English...

[K.Snyder]

I have recently taken an interest in knowing the origins of the things that I am accustomed to and have paticularly found an interest in the evolution of my own native toungue. I know that I am not very great at grammar....I know I probably misspell alot of words.....but Its still the language I speak.

I have recently discovered that english is deprised from the German language(low-- west germanic), and that English has only been a language for about 1500 years. Although it was Old English, and to hear it as well as see the contents of the language is unrecognizable, I was still able to understand what the passage the person was reading when I listened to an audio recording of the ancient language. I have to say when I soon discovered that what the person was reading in this ancient language was that in which I had recognized, I had a bone chilling experience, in that I was able to understand something so ancient and to be that much closer affiliated with the passed. Not just because the differences in language and how they change over time, but by being,in a sense closer to my ancestors and fellow human beings who lived such a long time ago.

But there are some things that still puzzle me as far as the developement of some Indo-European based languages.

Like for instance, how Goidelic and Brythonic is considered a Celtic language. Arnt these languages English? After all Celtic tribes from northern Gaul settled in todays Great Britain. And from what I understand, the descendants of the Celtic language is still spoken today, such as Irish Gaelic and Scotish Gaelic, as well as Breton and Welsh.

Also, I know that alot of todays English has addopted alot of words from the French, Latin, Spanish and other languages, but I also dont understand how the French language was formed where as it not being affiliated with the Germanic language as well. From what I understand, France is the territory that was once concidered Gaul in the time of ancient Rome and from that period on has been riddened with invaders from the Germanic Provinces along with other territorys seized by German tribes.

If anyone knows a few facts about how the Language has changed and why it has changed so much feel free to add some things, to let everyone who reads this thread get a better understanding of how the English langauge evolved.

[Bez]

K.Snyder wrote: I have recently taken an interest in knowing the origins of the things that I am accustomed to and have paticularly found an interest in the evolution of my own native toungue. I know that I am not very great at grammar....I know I probably misspell alot of words.....but Its still the language I speak.



I have recently discovered that english is deprised from the German language(low-- west germanic), and that English has only been a language for about 1500 years. Although it was Old English, and to hear it as well as see the contents of the language is unrecognizable, I was still able to understand what the passage the person was reading when I listened to an audio recording of the ancient language. I have to say when I soon discovered that what the person was reading in this ancient language was that in which I had recognized, I had a bone chilling experience, in that I was able to understand something so ancient and to be that much closer affiliated with the passed. Not just because the differences in language and how they change over time, but by being,in a sense closer to my ancestors and fellow human beings who lived such a long time ago.



But there are some things that still puzzle me as far as the developement of some Indo-European based languages.



Like for instance, how Goidelic and Brythonic is considered a Celtic language. Arnt these languages English? After all Celtic tribes from northern Gaul settled in todays Great Britain. And from what I understand, the descendants of the Celtic language is still spoken today, such as Irish Gaelic and Scotish Gaelic, as well as Breton and Welsh.



Also, I know that alot of todays English has addopted alot of words from the French, Latin, Spanish and other languages, but I also dont understand how the French language was formed where as it not being affiliated with the Germanic language as well. From what I understand, France is the territory that was once concidered Gaul in the time of ancient Rome and from that period on has been riddened with invaders from the Germanic Provinces along with other territorys seized by German tribes.



If anyone knows a few facts about how the Language has changed and why it has changed so much feel free to add some things, to let everyone who reads this thread get a better understanding of how the English langauge evolved.


Good heavens....where to start ? I think a bit of research is in order before I put my 2 pennysworth in.

[K.Snyder]

Bez wrote: Good heavens....where to start ? I think a bit of research is in order before I put my 2 pennysworth in.


God heofonum

[BabyRider]

K.Snyder wrote: God heofonum
Wha.....? HUH???

[K.Snyder]

BabyRider wrote: Wha.....? HUH???


