English was spoken in pre-Roman times and does not descend from Anglo-Saxon

geb · Jul 29, 2011

The main content is based upon this website: How old is English?
However, I'd like to clarify some further points, before responding to any counter-arguments.

Anglo-Saxon (dubbed "Old English"):

Fæder ūre, þū þe eart on heofonum;
Sīe þīn nama gehālgod,
tō becume þīn rīce,
gewurþe þīn willa,
on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlāf sele ūs tōdæg,
and forgif ūs ūre gyltas,
swā swā wē forgifaþ ūrum gyltendum,
and ne gelǣd þū ūs on costnunge,
ac ālȳs ūs of yfele, sōþlīce.

Middle English:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes
halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don
in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys
as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion
but delyuere us from euyl.

As you can see, while both texts should be very similar, they are in fact very different. Eventhough they do share a few common traits, this is just because both are germanic languages -
if you look at the text in another germanic language (e.g. Dutch, Danish, Swedish...), you'll notice that they also share a few similarities with Middle English
all languages

Why such a huge gap between Old and Middle English?

The Norman influence accounted for lots of new vocabulary, as did the language of the Vikings, eventhough only 150 words had been introduced after the Viking period - it wasn't until the 12th century that writers began to include more words into the language.

However, if Modern English were a mix of A-S, Norman and Norse, then shouldn't the language sound more like a mix of French (Norman) and German/Scandinavian (A-S + viking)?

Why are some aspects so unique?
e.g. What is the origin of the English r sound (alveolar approximant), which is common to no other germanic language?

Every book about the history of the English language will mention a change from Old English to Middle English, but none of them will explain to you HOW such changes gradually occured.

For example, the author of this website reveals what he predicts English to resemble in the future - to illustrate, he elicits how the language evolves each step of the way,
e.g. Early American - 2100
- Assimilation In Syllable-Onset:
Any syllable-onset t, d or s t with a following r undergoes assimilation (that is, features of one sound bleed over into the other); the results are the clusters tSr<o>, dZr, stSr<o>.
Futurese (JBR Precoglang)

The closest language to English is Frisian - both are grouped into an Anglo-Frisian sub-family of Germanic.
However, Old English (A-S) is wrongly included into this subset of languages.
The language of the Anglo-Saxons is both grammatically and orally very close to scandinavian languages and to german and bares no resemblence whatsoever, either to Modern English or to Frisian, eventhough A-S is considered as an Anglo-Frisian language to suit the official theory that posits that Modern English descends from the latter.

Why is the language of 1000 years ago so very different from today's?
French texts from the 10th century (and even before!) can still be partially understood by Modern French speakers.

The stipulation that Roman place-names are all exclusively of Celtic origin is also questionable:
e.g. lindum (Lincoln): simply derived from lind, which one can consider as the proto-english word for lime, refering to the meaning in other germanic languages; moreover, many place names in England refer to trees (e.g. Sevenoaks)
Roman place names

In this video the author talks about an area where the names of towns end in -ey, originally refering to islands; geographical studies have shown that a lake could well have existed long ago in the area. But the fact that a Roman road runs right across the lake suggests that the lake had dried up long before the Romans arrived and that a germanic language was once spoken in Britain long before.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXOr47EJ1E"]proto-english theory[/ame]

the Upper Thames

for a deeper insight: How old is English?

alternatively, you can view discussions relevant to this topic in similar threads: Anglo-Saxon invasion, which language does Old English sound like most?

Ian.Mkwebe · Jul 29, 2011

geb said:
The main content is based upon this website: How old is English?
However, I'd like to clarify some further points, before responding to any counter-arguments.

Anglo-Saxon (dubbed "Old English"):

Fæder ūre, þū þe eart on heofonum;
Sīe þīn nama gehālgod,
tō becume þīn rīce,
gewurþe þīn willa,
on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlāf sele ūs tōdæg,
and forgif ūs ūre gyltas,
swā swā wē forgifaþ ūrum gyltendum,
and ne gelǣd þū ūs on costnunge,
ac ālȳs ūs of yfele, sōþlīce.

Middle English:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes
halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don
in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys
as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion
but delyuere us from euyl.

As you can see, while both texts should be very similar, they are in fact very different. Eventhough they do share a few common traits, this is just because both are germanic languages -
if you look at the text in another germanic language (e.g. Dutch, Danish, Swedish...), you'll notice that they also share a few similarities with Middle English

These examples might be specifically cherry-picked from certain dates far apart on the evolutionary scale to show the maximum possible difference. Compare a text from 1000 to one from 1100 to one from 1200 and 1300... so on and so on and you will note that there is a more fluid evolution, although it is indeed rapid (not surprising since English was reduced to the level it was).

geb said:
Why such a huge gap between Old and Middle English?

The Norman influence accounted for lots of new vocabulary, as did the language of the Vikings, eventhough only 150 words had been introduced after the Viking period - it wasn't until the 12th century that writers began to include more words into the language.

However, if Modern English were a mix of A-S, Norman and Norse, then shouldn't the language sound more like a mix of French (Norman) and German/Scandinavian (A-S + viking)?

Why are some aspects so unique?
e.g. What is the origin of the English r sound (alveolar approximant), which is common to no other germanic language?

Plenty of Dialects of English have different r sounds, even lovely trilled ones.

I don't know what English being a "creole" has anything to do with how it's meant to sound. It was obviously mixed roughly a millenium ago, and has developed with no political connection to France for many centuries now... I am sure it can sound a bloody lot different than any language it's been isolated from for that time. Look at American and British English, they have only been seperated for a couple centuries!

But what DOES the author think English sounds like if not Germanic/French? I would say there is no real "sound" to English as there are so many dialects which are really different sounding. Sometimes hardly intelligible.

geb said:
Every book about the history of the English language will mention a change from Old English to Middle English, but none of them will explain to you HOW such changes gradually occured.

