On English Neck a Norman Yoke

The greatest woe in English past was the beating of Harold Godwinson by William the Bastard in 1066. Our tongue has been fouled by the wordstock of the Gauls and Romans. We must begin to abandon the speechcraft of our worsters and come back to our clean roots.

Romantic speech is high-flown and slighting to the common man. Did we not best the Normans and return English to the court? Why do we hold their tongue in our ways?

I spur my folk to throw off the Norman yolk from our speech. Over 50 of one hundred of our wordbook is filled with Latin and French. We must be the switch we hope to see in our lives. If any man of Anglo-Saxon blood speaks the words of the outlanders, let him live in their lands instead of our folk's.

Attached: Sutton Hoo Helmet.jpg (1162x1544, 755K)

>common
wonted*

bumping this highly humorous thread

Attached: 1535340639410.png (750x416, 176K)

Also here's a list of the Latin/French words you used:
>past
Borrowed from Old French passer, from Vulgar Latin *passō, from Latin pandō, from Proto-Indo-European *peth2-.

>abandon
From Middle English abandounen, from Old French abandoner, formed from a (“at, to”) + bandon (“jurisdiction, control”),[1] from Late Latin bannum (“proclamation”), bannus,[2] bandum, from Frankish *ban, *bann, from Proto-Germanic *bannaną (“to proclaim, command”) (compare English ban), from Proto-Indo-European *bʰeh2- (“to speak”).
To be fair, this one has a Germanic origin even though we introduced it to your language, so you get a pass. The prefix and suffix are Romance, though.

>common
From Middle English comun, from Anglo-Norman comun, from Old French comun (rare in the Gallo-Romance languages, but reinforced as a Carolingian calque of Frankish gemeini, gamaini "common" in Old French), from Latin commūnis (“common, public, general”).

Well, you were almost there. Better luck next time. :)

>Anglos larping as Anglo-saxon

yikes

the english are more norman/celtic than angloid or viking by far

and norman culture is way closer to modern english culture than anglo-saxon could ever be, the french are why england is a relevant nation today and not a backwater shithole like ireland.

Anglo-Saxons aren't "Vikings," and most English people are more Anglo-Saxon than Celtic.
Yeah I missed a few, obviously it takes a conscious effort to speak a more pure English and sometimes shit slips through. There are also some words which have been completely replaced by words with Romance roots. "Around," for example, has no modern synonym with a Germanic root, the Old English word "yrm" having falled out of favor a long time ago.

I'm trying to learn Anglo because I'm interested in it, where is a good resource?

>angloid or viking

can you read? and no they're not. they're far closer to the roman british population, see picture. england has 30-40% angloid/scandinavian DNA depending on the region.

stop LARPing, mutt. it's cringy.

Attached: british dna collage.png (7340x3196, 3.47M)

why are normans always thought of as latin even though they were descended from vikings

>Anglo-Saxon blood

doesn't exist anymore. you have norman blood if you're english. you also have britonnic blood. you also have viking blood.

you're a mutt. anglo-saxons were the peasant class for 500 years. to this day, people with norman last names are richer (and if i do say so, more attractive than anglo-peasant stock)

Are you trying to learn Old English or are you trying to just speak with a pure English vocabulary? If it's the latter I can't really help you, to my knowledge there isn't a dictionary out there with only pure English words in it or anything, you'll sound like a lunatic everywhere you go, and there are some words you'll have to avoid entirely because they don't have any modern equivalents.

If you're trying to learn Old English, an excellent book to begin with is "A Guide to Old English" by Bruce Mitchell and Fred C. Robinson. It covers all the grammar and pronunciation, which is probably the most difficult part to learn (Old English grammar was much closer to modern German than what we use today, you'll have to learn a lot about cases and whatnot). It also has a lot of source reading and words used in colloquial language that aren't very common in surviving Old English poetry.

Old English is a very beautiful literary language to learn. We have a huge volume of poetry, theology, etc. that has survived into the modern day, and reading it in the original language is much better than the translations out there. It preserves the meter and rhythm that you just can't get with a translation.

Because the Nordic invading force was small and they were mostly descended from the local Gallo-Frankish population

Because F*ench """""people""""" like to pretend that they conquered us. The truth is too painful for them to handle.

Like clockwork :3

the vikings raided normandy in 900~ AD

they were granted land there

over the next 150 years they married local french women, and adopted their culture

they were by no means "vikings", really were just northern french people at the time of 1066

150 years is 6 generations, having one viking ancestor 6 generations prior to 1066 means the normans were about 1.5% "viking"

because european ethnic groups are mostly ethnic-linguistic perhaps?

The Anglo-Saxons were not from Scandinavia, retard.
The Normans themselves were, yeah, but the Norman language was a dialect of Old French. They assimilated pretty well into French culture.
See above. "Normans" simply refer to the French descended from Scandinavians assimilating into French culture after they were allowed to settle in, you guessed it, Normandy. "Vikings" are not an ethnic group. Anglo-Saxons are by far still the most common ancestry for people in England. I'm not saying they didn't breed into the local populations when they migrated there, but they migrated en masse and completely dominated the native culture. "Norman" and "Viking" do not refer to an ethnicity, they are cultures, one defined by their language, the other by their lifestyle, whereas Anglo-Saxons were and are a distinct ethnic group.

you're assuming they didn't bring any women or they just kept marring pure locals, though
>Gallo-Frankish population
well, that would still not be latin, though i guess
gallo = celtic
frankisg = germanic

TY, it was old english

>language = ethnicity
that's dumb desu

Well yeah we aren't ethnically Latin

The vast majority of romance speakers aren’t ethnically Latin since the ethnically Latin people were not large in numbers and the Roman way was to make others adopt their way of life rather than displace the population.

>you're assuming they didn't bring any women or they just kept marring pure locals, though

they didn't though

>The Anglo-Saxons were not from Scandinavia, retard.

they were from southern denmark (which is scandinavia), north germany, and holland.

these people were genetically the same as the vikings, as germanic tribes came down from scandinavia onto the continent.

you're an absolute mongoloid

>See above. "Normans" simply refer to the French descended from Scandinavians assimilating into French culture after they were allowed to settle in, you guessed it, Normandy. "Vikings" are not an ethnic group. Anglo-Saxons are by far still the most common ancestry for people in England. I'm not saying they didn't breed into the local populations when they migrated there, but they migrated en masse and completely dominated the native culture. "Norman" and "Viking" do not refer to an ethnicity, they are cultures, one defined by their language, the other by their lifestyle, whereas Anglo-Saxons were and are a distinct ethnic group.

see
anglo-saxons are the second most common ancestry behind the native celts, genetically. they didn't just genocide the romano-britons. you're a complete idiot.

if they were anglo-saxon, they'd cluster near the danish. guess what? they cluster with NW france closest, brittany, a celtic people.

Attached: white countries.png (250x223, 11K)

That's really the truth though. While there is certainly a genetic difference between, say, an Italian and a Swede, most of what we consider separate ethnicities is defined more by language and culture than genetics.

If you took a baby Swede, with two Swedish parents, but raised him in Norway and taught him only Norwegian language and customs, I think most people wouldn't have a problem saying that he's Norwegian, because there really isn't that big of a genetic difference between the two.

But then compare that to taking an Iraqi girl and plopping her in France and then calling her French just because she speaks the language. It's not the same.

you're a mutt, so why does it matter?

>they were from southern denmark
Try again, the Saxon tribe was originally from a bit further south. There's even a place in Germany named after them. What's it called? Oh yeah, Saxony.

Nobody is claiming that they outright committed genocide and replaced the native British population. But ethnicity is a combination of culture and genetics. Through centuries of breeding into the local population, yeah, they made a mixture of the two, but Anglo-Saxon language and culture dominated England. Your repeated use of the word "Viking" is also cancer to my ears.

Why are you so fucking angry? You're a mutt too, nobody like a self loather. Go shit up another thread.

Why is it bad? I find the English language as it is to be beautiful and the french influence is a reflection of British history. To try and erase the french aspects of the English language is to attempt and hide history and it would also require the creation of totally constructed words. I would not be a fan of my language, one that has evolved as a result of struggles and events of the past to become nothing more than a historically insignificant conlang.

Sure it’s an interesting project to attempt to see how English might’ve been had there been no Norman influence, but to say that it’s a bad thing that happened and we should all try to erase that influence from our everyday speech is frankly a totally unrealistic and totally useless idea.

Is it though? European borders have been fluid for thousands of years. Constantly being chopped and changed due to invasions, migrations and unions. The concept of a "nation-state" didn't really come to fruition until the French Revolution. For hundreds of years, the only thing that distinguished one tribe of Europeans from another, was the language they spoke. Ethnically speaking, Northern Germans probably have more in common with Danes, than they do with Bavarians. The idea of "Germaness", revolves - first and foremost - around a shared mother tongue. That's why it's so fucking weird to us when Americans claim to be Italian, for example, without speaking a single word of the language.

lets skip the anglo part and let them speak saxon meaning proto lower german.

Let's skip the Saxon part and just have everyone speak Proto-Germanic. Or better yet, we should all speak Proto-Indo-European.

>Try again, the Saxon tribe was originally from a bit further south. There's even a place in Germany named after them. What's it called? Oh yeah, Saxony.

You realize they're called "ANGLO-SAXONS"? right?

Do you know where the Angles were from? Southern Denmark.

You do know Jutes and Frisians settled England too, and are considered the "Anglo-Saxons" as well?

Jutes were from JUTLAND. WHAT IS NOW NORTHERN DENMARK. Frisians were from Frisia, which is in holland

the absolute fucking state of mutt LARPers. jesus christ.

you're not english, you will never be english, you'll always be a fucking mutt. you're insulting to me (someone actually born in england)

fucking yank go kill yourself

i grew up in surrey. i just came here for uni because i got into princeton

Hows the states treating you

>you're a mutt!
>not me though!

C O P E
O
P
E

Attached: 1509081961318.png (889x696, 133K)

mutt larpers are so fucking cringe, especially the anglophiles/nazi larpers.

Yeah The Angles, Saxons and Jutes actually peacefully settled down peacefully, the common rhetoric is that they were merely raiders who pillaged the land, when in fact Anglo-Saxon culture was firmly cultivated in the British Isles, unlike the attempts of the Visigoths in Spain where the Romano-Iberian population was far greater than the Germanic Visigoths.

Reminder that England would have been Denmark-tier if not for us conquering it and ruthless oppressing the locals.
>“I have persecuted the natives of England beyond all reason. Whether gentle or simple I have cruelly oppressed them; many I unjustly disinherited; innumerable multitudes perished through me by famine or the sword……I fell on the English of the northern shires like a ravening lion. I commanded their houses and corn, with all their implements and chattels, to be burnt without distinction, and great herds of cattle and beasts of burden to be butchered whenever they are found. In this way I took revenge on multitudes of both sexes by subjecting them to the calamity of a cruel famine, and so became a barbarous murderer of many thousands, both young and old, of that fine race of people. Having gained the throne of that kingdom by so many crimes I dare not leave it to anyone but God…"

Attached: 1525049990490.jpg (487x498, 47K)

and yet its the case within europe. sure there are genetic differences but no conqueror and no migration ever forces 100 percent of its genes on a population even if they completly extinguish culture and language of the looser. language is what makes a people. poles in germany will remain poles as long as they can speak polish but the first generation to not learn to speak polish will be the last to have any ties with poland.

