil. Subsequent grassland or crop planting ensured that anything growing above these back-filled areas had greater depth in which to penetrate its roots. This gave enhanced nourishment and the plants grew taller, lusher and more vigorous than their less well-fed neighbours. This is clealy visible from the air. 

Interestingly, Roman texts have survived which tell us that boat-loads of fierce Irish tribes frequently tried to invade the mainland. Ireland and its people were described in a heinous way by the Romans. In the first century AD the Roman geographer, Pomponious Mela, described Ireland as 'a cold place, inhabited by savages who ate the flesh of their dead fathers and committed incest with their mothers and sisters. The pasture was so rich that cows could eat until they exploded  if left unchecked. (Source: Wikipedia).

Other Roman texts tell of the extremely fierce Welsh tribesmen, who put up the strongest resistance. They were desribed as 'short men with dark, curly hair. (Source - Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, library) not far from where I spent five months excavating an iron age hill fort. This had a substantial Roman building within its defence ditch, but we speculated that they were Gaulish Romans who had arrrived by sea, since the Pembrokeshire promontory is in the far west of Wales.

But I digress. There is an enormous amount of evidence from Roman Londinium that written Latin was used by the settlers. Gravestones were inscribed in Latin as were some of the more mundane items such as bricks and tiles (though not each one of them). Nothing was quite as exciting to find than a brick or tile scratched (before firing) with the maker's name. The exception (in the 'excitement' class) being the enormous number of coins, all of which bore the emperor's head and Latin name.

However, although Latin was the administrative language of Londinium and other large towns, I refer you back to my earlier post on marriage between Romans and Brythonic speaking indigenous people, leading scholars to conclude that a compromise 'new' language was established. Brythonic adopted some Latinisms and vice versa. The cities and towns, having denser populations, and more eligible maidens, would indicate a quicker language change than in remote village locations, where marriage would have continued in the traditional way - both parties being Brythonic speakers. Continued in their offspring.

Another point to remember is that the original Roman invaders were not immortal. Replacements were expatriated from Rome and Gaul througout the occupation. The pattern established by the early invaders would have been adopted by the newcomers. Population growth was significant over the 400 years and the 'new' Brythonic language would have spread.

When the true Romans left, we entered the 'Dark Ages' of the Anglo-Saxon period. We are now more enlightened on the Dark Ages and know that major language changes occurred in those times, as other posters have mentioned.

Language is constantly changing. Compare 19th centry English usage with that of today. Check out the complete Oxford English Dictionary - its compilers can barely cope with the almost daily introduction of new words.

Sorry to have rambled, fellow forer@s. Get me going on archaeology or Queen Victoria and there's no stopping me!  


La Reine V


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> it has been said earlier that....
> 
> ehhhhhh mmmmmmhhh, how do I put this politely?
> They learned English because they could be severely punished for speaking Irish. They learned English because the teaching of Irish was outlawed.
> "it seemed practical" understates the case many fold!



I don't want to understate the plight of those people, and I apologize if it seems like I did, but I can tell you that the pressure to learn English in the United States if you are a Spanish speaker, in some places, is....it's cohercion of another sort.

While it's not illegal to forego English you _*are *_punished. You don't go to jail, thank Heavens, you're just condemned to a life of low-paying menial hand labor and second-class citizenship. The government doesn't have to, the market and society does it here.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But the Britons wouldn't have been involved in either the writing or the reading of that.


Why not? Many Britons in Roman Britain could have been bilingual.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> ehhhhhh mmmmmmhhh, how do I put this politely?
> They learned English because they could be severely punished for speaking Irish. They learned English because the teaching of Irish was outlawed.
> "it seemed practical" understates the case many fold!


Exactly. Describing that as 'they voluntarily shifted language because the new one brought them greater advantages' is kind of cynical.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Why not? Many Britons in Roman Britain could have been bilingual.
> 
> Exactly. Describing that as 'they voluntarily shifted language because the new one brought them greater advantages' is kind of cynical.



I never said it was voluntary...just *practical*. Please quote me instead of putting words into my mouth.


----------



## Outsider

'Practical' is also a cynical eufemism, in my opinion.
However, my reply to Maxiogee was meant as a general observation, not as a indictement of you. (But I can see how it might be interpreted that way, and was actually coming back to edit it, when I saw your reply.) I did notice, from what you wrote in this post, that you are sensitive to these problems, too.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _But the Britons wouldn't have been involved in either the writing or the reading of that.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Many Britons in Roman Britain could have been bilingual.
Click to expand...


I'm sure there were a few who were, there are always those who learn the invader's language - for a multiplicity of reasons, trade, personal advantage, politics, etc.

But for the bulk of the population they weren't involved in the administration and they had no need to be able to read Latin. Latin wouldn't have been of any "use" to most of them.
Britain was never really colonised by the Romans in the way other places were - it was never more than a backwater.