For example, the author of this website reveals what he predicts English to resemble in the future - to illustrate, he elicits how the language evolves each step of the way,
e.g. Early American - 2100
- Assimilation In Syllable-Onset:
Any syllable-onset t, d or s t with a following r undergoes assimilation (that is, features of one sound bleed over into the other); the results are the clusters tSr<o>, dZr, stSr<o>.
Futurese (JBR Precoglang)

There have been language changes in every language - that is why there are so many languages today. If we could tell you why every single thing in a language is changed or adapted, it would be amazing. If you don't believe that languages just change, often for arbitrary reasons, then how are the indo-european languages so vastly varied?

And, some things have been explained quite well, at least, the processes, such as the lautverschiebungen in the Germanic and the vowel shift in English. Other things such as the falling out of use of the case system have been theorised about, and many people blame language contact with non native speakers who learnt the languages imperfectly, but used them for trade/every day living (such as in the Danelaw or French people after the Norman Conquest). It's not like people were keeping a record of everything that changed just so we future people could take note.

geb said:
The closest language to English is Frisian - both are grouped into an Anglo-Frisian sub-family of Germanic.
However, Old English (A-S) is wrongly included into this subset of languages.
The language of the Anglo-Saxons is both grammatically and orally very close to scandinavian languages and to german and bares no resemblence whatsoever, either to Modern English or to Frisian, eventhough A-S is considered as an Anglo-Frisian language to suit the official theory that posits that Modern English descends from the latter.

Anglo-Frisian languages are West Germanic, and both English and Frisian (especially Frisian, as it has less influence from the French) resemble the other West Germanic languages, in some places to a striking degree. Old English actually does really resemble Old Frisian, and Old Frisian is actually even a little similar to modern English. Check some out:

TITUS Texts: Corpus of Old East Frisian Texts: Frame.

The reason they might have some similarities to Scandinavian languages could stem from the fact that they are both Germanic, and the fact that the Anglo-Frisian languages were in proximity to North Germanic languages on the continent. But, they still don't look very north Germanic, especially not gramatically, save for the fact that they (along with all the other Germanic languages) used a very thorough case system. I would say modern English has a more similar grammar to modern Scandinavian languages (Esp. in word order and the formation of the past tense) than it does to West Germanic languages, new and old.

geb said:
Why is the language of 1000 years ago so very different from today's?
French texts from the 10th century (and even before!) can still be partially understood by Modern French speakers.

Well, maybe it is because the language was dominated for several centuries by non English speakers. For instance, how many people in France can understand Frankish, Gallic, or Occitan after this many years? Probably not very many, because of cultural/linguistic domination from a more powerful group (well, there are still people who speak Breton and Occitan in France, I'm not sure of the level of intelligibility between the old forms of these languages and the present forms there are though. Anyway, they are minority languages now for the reason I mentioned).

By the way, Old English texts from circa 1000 could be partially understood today as well, as long as the spelling was made into a more modern form (and even more so if the vowel shifts were taken into account), by an English speaker. At least that's my opinion.

geb said:
The stipulation that Roman place-names are all exclusively of Celtic origin is also questionable:
e.g. lindum (Lincoln): simply derived from lind, which one can consider as the proto-english word for lime, refering to the meaning in other germanic languages; moreover, many place names in England refer to trees (e.g. Sevenoaks)
Roman place names

In this video the author talks about an area where the names of towns end in -ey, originally refering to islands; geographical studies have shown that a lake could well have existed long ago in the area. But the fact that a Roman road runs right across the lake suggests that the lake had dried up long before the Romans arrived and that a germanic language was once spoken in Britain long before.
proto-english theory

the Upper Thames

I can't comment on this other than pure speculation, as I don't know much about Toponymy. I wouldn't deny that there were Germanic troops in the Legions that were in Britain, so maybe that would be the source of the name. Could also be co-incidence.

I don't know if this theory is very sound. However, just because I don't agree with any of it at all doesn't mean there weren't some other Germanic speaking people living in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons/Romans. Anything is possible, I just don't think it's their language we are speaking (to be honest, it would be ridiculously related though, considering the time frame. If the Romans were there in 43AD, any time before this I don't think the Germanic languages had branched off to form any distinct groups, that is, East West and North, yet).

geb · Jul 29, 2011

Ian.Mkwebe said:
These examples might be specifically cherry-picked from certain dates far apart on the evolutionary scale to show the maximum possible difference. Compare a text from 1000 to one from 1100 to one from 1200 and 1300... so on and so on and you will note that there is a more fluid evolution, although it is indeed rapid (not surprising since English was reduced to the level it was).

The first version was actually from the 11th century. Both texts are the Lord's prayer.

Plenty of Dialects of English have different r sounds, even lovely trilled ones.

You're the one cherrypicking here; the different varieties are all of the same alveolar approximant r, which is absent among other northern countries in Europe. The trilled r is upper-class and is almost non-existant.

I don't know what English being a "creole" has anything to do with how it's meant to sound. It was obviously mixed roughly a millenium ago, and has developed with no political connection to France for many centuries now... I am sure it can sound a bloody lot different than any language it's been isolated from for that time. Look at American and British English, they have only been seperated for a couple centuries!

The American accent developed from and can simply be considered as a broader, more open accent of the Irish accent.

But what DOES the author think English sounds like if not Germanic/French?

Do you assume that English partly sounds like both, let alone French, a Romance language?

I would say there is no real "sound" to English as there are so many dialects which are really different sounding. Sometimes hardly intelligible.

The difference in dialect sounds in English represent little when comparing English to a foreign language. A dialect of English still sounds English.

There have been language changes in every language - that is why there are so many languages today. If we could tell you why every single thing in a language is changed or adapted, it would be amazing. If you don't believe that languages just change, often for arbitrary reasons, then how are the indo-european languages so vastly varied?

The change from OE to ME would have been completed within a few decades - such a strong change in such a short amount of time!?

And, some things have been explained quite well, at least, the processes, such as the lautverschiebungen in the Germanic and the vowel shift in English. Other things such as the falling out of use of the case system have been theorised about, and many people blame language contact with non native speakers who learnt the languages imperfectly, but used them for trade/every day living (such as in the Danelaw or French people after the Norman Conquest). It's not like people were keeping a record of everything that changed just so we future people could take note.