In Old English (about 500 AD - 1160AD)

God = Good

Heofonum = Heavens

[BabyRider]

K.Snyder wrote: In Old English (Old English has developed into Modern English spoken about 500 AD - 1160AD)



God = Good



Heofonum = Heavens
Ahh...you were translating. I get it now. I'll be watching your thread, K, it should teach me a lot. I am a consistent murderer of the English language.

[K.Snyder]

Here is a recording in Old English. this is what I was refering to in my original post. I couldnt make out anything she was saying until the part toward the end and I knew exactly what it was. Bone chilling to know that something I could interperate was spoken so long ago and that this was the English language in its time.

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/LP-all.wav

[chonsigirl]

French changed over time as the other Romance languages did. Being colonized by Rome, the local people brought their native language and mixed it with the Latin. Languages change over time, and with the fall of Rome the French language continued to also change. If you want specific words or change in verb usage, you would have to be more specific. I am sure people here are more fluent in French then me.

For a short history of the French language:

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/La ... uage.shtml

[K.Snyder]

chonsigirl wrote: French changed over time as the other Romance languages did. Being colonized by Rome, the local people brought their native language and mixed it with the Latin. Languages change over time, and with the fall of Rome the French language continued to also change. If you want specific words or change in verb usage, you would have to be more specific. I am sure people here are more fluent in French then me.

For a short history of the French language:

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/La ... uage.shtml


Yes but before france was considered France, which before then was considered the Franks- which was due in large part of the Germanic tribes conquering present day france during the barbarian invasions was gaul, that in which the natives spoke Gaulish, which is a desendent of the Celtic language just like Welsh and Breton which is spoken in England today I beleive.

[chonsigirl]

Modern English occupies a middle position within the western European family of languages, with its vocabulary approximately half Germanic and half Romance in origin.

The reason is not Britannia's relatively fragile position within the Roman empire. The cause is more recent, in the Norman conquest. After seizing northwest France and adopting the local language, the Normans arrive in England with French as an essential part of their cultural baggage. Several centuries of rule by Norman aristocrats and bureaucrats bring Latin words back into the language of England through the medium of medieval French.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... id=dpi#dpi

Germanic language tree

http://softrat.home.mindspring.com/germanic.html

Indo-European Language Tree

http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum_c.shtml

Click on the links in this tree for further information.

[spot]

I don't think you'd have succeeded in understanding that wav if it hadn't been such a familiar text to start with. I have a lot of trouble with English from just 700 years ago, and it only gets simple to follow over the last 500. I'd agree it's the variation in pronuciation rather than the vocabulary that makes for difficulty. I wonder whether the arrival of recorded sound is going to slow down the rate of drift?

[K.Snyder]

spot wrote: I don't think you'd have succeeded in understanding that wav if it hadn't been such a familiar text to start with. I have a lot of trouble with English from just 700 years ago, and it only gets simple to follow over the last 500. I'd agree it's the variation in pronuciation rather than the vocabulary that makes for difficulty. I wonder whether the arrival of recorded sound is going to slow down the rate of drift?


I absolutly beleive that language will not be subject to such drastic changes due to the evolution of radio and television. While it may slow down drastically, in my opinion langauge will always change due to the allocation of slang, as well as the insertion of new words associated with new inventions, and technologies, or even a few famous phrases much like Shakespears affect on late modern English.

One can only wonder if the English we speak today will be comprehendable in over 500 years.

[K.Snyder]

[QUOTE=spot]I don't think you'd have succeeded in understanding that wav if it hadn't been such a familiar text to start with.[QUOTE]

I hadnt read the passage before I listened to the audio. At the part in the tape toward the end, ("forgive us" part) I had recognized just the paragraph that she was reading as apposed to knowing the meanings of the words she was expressing. But none the less, I still knew what she was reading.

[chonsigirl]

I think English will continue to change at the same pace, radio and TV will only impact it by making idioms used more in the vernacular.

