English, Irish, Scots: They’re All One, Genes Suggest

Very distinct migrations that you can measure.



Thats exactly where you are going wrong, this is a historical study, when people did not move from their birthplace. Thats why you can use genetics to trace a language.

Forget teh issue of Poland and China, its a red herring. According to that map everyone in eastern europe must be 100% Mongels

wiem, wiem....wiem....

Not right, ignorant.

tak, they dont move from there birthplace - the genetics wont vary HOWEVER invaders come and say! we now rule you! (not quite so simpley)

and they impose there laws, customs and....LANGUAGE

as the anglo saxons (who came from modern day WEST GERMAY) did to the british isles

So if an archaeologist digs you up in a 1000 years he'll know you were fluent in bullsh*t?

we;re saying the same thing

Hehe, my mistake

this couldnt be any clearer

Ok forget it. The subject is obviously a bit beyond your comprehension.

So when Jews were enslaved by Egypt, escaped to the promised land, were kicked out by the muslims, came to europe, went through the Holocoust, after spending all those years in Poland -speaking Polish- and now back in Isreal their language has changed minimally and you tell me that they can tell you what langauge they spoke After spending all thos years in different countries his DNA will always say Jerusalem?

He's making it up as he goes along. Come on, don't give up. Those that can, do. Those that can't teach.

Teach us master. Teach us.

We promise not to laugh and we won't interupt.

you;ve sourced a newspaper article. your saying that language IS soley dependant on Genetics and IS nothing to do with SOCIO-POLITICAL influnce

It would seem that its beyond your comprehension

well that killed the topic

The anglosaxians moved from Germany to Holland to England.. Sorry. Besides, have you ever tried to compare Dutch to English? Excuse me, but to me it looks like our languages show a lot of similarities.

Hallo - Hello.
Land - Land.
Kar - Car.
Boot - Boat.
Week - Week.
Dans - Dance.
Man - Man.
Angelsaksisch - Anglosaxian.
Engeland - England.

Just to mention a few. So where did these words come from then? Not from the Roman language no way..

peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/chapters/history.php

interesting reference.

Nice, but the new evidence contradicts the existing dogma.

Im no expert Peter, so I feel that my input would be at best quite poor, just found that site quite interesting. I think if you look at 'Old English' it is quite different to the English we speak today.

We beg borrow and steal from most languages as do other countries.

Again another interesting reference:-

mun.ca/Ansaxdat/vocab/wordlist.html

Well come on then, you're the one who thinks he is right, so you prove it to us non believers. Don't give us links, you explain it to us. In words of less that 2 syllables. I know you can do it if you try.

the new evidence is NOT in relation to language peter!@ have you read your article that YOU posted.

It refers to GENETIC similarity between the peoples of eng, ire etc NOT where the english CAME from.

which is west germanic, from the Angle-Saxons who came from West germany (as we'd call it today) and who migrated and conquered the british isles around the 5ad.

The genetics suggest they intergrated (as all conquering forces did in those times) into the native population. THIS adds to the theory in the article of GENETICS but no where does it say the LANGUAGE was NOT western germanic.

so stop throwing out 'you dont undertansd , you dont get it and actually debate your points!'
we've all been giving you the this. We AGREE with you about the genetic similarity, that was never in doubt to me - but YOUR claim, NOT the herald, that the english language is NOT a western Germanic language - is unfounded. As you have YET to engage the debate and stand to deliver where the ENGLISH language developed. as we have done

Exactly my point. I'm talking about the people you call English today, and not about the tribes which may have been there before them. So, if we're tracing everything back to the beginning, then we'd all come from one continent anyway..

But my point was, English as you speak it, definitely derives from a Germanic language. Also, the English language shows a huge Celtic and Normandic influence aswell.

Just compare Spanish and Portuguese to English, and then compare German and Dutch to English? (And the Fresian language really is a dialect here, it doesn't even sound like modern day Dutch.)

I'm not saying this theory about the first inhabitants of the British Isles can't be right, but I'll have to disagree with you when you state that modern day English doesn't originate from a Germanic language..

It's an interesting topic anway.

I have to say I partially agree with Daffy.

Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also adopts Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.

FROM the article and SAID by the VERY guy who is talking about the genetic similarity! even HE acknowledge's english language roots!

nglish, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.

The Belgae perhaps introduced some socially transforming technique, such as iron-working, which led to their language's replacing that of the indigenous inhabitants, but Forster said he had not yet identified any specific innovation from the archaeological record.

Oppenheimer said genes "have no bearing on cultural history." There is no significant genetic difference between the people of Northern Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400 years, he said.

which is waht we've all said .

Genetically the similarity, makes sense BUT you not factoring in socio-political factors. and im tired of this to the point i had to use YOUR only source of 'evidence'

Exactly. It's an assumption, a theory, hence the partially.