The oral change from Middle English to Modern English is weaker than the oral change from OE to ME. One could argue that some changes from MidE to ModE are due to the elimination of the last A-S aspects...

Anglo-Frisian languages are West Germanic, and both English and Frisian (especially Frisian, as it has less influence from the French) resemble the other West Germanic languages, in some places to a striking degree. Old English actually does really resemble Old Frisian, and Old Frisian is actually even a little similar to modern English. Check some out:

TITUS Texts: Corpus of Old East Frisian Texts: Frame.

'Tradition has it that ‘English’ developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. Yet Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Germanic peoples from the continent who began raiding Britannia ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because an embryonic ‘English’, in his view, was already spoken there[...]'

'Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an off-shoot of West Germanic, as usually understood, but is a branch independent of the other three, implying a greater antiquity. Historians have traditionally assumed that ‘Celtic’ was spoken throughout Britain by the time the Romans arrived. But Dr. Forster estimates that Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago. If correct, this increases the likelihood that the ‘Celtic’ associated with Britain may have been misidentified and was instead the fourth branch of the Germanic language tree. As argued by Dr. Oppenheimer, the apparent absence of ‘Celtic’ place names in England (words for places are particularly durable) supports the theory. From one who is uncomfortable with the hackneyed Anglo-Saxon history of Britain, the continuity of a Germanic based language seems to make more sense.'English as a fourth Germanic group

The reason they might have some similarities to Scandinavian languages could stem from the fact...

I never implied this. Anglo-Saxon could be considered as a Scandinavian language, but nor English, nor Frisian.

Well, maybe it is because the language was dominated for several centuries by non English speakers. For instance, how many people in France can understand Frankish, Gallic, or Occitan after this many years? Probably not very many, because of cultural/linguistic domination from a more powerful group (well, there are still people who speak Breton and Occitan in France, I'm not sure of the level of intelligibility between the old forms of these languages and the present forms there are though. Anyway, they are minority languages now for the reason I mentioned).

I don't follow your point; none of these languages had a significant impact on the French language - the Franks introduced the nasal vowels, but that's all, gallic was spoken before the Latin takeover (from which modern French descends, just as was Occitan (not to be confused with the Modern Occitan French dialect). Old French is still partially intelligible with Modern French. As I have mentioned above, nor the Norman nor the norse language significantly modified the English language.

By the way, Old English texts from circa 1000 could be partially understood today as well, as long as the spelling was made into a more modern form (and even more so if the vowel shifts were taken into account), by an English speaker. At least that's my opinion.

As I have mentioned above, all germanic languages share similar traits to one another, as to any two languages of the same family (e.g. Slavic, Romace (e.g. Spanish & Italian), Celtic... So its not surprising that although they're very different, A-S and English share a few things in common. One must not confuse relatedness and close relatedness (within the same sub-family).

I can't comment on this other than pure speculation, as I don't know much about Toponymy. I wouldn't deny that there were Germanic troops in the Legions that were in Britain, so maybe that would be the source of the name. Could also be co-incidence.

Regards to the dozens of other place-names?

If the Romans were there in 43AD, any time before this I don't think the Germanic languages had branched off to form any distinct groups, that is, East West and North, yet).

This map shows the early divide of Germanic groups mentioned by the Romans, around the year 1.
primary Germanic groups

Louise C · Jul 29, 2011

The History of Britain Revealed by MJ Harper is a very interesting little book which argues that English is the language that has been spoken in this country since ancient times, and that it didn't develop from anglo saxon or anything like that. it is some years since I read the book so I can't remember exactly what Mr Harper's arguments are for this theory, I will have to read it again.

Robespierre · Jul 29, 2011

I saw the movie I, Claudius and they were all speaking English. Obviously for them to have learned English and mastered an English accent means that it had been around for a long time.

No, I'm just joking. I don't know very much about linguistics. However, I wouldn't think any language is create merely out of thin air, right? Meaning, I would think deeper roots than what is "known" to be the case.

Languages are the hodge-podge of other languages.

What is language? Is there any way of knowing what a language is before written records?

Ian.Mkwebe · Jul 29, 2011

geb said:
The first version was actually from the 11th century. Both texts are the Lord's prayer.

13th century Middle English:

Forrþrihht anan se time comm
þatt ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i þiss middellærd
forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
all swillke summ he wollde
& whær he wollde borenn ben
he chæs all att hiss wille.

Late 14th:

And it was don aftirward, and Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme of God, 2and twelue wiþ him; and summe wymmen þat weren heelid of wickide spiritis and syknessis, Marie, þat is clepid Mawdeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten 3out, and Jone, þe wyf of Chuse, procuratour of Eroude, and Susanne, and manye oþere, whiche mynystriden to him of her riches

Looks to me like the earlier one is slightly more similar to "Old English" and the later one is slightly more similar to early modern English, but there isn't a huge jump. You should also note that there was also evolution in Old English, it wasn't the same language for 6 centuries.

Also, take note, even in Anglo-Saxon days, there were different dialects and different styles of writing in different parts of the country.

geb said:
You're the one cherrypicking here; the different varieties are all of the same alveolar approximant r, which is absent among other northern countries in Europe. The trilled r is upper-class and is almost non-existant.

Actually, no I am not. I said there are different varieties of English which have different R sounds, and it is true. Unless Scottish English/Scots are considered upper class, then you are wrong. And so what if English does have an alveolar approximate, plenty of other Germanic languages (Dutch, German, and Faroese) do as well

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_approximant"]Alveolar approximant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

geb said:
The American accent developed from and can simply be considered as a broader, more open accent of the Irish accent.

Oh, so the American dialects are just Irish dialects (wrong)? Funny that they use different words, grammars, and pronunciations. Also funny that they developed to be very different within a short period of time

.

geb said:
Do you assume that English partly sounds like both, let alone French, a Romance language?