[K.Snyder]

chonsigirl wrote: I think English will continue to change at the same pace, radio and TV will only impact it by making idioms used more in the vernacular.


Does anyone beleive there may be another vowel shift? If so, when do you think would be the earliest and what associations would be attributed to it?

[chonsigirl]

Vowel shifts vary from region to region. That is a very good question, I will research that tonight to see if anything has been written on it.

[K.Snyder]

Ok,

So I have learned that Celtic tribes from northern Europe and the Scandinavian countries settled in "Briton" and upon the decline of Roman rule were the original inheritors of England. These Celts developed their own language called Welsh and I suppose Breton constructed from original Celtic language as did the Gaelic Irish and Gaelic Sottish. Upon the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions of England they were driven to the western ends of the mother country and was forced to settle with a divided country. One ruled by the Welsh in the West and the newly formed English from the Anglo-Saxons in the east. (Am I correct so far?)

Upon the Norman conquest the Welsh were still able to keep their state and only until king Henry VII was the Welshes dynasty "blended" confusingly into the english rule by deception, but still managing to keep their loyalty to the Welsh traditions, which explains why this language and culture still exists today, with a lot of misconception that they are apart of the English heritage due, in large part, to their adoption of a lot of english words.

(this is my own interpretation)

[spot]

K.Snyder wrote: Ok,

So I have learned that Celtic tribes from northern Europe and the Scandinavian countries settled in "Briton" and upon the decline of Roman rule were the original inheritors of England. These Celts developed their own language called Welsh and I suppose Breton constructed from original Celtic language as did the Gaelic Irish and Gaelic Sottish. Upon the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions of England they were driven to the western ends of the mother country and was forced to settle with a divided country. One ruled by the Welsh in the West and the newly formed English from the Anglo-Saxons in the east. (Am I correct so far?)

Upon the Norman conquest the Welsh were still able to keep their state and only until king Henry VIII was the Welshes dynasty "blended" confusingly into the english rule by deception, but still managing to keep their loyalty to the Welsh traditions, which explains why this language and culture still exists today, with a lot of misconception that they are apart of the English heritage due, in large part, to their adoption of a lot of english words.

(this is my own interpretation)Yes, that all sounds about right except it's Henry VII. James I did the same for the Scots a while later.

Bede wrote about the first Anglo-Saxons appearing. Alfred the Great's biographer... Asser, I think... wrote about the arrival of the Vikings, and Sir Walter Scott wrote about the Norman arrival (as did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and whoever wrote Hereward the Wake).

[Raven]

But it was Edward I who first defeated the Welsh.

And dont forget the Cornish, who still have their own language as well, though it is more rare these days.

Our language AND the Island derived their name from the Angles. Our particular form of 'common' english came from the Essex region of Britain.

It wasnt until the middle ages that english was the language of choice at court. French was the official or 'polite' language of the English aristocracy.

[Jives]

The Norman Conquest and Middle English (1100-1500)

William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy, invaded and conquered England and the Anglo-Saxons in 1066 AD. (The Bayeux Tapestry, details of which form the navigation buttons on this site, is perhaps the most famous graphical depiction of the Norman Conquest.) The new overlords spoke a dialect of Old French known as Anglo-Norman. The Normans were also of Germanic stock ("Norman" comes from "Norseman") and Anglo-Norman was a French dialect that had considerable Germanic influences in addition to the basic Latin roots.

Prior to the Norman Conquest, Latin had been only a minor influence on the English language, mainly through vestiges of the Roman occupation and from the conversion of Britain to Christianity in the seventh century (ecclesiastical terms such as priest, vicar, and mass came into the language this way), but now there was a wholesale infusion of Romance (Anglo-Norman) words.

The influence of the Normans can be illustrated by looking at two words, beef and cow. Beef, commonly eaten by the aristocracy, derives from the Anglo-Norman, while the Anglo-Saxon commoners, who tended the cattle, retained the Germanic cow. Many legal terms, such as indict, jury, and verdict have Anglo-Norman roots because the Normans ran the courts. This split, where words commonly used by the aristocracy have Romantic roots and words frequently used by the Anglo-Saxon commoners have Germanic roots, can be seen in many instances.

Sometimes French words replaced Old English words; crime replaced firen and uncle replaced eam. Other times, French and Old English components combined to form a new word, as the French gentle and the Germanic man formed gentleman. Other times, two different words with roughly the same meaning survive into modern English. Thus we have the Germanic doom and the French judgment, or wish and desire.

It is useful to compare various versions of a familiar text to see the differences between Old, Middle, and Modern English. Take for instance this Old English (c.1000) sample:

Fæder ure þuþe eart on heofonum

si þin nama gehalgod tobecume þin rice gewurþe þin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.

If you want to hear it, click here: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/LP-all.wav

Rendered in Middle English (Wyclif, 1384), the same text is recognizable to the modern eye:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;

þi reume or kyngdom come to be. Be þi wille don in herþe as it is dounin heuene.

yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.

And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.

And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

Finally, in Early Modern English (King James Version, 1611) the same text is completely intelligible:

Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen.

Giue us this day our daily bread.

And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill. Amen.



In 1204 AD, King John lost the province of Normandy to the King of France. This began a process where the Norman nobles of England became increasingly estranged from their French cousins. England became the chief concern of the nobility, rather than their estates in France, and consequently the nobility adopted a modified English as their native tongue. About 150 years later, the Black Death (1349-50) killed about one third of the English population. The laboring and merchant classes grew in economic and social importance, and along with them English increased in importance compared to Anglo-Norman.

This mixture of the two languages came to be known as Middle English.

[K.Snyder]

So from my understanding, Germanic tribes captured much of Gaul which consisted of the same sort of Celtic type of people, and upon Roman influence they developed the french language deprised of Latin origin, whereas the germanic people kept their German language intact. Then the germanic languages split into two seperate languages consisting of Low German and high German, while the western sort of low German was incorperated into Old English as they traveled from northern Europe to what is now Great Britain(or which ever you guys call it today). Upon these "Anglo-Saxons" settling on Britain they incorperate what was their modern language then(Old English) with Latin, French,Spanish and many other languages depending on what region they had lived as well as the positions of higher authority they sustained in the comunity, and has evolved into modern English, which in turn is distinguishable by what we speek today, Late Modern English.(overcourse after the vowel shift had its affect)

Is this correct?

[K.Snyder]

spot wrote: Yes, that all sounds about right except it's Henry VII. James I did the same for the Scots a while later.




I changed it....sometimes I see more columns than what are really present when I see these numbers written in letters.

[Raven]

It's not that easy. First you have to understand that the native peoples of Britain, were bunched into several tribes. The Gaelic Scots and the Picts at the top. Then Rome invaded. They spoke Latin. And wrote in Latin. The Welsh and Cornish are descended from what was once the native peoples or Britons. The Scots were folks who migrated from Ireland waaaaaay back.

Who knows where the picts came from!

When Rome left the island suddenly after 400 some odd years of occupation, the angles, jutes and saxons arrived. Each speaking their own language. Our modern language is a derivative of these. Angleland (England) is what the french called it. The name stuck. The Romans called it Britannia.

[K.Snyder]

I guess my next question would be is Old English somewhat understood by German speaking people, much like those of us who speak English can recognize words in middle English and more so with modern english??

[gmc]

K.Snyder wrote: I absolutly beleive that language will not be subject to such drastic changes due to the evolution of radio and television. While it may slow down drastically, in my opinion langauge will always change due to the allocation of slang, as well as the insertion of new words associated with new inventions, and technologies, or even a few famous phrases much like Shakespears affect on late modern English.

One can only wonder if the English we speak today will be comprehendable in over 500 years.


