Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 120 of 120

Thread: Kilt Wearers Unite!!

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderDawg View Post
    Going back to the original topic:

    Why wear a kilt? I think us men should be secure enough to say "I look dam good in a dress and I'm not ashamed to wear one!"
    D@mn your attempt to un-hijack this thread! You'll never get into the cocpit! Never!
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    2,106
    I am reading your words, but you're stopping just short of them making sense. What then is the origin of Anglisc? Without that none of the rest makes any sense.
    Yes, I can understand Anglo as a latinisation meaning people who speak Anglisc, but where does the word Anglisc come from?
    BTW. if you could turn the confrontation dial down just a smidgen, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand.
    "The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
    www.swindonkungfu.co.uk

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outer Beringia
    Posts
    892
    [QUOTE=Ben Gash;959058]Yes, I can understand Anglo as a latinisation meaning people who speak Anglisc, but where does the word Anglisc come from?
    QUOTE]

    I'll butt in here, again, if I may.

    There are two possible etymologies for the word which developed into anglii, englaland, etc.,: the most likely is that it referred to the "angle" or point of land on the Danish peninsula where the tribe lived before some of them headed for greener pastures. A second theory advanced is that the people referred to themselves as "anglers" or fishermen. "Angle" in this case means a fishhook.
    The word hasn't changed much in a couple of millenia.

    I knew what you were asking. I think Becca was just trying to stir things up with classical obfuscation. The marauder is having too much fun.

    Be well.

    jd
    "Look, I'm only doing me job. I have to show you how to defend yourself against fresh fruit."

    For it breeds great perfection, if the practise be harder then the use. Sir Francis Bacon

    the world has a surplus of self centered sh1twh0res, so anyone who extends compassion to a stranger with sincerity is alright in my book. also people who fondle road kill. those guys is ok too. GunnedDownAtrocity

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jdhowland View Post
    I knew what you were asking. I think Becca was just trying to stir things up with classical obfuscation. The marauder is having too much fun.

    Be well.

    jd
    Shhhh. stop tellin' ma secrets.


    Ben:
    The presise etymology of anglisc is not know, but it was first atested mor than 100 years after Alfred the Great was said to have called the people and land that.

    It's a point of view thing. Do we choose to use the modern idea as correct definition or the one the Germanic tribs likely had?

    All three tribes spoke the same language and that language was refered to as Anglisc. Alfred the Great, when he claimed to be the first king of the Anglo-Saxons, called bothe the people and the land they occupied Anglisc. But, since the language didn't originate in Angul (the Angle homeland), the anglo-saxons themselves likely didn't think it meant "of the Angles."

    What we do know: Jutes, Saxons, and Angles on the continent didn't speak the same language. Jutes, Saxons, and Angles in what is now England did, but it was not significantly similar to any of the three continental tribes' native language to be simply a dielect of one.

    Conjecture: Anglisc was a blend or Jute, Sanxon and Angle german and brithonic, which was spoken by the native population of the souther end of the isle.

    What is definantly known is that latin did not enter into mainstream "english" untill after the Normans started speaking it cort rather than French.

    If that isn't clear enough, I don't know if I can help you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Becca View Post
    Ben:
    The presise etymology of anglisc is not know, but it was first atested mor than 100 years after Alfred the Great was said to have called the people and land that.
    Alfred used the word Angelcynn which would mean 'kin of the Angles' to describe the people. It seems highly likely that this name had been around for centuries before. Offa used the title Rex Anglorum on some of his charters 150 years before Alfred. So while it is accurate to say Alfred was the first king of the Anglo-Saxons, the concept of the English had been around before Anglo-Saxon unity was cemented.

    Given the vowel shift from Anglisc to English, it also seems likely that there is an etymological relationship with Yng/Ingaevones, which would explain the similarities between the languages and peoples of Jutland, Frisia, Angeln etc, and also explain why Saxon (which is a different branch) remained more separate until its realtively late assimilation into Anglisc with Anglo-Saxon.

    As for the first attestation you mention, Tacitus (d. early second century) mentioned the Anglii in a list as allied with the Eudoses (sp?) who were the Jutes... so like Ben, I don't really know what your point is regarding Alfred, and the difference between uses of Anglii and Anglisc.