I can't tell you, because there are so many foreign languages and so many dialects of English, so I assume they all sound somewhat different to different speakers. Shetlandic does have an Icelandic ring to it unsurprisingly, and RP has a little bit of a Hochdeutsch sound to me now and then. But, I don't know. Does French sound like Italian and German to you? Does Irish English sound like Estuary English? You can't really be trusted as you just say about all English dialects that "they sound English," which doesn't really make any sense.

geb said:
The difference in dialect sounds in English represent little when comparing English to a foreign language. A dialect of English still sounds English.

Wrong. Most Americans can't even understand Scottish speakers with traditional accents/dialects. I can't understand people from the south of the USA, and no-one can understand Newfies. Different dialects have entirely different phonology and stresses in some cases LOL.
The change from OE to ME would have been completed within a few decades - such a strong change in such a short amount of time!?

geb said:
The oral change from Middle English to Modern English is weaker than the oral change from OE to ME. One could argue that some changes from MidE to ModE are due to the elimination of the last A-S aspects...

In what respect is it weaker? You do realise that the vowel shift was pretty major, do you not? What do you mean by oral anyway, pronunciation?

geb said:
'Tradition has it that ‘English’ developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. Yet Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Germanic peoples from the continent who began raiding Britannia ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because an embryonic ‘English’, in his view, was already spoken there[...]'

Yes, one guy refuting hundreds of linguists and historians. Okay, I believe you now. PS they called their own language Englisc, after the fact that the Angles spoke it. Why would people speaking "Englisc" or English call their own language English if they weren't related to the Angles or Saxons (to be fair, I have to wonder why we don't call it Saxon

. The Celtic terms in Britain for English people are all related to the word Saxon I believe, though).

geb said:
'Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an off-shoot of West Germanic, as usually understood, but is a branch independent of the other three, implying a greater antiquity.

How many proto-Germanic inscriptions have been found in Britain? How many runic inscriptions have been found dating to before the Anglo-Saxon conquest? Why is Anglo-Saxon futhorc used to write Frisian as well as English? Why do you later call Anglo-Saxon a Scandinavian language if it isn't part of the North Germanic Branch?

geb said:
Historians have traditionally assumed that ‘Celtic’ was spoken throughout Britain by the time the Romans arrived. But Dr. Forster estimates that Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago.

Kook science. What does Celtic have to do with anything? Also, this is impossible. Indo-Europeans didn't even inhabit that part of Europe 6000 years ago LOL, at least according to the Kurgan hypothesis. At the earliest, proto-Germanic began to develop a few thousand years after that...

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

geb said:
If correct, this increases the likelihood that the ‘Celtic’ associated with Britain may have been misidentified and was instead the fourth branch of the Germanic language tree. As argued by Dr. Oppenheimer, the apparent absence of ‘Celtic’ place names in England (words for places are particularly durable) supports the theory. From one who is uncomfortable with the hackneyed Anglo-Saxon history of Britain, the continuity of a Germanic based language seems to make more sense.'English as a fourth Germanic group

Celtic languages not spoken in Britain? Now I know this guy is a nutter. There is absolutely no evidence to support that, in fact, Celtic languages are still spoken there today! Also, there are plenty of Celtic toponyms that I doubt are Germanic. But, I am sure there are all sorts of Celtic, Roman, Pre-Celtic, Germanic, whatever toponyms all over Britain. Celtic toponyms in England would probably be more heavily concentrated in the Western half of the country, in case you care to actually look into it. I don't really care as I'm sure I've read of a few before (I think Aber is one).

geb said:
I never implied this. Anglo-Saxon could be considered as a Scandinavian language, but nor English, nor Frisian.

No, Anglo-Saxon is an Anglo-Frisian language, and it is obviously very similar to the Frisian languages and other west Germanic languages spoken on the continent. For example, look at how a verb is formed: the on/en ending is common in West Germanic. Also consider sentence structure, with verbs going to the ends of sentences. That is not found in Scandinavian languages. Anglo-Saxon was more related to present day West Germanic languages than modern English is!

PS you already said that Anglo-Saxon isn't Scandinavian, yet now you say it is. Make up your mind.

geb said:
I don't follow your point; none of these languages had a significant impact on the French language - the Franks introduced the nasal vowels, but that's all, gallic was spoken before the Latin takeover (from which modern French descends, just as was Occitan (not to be confused with the Modern Occitan French dialect). Old French is still partially intelligible with Modern French. As I have mentioned above, nor the Norman nor the norse language significantly modified the English language.

Well besides the fact that considerable numbers of people spoke these languages (at least in the case of Gallic), and now they don't because they were exposed to considerable amounts of people with a different and dominant language, then I have no point to make. Anglo-Saxon as it was would obviously not be anything like English, because it was dominated by another language. We are even lucky we speak something resembling English today.

Also, I wonder, do you speak any other Germanic languages? Because I do, and I can at least say OHG was a lot different from MHG, often times not understandable, unless you have been taught a bit about them, and this Language has an entirely different history than English when it comes to being controlled by a foreign language (though there is considerable Romance influence).

Norman French has significantly altered English in mainstream opinion, just look at our vocabulary. Also, Norse affected our grammar and even pronouns (they, their, them)

geb said:
As I have mentioned above, all germanic languages share similar traits to one another, as to any two languages of the same family (e.g. Slavic, Romace (e.g. Spanish & Italian), Celtic... So its not surprising that although they're very different, A-S and English share a few things in common. One must not confuse relatedness and close relatedness (within the same sub-family).

Anglo-Saxon is related to English because it was one of its earlier forms

. Anglo-Saxon is related to other West Germanic languages because of historical migration and the way populations moved around from their central ethno-linguistic genesis. I know they are related, but I don't get what you are trying to surprise me with here? That English and Anglo-Saxon are not different forms of the same language because they are similar? Okay.

geb said:
Regards to the dozens of other place-names?