----------



## Outsider

I accept your last sentence, but the others are not very persuasive. The term 'invader' is a bit misleading, after nearly 400 years of 'invasion', and considering that Roman occupiers and native Britons probably lived very much together in Roman Britain. As for this:



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> But for the bulk of the population they weren't involved in the administration and they had no need to be able to read Latin. Latin wouldn't have been of any "use" to most of them.


Couldn't exactly the same have been said about the Gauls, or the Iberians, etc.?


----------



## la reine victoria

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Rome did not conquer all of Britain in the year 0. Adrian's Wall tells us this process was never complete.
> 
> Whether or not it was "plenty of time" is also tricky. There is no set formula for how much time it takes for a conquering people to change the language of the conquered and sometimes even the opposite happens.


 

When was the year 0?  What happened then? Have I missed out on a vital piece of history?

LRV


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> 'Practical' is also a cynical eufemism, in my opinion.
> However, my reply to Maxiogee was meant as a general observation, not as a indictement of you. I did notice, from what you wrote in this post, that you are sensitive to these problems, too.



I would like to stick to talking about the Romans and the Britons. 

I think that there is this idea the invaders stick a sword to the neck of the conquered and force them to speak their langauge. It *does *happen, at least metaforically, and it *is very *practical to learn a language to prevent your throat from getting slit, but it doesn't mean that's the only way it happens or even the most common or effective way. It doesn't mean that it's even a planned thing. And sometimes even planned attempts fail.

I think the Romans had better things to do. Especially in Brittania.

I learned English because of money, I learned French because the girls love it, I learned Italian because I was curious about my heritage, and I learned Spanish because that's what my mom talks. 

I give priority to English because I need to get paid. I don't think most people today think much different.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I would like to stick to talking about the Romans and the Britons.


Ah, but, you see, you were the first one to bring modern times into the thread...



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I learned English because of money [...]


Looking at your profile, I'd got the impression that it was your native language. What _is_ your native language, then, if I may ask?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Ah, but, you see, you were the first one to bring modern times into the thread...
> 
> Looking at your profile, I'd got the impression that it was your native language. What _is_ your native language, then, if I may ask?



I think that things have not really changed when it comes to languages and that's why I brought in modern times to the discussion. I put US English in my profile because I was under the impression you had to put something there. I really don't know what my native language is.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think that things have not really changed when it comes to languages and that's why I brought in modern times to the discussion.


Well, I disagree. I think that things have changed a great deal when it comes to languages. We are living in an exceptional moment of history, in that and other aspects. I do agree that we should stick to discussing English in early Britain in this thread, though.  



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I really don't know what my native language is.


Which language did your parents speak to you at home, when you were growing up? That's your native language. (It could have been more than one language.)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree. I think that things have changed a great deal when it comes to languages. We are living in an exceptional time in history.



I know we disagree on this. That's okay! And you may be right. But I base my opinion a lot on what I have read too. But it's just an opinion.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Which language did your parents speak to you at home, when you were growing up? That's your native language. (It could have been more than one language.)



I grew up speaking Spanish at home and English at school and both with friends.


----------



## Outsider

Then maybe you learned English to make friends and to get through school, and not because of money.


----------



## la reine victoria

Please, friends, let's stick to the original topic of this thread!

'Why isn't English a Romance language?'



La Reine V


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hahaha!

I think people get by in school because of money. It's the law to go to school in NY State but my parents sent me there so I can get paid later on in life. 

The Romans didn't have compulsory schooling but I think that people who learned Latin under the Romans did so for the same reason my parents sent me to school; to get money. It's all about the Benjamins. Wait, for them, it was all about the Ceasars! LOL!


----------



## Outsider

Trying to get back to topic, and specifically this post by *Maxiogee*, it's interesting to note that the Gaelic languages (but not Brythonic, which isn't Gaelic) did develop a writing system of their own before the adoption of the Latin script. It was called ogham.



> It is clear that the Ogham alphabet was modelled on another script, and some even consider it a mere cipher of its template script. The largest number of scholars favours the Latin alphabet as this template, although the Elder Futhark and even the Greek alphabet have their supporters.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> I accept your last sentence, but the others are not very persuasive. The term 'invader' is a bit misleading, after nearly 400 years of 'invasion', and considering that Roman occupiers and native Britons probably lived very much together in Roman Britain. As for this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But for the bulk of the population they weren't involved in the administration and they had no need to be able to read Latin. Latin wouldn't have been of any "use" to most of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't exactly the same have been said about the Gauls, or the Iberians, etc.?
Click to expand...


I don't think so. Rome was more involved in everyday life there, and there was a lot of settlement of Romans in those countries - ordinary people, not just administrators. I don't know enough about the history of the Roman occupation, but from what I have come across it was a much less 'settled' place than other Roman 'provinces', and there was much less involvement in the life of the natives. Britain may have been under Roman rule, but it was an order of magnitude less than the rule imposed on the continent.


----------

