Are the english germanic?

Are the english germanic?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34
pagef30.com/2008/08/why-norwegian-is-easiest-language-for.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German
etymonline.com/index.php?term=pig
etymonline.com/index.php?term=cow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The language is

but the people, compared to germans?

Anglo-Saxon you mean?

They have substantial germanic ancestry. Other major ancestry is celtic.

Yeah

The English people which have partial anglo saxon ancestors.

mix of germanic and celtic (pre-anglo britons)

>Are the english germanic?
yes. I don't think this is in dispute, bar the few autists who think anglo-saxons have their own sonderweg or whatever. They do have considerable french influence however

We're more scandinavian germanic than germany germanic

Germanic doesn't mean from Germany

That would be the Brits. Not the Scots, Irish, or Welsh.
Hell the Kaiser Riech, Germany, tried to get Great Britian to side with them instead of France with the fact they're both Anglo-Saxon as one of their points.

I think because Britain didn't side with Germany is one of the main reasons were at each other's throats so badly during WW1. Just my two cents.

>they're both Anglo-Saxon

Eh?

Angles were from Denmark
Jutes were from Denmark
Saxons were from Denmark/Germany

I don't get how Germany could claim to be Anglo-Saxon

I'm talking about the English not the 'British' which includes welsh Scottish and Irish.

I know Germanic doesn't mean from Germany. The Angles and Saxons came from what is today Denmark. My main question is how Germanic are the English to say west or South West Germans.

I don't quite understand the how but that's what I've read in a few places. I'm still trying to dig up the big source on it. Though it might be referring to the relation between the Kaiser and Brit monarchy.

>We're more scandinavian germanic than germany germanic
Nope.

No, they are mostly Celtic trash mixed with Pakistanis.

Less germanic probably

I think the majority of our DNA is from the Celtic Britons rather than the Anglo-Saxons or Normans

The tribes that composed the Anglo-Saxons were mainly from Denmark, not Germany

He's right

they're less than 2% of the population mate

Ah, sorry user my knowledge on that aspect is lacking.

They are despicable mongrel breed of perfidious bastards

Germanics are an ethnolinguistic bunch
Being Germanic is mostly a cultural and linguistic thing
English is a Germanic language with a heavy French influence
There are also other continental influences, but their impact on the English language is small
The English had influences from Rome, Angles/Saxons/Jutes, (Dano-Norwegian) Vikings, and Normans
The English are still mostly genetically Celtic (akin to the Irish, and Welsh)
The Cornish, Scots and Welsh aren't like the English on the surface, although they mostly speak English
The borders of modern day entities like Scotland, England,and Wales have shifted, splintered and conglomorated

So while their genetic makeup and cultural impact is quit diverse, the matter of the fact remains that English culture is a Germanic culture and therefore the English as a people are Germanic.

Out of all people that regard themselves as Germanic; Germany ranks quite low on the purity scale when compared to the Scandinavians and say; the Netherlands. So the actual terminology should be cautiously applied.

Also, people that think Germanic = German ought to be shot.

"British" doesn't include the Irish actually, the Irish don't live on the island of Great Britain.

>British Isles

The Saxons came largely from Germany and Denmark not "mainly Denmark" what is your source for that? Yes the Jutes and the Angles were Danish, though during the great migration there was a huge mix of germanic tribes migrating to England including the Frisians and the lower Saxons (definitely Germany) so to claim England is mainly Scandanavian is nonsense. Just look at how similar old English is to Fries, a form of high German (mainland Germany Germanic).

youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34

Even if the Saxons were from Bavaria, it doesn't contradict

>he tribes that composed the Anglo-Saxons were mainly from Denmark

>so to claim England is mainly Scandanavian is nonsense

You're right. It's mainly celtic.

Modern English has a much closer affinity to Scandinavian languages, due to the Danelaw.

pagef30.com/2008/08/why-norwegian-is-easiest-language-for.html

Also Friesan isn't High German, High German evolved around the Alps (the "high" hear refers to altitude), Frisian, like Old English is from the North Sea coast in the Netherlands, Northern Germany, and Denmark

Yeah but then arguing culture you can get into the argument about how Germanic the French influence is through the Franks and how Germanic the Normans were. It's all an inter-Celtic clusterfuck wherever you look anyway, the ancient Germanic tribesmen used to take Celtic wives and vice versa. Before the Romans invented Germania as everything east of the Rhine you can't even distinguish between the two cultures in some places and they only saw themselves as tribes, not a people.

English are weak pussies

My bad i'm well hungover, I did mean low German, Saxon and Fries are both low German dialects. Yeah what I'm saying is that you can't argue it is mainly anything when in reality it's a huge mix of just about everything, and the politics of the time seeps into everything. Yes we have words like sky and anger that come from Scandinavian but during the Norman colonialism you can see how all elitist foods became Frankish, like onion, carrot and then peasant diets/work animals were very low German such as pig and cow. The only reason Norwegian is easier to learn is because it doesn't have the obscure sentence structure German has. I find that so many nouns in German are so similar to English it's just the different verbal system that messes with it.