I don't know, why don't you go back in time and ask the people who named them. Like I said, I don't know much about toponymy, but I suppose a few handfuls of inexplicable names would probably crop up in a country with thousands of years of history involving several cultures.

geb said:
This map shows the early divide of Germanic groups mentioned by the Romans, around the year 1.
primary Germanic groups

Wow, first of all, that map doesn't even support what you are trying to tell me (Germanic groups in England), secondly, I think there are various theories about when the various language groups did differentiate themselves, however, they were (at least partially) mutually intelligible for centuries after the year 1. I can't say when it is most commonly accepted that they did separate.

OH yeah btw, that map isn't a linguistic map

It is tribal associations as defined by Tacitus (he isn't a Germanic person) I think. According to the actual Wikipedia page on Proto-Germanic, which I guess might contain that map (I didn't care to check) I also found this:

"Language Extinction: evolved into Proto-Norse, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language"]Gothic[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Frankish_language"]Frankish[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic"]Ingvaeonic[/ame] by the 4th century"

I don't know if I think that is evidently true, but I can offer it to you as someone's opinion just like you are offering me the opinion of this "scholar." It's really impossible to say for certain, but this guy sounds as though he is out to lunch.

Anyway, I am sure we could dig up about a hundred sources suggesting that English is based on Anglo-Saxon, and about 10 based on some kookery suggesting English was spoken not only in Britain in the year 2000 BCE, but also in Japan and on the Moon.

unclefred · Jul 29, 2011

"Wrong. Most Americans can't even understand Scottish speakers with traditional accents/dialects. I can't understand people from the south of the USA, and no-one can understand Newfies. Different dialects have entirely different phonology and stresses in some cases LOL.

Yes.

"Celtic languages not spoken in Britain? Now I know this guy is a nutter. There is absolutely no evidence to support that, in fact, Celtic languages are still spoken there today".

A nutter.

ib-issi · Jul 29, 2011

Why exactly did we have this vowel change business , what happened which meant we cured the problem by changing vowels ???

Ian.Mkwebe · Jul 29, 2011

ib-issi said:
Why exactly did we have this vowel change business , what happened which meant we cured the problem by changing vowels ???

I don't think there is any single answer for why the Great Vowel Shift occured. In some areas of the UK, certain changes didn't even occur, especially in the North afaik, and along the same lines, not every word had its pronunciation altered. I believe one theory is massive re-urbanisation of the South East after the Plague by people not from the area, but your guess is as good as mine.

But I don't think it's really known... I'd give some credence to any credible sounding theory to be honest.

Why we have the pronoun "I", I will never understand

(well there are some ideas about that too).

geb · Jul 30, 2011

Ian.Mkwebe said:
13th century Middle English:

Forrþrihht anan se time comm
þatt ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i þiss middellærd
forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
all swillke summ he wollde
& whær he wollde borenn ben
he chæs all att hiss wille.

Late 14th:

And it was don aftirward, and Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme of God, 2and twelue wiþ him; and summe wymmen þat weren heelid of wickide spiritis and syknessis, Marie, þat is clepid Mawdeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten 3out, and Jone, þe wyf of Chuse, procuratour of Eroude, and Susanne, and manye oþere, whiche mynystriden to him of her riches

Looks to me like the earlier one is slightly more similar to "Old English" and the later one is slightly more similar to early modern English, but there isn't a huge jump.

Once again, the diferences between stages of Middle English cannot compare to the disparities btw Old English and Middle English, which remain unjustified.

You should also note that there was also evolution in Old English, it wasn't the same language for 6 centuries.

I'm aware of that, thanks. (partly due to Viking influence) This again represents little compared to the latter (OE to ME).

Also, take note, even in Anglo-Saxon days, there were different dialects and different styles of writing in different parts of the country.

This is also another matter of concern; most historians will agree that dialects don't develop that rapidly...
How old is English?

Actually, no I am not. I said there are different varieties of English which have different R sounds, and it is true. Unless Scottish English/Scots are considered upper class, then you are wrong. And so what if English does have an alveolar approximate, plenty of other Germanic languages (Dutch, German, and Faroese) do as well

Alveolar approximant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Scots accent is a particular one - one can suppose that the Angles and Vikings were numerous enough (compared to the local population) to alter the r sound permanently. Then again, the Scouse accent can be traced back to Weslh/Irish immigrants...
In Germany, the alveolar approximant is common to Westerwald and Siegerland... Wow!
It is also extremely rare In the Netherlands and is a new phenominon, undoubtedly of English influence.
alveolar approximant in Dutch

Oh, so the American dialects are just Irish dialects (wrong)? Funny that they use different words, grammars, and pronunciations. Also funny that they developed to be very different within a short period of time .

Wrong. Most Americans can't even understand Scottish speakers with traditional accents/dialects. I can't understand people from the south of the USA, and no-one can understand Newfies. Different dialects have entirely different phonology and stresses in some cases LOL.

Just because navy blue us different from royal blue doesn't mean that blure doesn't exist.
Just because some English accents are somewhat different from other English accents doesn't mean that there aren't any English oral aspects generally speaking...

Does Irish English sound like Estuary English? You can't really be trusted as you just say about all English dialects that "they sound English," which doesn't really make any sense.

Obviously not - but then again, this could be explained by the strong Celtic influence in Ireland, whcih makes Irish English a kind of stand-off or ausbau of English.

In what respect is it weaker? You do realise that the vowel shift was pretty major, do you not? What do you mean by oral anyway, pronunciation?

Regards to the Middle English - Modern English transition yes, but for OE - ME obviously more than that - they're two different languages. Despite the vowel shift, you can't compare the degree of both:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1cBRDAX00Q"]‪Pater Noster in Old English-Middle English-Early Modern English‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
One main reason that Middle English sounds somewhat different to Modern English is because of the trilled r, which alongside a few words constitutes a remant from "Old English".

Yes, one guy refuting hundreds of linguists and historians. Okay, I believe you now. PS they called their own language Englisc, after the fact that the Angles spoke it. Why would people speaking "Englisc" or English call their own language English if they weren't related to the Angles or Saxons (to be fair, I have to wonder why we don't call it Saxon . The Celtic terms in Britain for English people are all related to the word Saxon I believe, though).

And are the French related to the Franks?

