Re: Brithenig misunderstood

Skrivet gant Ray Brown:

>
> The situation with Brithenig is very different. Latin was _not_ the
> substrate language. Also Brithenig starts from a real situation that
> actually existed in our world: the almost four centuries of Roman
> occupation of Britain (from the Claudian invasion in 43 CE till
> Constantine III withdrew the legions in 406).
>
> There is no doubt that in the urban centers of Roman Britain, Vulgar
> Latin
> had replaced native languages, just as it had in Gaul, the Iberian
> peninsular & elsewhere. If the Saxons and other Germanic settlers had not
> displaced the Romano-British population but had either been halted or, as
> elsewhere, been absorbed into the Romance speaking milieu, then English
> would not have taken root, the Brittonic langs would've disappeared as
> did
> the Celtic langs in Gaul, and Britain would now be another Romance
> speaking area. Brithenig is a serious attempt to reconstruct what such a
> Romance language might now be like (I know this from private
> correspondence with Andrew).
>
just as an aside, the titles of the post-roman leaders before or just
after Hengist's revolt were celtic (vortigern, riothamus) so it is not
so sure that vulgar Latin has replaced British, even among the
aristocracy (and riothamus is generally thought to have been rather
pro-roman).

Reply