LL-L "History" 2005.05.12 (04) [E/German]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.MAY.2005 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Tom Mc Rae <t.mcrae at uq.net.au>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (09) [E]


On 12/05/2005, at 4:57 AM, heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
wrote:


  I wonder when these heads were

  changed to pumpkins?

Certainly not until after the discovery of The New World where pumpkins
originated.
The humble turnip was the actual replacement, in Scotland neep lanterns were
part of every Halloween (Samhain) celebration. We kids had great fum carving
them to shape and putting a candle inside. Only in very recent times  has
the American pumpkin infringed into Scots culture where I believe the
traditional Guysing has been largely replaced by the alien 'Trick or Treat'.


Regards

Tom Mc Rae

Brisbane Australia

Oh Wad Some Power the Giftie Gie Us

Tae See Oorsel's as Ithers See Us

Robert Burns

----------

From: Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <Dutchmatters at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (12) [E]


Jonny posed a very interesting question about the whys and wherefores of
the difficulty Charlemagne had in forcing Christianity on the German
Lowland Saxons.
Paul then states two notions:
1. The Saxons were in a minority in a country that had already been
Christianized: "The new Germanic ruling classes in Britain saw the
potential value of being part of the political-religious fold,
especially as they watched Frankish power and influence grow, so they
simply changed out of expedience. and
2. The Saxons in England, being of the new ruling classes were trying to
distance themselves from their more superstitious brethren on the
mainland of Europe: "A possible reason why we are now  "English" here
and not "Saxish" is that the Christianized  people in Britain wanted to
distance themselves from the overtly heathen Saxons back in the old
homeland".

Is it not also possible that:
A: It is very difficult to let go of a pantheon that you "know and
trust" for a single god who promises you entry into his heaven but not
your forebears who represent your being?
B: Why would we give up an existence which was communal in essence, one
in which we are responsible for each other where we ourselves as a group
are responsible for our behavior and determine what goes and what
doesn't..... and kick the blighter out who refuses to follow our rules.
(Shunning may also be considered as "not being any longer responsible
for someone")
C: Why would we give up a rather democratic way of living for a
hierarchical one, and one in which we would end up at the bottom of the
heap to boot....?

Aren't these also reasons for the refusal of being Christianized, and
eventually also the reason for the success of the reformation in the
Saxon Lowlands of Europe?

Just some thoughts, Jacqueline

----------

From: Theo Homan <theohoman at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (09) [E]


> From: heather rendall
> <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (03) [E/German]
>
> >My question: why did the Britannic Germanic people
> accept the Christian
> believe and philosophies so much earlier and
> obviously easier as their
> relatives in the 'Old World' at the same times? They
> even seem to have been
> enthusiastic to convent their relatives, and of
> course at those times there
> were no problems with the language.
> Were they forced to demarcate themselves against the
> native inhabitants of
> the British island?<
>
> Wheeeeeeeeee!
> How many hours have you got , Johnny?
> [...]

Heather,
> How many hours have you got , Johnny?

Why are you being so modest, Heather? Just say: how many weeks have you got?
(lol)

Well, it is my strong conviction that the Celts pulled Christianity into
Western Europe.

After Caesar made the druids outlaws, they saw the danger that a demolition
of their 'social moral organisation' would bring the people into a state of
inferior conviction and moral values. In Christianity they saw the
possibility to get a new organisational and social structure, as they found
the christian values very much acceptable.

The structure and influence of the 'druid-in-society' was much stronger and
clearer than that of their neighbours: the 'germanic druid' [the godi]. But
we may accept the idea that germanic people always accepted the
druid-influence as a friendly culture.

In any case: this is my strong, personal opinion.

Later on, the Rome-church started to wipe out the celtic hegemony in western
Europe, also burning the celtic-christian manuscripts. The celtic christians
had made their own 'new bible' by combining the four gospels into one new
gospel [a diatesseron], and scholars always thought that the last
manuscripts of this school would have been burned in the 5th century.

But the later oldsaxon bible-translation the Heliand [10th century] still is
a translation of a celtic 4-in-1 gospel version.

And the 'church-in-Rome' never realized that most of their rituals are of
Celtic-Germanic origin.

vr.gr.
Theo Homan

----------

From: Theo Homan <theohoman at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (12) [E]


> From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (09) [E]

> Heather wrote:
>
> The amount of underlying
> Celtic words ( and grammar) that lurks underneath
> the surface of modern
> English is quite amazing Yes << Oes ??? for starters
> and the use of the
> continuous tenses I am going I was going etc...
>
---
> These examples aside, I would say the lack of Celtic
> words and grammar is
> amazing, if the Germanic incomers were truly a
> minority.  >
> Paul

Hello,

well, a small note:

I always understood that Germanic and Celtic, let's say, 1500 years ago, had
a lot of words that were nearly alike.

And Celtic and Latin had so much in common that -if my memory is serving me-
Caesar send a written message
from Gallia to Rome in: Greek. To exclude the possibility that Celts could
understand his Latin message.

So a lot of Celtic words may have survived but were seen by us as being of
Germanic or Latin origin.

vr.gr.
Theo Homan

----------

From: Glenn Simpson <westwylam at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: history [e]


Dear all,

On the English coming to the British Isles - it is clear that the migration
was more than just a governing elite as occurred with the Normans. For
example recent research in England showed that people living in
Northumberland had a strong genetic affinity with people living in what is
now the Frisian areas, parts of Holland and Germany. In addition, it has
already been mentioned about the lack of British place-names in those areas
'settled' by the English and influence of the indigenous British languages
on English.

This is not to say that there wasn't close interaction with the
Romano-British and that wholesale slaughter took place. For example the
early Northumbrian Kings took over the pre-existing British Kingdoms of
Bernicia and Deira. It was only later when these Kingdoms merged they became
'Northumbria'.

Furthermore, comments that the English weren't referred to as 'Saxish' is an
interesting one. The biggest group of settlers to arrive were the Angles,
from which the word English is derived. Bede for instance tells us that all
the different settler
groups understood themselves to be English and referred to themselves as
English, although obviously there were different sub-groups within this
wider definition.

It is only in comparatively modern times when we get introduction by
historians of the phrase Anglo-Saxon.
The old English did not refer to themsleves as such - simply English.

Gan Canny,
Glenn

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (12) [E]


I don't believe the Saxons, Anglos and Jutes were a minority in the Eastern
parts of their new homeland. If the Celtic majority population would have
taken over the Germanic language(s), there would have been much more
substratic influence on phonology, vocabulary and grammar, like was the
case with the Latin in Hispania, Galia, Belgia etc.

On the other hand, there is a big difference for an 'elite minorty' between
taking over a high status language like Latin - as the local Romance
varieties in France, Spain, Italy etc still will have been considered then -
and lower status, non-standardized Celtic dialects...

Ingmar

>Paul Finlow-Bates
>These examples aside, I would say the lack of Celtic words and grammar is
>amazing, if the Germanic incomers were truly a minority. Where we know that
>Germanic invaders were an elite minority (Franks in France, Visigoths and
>Vandals in Spain, Goths and Lombards in Italy), they were speaking the
local
>language in one form another within a few generations.

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2005.05.11 (12) [E]

Heather, Paul, Ron,

thanks for your answers regarding 'christianization from anglo-saxon
Britain'.

Heather:

> Wheeeeeeeeee!
> How many hours have you got , Johnny?
Thanks for suffering with me :-)!
> I could go on but dinner calls.
I hope you didn't miss it.

> 5. Far from being in chaos after the Romans left there....
Have a look at the really great site

http://www.battle1066.com/saxons.shtml ;

there you will find my source aspecting 'chaos'.

> ... we give eggs at Easter etc)
So we do in Germany.

> What is v interesting is that the people here were allowed to keep the
>  name day Wednesday when in Germany any mention of Woden had to be
> expunged - because he was still seen as a force to reckon with. To the
> westv of Birmingham can be found Wednesbury and Wednesfield - names that
> were kept on precisely becasue they had no power left.
That sounds very convincing. Near my home we have a village 'Odisheim',
which is called 'Godshem' with second name. I guess the first, official name
here is the second in truth, because I don't think it to be of so very
ancient descense.

Paul:

> One explanation is that the Germanic invaders were
> in
> fact small minority in their newly founded kingdoms,...
That's another thing I don't understand. In their homelands Saxons had never
a king, they used to elect leaders in times of war (e.g. 'Hertog', 'Herzog',
'Hovedmannen'), who mostly kept their so won influence in times of peace.
too.

> Meanwhile the grass-roots stuck with their spooks and boggarts well into
> the
> 20th C in some cases.
People are looking for some mystics in times of rough reality, I think.

Ron:

> B: end ec forsacho allum dioboles uuercum and uuordum, Thunaer ende Uuoden
     ende Saxnote ende
Oh- Saxnote in one line with the old Gods? That looks *very* interesting. Do
you know more about that, Ron?

Thanks and sincerely

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: History

Very interesting, ... but, yes, probably explosive.  Fortunately, there are
no casualties so far.  Let's keep it that way, in true LL-L fashion!

There is another piece to the puzzle, isn't there?  We know that the
Mainland Saxons were quite anti-monarchy in attitude, probably in part as a
reaction to Charlemagne's ruthless expansionism (aside from the to them
probably anti-social institution of monasticism) but undoubtedly also in
order to preserve their own order of local and regional "tribes" with
elected leaders and temporarily elected chairmen at all-Saxony
conventions -- no overrall ruler, no inherited titles.  I am fairly
confident that in their view (looking at the Franks and Romans) Christianity
and monarchy went together, or better to say Christianity and imperialism.
This would have given them a rather distorted picture of Christianity as
such, not exactly the benign image true Christians would like to project.

In this light then it seems rather odd not only that the supposed Saxons of
Britain would be converted to Christianity so soon but also that they would
build kingdoms in the "new" land.  Could it not be that these immigrants
were really very much mixed groups, including Franks, besides Frisians and
others, also Celts, gathering under the label of Saxon and adopting the
Saxon language, which would also explain the rapid changes found in Early
Old English?

Glenn:
> Furthermore, comments that the English weren't referred to as
> 'Saxish' is an interesting one.

But why were their realms then given names with "Saxony" in it?

Jonny:

> Oh- Saxnote in one line with the old Gods? That looks *very* interesting.
> Do
> you know more about that, Ron?

Not much, except snippets of linguistic discussions of the presence or
absence of Old English influences, or an Old English "accent" of the author.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==============================END===================================
Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
are  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================