How many proto-Germanic inscriptions have been found in Britain? How many runic inscriptions have been found dating to before the Anglo-Saxon conquest? Why is Anglo-Saxon futhorc used to write Frisian as well as English?

How many Celtic inscriptions do we have? Hardly any... British language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you later call Anglo-Saxon a Scandinavian language if it isn't part of the North Germanic Branch?

Anglo-Saxon is considered an Anglo-Frisian language to suit the belief that Modern English is related to it...

Kook science. What does Celtic have to do with anything? Also, this is impossible. Indo-Europeans didn't even inhabit that part of Europe 6000 years ago LOL, at least according to the Kurgan hypothesis. At the earliest, proto-Germanic began to develop a few thousand years after that...

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution of Indo-European languages is an ongoing debate. But to be perfectly honest, whether English appeared as a distinct language 2000 or 6000 is of secondary importance to this debate; the first goal is the convince people that English is a native tongue which did not originate from Anglo-Saxon, and dates furtherback than the Dark Ages.

Celtic languages not spoken in Britain? Now I know this guy is a nutter. There is absolutely no evidence to support that, in fact, Celtic languages are still spoken there today! Also, there are plenty of Celtic toponyms that I doubt are Germanic. But, I am sure there are all sorts of Celtic, Roman, Pre-Celtic, Germanic, whatever toponyms all over Britain. Celtic toponyms in England would probably be more heavily concentrated in the Western half of the country, in case you care to actually look into it. I don't really care as I'm sure I've read of a few before (I think Aber is one).

Both men are smart enough to know about Welsh, Scots Gaelic and all the other Celtic tongues spoken throughout Britain. Both were in reality suggesting that English outweighed Brythonic.

Place-names on the Saxon shore
Vilandola, Lincoln
Thames & London

Roman place-names

No, Anglo-Saxon is an Anglo-Frisian language, and it is obviously very similar to the Frisian languages and other west Germanic languages spoken on the continent. For example, look at how a verb is formed: the on/en ending is common in West Germanic. Also consider sentence structure, with verbs going to the ends of sentences. That is not found in Scandinavian languages. Anglo-Saxon was more related to present day West Germanic languages than modern English is!

Sure it was; English, as a separate brach, isn't a west Germanic language, and the Anglo-Saxons were in fact a confederation of German (mainly Saxons) and Scandinavians (Angles), so in fact, it's a mix of Low-German (or west-german) and Scandinavian... not Anglo-Frisian.

PS you already said that Anglo-Saxon isn't Scandinavian, yet now you say it is. Make up your mind.

I never implied that A-S bared no Scandinavian traits.

Norman French has significantly altered English in mainstream opinion, just look at our vocabulary. Also, Norse affected our grammar and even pronouns (they, their, them)

What about the rest? Norman vocabulary only accounts for a modest amount of words.
And English is not a Scandinavian language!

Anglo-Saxon is related to English because it was one of its earlier forms . Anglo-Saxon is related to other West Germanic languages because of historical migration and the way populations moved around from their central ethno-linguistic genesis. I know they are related, but I don't get what you are trying to surprise me with here? That English and Anglo-Saxon are not different forms of the same language because they are similar? Okay.

IN WHAT WAYS ARE THEY SIMILAR?

Wow, first of all, that map doesn't even support what you are trying to tell me (Germanic groups in England),

Given that the Romans had not yet set foot in Britain...

secondly, I think there are various theories about when the various language groups did differentiate themselves, however, they were (at least partially) mutually intelligible for centuries after the year 1. I can't say when it is most commonly accepted that they did separate.

OH yeah btw, that map isn't a linguistic map It is tribal associations as defined by Tacitus (he isn't a Germanic person) I think. According to the actual Wikipedia page on Proto-Germanic, which I guess might contain that map (I didn't care to check) I also found this:

"Language Extinction: evolved into Proto-Norse, Gothic, Frankish and Ingvaeonic by the 4th century"

This is worth considering:

'[...]a Germanic-type language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of the Roman invasion. In support of this inference, there is some recent lexical (vocabulary) evidence analysed by Cambridge geneticist Peter Forster and continental colleagues. They found that the date of the split between old English and continental Germanic languages goes much further back than the dark ages, and that English may have been a separate, fourth branch of the Germanic language before the Roman invasion.'
Myths of British ancestry | Prospect Magazine

I don't know if I think that is evidently true, but I can offer it to you as someone's opinion just like you are offering me the opinion of this "scholar." It's really impossible to say for certain, but this guy sounds as though he is out to lunch.

Anyway, I am sure we could dig up about a hundred sources suggesting that English is based on Anglo-Saxon, and about 10 based on some kookery suggesting English was spoken not only in Britain in the year 2000 BCE, but also in Japan and on the Moon.

IRRELEVANT

Edratman · Jul 30, 2011

Nice posts Ian. That is more than a casual acquaintance with the topic.

ib-issi · Jul 30, 2011

Ian.Mkwebe said:
I don't think there is any single answer for why the Great Vowel Shift occured. In some areas of the UK, certain changes didn't even occur, especially in the North afaik, and along the same lines, not every word had its pronunciation altered. I believe one theory is massive re-urbanisation of the South East after the Plague by people not from the area, but your guess is as good as mine.

But I don't think it's really known... I'd give some credence to any credible sounding theory to be honest.

Why we have the pronoun "I", I will never understand (well there are some ideas about that too).

So it happened soon after 1666 ? the pronoun I you mention do you mean English never used i at all before when? and the sign that looks like a P but looks like it was used as th what was this called , and when did we stop using it , and when did we stop using accents over the letters, and what is our oldest written works,?
I never realised i knew so little about my own language !!!!

Ian.Mkwebe · Jul 30, 2011

ib-issi said:
So it happened soon after 1666 ? the pronoun I you mention do you mean English never used i at all before when? and the sign that looks like a P but looks like it was used as th what was this called , and when did we stop using it , and when did we stop using accents over the letters, and what is our oldest written works,?
I never realised i knew so little about my own language !!!!

I think 1666 was the year of some great fire in London, the Black Plague entered England in 1348 afaik, and the vowel shift was supposed to have started sometime not too long after that.

