On 06/10/2010 13:40, Lars Finsen wrote:
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> How do you know? The extensive Roman remains
>> throughout that part of Britain we now call England
>> would seem to belie that. The indications are, surely,
>> that that part of Britain was thoroughly romanized.
>
> Gaul had a Latin culture.

Gallia Narbonensis did, but that was a relatively small area
in the south which, moreover, had been subject to Greek
influence before the Romans moved in.  But north of that
remained independent until Julius Caesar brought it under
Roman control.  I seem to recall that not all Gauls exactly
welcomed Caesar as he moved northward.  The Celtic language
appears to have survived up there at least until the 3rd
century AD (and probably beyond).

> There are poets and writers, and the Roman rule was
> relatively benign. In contrast, there was almost
> continuous unrest in Britain throughout the Roman rule
> and little immaterial culture.

Methinks you are overstating the case. The very extensive
archaeological evidence, especially of the numeral 'villas'
(farmsteads, in fact) must indicate a long period of
relative stability at least in the southern part of the island.

> The Romans must have seemed to be there only to exploit
> the natural riches.

..which, I suppose, is why some Britons helped the initial
invasion, siding with Claudius. They even built a temple to
him in Colchester and worshipped him as a god before he had
chance to die and be officially deified - much to the
Romans' surprise.  I'm darn sure king Cogidubnus did not
regard the Romans as exploiters but rather as bringers of
peace and, hopefully, prosperity.

It was, after all, the quarrels between the rival
Catuvellauni and Atrebates that brought the Romans in in the
first place. It seems there were many Brits becoming alarmed
at the increasing ambitions of the Catuvellauni and welcomed
direct intervention from Rome.

Several Celtic names of Britons who were high
> ranking enough to leave traces of their existence is
> known from as late as the 4th century, and
> significantly, Vortigern is a Celtic name, although,
> interestingly, his father seems to have a Latin one.

Ah, Vortigern - the guy who invited the Saxons to settle in
Kent in return for helping him fight the Picts. A bad
mistake, his fellow Brits thought - the Saxons liked Kent so
much they invited all their fellow Saxons to come over and,
as they say, the rest is history!

Actually there's so much legendary stuff attached to
Vortigern that some question his very existence, tho most
scholars except that behind the legends there probably was
an historic person. But this digressing a bit.

[snip]
>>
>> Strange that a Romance language has held on in the
>> Balkans, even tho Dacia was colonized by the Romans
>> for less time than Britain was.
>
> It's hard to tell why, really,

Quite - and IMO it is not altogether clear why no Romance
language survived in Britain. Both are one of those
'accidents of history'.
-------------------------------------------------

n 06/10/2010 13:56, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> staving Lars Finsen:
[snip]
>> Latin one. This indicates to me that the position of
>> Latin was much weaker than on the continent, and
>> especially after the abandonment.
>
> I also think that the word "abandonment" might be
> significant here.

I think you are spot on about "abandonment". The "Gemitus
Britannorum" (Groans of the British), a final appeal by the
ruling classes of post-Roman Britain to Rome in 454 AD
surely highlights their sense of abandonment in the face of
Saxon invaders. The Brits seem to have suffered a severe
collapse in confidence and become very inward looking. The
very area that was had probably been the most Romanized,
i.e. the south & east, was abandoned to the Saxons & other
Germanic invaders.

> Perhaps the Romano-British felt that the Empire had
> betrayed them by withdrawing the legions, and turned
> their back on secular Roman culture as a result?

Yep - just they turned back to their Brittonic roots which
still survived in the west.
--------------------------------------------------

On 06/10/2010 16:29, David McCann wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 07:40 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>> On 05/10/2010 18:41, David McCann wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Hardly!  The Latin loan words AFAIK show all the same
>> features that one would expect from VL...
>
> No. Consider L. cella>  W. cell, L. pensum>  W. pwys, L.
initium>  W./
> cyff "Shrove Tuesday", L. vinum>  W. gwin. In other
> words,

Sorry - I'm puzzled. I don't follow this at all.

Latin _cella_ VL /kElla/ --> Welsh _cell_ /keK/ does not 
seem to me remarkable. The actual lengthening of the Welsh 
/e/ (i.e. [e:]) in a monosyllabic word ending in /K/ is a 
Welsh development.  How else would one expect _cella_ to behave?

Latin _pensum_ we know from Cicero was actually pronounced 
[pe:sU(m)] and in VL this was /pe:su/. The change of VL /e/
to Welsh _wy_ [uj] strikes me as remarkably similar to the 
change in north Gaul [e:] --> [ej] --> [Ej] --> [Oj] - and 
Welsh _pwys_ [pujs] is surely no more odd than Old French 
_pois_ [pOjs}?  (OK - Old French _oi_ has had a rather 
different developed since the Old French period, and the 
moderns stick an unetymological _d_ in _poids_ - but that's 
all beside the point).

L. initium>  W./ cyff "Shrove Tuesday"  ????

L. vinum [wi:nU(m)] - >  W. gwin [gwi:n] - but the vowel's 
the _same_ in both languages!

> L. /ĕ/>  W. e, W.Rom. /ɛ/ L. /ē/>  W. wy, W.Rom. /e/ L.
> /ĭ/>  W. y, W.Rom. /e/ L. /ī/>  W. i, W.Rom /i/

Maybe - but I don't see that in the examples.

> As Pedersen wrote, "The Vulgar Latin known to the Celts
did not vary
> considerably from Classical Latin."

I'm skeptical - but I'd like to see his evidence. In any 
case I notice he says *Celts* and the greater number of 
Celts - indeed the only place where the actual 'Celti' 
themselves lived - was on the continent.  I myself have long 
argued that attempts, like Brythenig, should pay greater 
attention to the way that Romance developed in northern 
Gaul, which had several oddities, e.g. the preservation of 
final -t which was generally lost in VL.
-----------------------------------------------

Of course, what may or may not have happened in Britain if 
things had been slightly different is, as the subject line 
says, *conjecture*. I think both Lars and I have made our 
positions clear enough - I don't see any point in continuing 
to argue the point. Any conhistorian can make her/his own 
choices.

We've had Brithenig with its Romance-speaking Britain. We've 
had the suggestion, which sparked the present thread, of a 
Britain where, essentially, Welsh and Saxon are reversed.

It strikes me there is another althistory scenario. I have 
mentioned in this thread (and others) that as well as Saxons 
from the east, the Brits were also troubled by predations 
from the Irish. Indeed, one group of Irish, the Scotti, even 
settled in Scotland, giving Scotland both the Gaelic 
language and its very name.

Also during the 4th cent AD, there had been an influx of 
Irish settlers into much of what we now call Wales (which 
was poorly Romanized). What if the Irish had taken greater 
advantage of the Roman withdrawal and pushed on out of Wales 
and settled western Britain generally. We could have 
finished up with an island partitioned between Saxon & 
Gaelic speakers.  Who, in the end, would have dominated? Who 
knows?

Just a thought for 'yet another alternative British 
timeline'  ;)

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".