Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Interesting Stuff Thread
Options
Comments
-
-
Scientists announce that they've found evidence which is 5-sigma consistent with gravitational waves from the very early moments of the Big Bang. If the findings are confirmed, then it's a major discovery.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974
One of the colleagues of Andre Linde, one of the principal physicists behind the theory, dropped by Linde's house to tell him of the news and amongst much else, Linde made the rather wonderful comment - "What if I am tricked? What if I believe this just because it is beautiful?" - even with initial experimental confirmation of his life's work, he remains skeptical. Way to go, Andrei.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-of-european-boarders-change/
1000 years of changing borders in Europe.
I can say with certainty that the Ireland bit is very accurate and shows the whole 800 years of occupation slogan as the crap it is...
Nobody said it was 800 contiguous years of occupation! :mad:
Actually. Just watched that again. Howth. Was Howth occupied for 800 years? In a row? They couldn't have just 'invented' that 800 years thing? That would be disingenuous and misleading...
As a side question, does anybody have clear and unambiguous definitions of 'Irish', 'English', and 'British'? Definitions that remain valid while considered in the context of the time span of the video? Can be quite difficult to imagine who might have been who. Weren't the first 'English invaders' actually Norman? As in French? Where we're all the Celtic shirt-wearing geniuses when France played in Croke Park?
0 -
Banna will probably say it better, but I think the idea of Irish, English and British (as well as French, German, Spanish etc) are relatively modern constructs.Nobody said it was 800 contiguous years of occupation! :mad:
Actually. Just watched that again. Howth. Was Howth occupied for 800 years? In a row? They couldn't have just 'invented' that 800 years thing? That would be disingenuous and misleading...
As a side question, does anybody have clear and unambiguous definitions of 'Irish', 'English', and 'British'? Definitions that remain valid while considered in the context of the time span of the video? Can be quite difficult to imagine who might have been who. Weren't the first 'English invaders' actually Norman? As in French? Where we're all the Celtic shirt-wearing geniuses when France played in Croke Park?
Other than just using geography, born on the island of Ireland = Irish, it all tends to break down the further back you go, and sure if everyone born on the island of Ireland were to be considered Irish, the republicans would have apoplexy.
The Normans weren't even really French, they were only settled in France 100? 200? years by the time they invaded England. As well call them Italians just because they occupied Sicily around the same time too.0 -
-
Nobody said it was 800 contiguous years of occupation! :mad:
Actually. Just watched that again. Howth. Was Howth occupied for 800 years? In a row? They couldn't have just 'invented' that 800 years thing? That would be disingenuous and misleading...
As a side question, does anybody have clear and unambiguous definitions of 'Irish', 'English', and 'British'? Definitions that remain valid while considered in the context of the time span of the video? Can be quite difficult to imagine who might have been who. Weren't the first 'English invaders' actually Norman? As in French? Where we're all the Celtic shirt-wearing geniuses when France played in Croke Park?
Have heard the 800 BS referred to many a time here on Boards.
As if we could possibly be taught stuff in school that is disingenuous and misleading...:P
'Irish' is an English construct - 'English' is pretty much a Norman construct but really came into its own during the Tudor period, 'British' is a Stuart construct. Handy terms to apply when attempting to construct a centralised nation State but in 'race' terms pretty meaningless.
The 'first English' invaders (who were actually paid mercenaries) were the descendants of Ostmen (Norse) who settled in 'Normandy' married into the local Frankish aristocracy and acculturated. Their offspring followed William to England but some settled in Wales where they married into the Briton aristocracy and began to acculturate.
In fact the vast majority of these 1169 'invaders' were descended from Gerald FitzWalter of Windsor and Nest ferch Rhys, daughter of Rhys ap Tewdwr (modern spelling is Tudor) so are properly called Cambro-Normans. The main branch calling itself FitzGerald.
Anglo-Normans didn't arrive until a few years later and were brought over to curb the Cambro-Normans who were busy inter-marrying with the Gaelic Irish aristocracy and looking like they may carve out independent kingdoms for themselves...the Anglo-Normans also began to marry into the Gaelic Irish aristocracy and some had completely acculturated within two generations - hence that whole 'more Irish than the Irish themselves'. The most 'Irish' being the á Búrc (de Burgh) of Mayo.
That is what the map shows - cycles of localised invasion followed by inter-marriage followed by acculturation until we get to the Tudors and their introduction of Centralisation, Race theories, concentration camps and genocide.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Heh.. no wonder Maggie Thatcher always had such respect for our Garret.Bannasidhe wrote: »the vast majority of these 1169 'invaders' were descended from Gerald FitzWalter of Windsor and Nest ferch Rhys, daughter of Rhys ap Tewdwr (modern spelling is Tudor) so are properly called Cambro-Normans. The main branch calling itself FitzGerald..
She a humble grocer's daughter, and he the descendant of kings 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Looks like the Vikings win. Angeln is more Danish than German, and later these immigrant Angles were superseded by fresh Danes to create the Danelaw, and later again both were subjugated by the Normans, also descended from Vikings.
The Normans came to Ireland, landing in Waterford and taking it from....more Vikings. They were everywhere. Even the Rus of Russia were Vikings.
Pedant Alert
'Viking' is technically a verb - as in they went aviking - not a noun. There were no people called themselves Vikings - there were various peoples who lived in what is now called Scandinavia who engaged in viking.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slightly off topic:Bannasidhe wrote: »Pedant Alert
'Viking' is technically a verb - as in they went aviking - not a noun. There were no people called themselves Vikings - there were various peoples who lived in what is now called Scandinavia who engaged in viking.
In the sci-fi novel "India's Story" by Kathlyn Starbuck, there are several characters with the ability to mind read. One of them particularly enjoyed reading the mind of folk who were having sex. This was known as 'Viking' within the novel, a contraction of vicarious pleasure.0 -
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Pedant Alert
'Viking' is technically a verb - as in they went aviking - not a noun. There were no people called themselves Vikings - there were various peoples who lived in what is now called Scandinavia who engaged in viking.
1066 - The Battle For Middle Earth describes them as vikingr, which I presume is the noun form of the verb...?0 -
Advertisement
-
But who shall out-pedant those selfsame pedants? I shall, that's who.Bannasidhe wrote: »Pedant Alert
'Viking' is technically a verb - as in they went aviking - not a noun. There were no people called themselves Vikings - there were various peoples who lived in what is now called Scandinavia who engaged in viking.
It's true that "viking" is formed from a "vik-" root plus an "-ing" suffix. "Vik-" means either a creek, inlet, bay (in which case "viking" is someone associated with such places, i.e. someone who engages in coastal navigation) or else a camp (in which case a viking is someone associated with temporary encampments). The Vikings were associated with both, so take your pick.
But the "-ing" suffix is not verbal. In a range of Teutonic languages, it indicates "belonging to", "of the kind of". So a Viking is somebody associated with the coast, or alternatively somebody associated with temporary encampments. But the Vikings didn't go off a-viking any more than your darling goes off a-darling.
The same -ing suffix gives us king ("kin-" plus "-ing", one belonging to the race, the tribe, the nobility), shilling (something belonging to the class of things which make a ringing sound, or alternatively belonging to the class of things which are divided into equal segments), farthing (something belonging to the class of things which are divided into fourths), darling (someone belonging to the class of things which are dear to us), building (as a noun, something belonging to the class of things which are built), herring (uncertain, but possibly belong to the class of things which come in large groups), gelding (something or someone belonging to the class of things which are barren).
And this is also where we get the -ing, -ling suffixes that we use as diminutives today. e.g. princeling.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA
Advertisement