And the I pronoun I just found weird because it used to be pronounced entirely differently (was originally ic, sort of like German, and now it's a diphthong [aI]).

As for the other orthography of English (like letters with strokes over them) and the thorn and eth and asch and wynns, (Þ,ð, æ, Ƿ) I don't know why they fell out of use as the first two at least are useful, maybe the disuse of English language writing after the Norman conquest? Apparently they were falling out of use in the 14th century and earlier though. They are still used in Icelandic though

.

As for the other bloke posting, geb, I don't think he knows enough about English diachronistics, so I am not going to reply to his kook theories anymore. I do have to say though:

You claim English is a native language in Britain, and was more wide spread than the brythonic languages, and was spoken there for several thousand years, but claim that "its not shown on the map because that was before the roman conquest" yet the Roman Conquest was in CE 43, so it should be on that map... Except it isn't accepted by any mainstream linguist. Did any contemporary writer write about Germanic peoples in Britain at the time of conquest? And btw the Picts were likely Celtic...

Next, you claim that Norman French has had little influence on English. That is absurd...

So, this theory is based on absolutely no evidence other than a few possibly ambiguous place names, and suddenly the Anglo-Saxons never went to England.

This is what you HAVE to be suggesting: There was once a language up to 6000 years old which was very akin to modern English and old Frisian, in fact, it is so much like them that it lacks similarities (such as consonant shifts) found in the other related Germanic languages, and only has commonalities with the Anglo-Frisian languages, before proto-indo-european was spoken in (North Western) Europe. This means, it shares similarities with these langauges before they existed.

Not only that, this language was in a far flung region of Europe where it was the majority language, and when these people were conquered by the Romans (a literary culture) the Romans left no indications of their presence, and neither did the minority celts. Not only that, the tribe itself miraculously gained literacy after about 450 CE, some how using the same runic system that the now present Germanic tribes from the continent were using (okay, it's possible that some Germanic peoples in the Roman army would introduce them, but unlikely, as the Romans left about 40 years earlier, any inscriptions attested to the time between the Romans leaving and around 450?).

Now, these tribes existed for several more centuries, as a literate Christian society after about 600, yet never mentioned that they were living on this Island for thousands of years, mentioned in fact that they came from the continent, and the local British also suggested this and never mentioned they were once the minority in a Germanic country. After about 1066, their culture started to die out slowly and gradually, apparently, yet the Celtic peoples did not for some reason?

Then several centuries later there was a massive migration to Britain which was never mentioned by anyone, where modern/middle English speakers come from, and they had a language which was filled with approximately 50% loan words from French. They just happened to speak a language that had gradually evolved very similarly to Old English, and call it the same thing.

Does that sound plausible to you?

geb · Jul 30, 2011

As for the other bloke posting, geb, I don't think he knows enough about English diachronistics, so I am not going to reply to his kook theories anymore.

I would be glad if you provided a valid illustration of how the changes from OE to ME actually occured, like the author of this website presents, further down:
futurese

You claim English is a native language in Britain, and was more wide spread than the brythonic languages, and was spoken there for several thousand years, but claim that "its not shown on the map because that was before the roman conquest" yet the Roman Conquest was in CE 43, so it should be on that map...

That map dates from around the year 1 C.E., a few years before the Romans first set foot in Britain...

Did any contemporary writer write about Germanic peoples in Britain at the time of conquest?

What do you mean by contemporary? The closest description to this would be from Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the British people:

'This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, [...]' Obviously, one can't tell whether the English he refered to is real English or Anglo-Saxon.
- or both.

And btw the Picts were likely Celtic...

The Picts are more likely to be pre-Indo-European than Celtic.

Next, you claim that Norman French has had little influence on English. That is absurd...

Vocabulary, yes. What else? - you tell me...

So, this theory is based on absolutely no evidence other than a few possibly ambiguous place names, and suddenly the Anglo-Saxons never went to England.

You havn't read the website at all; besides, I never suggested that there was no A-S arrival, only very limited numbers...
How old is English?

This is what you HAVE to be suggesting: There was once a language up to 6000 years old which was very akin to modern English and old Frisian, in fact, it is so much like them that it lacks similarities (such as consonant shifts) found in the other related Germanic languages, and only has commonalities with the Anglo-Frisian languages, before proto-indo-european was spoken in (North Western) Europe. This means, it shares similarities with these langauges before they existed.

As to reiterate, the dates are of secondary importance to this debate. The IE language evolution timeline is an ongoing debate...

the Romans left no indications of their presence, and neither did the minority celts.

The Romans never indicated whether the British were Celtic or Germanic.

Not only that, the tribe itself miraculously gained literacy after about 450 CE, some how using the same runic system that the now present Germanic tribes from the continent were using (okay, it's possible that some Germanic peoples in the Roman army would introduce them, but unlikely, as the Romans left about 40 years earlier, any inscriptions attested to the time between the Romans leaving and around 450?).

Then again, the runic alphabet was introduced by the A-S, which did arrive, only in small numbers.

Now, these tribes existed for several more centuries, as a literate Christian society after about 600, yet never mentioned that they were living on this Island for thousands of years, mentioned in fact that they came from the continent, and the local British also suggested this and never mentioned they were once the minority in a Germanic country.

It's impossible to know any of this (for the moment at least). How much do we know of the Brythonic inhabitants?

After about 1066, their culture started to die out slowly

Why?

Then several centuries later there was a massive migration to Britain which was never mentioned by anyone and they had a language which was filled with approximately 50% loan words from French. They just happened to speak a language that had gradually evolved very similarly to Old English, and call it the same thing.

Why would it never have been mentioned by anyone?

where modern/middle English speakers come from,

Where all Middle/Modern English speakers come from?

and they had a language which was filled with approximately 50% loan words from French.

Those words only account for 20-30% of vocabulary in a normal text... The most common words in English aren't Norman...

They just happened to speak a language that had gradually evolved very similarly to Old English, and call it the same thing.

"Old English" or Anglo-Saxon was the language of the court, the aristocracy..., prior to the conquest, and was replaced by Norman thereafter... and never evolved into Middle English, which descended from the people's language.

Davidius · Jul 30, 2011

geb said:
The Romans never indicated whether the British were Celtic or Germanic

In Caesars De Bello Gallico it says that the inhabitants of the interior of the country (Britain) are considered to be the original inhabitants who had always lived there, whilst those who live on or near the coast are descendants of Belgic tribes.
This would seem to suggest that the Romans considered those who lived closest to Gaul to be Celtic.

Ian.Mkwebe · Jul 30, 2011

geb said:
I would be glad if you provided a valid illustration of how the changes from OE to ME actually occured, like the author of this website presents, further down:
futurese

That map dates from around the year 1 C.E., a few years before the Romans first set foot in Britain...

What do you mean by contemporary? The closest description to this would be from Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the British people:

'This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, [...]' Obviously, one can't tell whether the English he refered to is real English or Anglo-Saxon.
- or both.

The Picts are more likely to be pre-Indo-European than Celtic.

Vocabulary, yes. What else? - you tell me...

You havn't read the website at all; besides, I never suggested that there was no A-S arrival, only very limited numbers...
How old is English?

As to reiterate, the dates are of secondary importance to this debate. The IE language evolution timeline is an ongoing debate...

The Romans never indicated whether the British were Celtic or Germanic.

Then again, the runic alphabet was introduced by the A-S, which did arrive, only in small numbers.

It's impossible to know any of this (for the moment at least). How much do we know of the Brythonic inhabitants?

Why?

Why would it never have been mentioned by anyone?

Where all Middle/Modern English speakers come from?

Those words only account for 20-30% of vocabulary in a normal text... The most common words in English aren't Norman...

"Old English" or Anglo-Saxon was the language of the court, the aristocracy..., prior to the conquest, and was replaced by Norman thereafter... and never evolved into Middle English, which descended from the people's language.

All I have to say is

. Exactly what evidence do you have for any of your crackpot theories besides the claim that "English couldn't POSSIBLY have evolved from Englisc!" and a handful of unexplained (according to you) names?

Do you have a background in linguistics and the historical evolution of English? Because if not, then I don't trust you (or the original author of the theory).

geb · Jul 31, 2011

Davidius said:
In Caesars De Bello Gallico it says that the inhabitants of the interior of the country (Britain) are considered to be the original inhabitants who had always lived there, whilst those who live on or near the coast are descendants of Belgic tribes.
This would seem to suggest that the Romans considered those who lived closest to Gaul to be Celtic.

There is growing belief that the Belgae are both of Celtic and Germanic origin:
Origins of the Belgae

Ian.Mkwebe said:
All I have to say is . Exactly what evidence do you have for any of your crackpot theories besides the claim that "English couldn't POSSIBLY have evolved from Englisc!" and a handful of unexplained (according to you) names?

Do you have a background in linguistics and the historical evolution of English? Because if not, then I don't trust you (or the original author of the theory).

Many names are undoubtedly of English origin:

- Gildas writes about Badonici Montis, near Bath, where the Romans built baths

then we have Baden-Baden, another spa town, in Germany

- Some rivers' names in the Netherlands are similar to the river Thames, in London: the Amstel, Eem and Eems; all share .

And there is also the Temse, in Germany.

Only a handful of names are ascertained to be of Celtic origin (e.g. Carduel: Carlisle, mountain names beginning with pen ...)

Roman place names

Then, you mention the gap btw Middle English and Modern English to justify the large gap btw OE and ME...

In Middle English:

- all the consonant sounds are the same as in Modern English
- some vowels change slighty
- the Great Vowel shift also took place in German and Dutch; but the point you fail to grasp is the following:

Both Old High German and Modern High German sound practically the same to us or to any non-German speaker, despite the nugatory oral differences.
In other words, one cannot justify A-S ("Old English") to be the ancestor of Middle and Modern English on the basis that huge changes (not small) are normal in the case of language evolution.

I once wrote to David Crystal, a top-notch linguist, asking him for a deeper insight into the Old English to Middle english transition.
But he was reluctant.

English and Englisc (or Anglo-Saxon) are two different different languages altogether;
in the same way, French never evolved from Frankish.

Once again, I really recommend this website to you: (and to others)
How old is English?
website summary

Recusant · Jul 31, 2011

This is a fascinating hypothesis. I do see a couple of issues with it which you may or may not have encountered before, geb.

1. The inhabitants of the island were called "Britons" by the Roman invaders. As well we have Brittany in northern France, the history of which you are probably well aware. If the people who became known as Bretons (having originated on the island) spoke a Germanic tongue rather than Brythonic, why do we have no record of that fact?

2. What of the well-documented presence of Druids throughout the island previous to and during the Roman invasion? Druids are considered to be a phenomenon of Celt/Gaul culture. Were Briton Druids actually speaking the supposed Germanic proto-English rather than Brythonic?

Regardless of the merit of this hypothesis, I thank you for bringing it to Historum for discussion!

geb · Jul 31, 2011

Thanks Recusant,

Both of your statements are true. However, what the author imples is that there was a cohabitation in Britain, between Celts, to the West, and English in the eastern part, as you'll be able to see from this map, further down:

How old is English?

Recusant · Jul 31, 2011

Yet the Romans first encountered the inhabitants of the eastern part of the island, and called them Britons. If in fact they were "English" who would presumably not call themselves by the same name as those in the west since they supposedly spoke a different language, why did the Romans call them "Britons"?

I have been reading the website you're using as a source, and it has many interesting speculations, and cites some good sources which support some elements of the hypothesis; very enjoyable.

Search

Search

English was spoken in pre-Roman times and does not descend from Anglo-Saxon

geb

Ian.Mkwebe

geb

Louise C

Robespierre

Ian.Mkwebe

unclefred

ib-issi

Ian.Mkwebe

geb

Edratman

ib-issi

Ian.Mkwebe

geb

Davidius

Ian.Mkwebe

geb

Recusant

geb

Recusant

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions