William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#381  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 6:43 pm

Svartalf wrote:The Angles might come from southern Jutland (which to this day is shared between denmark and germany), but I know for a fact that they spoke a continental rather than Norse language.


They spoke a Germanic language.
The Germanic peoples referred to in the history books, are not quite from the same area as what would later be known as Germany
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#382  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 6:49 pm

.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#383  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 6:50 pm

You know nothing of linguistics. Continental Germanic languages (such as German or old Saxon) are VERY different animals than Norse Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic), I know, I studied both.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#384  Postby campermon » Mar 12, 2020 6:51 pm

Nevets wrote:Shouting LAGER LAGER LAGER LAGER LAGER LAGER LAGER shouting



That's the spirit! :cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#385  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 6:53 pm

There's no debunking a bunch of arrant nonsense, you can't debunk word salad because, to debunk something, there must be a half clear thesis to demolish.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#386  Postby campermon » Mar 12, 2020 6:53 pm

Svartalf wrote:
campermon wrote:Evening all!

It appears that the bar is open :beer:

Yep, I'll have a pint of Guinness and and Islay malt chaser.


A good choice Sir! They compliment each other superbly! :cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#387  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 6:53 pm

Svartalf wrote:You know nothing of linguistics. Continental Germanic languages (such as German or old Saxon) are VERY different animals than Norse Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic), I know, I studied both.


The disinfo and delusion continues.

Old norse, was "also" Germanic

Old Norse was a North Germanic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#388  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 12, 2020 6:54 pm



RS
Last edited by theropod_V_2.0 on Mar 12, 2020 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#389  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 7:02 pm

There used to be a very old mythological tale. It is a complete lie of course. But this lie posits, that the Romano Brits used to cower at the white cliffs of dover, when they could actually hear the Vikings from Calais, waking them up in the morning with a startle, to the chant of


Rollon', rollon', rollon'
Rollon', rollon', rollon'
Rollon', rollon', rollon'
Rollon', rollon', rollon'
Rawhide, rawhide
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#390  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 7:02 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:False and your wiki quote, as usual, does not state that


If you look at the headline of the wikipedia article, where it is talking about the Norse Gaelic language, you will see it is talking about Norse language. Which part in Norse Gael do you not understand, as pertaining to Norse?

Which part of Norse-Gael not being the same as the Gaelic already spoken on the British Islands, do you not understand?
Which part of the fact that the Welsh language, including the term Prydain, predates the arrival of Norse-Gaels in Britain, do you not understand?
Or to put it simply, who do you think you'll fool with this pathetic trolling? :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The quote above is specifically about Norse-Gaels.
There were Celts on the British Isles, centuries before the Norse-Gaels arrived and the Welsh language predates it as well.


Nonsense. There is great dispute with contemporary historiand regards to when the Welsh language was solidified. Some say around 575ad. Others as late as 9th Century

That's the origin of the modern and codified Welsh.
The Welsh language has a longer history than that and the term Prydain, predates the arrival of the Norsemen in Britain.
To quote that wiki page:
Linguist Kenneth H. Jackson has suggested that the evolution in syllabic structure and sound pattern was complete by around AD 550, and labelled the period between then and about AD 800 "Primitive Welsh".[25] This Primitive Welsh may have been spoken in both Wales and the Hen Ogledd ("Old North") – the Brittonic-speaking areas of what is now northern England and southern Scotland – and therefore may have been the ancestor of Cumbric as well as Welsh. Jackson, however, believed that the two varieties were already distinct by that time.[17] The earliest Welsh poetry – that attributed to the Cynfeirdd or "Early Poets" – is generally considered to date to the Primitive Welsh period. However, much of this poetry was supposedly composed in the Hen Ogledd, raising further questions about the dating of the material and language in which it was originally composed.[17] This discretion stems from the fact that Cumbric was widely believed to have been the language used in Hen Ogledd. An 8th-century inscription in Tywyn shows the language already dropping inflections in the declension of nouns.[26]

Janet Davies proposed that the origins of Welsh language were much less definite; in The Welsh Language: A History, she proposes that Welsh may have been around even earlier than 600 AD. This is evidenced by the dropping of final syllables from Brittonic: *bardos "poet" became bardd, and *abona "river" became afon.[23] Though both Davies and Jackson cite minor changes in syllable structure and sounds as evidence for the creation of Old Welsh, Davies suggests it may be more appropriate to refer to this derivative language as Lingua Britannica rather than characterising it as a new language altogether.

And from the wiki page on Welsh literature:
The Welsh language became distinct from other dialects of Old British sometime between AD 400 and 700; the earliest surviving literature in Welsh is poetry dating from this period.

But don't let the facts and your own sources stop you from making up whatever shit appeals to you. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: 5. The Norse-Gaels you are talking about did not arrive in Scotland until the Viking age. Scotland was already populated by Picts and other tribes at that time. The arrival of Norse-Gaels has no bearing on the term Prydain. Nor is Scotland Cymru, which is where the term originates from.


But this is contradicted by the Gododdin. They were already making their way to Wales 600ad

Except the Gododdin were Bretons, not Norsemen as has been explained to you multiple times now.

Nevets wrote:
n around 600 the Gododdin raised a force of about 300 men to assault the Angle stronghold of Catraeth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gododdin

And the Norse-Gaels did not arrive until the Viking Age, which was 200 years later.

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again the Gododdin weren't Norse or Norse-Gaels. They were Bretons. The Norse-Gaels did not arrive in the area until 200 years later


Old Norse dates back to 200ad

Completely irrelevant non-sequitur #2346245

Nevets wrote:
Please explain, how then, if the Norse had not arrived in Din Eidyn (Gaelic for Edinburgh), between 5th and 7th century, how come the anglos had already given Edinburgh a Gaelic name by 500AD.

Because, as I've already pointed out:
1. Norse is not a Gaelic language.
2. Celts had been living for centuries in the British Isles, even before the Romans arrived, so Gaelic language was already present, without the need for Norse. Gaelic as we know today is derived from the language of Iron Age Celts living in the British Isles.


Nevets wrote:
The reason is, is because you keep falling for peoples changing their names.

More projection on your part. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
The Norman conquest was Danish

It wasn't. Nor were the Normans Danes.

Nevets wrote:The Viking conquest was Norse, including Danish,

Vague gibberish. There is no 'the' Viking conquest.

Nevets wrote:And the Anglo conquest, was also Danish.

Except it wasn't as Danish did not exist as an ethnicity and the Angles spoke European-Germanic languages, not Scandinavian Danish.

Nevets wrote:
The anglo conquest happened right after the Roman Empire left Britain, and as you can see on the wikipedia map, Angles, were from Denmark

And the Celts were originally from Eastern Europe, yet we don't call them Hungarians. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
The Angles (Old English: Ængle, Engle; Latin: Angli; German: Angeln) were one of the main Germanic peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

Germanic, not Danish.

Nevets wrote:
And the invasion began around 410ad

, following the end of Roman rule in Britain around the year 410. The settlement was followed by the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Sax ... of_Britain


The Germanics/Saxons, were just foot soldiers, to the anglos

How else do you think God Odin was walking around Britain 500ad?

The above is yet more counterfactual matter produced directly by your arse. :coffee:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 12, 2020 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#391  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 7:03 pm

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:You know nothing of linguistics. Continental Germanic languages (such as German or old Saxon) are VERY different animals than Norse Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic), I know, I studied both.


The disinfo and delusion continues.

Old norse, was "also" Germanic

Old Norse was a North Germanic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

Germanic as in member of a large family, but French is closer to English and German than they are close to Norse languages. As a Germanist, I tell you, know what you are talking about or shut up. I spent years studying both German and Old Norse, I know those things.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#392  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 7:06 pm

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Angles and the Saxons were two germanic peoples who colonized Britain at the expense of the locan Romano Breton folk, but there was no hierarchy between them, and they eventually mingled and became known as anglo saxons... if anything, it's the Angles who became subsumed by the more numerous Saxons.

and Wotan never did walk in Britain... because, you know, the Angles and Saxons were continental Germans, not Norse, so they worshipped Wotan, not Odin.


Are you seriously saying, that this map here, which shows you were Anglo, and Saxon, was, is not in Denmark?

Are you "serious"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/m ... ements.svg

Does your vapid trolling still not rise above the level of blatant misrepresentation? :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#393  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 7:08 pm

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:The Angles might come from southern Jutland (which to this day is shared between denmark and germany), but I know for a fact that they spoke a continental rather than Norse language.


They spoke a Germanic language.
The Germanic peoples referred to in the history books, are not quite from the same area as what would later be known as Germany

Which is as specific as saying they spoke a Latin language.
Svartalf already educated you on this topic. But do continue to make a fool of yourself. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#394  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 7:08 pm

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:You know nothing of linguistics. Continental Germanic languages (such as German or old Saxon) are VERY different animals than Norse Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic), I know, I studied both.


The disinfo and delusion continues.

Old norse, was "also" Germanic

Old Norse was a North Germanic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

The silly, transparent straw-manning and bullshitting continues. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#395  Postby SkyMutt » Mar 12, 2020 7:09 pm

Svartalf wrote:who that?


Serious, but not entirely serious.

"The charm of a man is measured by the charm of the women who think he is a scoundrel."
— H. L. Mencken
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 851
Age: 62
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#396  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 7:09 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote: ,


Dear Thomas.

I removed the rest of your post.

The anglo saxons, that invaded 410bc.

Though, in truth, 367bc - see the great conspiracy of 387
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conspiracy



The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Look at this map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg
[/quote]

Now i am being kind.

If you continue to argue, i am going to show you how the anglo-saxon invasions, also include, "direct", invasions from Norway, and not only denmark.

But il leave that for now
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#397  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 7:14 pm

You're either very young, or not a native speaker of English, either way, you're an ignorant buffoon and a troll. Since you're ignorant, I put you on ignore.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#398  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 7:16 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: ,


Dear Thomas.

I removed the rest of your post.

No, you failed to quote the rest of my post.
My original post did not magically disappear however, so the points raised therein still stand, despite your silly attempt to ignore them.

<snip> more conflation errors and counterfactual assertions<snip>

Germanic is a language group and part of an ethnicity, not a nationality.
The Angles were a European Germanic tribe, not a Norse/Danish one.

Nevets wrote:
Now i am being kind.

I don't consider repeated lying, straw-manning, blind dismissal to be kind. :naughty:


Nevets wrote:
If you continue to argue, i am going to show you how the anglo-saxon invasions, also include, "direct", invasions from Norway, and not only denmark.

But il leave that for now

Since you've failed to provide evidence for just about any of your vacuous claims, I won't hold my breath. :coffee:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 12, 2020 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#399  Postby campermon » Mar 12, 2020 7:17 pm

Bar snacks are available.

I can highly recommend a bag of black country pork scratchings. An excellent accompaniment to a pale ale. :thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#400  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 7:24 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since you've failed to provide evidence for just about any of your vacuous claims, I won't hold my breath. :coffee:


Just take a look at the picture.
Dont be frightened

Now, when you open the link, it will show you, that the anglo-saxon raids, were conducted by Denmark.

If you accept, that they were conducted by Denmark, it means i win the debate.

On the otherhand, if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend you did not see it, it means i also win the debate, but you carry on in delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg


Which is it to be?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest