Rule, Britannia!

[athanaric]

@Athanaric: what do you mean move on? I'm not interested in history composed of deliberate lies (there's enough accidental lies already).

Lies are certainly the last thing I'd ever suggest.
Briton-bashing is sooo 1968. You may not have felt it on your continent, but in Europe today, we're facing other problems than expansionist or hubris-filled Englishmen. Of course that does not mean we should forget the wrongs of the past, but we shouldn't obsessively dwell on them.

And just for the record: I'm downplaying nothing, just trying to put things in perspective.

Maybe a several lingua franca is the way to go? The Ottomans and Romans had a couple of widespread languages (eg Greek was widely spoken in both).

We already have "regional" linguae francae (?), such as Spanish, Arabian, French, and (Mandarin) Chinese.

The hardest languages to learn : Chinese (Canton), Mongolian, Turkish.....

Wut? For all I know, Turkish is comparatively easy. The grammar is rather stupid and there are no difficult sounds like in Arabian. Japanese, OTOH, is said to be very difficult.

[A Very Super Market]

Learning Japanese requires you to learn a sortof-alphabet, Chinese (Kanji), and katanaka, which I can't even describe properly. Quite difficult.

[machinor]

Japanese is only difficult to write and read as you have zillions of symbols (kanji). Speaking it is easy-peasy since the grammar is very simple. You get a crash-course in Japanese in the "Shogun"-Miniseries.

[Cyclops]

Lies are certainly the last thing I'd ever suggest.
Briton-bashing is sooo 1968. You may not have felt it on your continent, but in Europe today, we're facing other problems than expansionist or hubris-filled Englishmen. Of course that does not mean we should forget the wrongs of the past, but we shouldn't obsessively dwell on them.

And just for the record: I'm downplaying nothing, just trying to put things in perspective...

Fair enough, I'm just bubbling from reading this recent Norman Davies, that stuff about Bruce and Balliol was an eye-opener.

...We already have "regional" linguae francae (?), such as Spanish, Arabian, French, and (Mandarin) Chinese...

Very true, I think the majority of people in the world can speak more than one language. Which can make the leap to a global tongue like English: if the Ottoman and Romans are a guide its possible to have a couple of widespread languages.

I'm thinking more of what languages should be retained when we here at P2 set up the new world government...oops I've said too much...

[antisocialmunky]

This is all assuming you learn this in your adult years. Young children can suck up 3-4 languages quite easily.

Also to clear things up: I was refering to beyond business and coversational into something like everyday proficiency. Within those parameters, I've always heard that Japanese and English are the most difficult.

[satalexton]

All languages are hard to learn if you 'force' yourself to. The best (but slower) way to learn a language is to 'feel' it gradually, through various media...along with an understanding and (growing) interest in the host language's culture.

It's really the inherent xenophobia and fear/uneasiness of change that makes languages hard to learn for adults. Kids don't have that because their heads aren't -that- filled with the jargons of life yet.

p.s. Chinese is actually far simpler than english, it's really the unfamiliarity with the script stucture (which isn't hard either) that puts most people off.

[McAds]

...aggressive hard men who spoke French as their birth tongue, and wanted nothing more than to be Kings of France? Very English.

Again, I don’t think you have grasped the historical reality. Edward III was the first English king who decided he wanted to be King of France. The reasoning behind this all goes back to the 1259 treaty of Paris and the issue over liege homage. How could a king swear homage to another etc? The issue over the Valois usurper due to French salic law not allowing females to inherit the throne, thus diluting the Capetian dynasty provided the opportunity through Edwards distant family links via his (detested) French mother. Thus the English claim to the French crown was born, not out of Edward III declaration, but from the key clause ratified by his great-grandfather eighty years previously.

The Edwards, including Woodstock, were all English born and all certainly could speak it. French was the language of the nobility however and indeed as said, the language of his mother and grand mother.

I feel England from the Normans to the Yorkists was a cultural province of France ruled by a french speaking french descended elite. The local cultures reasserted themselves wonderfully under the Tudors as the French holdings were lost (although the partial self destruction of the old aristocracy in the War of the Roses helped too), leadng to a productive fusion.

The argument does not work when you factor in that the Normans weren’t French at all. Indeed, their actions since Rollo’s defeat in 911 up until the Norman Conquest of England displayed their aggressive Viking roots in plain fashion. Similarly, by the time the crown found its way to the Yorkists, the Kings of England had been speaking English for some considerable time as the main language, rather than the duel linguists that had gone previously.

There is no doubt that French culture was influential or that the histories intertwined themselves. But then that was always going to be the case after Philips II commenced his expansion of the Kings writ, he and his successors in title would eventual have come up against the English holdings. Most importantly for the English monarch being the lands held in Gascony to the south; lands of extreme importance given their financial value.

[Horatius Flaccus]

What is going to be the new 'lingua franca', is not about how hard a language is to learn. A child can (as said before) easily learn a couple of languages, it doesn't matter if they are hard or not. It's about were you grow up with.

How many people outside China grow up with Chinese? Not many. While the whole western world grows up with English (movies, books, music etc.). So I don't think any language is going to overtake English in the near future.

[Mindaros]

Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy. Nor can you deny that even the Normans weren't French at all. Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".

[Ludens]

It's really the inherent xenophobia and fear/uneasiness of change that makes languages hard to learn for adults. Kids don't have that because their heads aren't -that- filled with the jargons of life yet.

Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).

Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy.

It's true that a considerable part of William's army did not come from Normandy, but AFAIK these were mostly Normans from Brittany or Sicily. I agree that the Norman conquest drew England away from the Scandinavian sphere and closer to the French culture. But the Normans were an independently-minded lot and, although their language was French, their culture was still very much that of the Norman warrior.

Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".

And that proves exactly nothing, as there was only one French king (Philip II) whose control over the English was more than nominal.

[antisocialmunky]

Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).

Yes and from cases of feral children or children that weren't taught to speak: if children don't develop language abilities, then they will have some really bad problems with language skills. Its actually a fairly crucial development phase that occurs before puberty when you brain learns to use symbolic language.

[Ludens]

Yes and from cases of feral children or children that weren't taught to speak: if children don't develop language abilities, then they will have some really bad problems with language skills.

Indeed. There is a difference between learning a first and a second (third, fourth...) language, though. My comment applies to learning a second language, obviously.

Now let's get back to the topic, whatever it was.

[Mindaros]

Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).



It's true that a considerable part of William's army did not come from Normandy, but AFAIK these were mostly Normans from Brittany or Sicily. I agree that the Norman conquest drew England away from the Scandinavian sphere and closer to the French culture. But the Normans were an independently-minded lot and, although their language was French, their culture was still very much that of the Norman warrior.



And that proves exactly nothing, as there was only one French king (Philip II) whose control over the English was more than nominal.

Of course the Normans were different from the rest of the French. This is hardly amazing since it was generally the case in France. I mean the southern French were very different from the Northern French, the Bretons were different etc. Also, there were troops from Flanders in addition to Brittany in William's army. One can hardly assume that they were all "Scandinavians". What makes no sense is to think that the Normans were Scandinavians in France which one does when one assumes that the French culture had had no effect on them, apart from the surface (how can one be so much affected only on the "surface"?). They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

Sorry about the quote. I meant the Norman kings of England, my mistake, not the French king.

[Foot]

Chinese is actually really easy to learn if you can memorize things easily and get past the whole tone thing(as evidenced by Chinese talk shows hosted by former professional wrestlers). English is much more difficult because it is loaded with idioms, borrows from like 3 different languages, and can have a very wide variety of meanings for one sentence depending on inflection.

Its not really a good lingua franca though. Its not easily expanded because it lacks the alphabet part.

"Were English pronunciation less arbitrary, there is not the slightest doubt but that in the course of a very few years, comparatively speaking, it would become the language of the world. All foreigners agree that, grammatically, it is the easiest language of any to learn. A German, comparing it to his own language, where every word in every sentence is governed by at least four distinct and separate rules, tells you that English has no grammar. A good many English people would seem to have come to the same conclusion; but they are wrong. As a matter of fact, there is an English grammar, and one of these days our schools will recognize the fact, and it will be taught to our children, penetrating maybe even to literary and journalistic circles. But at present we appear to agree with the foreigner that it is a quantity neglectable. English pronunciation is the stumbling block to our progress. English spelling would seem to have been designed chiefly as a disguise to pronunciation. It is a clever idea, calculated to check presumption on the part of the foreigner; but for that he would learn it in a year."
- Three Men on the Bummel, Jerome K. Jerome

Foot

[moonburn]

so what would stop the chinese from passin their language into the latin script ? except for cultural reasons there´s really no reason stop them from making it easyer to teach people to speak while writting a type of "mandarin" in the latin/english alphabet, many people in hong kong already write many chinese words in english anyway

[satalexton]

Pinyin, which is a latin-based method of romanizing chinese, works reasonably well if you're a romance language speaker. However latin... isn't very anglophonic friendly, since english is a germanic language.... (Cao Cao got pronounced as "kow kow"....rofl.)

[Khorak]

They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

The Normans were a cultural mashup between the Norsemen who conquered and settled in the area, and the French who got conquered and settled on, and the result was the Normans. Saying they were French and Norman is contradictory, since 'Norman' already takes it into account, in the same way it would also be contradictory to say they're Norse and Norman. Their contemporaries, even the actual French themselves, were very clear about making the distinction in studiously referring to them always as Normans instead of any kind of French; they merely spoke French because they chose to after having conquered the place and laid siege to Paris itself, until the French king threw the whole region at them in concession.

The modern argument is a painfully ludicrous battle of ego of the French trying to claim Norman historical acts of awesome they simply don't deserve, and the English trying to deny they were ever defeated by anything that had the audacity to even live in an area we now think of as France.

The simple fact is that the Normans were pretty much their own nation despite the nominal (and as history showed us, laughable) 'fealty' they were supposed to pay to the French king as a vassal. As it is, the Normans existed at a time when it's a bit of a joke to really claim that France as we think of it even existed, and it was the Norman invasion that made the England that began to have any meaning at all in the world. Hell, without the obscene French/Old English mashup between the new Norman aristocracy and their English subjects, the modern English language wouldn't be marauding across the world like a vicious thief, stealing every piece of spare grammar and vocabulary anyone foolishly leaves unguarded.

....though yeah, I agree. It's insulting to the Normans really to treat them as anything but their own nation. Arguably they still exist as England itself, but before that changeover really started happening they were a very significant medieval nation unto themselves with very noticeably their own culture and achievements.

[Ludens]

What makes no sense is to think that the Normans were Scandinavians in France which one does when one assumes that the French culture had had no effect on them, apart from the surface (how can one be so much affected only on the "surface"?). They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

Er? The Normans were both French and Norman, but not Scandinavian? No-one is saying that the Normans were not influenced by French culture. The discussion is about the claim that the medieval kings of England were culturally French. There is a good deal of truth in that statement, but it's not entirely true.

Sorry about the quote. I meant the Norman kings of England, my mistake, not the French king.

I assume the English kings were referring to their vassals and subject in Aquitaine and Normandy.

[McAds]

Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy. Nor can you deny that even the Normans weren't French at all. Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".

The fact there were Brettons, amongst other mercenaries, in the Norman invasion force somehow disproves the notion that the Normans were a law unto themselves and had been for over 150 since settlement in modern day northern France? What do you mean by 'French army'?


Remember that the kings writ at this period extended only fifty so miles north to south and twenty or so east to west. The counts and self-styled dukes of what is now modern day France wielded far more power or at least enough to remain independent from the crown.

....though yeah, I agree. It's insulting to the Normans really to treat them as anything but their own nation.

I agree absolutely.

As an aside, the Normans are definitely one of the peoples that stick out for me from my undergraduate studies. I can’t help but imagine them and chuckle at the notion that they'reall 6ft brick shit houses, shaved heads with a twitch, just game for a fight! The way Henry I went on to circumvent the traditional Norman inheritance system by simply not buggering off down south and deciding instead to fill in his brothers is probably one reason. The Duke William tanner story is another.

All tongue in cheek of course, but they do make me smile!

