h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right,
Can anyone account for the following paradox:
In a country (principality) where half the population is called Jones or Jenkins or similar, they speak a language which - according to the dictionary - does not possess the letter "J"?

Pollution by the English, who only got surnames when William the Conquerer decided we should have them in 10-something. If he decided to assign Welsh surnames at the same time, or they were assigned by any English/Norman monarch, they would seem unlikely to be Welsh-sounded, wouldn't you say?

There's a joke in my part of Wales that says there is no J in Welsh except for Jones, Jam, and Duw Duw.

It's better spoken than read - Duw Duw is a mild blasphemy which means God, God, and is much used in the same way that Tut Tut would have been used years ago in English. It is (badly) pronounced as Jew Jew.

I think Bob that your joke is best left in Wales. It seems to lack a certain universality!

Whats all this about Welsh language not being a form of Gaelic? I understand that it is very distinct, but thought the roots were the same as Cornish, Breton, Scottish and Irish Gaelic. Educate, please.

Celtic as spoken in these islands (Great Britain and Ireland) is divided into two: Brythonic and Goidelic (Gaelic). Brythonic was originally spoken by all the Britons, who lived in Wales, England and southern Scotland. 100 years ago, it had diminished to Cornwall and Wales. Now Cornish has died out and only Welsh is left. Goidelic or Gaelic was spoken in northern Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. Gaelic still survives in Ireland and Scotland but is hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

One of the distinctions between Brythonic and Goidelic is the p / k distinction mentioned already by somebody: words which have a p sound in Welsh have a k sound in Gaelic.

Breton, the celtic language spoken in Brittany, a peninsula in France, is actually Brythonic. The Bretons moved to France from either Wales or Cornwall a long time ago.

There is a rich vein of similes in English. I would guess that some of them are genuinely 'British' and I imagine that subsequent posts will inform us whether this is the case. May I offer for consideration:
'As rare as rocking horse manure'
'As fit as a butcher's dog'
'As drunk as a lord'

I've never understood this "Fit as a Fiddle" business. It's clear that the alliteration is satisfying, but it makes no sense!

Even the English go made when faced with their own language and how to spell it.

The example I read somewhere on the web when talking of p/k celtic languages (ok I'll admit I can't spell Brythonic and Goidelic ) was the words Pentire and Kintyre, both meanding headland.

Is it possible to unite the various strands within this forum? I doubt it, but perhaps we could discuss whether the Goidelic version of the undoubtedly British phrase 'as pissed as a newt' might not be 'as kissed as a newt'.

No, this forum is as tangled as it's subject matter, the english language

Theres a Mr Livingstone chap around London somewhere well placed to solve your pissed/kissed quandary.

I have a newt or two in a garden pond, but they are of a size that would be uncomfortable in the first scenario and yet too small for the second, which might, if there were the slightest suction involved, result in newts for lunch.

I suspect that the said Mr.Livingstone is too busy appointing an army of bureaucrats to answer my trivial concerns - newt-lover though he may be.
One cannot help but feel sorry for the crested newt. Being a protected species it will never receive osculatory exhibition of affection for fear that it may be ingested and thus result in the prosecution of its admirer. 'Hearts and flowers.'

So, if there is still a lot of gaelic/celtic influence, what about other inhabitants of the British Isles, such as the Picts and the Jutes? Does any of their language remain in modern language?

I don't know about the Picts. I would guess that their language has been largely extinguished. The name 'Jutes' is unlikely to have been used by the germanic invaders of Britain themselves. More likely it was coined by mediaevel scholars. I have read that the so called Angles, Saxons and Jutes were probably racially and linguistically indistinguishable and that, like the later Norman conquest, the invaders were a mixture of people from a large geographical area of Europe. As has been noted in this forum by many others, the language of the germanic invaders is a major contributor to modern 'international' English, giving us words like borough, go, sow and under. Having said this, all the Indo-European languages (including Latin and Greek) have many words in common and it can be difficult to clearly identify the origin of modern English words.

I read somewhere that the social differences between the Normans (conquerers) and Saxons (losers) is illustrated nicely in modern language:

Pork - Norman word
Pig - Saxon

Beef - Norman
Cow - Saxon

Mutton - Norman
Sheep - Saxon

i.e. The Saxons were reduced to looking after these (in those days almost luxury) animals whilst the Normans ate them.

I think the dog being bad thing comes form the fact that dogs are ugly. They are! One way it is used in my part of Britain is to describe someone ugly (normaly female) eg. "She was a right dog".

I have been told another phrase that confuses our friends over the pond is "Hoovering the lounge". I don't know why, but there we go. Of and to throw some more animals into the disgusion, to call someone a "duck" is a term of indearment, to call someone a horse is the same as the ugly dog thing.

Those Normans were a pretty vile bunch. Not only introducing poncey french words into our language but eating the peasants as well!

*pthpththpthpth*

Don't know if you caught a bit of history revision on the TV last night, but it seems that 'our' Harold was a bit of a Norman himself. Lived there til he was 30 something. Yer actual saxons was well gone by then. I do wish they wouldn't keep changing history. Just get one story and stick to it.

The study of the past seems to be making progress. People now study all of the evidence rather than just what their predecessors have written. Perhaps Henry Ford's dictum is no longer valid?
I gather that the jury is still out on the cause of Harold's death, was he shot or was he stabbed - or both?