    It's a point of view thing. Do we choose to use the modern idea as correct definition or the one the Germanic tribs likely had?
    Sorry, what were you saying was the modern idea?!

    All three tribes spoke the same language and that language was refered to as Anglisc. Alfred the Great, when he claimed to be the first king of the Anglo-Saxons, called bothe the people and the land they occupied Anglisc. But, since the language didn't originate in Angul (the Angle homeland), the anglo-saxons themselves likely didn't think it meant "of the Angles."

    What we do know: Jutes, Saxons, and Angles on the continent didn't speak the same language. Jutes, Saxons, and Angles in what is now England did, but it was not significantly similar to any of the three continental tribes' native language to be simply a dielect of one.
    Sorry, where are you getting that the three tribes spoke the same language as the Angles and Jutes? They were similar languages, and must have had some intercomprehensibility, but not the same. And are you saying the language of the Angles didn't originate in Angeln?!

    Conjecture: Anglisc was a blend or Jute, Sanxon and Angle german and brithonic, which was spoken by the native population of the souther end of the isle.
    Brythonic is a different branch altogether. There is no evidence to suggest that Anglian or Anglo-Saxon were siginificantly influenced by Brythonic or any of the Celtic languages. There are about 80 words in Middle English derived from Celtic languages or Brythonic compared to 80% plus from the Germanic sources. There is little to suggest that there would be much mutual understanding either, since the Brython/Celtic languages do not follow Grimm's Law.

    What is definantly known is that latin did not enter into mainstream "english" untill after the Normans started speaking it cort rather than French.
    Inaccurate! The Normans didn't speak French in any more than a barely recognisable form. And the Latin they used was heavily cross-pollinated by Germanic languages anyway. More later... no time now!

    Have fun with this one, eh, Becca?! All in good sport!
    Last edited by Mr Punch; 09-15-2009 at 06:51 PM.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    A couple of other random unclear hurried points!

    The pope you mentioned was indeed Gregory I in 601 who refered to Aethelbert of Kent as Rex Anglorum. The Angles were already the prominent tribe, as obvious by the fact that Kent was in fact a Jute Kingdom, and soon to be subjugated by the Mercian (anglian) kingdom.

    Most of the Latin words actually entered the vernacular during the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons, and a second (slightly lesser) influence from the medieval Dog Latin after the Norman invasion. The supposition that the Normans spoke French is horribly wrong. Norman French was just as close to Germanic languages as to modern or contemporary French, hence its easy assimilation and rapid dominance in Britain: it wasn't that the Lords and the serfs didn't understand each other, it was that the vernacular was different.

    Given that the Mercian language was predominant for close to 300 years from pre-Penda to post-Offa but that the Mercians weren't as into writing as their northern cousins the Northumbrians, it's safe to say that by the time the Wessex (West Saxons) kingdom came into prominence what they were chronicling in was already Anglo-Saxon rather than Saxon, with a heavy Angle influence. Hence Alfred's eventual assertion that he was King of the Anglo-Saxons.

    Becca's assertion that Anglo-Saxon in any form was a mix of Anglisc, Saxon and Brythonic is the most puzzling. The Brythonic/Celtic branch never really came into it.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Incidentally Becca, the stem "anglo" itself doesn't come from classical Latin. It wouldn't be a correct Latin adjective form.

    It is a Middle Latin (i.e. heavily influenced by Norman French and Old English itself) abbreviated corruption of the 10th century Old English "Angulsaexen" through "Anglo-Saxōnēs, Anglī Saxōnēs" and is only first used in the modern configuration of "Anglo-Saxon" in the early 17th century.