Which comes from the island of Great Britain and was coined in 1588 by John Dee. (Little Britain is Britanny not Ireland in case you were about to say that)

aaaaaand, Danelaw was only in the North of England for period spanning less than 300 years, so to say it is the largest influence isn't true. It had a large impact on the language sure but in reality English is a huge melting pot of many different languages, it doesn't have one overarching "winner"

British doesn't include the Irish since they are not from the island of Great Britain, nor are they from Brittany (Little Britain)

The Germanic cultural influence by way of the Anglo-Saxons (ie; the Victorian invention) is much greater than the semantics of any inter-Celtic relation.

It's how they classified themselves later on via shared cultural principals with other Germanics as the people they became. Anglo-Saxons and their offspring didn't go "Da's got a 'celtic' wife, might aswel give up my language and culture".

Germanic culture persisted in England.

>Frisian
>Low German
No

>Norman
>Frankish
no

>Pig
>Cow
>Low German
No

English and Frisian are both West Germanic, but not North Germanic languages, nor are they Platduutsch - which is another branch within the West Germanic family (the Low German one).

You're talking silly, m8o

Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians were West Germanic, not North Germanic. Only the Jutes lived exclusively in what is now Denmark.

>aaaaaand, Danelaw was only in the North of England for period spanning less than 300 years
Danelaw covered much of the midlands too, and modern English is descended from a Norsified midland dialect. Look at our syntax and use of auxiliary verbs on that page, it's almost identical to Norwegian, and pretty far from Dutch and German.

N Ireland

>The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND NORTHERN IRELAND

ie; that bit of the Kingdom that isn't Britain

Where do you get this information that the english are mostly celtic and the dutch are purer than germans, not saying you're wrong Infact this is what i suspect but I just don't have a source or proof

Then what about the british isles why is ireland included

Because the term British Isles was coined by John Dee specifically to claim Ireland. Even so the term refers to British as Britain is biggest of the islands, but that does not make the island of Ireland British any more than being in the Irish Sea makes the Isle of Man Irish.

>english are mostly celtic
This can be easily googled
>dutch are purer than germans
Germany is a conglomoration of several tribes based on a standardized shared language, which shares a borderland with many Slavs and Latins; while the Netherlands occupy a little corner of Francia/Saxon/Frisia with a good ol' Belgian buffer to keep the nasty frogs away. Germany's simply too big to be attributed as 'pure'

Because Great Britain is the bigger island, and norn isn't the whole of ireland.

Ireland is still called Ireland in the grouping of the British Isles though

Low German are any Germanic tribes in the lowlands so yes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German

West/east/north German is simply Geographical

I never said German culture didn't persist in fact I'm agreeing with you but saying it's all a massive circlejerk that doesn't matter, just making a jab at /Pol/ack eugenecists. The real answer is a lot more subjective from area to area, there is no objective, black and white Germanic culture I am arguing, Germanic culture only exists because that is how the Romans defined them just because the Rhine was a big river.

I never argued that Frisian and English are not West Germanic, they are low German, they are in the lowlands yet geographically they are West German.

And so you are arguing that there is no Frankish/French linguistic influence on the Normans? Pretty sure they didn't continue speaking Scandinavian for very long.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=pig
Sorry what's that? Pig is Dutch AND Low German? Fuck me

To be fair Cow is old old Germanic, but I was talking about its introduction to England and how it stood the test of time due to the Anglo Saxon peasantry etymonline.com/index.php?term=cow

Threadly reminder that Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic etc. are cultural terms. why do people not get this.

I agree, but Netherlands borders and has had a close relationship with the french is why I have my doubts.

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a brief period and south and south west of England never got Viking butt rammed. Though what i'm saying is that you can't say it is the largest influence, it is one of many with varying degrees of influence on different lingual modes

I'm from the south so everything north of Bristol might as well be Viking anyway

because they are all german tribes, they just lived in territory thats currently danish

Yeah and that's people are discussing the impact of said cultures/languages on England and just how Germanic its culture is, barely the genetics

>Pig is Dutch
It says it's akin to the word "big" which actually piglet, while "varken" or "zwijn" are the actual proper terms. Lets start with that.

There's also no "Low German" people as the people inhabiting the Lowlands were Salian Frankish, Frisian or Saxon. West Germanic is a term which signifies a clear cut break from North Germanic languages (Scandinavia) and East Germanic languages (extinct). While all these languages share a common root in a proto-Germanic language, and are commonly intelligible amonst eachother to a certain extend, there's enough to seperate them from eachother into different families.

Low German, more commonly known as Ingvaeonic, is the Low German you are referring to - which is also the family that Anglo-Frisian belongs to. The cultures that lived there however were either Saxons, Franks, or Frisians (or any variation thereof) and the language they spoke is a West-Germanic language (notice how these terms keep coming back?) Low German is a linguistic subgroup of West Germanic.

Also, the Normans that invaded England from Normandy did so long after the identity and language of the region had moved away from Frankish to France/French. You were equating the introduction of words like onion and carrot as "Frankish" and not as "French" which is a grande difference - as old Frankish actually became what we now consider modern Dutch/Phlegmish (which is a Germanic language, and not a Latin one).

No one in their right mind gives two shits about if people take their Germanicness serious, because it's a system of classification. That classification serves a point, ie; there are cultural, linguistic, historic and to a certain degree genetic similarities between the peoples that consider themselves Germanic. And it doesn't matter how arbitrary the original classification may be, it does have a function and it is rooted in very real aspects.

>English
>Celtic

Celts inhabited a small area of England in the south. Apart from the kingdom of dal riada occupying the western fringes of Scotland, there is no strong celtic admixture in Britain at all.

There are however a lot of short, dark haired, dark eyed people who live in Britain and are more commonly found in Wales and Scotland. These people are the oldest inhabitants of the British Isles and are who the Germanic invaders mixed with (in certain areas).

Those are black people (niggers)

5 minutes of google would've answered that question

sage, reported.

But that's trying to imply that all French peoples an all French lands are part of the same original group of peoples, and not muttlike; like the Brits in fact.

Furthermore; the north of France, and probably the majority of (Northern) Belgium, is quite Germanic in origin. Hence the reason I state it made for a great buffer against Frog cultural expansionism.

>there is no strong celtic admixture in Britain at all.
There is though, like there is a strong admixture of Anglo-Saxons. Not all of England was historically unified into a single national entity that changed overnight. There's quite a bit of Brittonic DNA in both the Irish and English.

English are just generally more muttlike in their makeup, depending on the region.

Though coming back on what OP asked; the English are Germanic in the way that Germanics are classified; Ethnolinguistically.

It said pig is related to Dutch/low German, that doesn't mean it's going to sound the same today.

I think you've missed the point of what I originally was arguing for, that's exactly what i am saying, I am saying that low German is a West Germanic language, but that the "West" is simply geographical of the subdivisions and that there is still a large amount of mainland influence on England. I never spoke of it as a people, simply the lingual influence. I should have been more specific: Germanic tribal culture/linguistics in the lowlands.

I have only been saying all along that Danish tribes are not the primary influence on English culture and that there is plenty of mainland German influence, through the Saxons and Frisians.

Yeah there is a clear difference just as there is a clear difference between the Anglo Saxons and the English but I'm happy to use French / Frank interchangeably, it's just semantics, the Germans still call it Frankreich.

Yeah again i know, apologies for making a lighthearted general cheeky jab, no need to take it so seriously, I'm not trying to turn this into a seminar discussion.

>I have only been saying all along that Danish tribes are not the primary influence on English culture and that there is plenty of mainland German influence, through the Saxons and Frisians.
Saxons come from all over North Germany and Denmark, as do the Frisians... They aren't exclusively German or Danish.

>French / Frank
But that's very wrong, and a bit disingenuous to only show up with that at this point.

Yes exactly what I've been saying, that it is neither and in fact a melting pot of all the various tribes that came over during the great migration.

It's not the flesh of my argument, French/Frankish influence on the Normans, I'm really not bothered if the word onion is not directly Frankish, my point is that the Normans brought those words over yet are not Scandinavian, arguing against the point that all Scandinavia is the largest influence.

And the Latin influence simply outshines the rest, so what of it?

Just because they came from what is now denmark, doesn't make them danish. Denmark didn't exist then. Denmark and the danish come from the Danes, who's territory bordered on the jutes and saxons. Jutes and saxons are german.

...

>All europeans are descended from ice age hunter tribes, anatolian farmers, and copper age horse nomads
>3 groups
>Yet still spend hours nitpicking this shit like it matters

Wrong.

Yes, but they have iberian blood (r1b) too
>we wuz celtz

The vocabulary may have been influenced by Latin and French to a great extent (I've read somewhere that around two thirds of English words have origin in Romance languages) but the grammar is what makes the language Germanic.

of course. why is this even debatable?

It's not but some think that a loan word rich vocabulary changes the family a language belongs in.

Good thing you're not a linguist or Swahili would be classed as Semitic

>There are no genetic differences between Germanic and Celtic people.

If the english are Germanic, then I feel sorry for Germanics.

Was I wrong? Is English not a Germanic language, then?

I'm pretty sure he is meaning to say that loan wrds DON'T change the family, which is correct