>Why is it bad? I find the English language as it is to be beautiful and the french influence is a reflection of British history. To try and erase the french aspects of the English language is to attempt and hide history and it would also require the creation of totally constructed words. I would not be a fan of my language, one that has evolved as a result of struggles and events of the past to become nothing more than a historically insignificant conlang.

this

fucking absolutely faggot americans larping as ancient peoples is so fucking retarded anglo saxons haven't existed for 1000 years

>ruthless
*ruthlessly

What the fuck point are you trying to make? I originally said that the Anglo-Saxons weren't Scandinavians. They were, as you put it, a mutt between lower and upper Germanic tribes, who went over to England and mutted with them as well. And now you're somehow trying to claim that you are a pure Englishman, after proving that you're descended from mutts? Take your fucking meds you inbred limey.

to add to this

the "anglo saxons " in 1066 werent even genetically danish/dutch/saxon

they were romano-briton + anglo saxon mutts anyway, just culturally anglo.

The inability to detect sarcasm is one of the early warning signs of autism.
>anglo saxons haven't existed for 1000 years
This isn't really true. As I've said earlier in the thread, ethnicity is part genetics but it's mostly language and culture. The culture and language of the aristocracy was very separate from most Englishmen. If you study Middle English, the language spoken by most of the lower classes, you'll see that it was still much closer to Germanic than what we have today. It wasn't really until Early Modern English that the language began to be recognizable. And if you take into account the culture aspect of it, the "Anglo-Saxons" basically still existed up until the 1500s or so, or even till today depending on how you define it. You can't just point to a date and say "this is when this culture stopped existing."

>Anglo-Saxons weren't Scandinavians

some of them were, and their DNA was not any different from viking DNA we've extracted.

i'm saying you're a 56% mexican mutt LARPing as some ancient tribe that was mutts and got mutted even further

.if they were anglo-saxon, they'd cluster near the danish. guess what? they cluster with NW france closest, brittany, a celtic people.

that isn't how it works, they have more med dna (from iron age france) than irish or scots which pulls them south, if anglos had no anglo saxon they would plot much further south

nah i can tell you're a 100% serious neckbeard Jow Forumstard that thinks he's an englishman

>This isn't really true. As I've said earlier in the thread, ethnicity is part genetics but it's mostly language and culture. The culture and language of the aristocracy was very separate from most Englishmen. If you study Middle English, the language spoken by most of the lower classes, you'll see that it was still much closer to Germanic than what we have today. It wasn't really until Early Modern English that the language began to be recognizable. And if you take into account the culture aspect of it, the "Anglo-Saxons" basically still existed up until the 1500s or so, or even till today depending on how you define it. You can't just point to a date and say "this is when this culture stopped existing."

doesn't matter, nowadays every commoner is related to the norman aristocracy you fucking idiot.

Attached: norfman.png (1056x1032, 86K)

>viking DNA
Stop using terms you don't understand. I never claimed I'm an Anglo-Saxon, I don't even know if you know who you're fucking responding to since you've done such a good job of shitting up the thread.
>doesn't matter, nowadays every commoner is related to the norman aristocracy
And they're also related to the indigenous peasantry? What the fuck is your point? Are you having an episode or something? You seem to be really pissed off at the world that you're a mutt, lashing out at everything that reminds you of yourself. You've got serious self-esteem problems.

And even the celts weren’t even that “genetically celtic” if you define genetically celtic as being from the original celts who originated in the alps. They were still mostly of the same stock as the original pre-indo-european people who were the first inhabitants of Britain after the end of the ice age. This can be seen in how the Basque people in Iberia are some of the most closely related people to Britain even today.

PCA is a terrible way of determining direct ancestry, it mostly shows ancestral components. But yes. The English are about as 'Germanic' as southern Germans, probably more than Austrians. North Germans are probably about 65% Germanic.

>nowadays every commoner is related to the norman aristocracy you fucking idiot.

Are you special needs?

>And even the celts weren’t even that “genetically celtic” if you define genetically celtic as being from the original celts who originated in the alps. They were still mostly of the same stock as the original pre-indo-european people who were the first inhabitants of Britain after the end of the ice age. This can be seen in how the Basque people in Iberia are some of the most closely related people to Britain even today.

Completely wrong LOL. Scotland and ireland have literally the highest Indo european DNA in europe.

Attached: Spanish and British Genes.png (1123x631, 304K)

He's a self-hating American having some type of existential crisis. I'd advise ignoring him.

>And even the celts weren’t even that “genetically celtic” if you define genetically celtic as being from the original celts who originated in the alps. They were still mostly of the same stock as the original pre-indo-european people who were the first inhabitants of Britain after the end of the ice age. This can be seen in how the Basque people in Iberia are some of the most closely related people to Britain even today.

You are right about one thing though, Brits are probably not alpine celts, they are probably pre-celtic but still indo-european.

British and Irish people don't fuking look like spainairds apart from a small minority of them.

Doesn't matter how retarded he is, what he said is plain fucking stupid.

Are you calling R1B “indo-European DNA” if so, have a look at the makeup of basque people.

>Completely wrong LOL. Scotland and ireland have literally the highest Indo european DNA in europe.

Not quite, but they are up there, they have roughly the same as scandinavians.

Have a look at what Spaniards from the north of Spain in places like Galicia and Asturias look like. Might be surprised.

yes, basques are almost 100% indo european on the male lineage, its hard to believe but this is 100% settled now and agreed upon by every geneticist and archaologist. are you seriously this out of the loop?

>OP posts a somewhat witty and humorous jab at modern English
>thread devolves into a clusterfuck of LARPers, self-loathing mutts, and pseudoscientists whipping out DNA charts
Is this Jow Forums or Jow Forums? Is there a difference anymore?

Attached: 1479823963652.jpg (125x100, 2K)

they look nothing like irish people LOL

Attached: Belfast gcse.jpg (615x409, 60K)

B-B-BASED

Attached: 1525916738007.gif (554x400, 45K)

>Are you calling R1B “indo-European DNA” if so, have a look at the makeup of basque people

omg you are retarded, r1b is from fuken yamna and basques are 30% indo european autosomally (90% of haplogroups - male biased) you haplomemer

First off, no need to come across as condescending on every post - genetics is one of the least perfect sciences on the planet and their are endless theories on all sorts.

What I was referring to in my original post was the Atlantic Bronze Age culture which correlates extremely well to modern genetics in Western Europe, I have noticed I mistakenly thought this was pre-indo-European but I was wrong.
My point still stands though that “celtic” or “germanic” doesn’t describe our DNA and we have remained relatively the same for thousands or years

God I fucking hate the haircut sported by specs at the back in the middle, every other cunt in the UK has it.

The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark have quite a big share of the R1b group.

Coincidence that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from those areas? People saying England's ancestry isn't close to those regions making me think.

>southern denmark (which is scandinavia)
20IQ subhuman. Denmark is Nordic, but not part of the Scandinavian peninsula; they share a common culture, but not common geography. The Anglo-Saxons were from south of Jutland so they don't even have that in common. They were 100% Germanic, but not scandi

no, it doesn't at all, R1b in The uk is a completely different subclade to the Iberian one. There is no genetic affinity between Britian and Spain.

this is an irish persons affinity to modern populations.

there isn't multiple theories at this point, it is settled that R1b is yamna, literally not a single geneticst has contested this for years, people just still believe oppenheimers bs from 15 years ago

Attached: Irish K36.png (1154x837, 111K)

Those look like prods to me, irish are not usually that blonde, they are usually paler too

Anglos are almost genetically identical to nordics autosomally but it predates the saxons to the corded ware culture and norther beaker culture

Us anglos are proud NON GERMANICs or only 45% Germanics at best. We are a neolithic-corded ware beaker- celtic-roman- saxon people and you WILL respect us. YOU WILL. RESPEC NOW

This is what I mean by genetics being far from perfect however, your map seems to imply something a little different from this one which I think of showing the England (and the rest of the UK) showing an extremely close Y-DNA connection to Atlantic regions in Europe.

Attached: 7A44CEF7-265E-473E-9253-252EDFD7FFCE.png (4592x3196, 1.06M)

Why are americans like this?

We are capable of speech and language because we aren't monkeys.

Is this what they talk about when shopping at walmart?
Maybe that's also why they congregate there so often

>can't even link posts
>proclaiming intellectual superiority
Una delicia

>if anglos had no anglo saxon they would plot much further south

and?

they still don't have enough anglo-saxon to be considered "anglo-saxons" at all genetically.

the danes or the dutch or north germans are fucking closer to the anglo-saxons than you are

and you cluster with brittany because your briton celts fled there from the anglo-saxon and roman invasions, it suggests that you are the same as you were 2000 years ago and anglos, romans, vikings and normans had very little impact on english DNA.

Are you actually unironically denying that everyone in England is a descendant of the norman nobility in some shape or form?

are you the special needs one here?

you seem to be in denial that you're a mutt, jose

you seem to not realize vikings literally settled england (the danelaw)

fuck off and stop talking about my country like you know anything of it yank

>They were still mostly of the same stock as the original pre-indo-european people who were the first inhabitants of Britain after the end of the ice age. This can be seen in how the Basque people in Iberia are some of the most closely related people to Britain even today.

that's not true

90% of britain's DNA was replaced by indo-europeans 4000 years ago.

Is this the kind of philosophy that comes out of american minds when they microwave their water?

Yes i am, is there actually anything wrong with that statement? Normans were nobility, and the rest of the people were tied to the Feudal System.

you realize nobility had bastards and eventually trickled down into the commoners blood right? especially these days. every single english person is a descendant of at least some normans.

you realize you have literally millions of ancestors since 1066 right? the amount of ancestors you have doubles every generation going back

it's impossible for you not to have any norman ancestry and be english

>You realize nobility had bastards

How much of the nobility would there be in the first place to have so many bastards that apparently everyone is descended from? That's irrelevant information.

There's definitely a tiny trickle of said Norman DNA but not enough to have a massive impact, that's plain wrong to assume Normans play a big part in English DNA.

You seem to not realize that "viking" isn't an ethnicity. You've been talking out of your ass this whole thread, you're a mutt like everyone else, and you're a stupid one at that. My condolences.

actually scored 145 on the mensa test and got in

>My dad works for Nintendo

but the people from denmark/norway that invaded england were vikings.

don't be an autist about this

145 isn't even that rare.

not even trolling here

literally every single person of english descent has norman ancestry

i'm not saying it has a big part in the DNA, but every single englishman alive today is a descendant of at least one norman.

i've found counts of anjou and bretons and normans shit in my family tree from tracing back english ancestry to the 13th century and prior, and i'm just an amerimutt

You're an autist by abusing that word as much as you have. It just shows you have an infantile understanding of the history of the time period.

And for the record, "viking" is not a term that was ever self-applied by them. It was not something to be proud of, it was not a badge of honor or initiation. It would be the equivalent of an army calling themselves the "rapists."

>I'm a genius
>goes on to say retarded shit about tracing his ancestry back to the 13th century
Okay kid, go to bed, you've got school tomorrow. Tell your dad to have a talk with you about how pathetic it is to lie to strangers.

An IQ of 145 would place at .15% of the world population, above Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Stop lying on the internet, it is pathetic.

why are you so upset

i'm just high IQ and done some family history?

plus, 145 isn't even that high, it's like 1 in 1,000

they were literally vikings retard, everyone calls them that. the VIKING age. they were snowniggers that sailed to places then raided and settled there.

>It would be the equivalent of an army calling themselves the "rapists."

that's what they literally were