    Up till then Angel (as in Alfred's Angelcynn), Engla (as in Alfred's Engla Lande), Anglii (as in the classical Latin adjective/plural noun) and Angul (as in Middle English Angulsaexen) would have been used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Gash View Post
    A little confused here, Anglii is a pleural noun, and Anglo is an adjective.
    Anglo is an English adjective prefix: it is NOT a classical Latin adjective or adjective stem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Becca View Post
    Yes, anglo is the adjective of anlius. Anglii is the plural noun of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Becca View Post
    I've came right out and said the origin of the word anglo several times, including the name of the guy who coined it. ...
    Anglo is Latin, but it was in reference to the language of the land, not in reference to one of the germanic tribes. The language was a combination of brithonic and german. They called that language anglisc. We call it old english. A pope called it Anglo, which is where the latin came in.
    And you were wrong! Pope Gregory I used 'Anglorum', an adjective meaning 'of the Angles': as I proved above, nowhere did the 'anglo' prefix/stem get used until Middle English and Middle Latin in England in the 10th/11th centuries, and not in the common vernacular until much later.
    Last edited by Mr Punch; 09-15-2009 at 07:26 PM.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by jdhowland View Post
    I'll butt in here, again, if I may.

    There are two possible etymologies for the word which developed into anglii, englaland, etc.,: the most likely is that it referred to the "angle" or point of land on the Danish peninsula where the tribe lived before some of them headed for greener pastures. A second theory advanced is that the people referred to themselves as "anglers" or fishermen. "Angle" in this case means a fishhook.
    The word hasn't changed much in a couple of millenia.
    The first one you mention is most widely accepted by historians but most probably wrong. The 'angle-hook' of Angeln is pretty indistinct and in those days they just didn't have the map-making accuracy to have identified it as such a promontory. It's easy to see from above, but doesn't stand out so much from the surface.

    There are another two possible derivations:

    1) Ang meaning narrow, as Angeln is on a narrow (of the sea).
    2) Ingaevones/Yng = the people of Yng: a description that was certainly used to include their close neighbours, the Jutes, and which would explain a lot about the similarities between the peoples of Scandinavia and Anglia in those days, and their languages.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post
    Have fun with this one, eh, Becca?! All in good sport!
    by all means, argue back. I sometimes get my facts muddled, too.

    But: I'm not going digging back 2 or 3 pages to where this whole Thread hijacking began.

    I will attempt to address your points as I see them.


    Anglo is an English adjective prefix: it is NOT a classical Latin adjective or adjective stem.
    Classical Latin is the form of the Latin language used by the ancient Romans in what is usually regarded as "classical" Latin literature. Its use spanned the 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD—possibly extending to 1st and 2nd centuries.

    So: Anglo wasn't proper written Latin, but it was still Latin. Anglo was coined by Gregory the first some 400 years after classical latin fell out of common use. So a word like Anglii needing an adjective when written in latin would look like "anglo."
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    As for the first attestation you mention, Tacitus (d. early second century) mentioned the Anglii in a list as allied with the Eudoses (sp?) who were the Jutes... so like Ben, I don't really know what your point is regarding Alfred, and the difference between uses of Anglii and Anglisc.
    Did not say the Anglii as a people were first attested at that time. Said the word "anglisc" was first attested at that time. Attested to meam first proven written record of the word's use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Punch View Post

    What is definantly known is that latin did not enter into mainstream "english" untill after the Normans started speaking it cort rather than French.
    Inaccurate! The Normans didn't speak French in any more than a barely recognisable form. And the Latin they used was heavily cross-pollinated by Germanic languages anyway. More later... no time now!
    Did some checking and noticed we are both part right and part wrong. During the period of the Roman occupation of Southern Britain (AD 43 to c. 410), Common Brythonic borrowed a large stock of Latin words. I was not aware of that.

    The name Norman-French is sometimes used to describe not only the modern Norman language, but also the administrative languages of Anglo-Norman and Law French used in England..... The Anglo-Norman dialect of Norman was a language of administration in England following the Norman Conquest. This left a legacy of Law French in the language of English courts (though it was also influenced by Parisian French). In Ireland, Norman remained strongest in the area of south-east Ireland where the Normans invaded in 1169.
    So refering to the Normans as speaking french in court is not only accurate, it's apropriate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    right there
    Posts
    3,216
    is this the orginal celtish before it began evolving into todays galeic?
    if so then early celtish was remarkably close to latin anyway so i doubt they would have borrowed being that they likely understood the romans and vice versa

    I am pork boy, the breakfast monkey.

    left leg: mild bruising. right leg: charley horse

    handsomerest member of KFM forum hands down

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Commerce City, Colorado
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by goju View Post
    is this the orginal celtish before it began evolving into todays galeic?
    if so then early celtish was remarkably close to latin anyway so i doubt they would have borrowed being that they likely understood the romans and vice versa
    Bwahahah!!!! Yes, modern Galic is remarkably latin-ish. For exactly the same reason English has a lot of latin roots: the Romans spread thier culture like a desease. While most of thoese they conqured didn't drop thier native language, if a new consept was introduced or they needed a word for something they didn't already have a word for, they adopted the latin word.