If anything the pace of change is going to get faster. English is one of the most eclectic languages in the world-as you point out if there wasn't a word that fitted they borrowed from another language or one is made up-like telephone, video, computer, television, internet. Someone from thirty years ago would not have had a clue what an I-pod, pc, CD, HD, sat-nav, mobile is and yet they are all now common parlance just as once common idioms no longer have a place.

Never mind vowel shifts the r sound seems likeley to disappear since most seem unable to pronounce it properly or put it in where it wasn't-hence ass instead of arse, sawr instead of saw. Being scots of course I reponounce it properly.

posted by K Snyder

I guess my next question would be is Old English somewhat understood by German speaking people, much like those of us who speak English can recognize words in middle English and more so with modern english??


Actually yes it would be. The Yorkshire dialect for instance has much in common with german country dialects from the areas in germany that the saxons came from originally, and i do mean dialect not accent.

Eddie Izzard did a documentary on it called "Mongrel nation" which you might find of interest.

http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/histo ... l_nation//

European tribes are so mixed up you are going to do your head in trying to make sense of it all.

The normans were descendants of vikings (Norman-norseman) given land in what became normandy by the frankish king

[K.Snyder]

gmc wrote: If anything the pace of change is going to get faster.






You think so?

I would have guessed that being exposed to the same type of dialect and/or accent as well as cleashay phrases would prolong the changing of the language as opposed to speeding it up.



Maybe it would be a better question to ask as to how soon the English language will change in Great Britain as well as Ireland and Scottland from that of other english speaking countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia due to slang and the different dialects that you speak of?? And will some day these countries soon not be able to distinguish each others language??

[gmc]

K.Snyder wrote: You think so?

I would have guessed that being exposed to the same type of dialect and/or accent as well as cleashay phrases would prolong the changing of the language as opposed to speeding it up.



Maybe it would be a better question to ask as to how soon the English language will change in Great Britain as well as Ireland and Scottland from that of other english speaking countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia due to slang and the different dialects that you speak of?? And will some day these countries soon not be able to distinguish each others language??


There are considerable differences in the way language is used idiomatically. Cultural differences creep in as well, most notably in the use of humour. It occasionally causes clashes on this forum when an ironic comment used by a UK poster is taken in a literal sense by an american and offence taken where none was intended. Trying to explain why Monty Python or spitting image is funny to someone that just doesn't get it is very hard to do. Same with programmes like Frasier. Why is it funny? Or Will and grace-funny or deeply offensive in it's basic premise?

But to give an answer your question things have already changed quite considerably with most of the regional dialects here falling in to disuse in everyday affairs becoming redundant as people move around and the way they live changes. You don't need many farming terms if you live in a town.

But what you also find is that most people have two forms of language-the idiom and occasionally dialect used with their friends and the language used in speaking to people in different areas. If I hear another scot I can pretty well give an accurate guesss as to where they are from, Glasgow and edinburgh are easy to tell but you can also tell which part of edinburgh or glasgow someone is from with a bit of practice. Locally there are different accents for towns only twelve miles apart so you can hear to spot a local born and bred as opposed to some who has moved to the area.

Someone from Kentucky, I would suspect, will talk one way at home but if in Los Angeles or New York will adapt the speech pattern and idiom to suit where they are without losing the accent. Even little things like the speed at which people speak make a difference so a fast talking northerner sounds aggressive and pushy to someone that is slower of speech. I've never been to america so I may be talking a load of tosh but hopefully you get my drift.

English is now the linqua franca of the world (and boy does that annoy the french) but the influences aren't just from the english speaking parts of the world but from just about every language on the planet . People will use it in different ways depending on where they are at the time to speak to each other. More importantly they can speak to people in different cultures.

It's not a question of how soon will it change it has never actually stopped changing which is one of the main reasons it has become so pervasive. There is and has never been such a thing as proper english. Someone from fifty years ago arriving today would recognise most of what we say but wonder what on earth we are talking about most of the time.

