English language scholars generally agree that the modern English language developed
from several sources: the Anglo-Saxon language, or Old English, spoken by the Germanic
peoples who migrated to the island of Britain in the fifth century; the Old Norse influences
of the Vikings and the Danish kings of England in the ninth and tenth centuries; the French
(5) influence of the Norman invaders in the eleventh century; and the Latin influences of the
earlier Roman inhabitants and the Catholic Church. However, one mystery remains. When
the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, there were numerous Celtic inhabitants dwelling
alongside what remained of the Roman population. Why, then, did the Anglo-Saxons, and
thus the English, not absorb more of the Celtic languages? The English language ultimately
(10) adopted very few Celtic words, so few in fact that scholars are at a loss to explain the reason
with any certainty. One thing is certain: the Celtic languages are in no way related to Anglo-
Saxon, indeed developing from an entirely different family of languages, so there is no
question that the Anglo-Saxons did not adopt Celtic words simply because they already had
very similar words of their own. So, what happened? Some scholars have suggested that the
(15) Anglo-Saxons already had enough words of their own and thus did not need to borrow from
the Celts, even upon arriving in a new place. For instance, if the day-to-day elements of life
in Britain were similar enough to those in the Anglo-Saxon homeland, the Anglo-Saxons
would not feel the need to make use of foreign words to describe their new life. This theory,
however, is inconsistent with evidence that the Anglo-Saxons borrowed everyday words
(20) from other languages such as Old Norse and French. Other scholars have suggested the
theory that the Anglo-Saxons chose to avoid the Celtic words because the Celts were
essentially a conquered people - an explanation that is strongly supported by the rapid
disappearance of Celts from south and central England and their subsequent movement
north and west into what would become Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland.
(25)
Leading linguistic scholar David Crystal disagrees with this latter hypothesis, however. He
points out that among the Anglo-Saxons it was not uncommon to find children with Welsh
names. The great Christian poet Cdmon and Cdwalla, the king of Wessex in the seventh
century, were both noteworthy and highly respected Anglo-Saxons who bore Welsh names.
(30) From a purely practical perspective, it is unlikely that Anglo-Saxon parents would bestow
Celtic names on their children if those names were closely associated with a despised
language or a group of people deemed inferior. As a modern example, during World War I
people in England began changing their names to avoid sounding too Germanic. Even the
royal family, up to that point bearing the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, changed the family
(35) name to Windsor due to the long connection of that name with a specifically English history.
Additionally, the respected Battenburg family in England, closely connected to the
monarchy, felt the need to change their name to Mountbatten, as it had a less decidedly
German connotation.
(40) Perhaps more significantly, David Crystal raises the possibility that the word cross, steeped
in important religious meaning for many English speakers, came from a Celtic background.
In Latin, the word is crux, and the Scandinavians rendered it kross. But there is, on the
whole, very little linguistic influence on early English religious terminology from the
Germanic languages or the Germanic peoples, who were decidedly pagan upon their arrival
(45) to England. On the other hand, the Irish Celts were enthusiastic and thorough in their
missionary efforts to England and other parts of Europe, and they rendered the Latin crux
as cros in Old Irish and as croes in Welsh. It is highly possible that the English word cross
and the Old Norse word kross were influenced by the Irish missionary work. It is unlikely
that the mystery of the missing Celtic words will ever be solved satisfactorily, but what little
(50) evidence remains suggests that the mystery can no longer be written off as a case of a
conquered people becoming linguistically obsolete
from several sources: the Anglo-Saxon language, or Old English, spoken by the Germanic
peoples who migrated to the island of Britain in the fifth century; the Old Norse influences
of the Vikings and the Danish kings of England in the ninth and tenth centuries; the French
(5) influence of the Norman invaders in the eleventh century; and the Latin influences of the
earlier Roman inhabitants and the Catholic Church. However, one mystery remains. When
the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, there were numerous Celtic inhabitants dwelling
alongside what remained of the Roman population. Why, then, did the Anglo-Saxons, and
thus the English, not absorb more of the Celtic languages? The English language ultimately
(10) adopted very few Celtic words, so few in fact that scholars are at a loss to explain the reason
with any certainty. One thing is certain: the Celtic languages are in no way related to Anglo-
Saxon, indeed developing from an entirely different family of languages, so there is no
question that the Anglo-Saxons did not adopt Celtic words simply because they already had
very similar words of their own. So, what happened? Some scholars have suggested that the
(15) Anglo-Saxons already had enough words of their own and thus did not need to borrow from
the Celts, even upon arriving in a new place. For instance, if the day-to-day elements of life
in Britain were similar enough to those in the Anglo-Saxon homeland, the Anglo-Saxons
would not feel the need to make use of foreign words to describe their new life. This theory,
however, is inconsistent with evidence that the Anglo-Saxons borrowed everyday words
(20) from other languages such as Old Norse and French. Other scholars have suggested the
theory that the Anglo-Saxons chose to avoid the Celtic words because the Celts were
essentially a conquered people - an explanation that is strongly supported by the rapid
disappearance of Celts from south and central England and their subsequent movement
north and west into what would become Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland.
(25)
Leading linguistic scholar David Crystal disagrees with this latter hypothesis, however. He
points out that among the Anglo-Saxons it was not uncommon to find children with Welsh
names. The great Christian poet Cdmon and Cdwalla, the king of Wessex in the seventh
century, were both noteworthy and highly respected Anglo-Saxons who bore Welsh names.
(30) From a purely practical perspective, it is unlikely that Anglo-Saxon parents would bestow
Celtic names on their children if those names were closely associated with a despised
language or a group of people deemed inferior. As a modern example, during World War I
people in England began changing their names to avoid sounding too Germanic. Even the
royal family, up to that point bearing the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, changed the family
(35) name to Windsor due to the long connection of that name with a specifically English history.
Additionally, the respected Battenburg family in England, closely connected to the
monarchy, felt the need to change their name to Mountbatten, as it had a less decidedly
German connotation.
(40) Perhaps more significantly, David Crystal raises the possibility that the word cross, steeped
in important religious meaning for many English speakers, came from a Celtic background.
In Latin, the word is crux, and the Scandinavians rendered it kross. But there is, on the
whole, very little linguistic influence on early English religious terminology from the
Germanic languages or the Germanic peoples, who were decidedly pagan upon their arrival
(45) to England. On the other hand, the Irish Celts were enthusiastic and thorough in their
missionary efforts to England and other parts of Europe, and they rendered the Latin crux
as cros in Old Irish and as croes in Welsh. It is highly possible that the English word cross
and the Old Norse word kross were influenced by the Irish missionary work. It is unlikely
that the mystery of the missing Celtic words will ever be solved satisfactorily, but what little
(50) evidence remains suggests that the mystery can no longer be written off as a case of a
conquered people becoming linguistically obsolete
...
![VA – DVD-Audio Music Sampler Vol.2 (2003) [DVD-Audio ISO]](http://imghd.xyz/images/2026/05/13/4lSo1rN.jpg)
