Language borders in Europe

 

The languages around 50 BC

Each language was subdivided into strong dialects. Brythonic is proto-Welsh. Para-Brythonic is wrongly qualified as a 'Gallic' language. This language was based upon Brythonic but had been intensively influenced by Occitan and German. A bit like modern English is based upon a Germanic language, but 60% of all its words are foreign, mostly of French origin. People who spoke para-Brythonic could not understand Brythonic.

In reality para-Brythonic is a complete mystery. The existence of para-Brythonic is an assumption. We have no texts in this language. Para-Brythonic will change into 'northern Occitan' and later into French. The supposition of the existence of Brythonic and para-Brythonic is partially based upon genetic findings. Both people differ greatly in their genetic markers (Oppenheimer).

The Occitan or Roman language is the real 'Gallic' language. The qualification 'Roman' is misleading as it suggests that the Romans imported the language. That's not the case. Latin was initially just one of the Occitan dialects. The name 'Gallic' referred to the Occitan dialects in northern Italy and southern France.

It is not difficult to trace the original German language border on the European continent. It begins in Switzerland, the canton of Wallis, goes north via the west of Alsace (France), splits the Ardennes in east and west and goes towards Belgium, the most northern point. From there it goes west to Boulogne-sur-mer slightly to the south of Calais, in a line curved to the south, splitting Belgium in half and creating a north (Flanders) and a south (Wallonia). All people to the east and north spoke a German-like language, all to the west and south, the para-Brythonic language. For instance, during the Roman Empire the (province) Alsace was called Germania Inferior. It is difficult to maintain the thesis that this region was a genuine part of Gaul [1], and that the locals spoke a Brythonic language.

But the language border did not end there. In fact, as we continue the line straight over the Channel we find ourselves somewhere around Bristol. From there, it goes almost straight north to Scotland. There is an overwhelming amount of proof that Brythonic was the language of the west, but how sure are we that the east of Britain spoke a similar language? The most logical answer is that those eastern Britons spoke a language, long before the Romans came, that resembled most to Flemish (=coastal German). In other words: the language simply continued over the Channel. Eastern Britons spoke a genuine and original German-like language.

In the northeast of Britain, the region north of York, the language had at some moment a resemblance to Scandinavian languages like Danish. It was in this region that Beowulf was written. Beowulf was written in the oldest northern native language ever found in Britain. The language was very local. This could explain why the language used in the Beowulf poem resembles more a Scandinavian language than Chaucer-English does. More, the poem is about Scandinavian heroes. I do not consider the language written in 'Beowulf' to be representative of the oldest English, if it means that this language was also spoken in the South. A standard Old English never existed.

Beowulf means bee-wolf or the bear. There was some sort of taboo upon pronouncing the word for bear in the Germanic regions. So, people spoke about the brown [animal]. Bear means brown. Incidentally, Arthur means also "the bear". In Brythonic : arthus. Is this a coincidence? So much rubbish was written about "king Arthur" , that I feel free to add some more:

The tale of Beowulf was also told in the British Brythonic (Welsh) regions. There, this legend was mixed with very ancient Celtic fairy tales and became completely different. Only the (translated) name of the hero subsisted. Eventually, Arthur became a hero combating dreadful Anglo-Saxons and Picts, defending the poor and maintaining some sort of democracy with the help of a round table. The ultimate king. For the Welsh, it represented wishful thinking. They had managed to stop the Anglo-Saxon expansion for almost a century, but were eventually overwhelmed mainly because of their own internal divisions or feods. Not prepared to blame themselves, they gladly believed that there had be a king 'once upon a time' who had managed to keep unity. So, Arthur never existed. Is this too far fetched? Lancelot is a Germanic name: it should be written (from) Langke-Lea or Longlea. Lance= long and lot = lo =lea. Lancelot was written for the first time according to French writing standards by the Frenchman Chrétien de Troyes and the 't' in 'lot' is in French not pronounced. Isn't this funny?