Welcome to the discussion forum of Ða Engliscan Gesiðas for all matters relating to the history, language and culture of Anglo-Saxon England. I hope it will provide a useful source of information, stimulate research, and be of real help. Ða Engliscan Gesiðas (The English Companions) maintains a strictly neutral line on all modern and current political and religious matters and it does not follow any particular interpretation of history. Transgression of this Rule will not be tolerated. Any posts which are perceived as breaking this Rule will be deleted with immediate effect without explanation.

Author Topic: 'Latins' in England  (Read 13336 times)

David Cowley

  • Guest
Re: 'Latins' in England
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2011, 04:06:32 PM »
Quote: 'The term 'Celt' can be meaningfully applied to a certain type of design, but used, without qualification, to denote a group of people is otherwise a meaningless term.'
Celtic is completely accepted as a linguistic term (the Celtic languages) and I think is fine when used of people whole speak a Celtic language, or whose recent forebears did so. Maybe a bit more complicated when individual preferences for identifying with not-so-recent forebears is taken into account, but that's not the issue in this discussion. Having said all that, I tend to think that Britons or Romano-Britons are more concise terms for the context mentioned. They'd have spoken Late British/ early Welsh by and large, but we don't know how far the process of Latinisation had gone; in SE Britain, scene of the early AS settlements, that lack of knowledge of the situation is particularly frustrating.

peter horn

  • Hlaford
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Re: 'Latins' in England
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2011, 10:59:07 PM »
My point really was, if someone says they are a celt we do not know, without further qualification, exactly what they mean.
eg are they welsh, irish or a lowland scot liking to think he is a celt.
Ic ∂ær ær wæs
Ic ∂æt ær dyde

Garrett

  • Guest
Re: 'Latins' in England
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2011, 06:21:40 AM »

The old English translation of Bede gives the phrase 'boc-leden', or 'book-latin. I think this implies that although it was a lingua franca (sorry!) for churchmen and others across the Christian world, it was recognized to be an academically learned language, rather than a living language learned at the mother's breast...


I don't recall the context here, having read Bede many a long year ago, but the fact that he specifies "book-Latin" and not simply "Latin" - mightn't that rather imply that a difference existed in the types of Latin that were used? In the same way that you might criticise someone's dialect by telling them they should learn "the Queen's English"?