[Mindaros]

Er? The Normans were both French and Norman, but not Scandinavian? No-one is saying that the Normans were not influenced by French culture. The discussion is about the claim that the medieval kings of England were culturally French. There is a good deal of truth in that statement, but it's not entirely true.



I assume the English kings were referring to their vassals and subject in Aquitaine and Normandy.

Ok, now you're just reading your own prejudices into my arguments. I was talking about the Norman kings, not the Angevins, so no Aquitaine or Anjou.

I did simply state that culturally speaking it is perfectly correct to call the Norman kings French kings, indeed this is the case. Just to remind you, I was initially answering to a claim that Norman weren't French at all. I called it nonsense. And nonsense it was. And actually you seem to agree with me.

Carpenter ("Struggle for mastery") would put it even more bluntly:
"Although Viking settlement had probably been quite extensive, the newcomers ultimately
lost their connection with Scandinavia and became essentially French in language,
politics and social structure."

@Khorak:
Ok, let's imagine I'm from London. If I say I'm English and a Londoner. According to you these contradict? So you can't be both English and a Londoner. Well, that's fine I suppose. Yes, the French called them Normans. Why? Because there were a lot of people who could be called French and it makes sense to make the distinction. Whereas the English called them French. Both were right you know. I wouldn't downplay language either. Anyone remotely familiar with linguistics knows that it's nonsense to call the language you speak just "surface". The rest of what Khorak writes seem to bear no relevance to what I wrote, neither can I detect any relevance in anything written by McAds.

[McAds]

Ok, now you're just reading your own prejudices into my arguments. I was talking about the Norman kings, not the Angevins, so no Aquitaine or Anjou.

I did simply state that culturally speaking it is perfectly correct to call the Norman kings French kings, indeed this is the case. Just to remind you, I was initially answering to a claim that Norman weren't French at all. I called it nonsense. And nonsense it was. And actually you seem to agree with me.

Carpenter ("Struggle for mastery") would put it even more bluntly:
"Although Viking settlement had probably been quite extensive, the newcomers ultimately
lost their connection with Scandinavia and became essentially French in language,
politics and social structure."

@Khorak:
Ok, let's imagine I'm from London. If I say I'm English and a Londoner. According to you these contradict? So you can't be both English and a Londoner. Well, that's fine I suppose. Yes, the French called them Normans. Why? Because there were a lot of people who could be called French and it makes sense to make the distinction. Whereas the English called them French. Both were right you know. I wouldn't downplay language either. Anyone remotely familiar with linguistics knows that it's nonsense to call the language you speak just "surface". The rest of what Khorak writes seem to bear no relevance to what I wrote, neither can I detect any relevance in anything written by McAds.

No it is not nonsense. They were Norman. They were influenced by the peoples they conquered in northern France, in the same way they influenced them. They were never French kings. The English crown and the Norman duchy were split after William I death and it was only Henry I circumventing the traditional Norman inheritance system, being a chip off his dads block and in true Norman style decided to unite them as he didn’t want to bugger off south in true Norman/de Tonsy fashion.

The London analogy does not work. London is not a distinct and independent region of England, able to raise its own military forces, evolve ecclesiastically in a unique fashion, expand its borders at will, develop a unique architectural style, grant itself a title or conduct its own foreign policy across Europe indirectly via its own cultural inheritance system.

If you cannot see the relevance of what I wrote, then perhaps it’s because you do not fully grasp the situation of the time. Indeed, your insistence on calling them French bears this out*. I cannot believe you’ve gone through either a undergraduate or post graduate course where you’ve been encouraged to read the Normans as French.

*Unless your of course referring to my second post, in which case that’s a post separate from this discussion and is more my admiration for Norman attitudes.

[Mindaros]

Ok, McAds. Since you've decided to a) completely misunderstand everything that I write (probably due to the fact that you're pissed off by the fact that I called your writing "nonsense") and b) use offensive personal remarks instead of actual arguments, I have no choice but to ignore your messages from now on as they have crossed the boundaries of such basic respectful behavior which is the fundamental criterion of any meaningful discussion.

[Ludens]

That certainly ends meaningful discussion. I am going to temporarily close this thread. If somebody wants to continue the discussion, PM me.

Thread closed.