[spot]

K.Snyder wrote: I guess my next question would be is Old English somewhat understood by German speaking people, much like those of us who speak English can recognize words in middle English and more so with modern english??A number of dialect words are still used, such as 'forelders' for parents and 'to flit' for 'to move', especially in areas than have been relatively isolated. The Cumbrian broadcaster, Melvyn Bragg tells the story of a young man from a little village who was sent to Iceland during the wartime allied occupation. He did not speak any Icelandic, but he found that by using his own dialect words, he could make himself understood. Bragg himself tells the story of holidaying in western Norway and the incongruity of meeting a beautifully dressed, seemingly sophisticated woman who spoke a language that, to his ears, sounded just like the 'rough' Cumbrian dialect that his schoolmasters and parents had discouraged him from using as a boy.

(I copied that from http://www-lu.hive.no/engelsk/book%20chapter_1.htm because I couldn't remember the details sufficiently well, but those were the two instances I was looking for.)

[K.Snyder]

gmc wrote: I've never been to America so I may be talking a load of tosh but hopefully you get my drift.




I got your drift on this sentence alone.



gmc wrote:

But what you also find is that most people have two forms of language-the idiom and occasionally dialect used with their friends and the language used in speaking to people in different areas. .


If its one thing us Americans know, its the difference in dialects from region to region. Kentucky has quit an accent but it gets stronger more south, as does accents from Ohio(where Im from)blends in to somewhat of a Kentucky accent more south in Ohio.

Then you have Georgia, which has an accent all in its own, as well as Texas, but clearly a difference between the two.

And the northern states have a type of Canadian dialect(whether they want to admit it or not),I can hear it, in Minnesota, Michigan, and various other states up north.

I have always wondered if other countries had different dialects within its own region, Because I could always hear a difference between some British accents, as well as them being a lot stronger than others. I couldnt tell you the exact difference, where each one was from, or even the same dialect between two of the same accents, but I could still notice a difference.

On a side note, i have always thought that in some phrases I could speak a very well Scottish accent, but the funny thing is, is that I couldnt even come close to a British or an Irish accent. I find that pretty weird.(You would most definitely know that my Scottish accent was fake, but I know its 10 times better than my British or Irish because I have none)

Ha.

Thanks for the info though.

[spot]

K.Snyder wrote: I have always wondered if other countries had different dialcts within its own region, Because I could always hear a difference between some British accents, as well as them being alot stronger than others. I couldnt tell you the exact difference, where each one was from, or even the same dialect between two of the same accents, but I could still notice a difference.Regional variance in the UK invariably involves distinct vocabularies and a drift in intonation. Mere accent is a minor part of the difference. Nobody here could imitate a different regional accent successfully without also consciously adopting local word patterns.

[K.Snyder]

spot wrote: Regional variance in the UK invariably involves distinct vocabularies and a drift in intonation. Mere accent is a minor part of the difference. Nobody here could imitate a different regional accent successfully without also consciously adopting local word patterns.


Ah

ok

[chonsigirl]

I never lost my accent from the West when I came East almost 6 years now. Do I pick up local idioms? Sure, but do not use them much. Have to know them, or I couldn't get anything done here!

Regional variations are nomal...........but certain words I say still set the classroom in a titter and the students love restating the questions to hear my responses numerous times. They never seem to grasp the concept, that they all have accents to me................

[Nomad]

Entschuldigung Sie bitte

[chonsigirl]

Sie sind die süsseste Sache, Nomad.

[Nomad]

chonsigirl wrote: Sie sind die süsseste Sache, Nomad.


Hoe gaat het met u/jou?

[chonsigirl]

Het is zeer fijn, mijn beste.

[Nomad]

chonsigirl wrote: Het is zeer fijn, mijn beste.


How are you doing that ?

[chonsigirl]

I go to Babelfish, and if you are picking the right language, I translate it and respond.

[Nomad]

Che-Shuo Zai Na-Li

[chonsigirl]

Κοιτάξτε πίσω από σας!

*You asked where was the restroom*

[K.Snyder]

chonsigirl wrote: Κοιτάξτε πίσω από σας!

*You asked where was the restroom*


Maybe you two love birds can share this with the rest of us, seeing how this is an attempt to understand the creation and changes of a language in general??

[chonsigirl]

All languages change through time-and with modern conveniences like translators we have access to more languages.

This is just another illustration that languages will change more rapidly with mass communication more available throughout the world. You don't just plug them in and not learn something at the same time.

And alot of fun too!

Here is another link for you to look at:

http://www.yaelf.com/history.shtml

[Nomad]

K.Snyder wrote: Maybe you two love birds can share this with the rest of us, seeing how this is an attempt to understand the creation and changes of a language in general??


dude I feel lucky if I tie my shoes without falling over

thats all I really need

[K.Snyder]

Nomad wrote: dude I feel lucky if I tie my shoes without falling over

thats all I really need


I like to have a sense of my ancestors past. Everyone as we know it has had ancestors since the beginning of time, which is why I would like to get closer to them in anyway possible, which to me at this time is somewhat possible by understanding the language that they used when they roamed the Earth. I am always interested in finding out where my ancestors have come from, after all they are family.

[Nomad]

K.Snyder wrote: I like to have a sense of my ancestors past. Everyone as we know it has had ancestors since the beginning of time, which is why I would like to get closer to them in anyway possible, which to me at this time is somewhat possible by understanding the language that they used when they romed the Earth. I am always interested in finding out where my ancestors have come from, afterall they are family.




There are a gazillion ancestry databases online, sounds like an interesting endeavor. Id do it if I were less anti exertion on the weekends.

[K.Snyder]

Nomad wrote: There are a gazillion ancestry databases online, sounds like an interesting endeavor. Id do it if I were less anti exertion on the weekends.


Ancestry database is blasphemy.

Just another marketing scheme to go along with many.

[Nomad]

K.Snyder wrote: Ancestry database is blasphemy.



Just another marketing scheme to go along with many.




So how would one begin if one were less anti exertion ?

Start with the ones you can actually speak with I guess ?

[K.Snyder]

Nomad wrote: So how would one begin if one were less anti exertion ?

Start with the ones you can actually speak with I guess ?


You can start by fixing this for the sake of your great,great,great,great,great grandchildren who will be interested to know the life that you lead as we speak. I know if my ancestors left me a written "diary" (I suppose) I would be ecstatic. But unfortunately they didnt, so I am left to gather as much insight on the history of my ancestors in an attempt to understand their life and way of thinking given certain circumstances they have been faced with in their time.

Some "ancestry database" may be ok for finding your great grandparents and even then you have to pay. money in which I do not have. So, I call it blasphemy.

[Nomad]

K.Snyder wrote: You can start by fixing this for the sake of your great,great,great,great,great grandchildren who will be interested to know the life that you lead as we speak. I know if my ancestors left me a written "diary" (I suppose) I would be ecstatic. But unfortunately they didnt, so I am left to gather as much insight on the history of my ancestors in an attempt to understand their life and way of thinking given certain circumstances they have been faced with in their time.



Some "ancestry database" may be ok for finding your great grandparents and even then you have to pay. money in which I do not have. So, I call it blasphemy.




yea



bastards !

[chonsigirl]

You can do the research on you own, K. It takes time, travel to many interesting places. It is always better then the onlne versions. Join your local historical group, or geneological society, they have boundless resources and links that will help you. If you know something specific you want, PM me and I will point you in the direction you might choose to research. If you want something specific from the National Archives, ask me-I go there alot in the summer. Their geneological society does great research in tracing family lines, locations, etc.

For me, I know where I came from, and it is interesting. I write about other people's past and their lives, then it is even better. We all have great stories to tell.