    What I love are they folks who say galic made no impact on english. the fraze "smashing" for instance. Ask most anyone from England what it means. Then ask anyone fluent in Scotts Ganlic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    you're kidding? i would love to drink that beer just BECAUSE it's in a dead animal...i may even pick up the next dead squirrel i see and stuff a budweiser in it

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    right there
    Posts
    3,216
    oh yeah obviously gaelic influenced english not to mention celtish influenced the norse languages to begin with so the invading angles and saxons and jutes more than likely had alot of loan words from celtic before they settled and had contact with the celtic population of britain

    gaelic also supposedly bares a strong similarity to phoenician and hebrew

    THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE EARLY IRISH-CELTIC AND THE SECOND CENTURY, B.C., HEBREW- PHOENICIAN LANGUAGE, AS SHOWN BY THE PENULUS OF PLAUTUS:


    PHOENICIAN OF PLAUTUS:


    Byth lym mo thym nociothii nel ech an ti daisc machon


    Ys i do iebrim thyfe lyth chy lya chon temlyph ula.


    EARLY IRISH-CELTIC:


    Beth liom' mo thime nociaithe, niel ach an ti dairie mae coinne


    Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla.

    being irish i find it funny how our language went from sounding identical to ancient greek and latin to the clingon speak from star trek lol!!!

    I am pork boy, the breakfast monkey.

    left leg: mild bruising. right leg: charley horse

    handsomerest member of KFM forum hands down

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,907

    ttt 4 2013

    This thread has been mentioned a lot lately.

    Sperm quality higher in kilt-wearing men who go commando, say researchers

    Researchers warned readers that additional investigation is necessary to affirm this hypothesis.

    Science Recorder | James Fluere | Saturday, April 20, 2013

    For anyone of Scottish ancestry, the kilt is a symbol of honor and of fertility and masculinity. The differing plaids that kilt-wearing men put on are the colors of the particular clan that the individual belongs to.

    Researchers from Erasmus MC University Medical Center in the Netherlands have investigated informal reports that individuals who wear kilts enjoy higher sperm counts and greater sperm quality.

    Erwin Kompanje, an intensive care specialist at the Erasmus Medical Center, said that wearing a kilt is about more than just clan pride. He made the case that kilt-wearing men are likely to have higher sperm counts.

    The researchers arrived at this conclusion by examining existing studies on scrotal temperature and spermatogenesis and fertility. They discovered that wearing a kilt creates an ideal scrotal environment, which allows the kilt-wearing man to preserve normal scrotal temperatures. Keeping the scrotal environment at an ideal temperature is known to be good for sperm production and quality.

    While some activities improve sperm quality, others damage sperm cells. A recent study by researchers in Argentina links the electromagnetic radiation emitted by wi-fi enabled laptops to sperm damage.

    Researchers gathered semen from 29 health men and determined their sperm cells’ swimming ability after being exposed to radiation from a wi-fi enabled laptop. Swimming ability decreased and DNA damage increased in the wi-fi sperm compared to the “control” sperm.

    The researchers concluded that men who frequently wear a kilt during the year in which they hope to father a child will have improved rates of sperm quality and higher fertility. They also said that the most beneficial way to wear a kilt is to go commando.

    According to LiveScience, the researchers cautioned their readers that additional investigation will be necessary to affirm this hypothesis.

    Have you ever worn a kilt? Are you more likely to wear one now that researchers have found evidence that they increase sperm quality? Is wearing a kilt on a daily basis practical? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

    The study’s findings are described in detail in the Scottish Medical Journal.

    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •