Comments by "" (@sebe2255) on "RobWords" channel.

@Svensk7119 Not just Norwegian, German and Dutch have the same word for dictionaries, woordenboek
3
@MultiMidden Same is true for Celtic, they didn’t originate in Ireland or Britannia
3
@lesterstone8595 🤓🤓 Are you always this pedantic? The US had a population of 5.3 million in 1800, so 60.000 is barely more than 1% of the population for a doubling in landmass, it is insignificant
3
@Zveebo Except those Empires are either dead, or they actually are popular choices as a second language within their own sphere. Russian is a common second language in a lot of eastern Europe and centeal Asia because of their Empire. Same goes for Chinese and the business world in east asia. Also there is a reason why the largest Portugese speaking country is not Portugal and that reason is Empire Meanwhile there is one global hegemonic power that uses and exports English which is the reason why English is a popular choice for a second language in all of the west and a lot of the world in general. That would never have happened without the American (and to a far lesser extent the British) Empire.
2
@blacksmith67 The Dutch population would have been too small to out-colonize the Uk. If they had held on to Nieuw Amsterdam, it would more than likely have been a small town, and not the mega city that New York is today
2
@lesterstone8595 idc what your source is, just because Australia has even more wasteland doesn’t mean that 60.000 people in a huge area is a lot. My whole argument is simply that, 60K is not a lot of people
2
@lesterstone8595 Except it wasn’t significant to the Japanese armed forces and government. The nukes did not deter them. And yes when your landmass gets more than doubled but your population increases by a percent, then it is an insignificant amount of people. And sure to the 60.000 people it would be significant. But if I stub my toe on a piece of furniture that is significant to me, but not to the world at large. This is why there is no real French or Spanish legacy in most of the regions that were a part of the French/Spanish colonies. There barely were any of them
2
@michaelpickel9534 It can’t be Teutonic if they ignore other Germanic languages, that would be teutonic as well. Also obviously Anglish wouldn’t include anything from pre-Roman Britain as the Anglo-Saxons weren’t even on the Isles yet
2
@Meadow Maker Welsh is obviously very different from old english though, so using it to determine how much Latin already influenced old english pre 1066 is completely pointless
2
@Meadow Maker Except you are wrong. I just used Welsh a shorthand for the descendants of the pre-Roman celtic languages since it is the most relevant one. But you can’t just say that because Welsh, or literally any other language, has Roman loan words that the language of the Germanic invaders would have had those loan words too. Also there are almost no traces of any celtic language in old english, so this is especially true for old English. It is definitely debated how violent the setting of the Germanic tribes was, but the language of the Britons was absolutely driven from what is now England with some peripheral exceptions in Cumbria and Cornwall. You can say that certain celtic languages on the British isles borrowed from Latin, but you can’t have apply that to old english. So yes, welsh is completely pointless here.
2
@adventussaxonum448 Sure in names, but not words. There is virtually no British influence on old English
2
Dutch is Modern old English? What?
2
@toomanyopinions8353 Seems a little too elaborate to be a wog whistle lol
2
@toomanyopinions8353 I don’t think that really applies to this. You could say nationalists could be more included to like this in general, but that doesn’t make it a “dog whistle”
2
@DuskyJewel White nationalist? The French are white too.
2
@toomanyopinions8353 Perhaps, but it is weird to just throw around the term white nationalist.
2
@davidpaterson2309 There is actually shockingly little Celtic in the English language. To the point where this is one of the main arguments to support a large scale Germanic invasion/immigration as opposed to a ruling Germanic elite class (akin to the Franks in Gaul).
1
@Zveebo That cultural dominance would not have existed without the British or the American Empire though
1
@maxberan3897 Probably leftists who are over sensitive to anything that can be seen as nationalist
1
@laurencefraser A lot of those borrowings are also purely academic or so archaic that no one uses them
1
@yannschonfeld5847 Disagree, language is a part of identity. A lot of Dutch people are now using English terms or even whole sentences. I think that is a shame at you lose unique Dutch words or sayings
1
@yannschonfeld5847 Try to introduce language purity.
1
@lesterstone8595 No one lived there though, it was mostly a land purchase
1
@geesehoward700 Britain wouldn’t exist without the Normans? That is just nonsense.
1
@lesterstone8595 I didn’t mean that literally no one lived there. Just almost no one, an irrelevant amount of people
1
@lesterstone8595 population density doesn’t mean much. And 60.000 people is barelt anyone for a huge region that is basically the entire midwest. I was right 😏
1
@lesterstone8595 60k is a lot for a house, not for a landmass half the size of Australia. That is small town size
1
@lesterstone8595 No it wasn’t, 60.000 people was insignificant for an area that size even back then Relative to a random small region in Europe 1% the size of Australia, it was minor
1
@lesterstone8595 Source bro
1
@lesterstone8595 I mean lets say it was 500.000 people, still a minuscule amount for a region that big
1
@lesterstone8595 🤓
1
@lesterstone8595 🤓🤓🤓 Stop being pedantic, also it was to Japan, they were prepared to keep fighting
1
@victorfergn “Most” wasn’t no, but a significant part was. 30% on average with certain regions having more (Anglia) and certain regions having less (all of North-Western England). But this actually makes it even weirder that there is no presence of Celtic in Old English. What you would have expected to happeb with these numbers, is that because of significant intermarriage between Celts and Saxons, some linguistic exchange would have also happened. But it seems that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the culture of the Celts almost entirely. Which is quite extraordinary, even for the migration period
1
@victorfergn No 30% being Anglo Saxon. If it was 60% which it isn’t (not on average anyway) then they would have replaced most of the celts. Anyway, again, genetics don’t even really matter here. They still wiped out most of the Celtic culture and language. Which is the more interesting and unique development
1
@victorfergn King Arthur was revived, or rather brought back to England, primarily by Norman-French rulers and their storytellers, not the Anglo-Saxons. But I’d argue that one story doesn’t really compare to the annihilating of seemingly everything else
1
Probably because it is an effort by people who are culturally mostly descended from the Anglo-Saxons, especially in terms of identity, and not pre-Roman celts. But, those people’s descendants are also very keen on preserving their language in Wales. It is obvious why English people would choose Abglish over a Celtic languages they have nothing to do with
1
@toomanyopinions8353 Because it is an English language movement, not a Welsh one
1
@davidjames4915 Saying that a loan word automatically enriches a language is a knee jerk reaction too. It is as you say the exact opposite of wanting to maintain total purity
1