Andrew Dalby

Yes, I'm with you. I think the first ten, or so, are the best; naturally they got more and more formulaic after that, and in addition the contribution of Goscinny was sorely missed. "Asterix in Britain" is one of the good ones, and particularly amusing to English-speaking readers. Though, as a British reader, I will never understand why French cartoonists should make fun of us for shaking hands. French people shake hands far more often than we do!

I haven't heard that Brythonic was a direct descendant of Gaulish -- indeed, I've usually heard otherwise. It's clear enough if you look at the issue geographically. You have a continent and two large islands on which early Celtic languages were developing. Stretches of sea tend to lead to the separation of dialects; stretches of contiguous land tend to lead to mutual influence and not much separation (unless political boundaries intervene). Take as a hypothesis that the Brythonic languages were the dialects of Celtic that developed on the biggest island (Britain). The Goidelic languages were those that developed on the second biggest island (Ireland). What's usually called 'Continental Celtic' (including Gaulish) is a third group, parallel with the other two, that developed on the continent. At first sight the pattern looks not quite so neat today, but actually we have historical evidence to tell us exactly why this is. 1. In the early medieval period, the Scotti (Goidelic speaking, from Ireland) invaded western Scotland. Their language survives today: it is Scottish Gaelic, which is very similar to, but not quite identical with, Irish. Thus a Goidelic language, for recorded reasons, migrated to Britain. 2. A couple of centuries earlier, some of the Britons (Brythonic speaking, from south west England), fleeing Saxon invasion and instability, migrated to Brittany. Their language survives today: it is Breton, extremely similar to Cornish and fairly similar to Welsh. Thus a Brythonic language, for recorded reasons, migrated to the continent. 3. Meanwhile, according to the best evidence available, the Gaulish language (which was Continental Celtic) had ceased to be spoken. There is quite a lot of evidence for it in Latin sources and in inscriptions, but the latest evidence (the medical writings of Marcellus of Bordeaux) is dated around 400 AD. It is possible, certainly, that Gaulish survived in Armorica (Britanny) long enough to influence Breton, but Breton is (as I said above) very similar to Cornish and Welsh, so the Gaulish influence on it, if any, was not crucial. That's how the three subdivisions of Celtic arose, and that's the explanation of their current geographical locations. I think.

If the question extends as far as the storage of beer, I don't think there's much evidence that ancient peoples were able to do this, at least not for long. Essentially it requires airtight containers, as with wine (they could manage that), able to withstand pressure (not as with wine, which, even once it has fermented out, remains drinkable long term). I believe therefore that wherever in the ancient world beer was made, it was drunk fairly close to the brewery, fairly soon after brewing -- and (there is some evidence for this) it was drunk through a straw, as the only way to keep the sediment out of your mouth.

In British Burma, Burmese who went to British-style schools were given English names. Probably in other parts of the Empire, too, but that's an example I happen to know. But, as Caldrail will understand, I'm not going to say that their Burmese names were "too rustic or inelegant to be used in polite company"! This is just to point out that such attitudes continued into modern times.

Cato (the Elder, the Censor) wrote a book "Origines" which was about Italian and Roman history. There was a lot about Roman conquests (naturally). Cato followed the official style (mentioned in another thread recently) of not naming military commanders. He just said "the Romans" did so-and-so. And yet, in the surviving fragments of the "Origines", there's an amazing quantity of material about Cato's own military campaigns! In a sense, Caesar in his "Commentaries" was following Cato's example. At a distance. Of course he *did* mention the commander's name (C. Julius Caesar) but he wrote the books in the third person, as if a neutral observer, and you would be hard put to it to find any single sentence where any bias is *obvious*. Yet, somehow, at the end of the book, you agree with him that, yes, Gaul had to be invaded ("pacified") and Caesar was the man to do it.

Hmm, I'm afraid I must dispute you slightly on this Pertinax. I believe you might be citing "Everything you ever wanted to know about Frankincense" by the esteemed Andrew Dalby rather than his work on skin sores, "Dangerous Lesions". (which appropriately includes an entire chapter dedicated to the "private" regions of the human body) With the close relationship of the subject matter at hand, I can see the ease at which one can slip into such a simple yet honest mistake. Hold on, I haven't written my "Dangerous Liaisons" book yet (let alone the other two). Pertinax must have read it through a time warp. I could have sworn I was going to recommend myrrh rather than frankincense ... Additionally, be sure to use a little mastic (it must be the best mastic, Chios mastic, seldom in stock at Do-It-All) to keep body and soul together. It's obvious, surely. Just turn round ... The Latin word for it is lunatio, if I mistake not, Watson. A.D., Someone must be impersonating you. I have seen the book. For those of us who do not speak Latin, I feel that this 'lunatio' should be fleshed (pardon the term) out. Could it have anything to do with the moon, as in 'mooning' people? Tertullian wrote a monograph on the subject. ''De lunatione sympotica''. I'm thinking of doing a translation.

But not totally false. I have a neighbour who looks exactly like Asterix, all the way to the moustache (I haven't yet dared to ask him to try on a helmet) and when I went to a tractor shop in the next town to buy a chain for my chainsaw I was served by a helpful young man whom I had difficulty distinguishing from Obelix. He didn't offer me a menhir. I must look pretty funny too. I am usually recognised as English from about twenty metres away ... Which of the characters in 'Asterix in Britain' I most resemble, I haven't been told.

Hmm, I'm afraid I must dispute you slightly on this Pertinax. I believe you might be citing "Everything you ever wanted to know about Frankincense" by the esteemed Andrew Dalby rather than his work on skin sores, "Dangerous Lesions". (which appropriately includes an entire chapter dedicated to the "private" regions of the human body) With the close relationship of the subject matter at hand, I can see the ease at which one can slip into such a simple yet honest mistake. Hold on, I haven't written my "Dangerous Liaisons" book yet (let alone the other two). Pertinax must have read it through a time warp. I could have sworn I was going to recommend myrrh rather than frankincense ... Additionally, be sure to use a little mastic (it must be the best mastic, Chios mastic, seldom in stock at Do-It-All) to keep body and soul together. It's obvious, surely. Just turn round ... The Latin word for it is lunatio, if I mistake not, Watson.

Nearly right ... He's a Celt, and his big friend Obelix is a menhir (or dolmen) salesman. Obelix eats two wild boars for dinner, Asterix only one.

Or it is also possible to buy from amazon.fr -- they'll deliver to Ireland, and you're in the euro zone so payment will be simple. Start here and type Goscinny Uderzo Asterix (or whatever) in the search box. Notice that you get English titles along with the French, so choose carefully! Yes, kids who know some French do enjoy them, I can confirm ...

Yes, I found the whole depiction of Egypt over-the-top and ridiculous. Ptolemaic Egypt really worked as a major state and as a culture, even though like others it had dynastic conflicts from time to time. I couldn't imagine the Egypt that was portrayed in this series operating for a single year, let alone 300 years!

Long after I did French at school, but long before I came to live in France, the Asterix books (the original French editions) were useful to me in learning more conversational French. Apart from all the historical jokes and mock-Latin, there is a lot of good French in them too -- and not the kind of French you used to be taught at school. The English translations are very cleverly done, but naturally the jokes and puns are often different -- you can't usually translate jokes literally.

Happy New Year, Pertinax! I'm on your list and I will definitely be there. It is just remotely conceivable that Mrs D will come as well ... All the best

The closest the Norse came to fighting Romans was when the Rus attacked Constantinople, and were soundly beaten. But then they went and fought *for* the Romans (for the Byzantines, that is, in the "Varangian Guard") and did pretty well ...

There's a point to make about the sentence "It happened in those days that there came out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the world should be registered/declared/subject to tax' (Luke 2.1). The gospel was written a long time after Jesus's birth, on the basis of about two generations of oral tradition among not very administratively-aware people, in what was (at first) a client kingdom, not part of the Empire (though, by the time Luke wrote, its status had changed!) This means that you can't press expressions like "ten oikoumenen" (the world, the settled world) and you can't rely on the naming of "Caesar Augustus" (but note that there's no anachronism -- he was in power at the time!). All that the people telling the story would have known, is that everyone around them was to be registered, with the cheerful prospect of taxation to follow. It's even possible, if government propaganda reached these people at all, that they were told it was an order of the superior authority (Augustus) when in fact it wasn't. (This happens whenever the British Ministry of Agriculture does something more than usually oppressive and stupid -- they claim it's a ruling from Brussels.) As for the necessity to travel, if we regard this as being within the kingdom of Herod (and not literally "the whole world"), it's oppressive but not unusual. In those ancient pre-online days, the government often made people come and visit it. Even now, if I want to renew my passport quickly, I am probably going to have to make a long journey. The cost of the journey is my problem -- I still have to pay the same fee at the end.

I think both are correct, but in writing and in print IV is a better choice and is used much more often. Do others agree? On British coins, George the Fourth (who ruled 1820 to 1830) appeared as GEORGIUS IIII on his first coin issue; then, for the second issue, the inscription was changed to GEORGIUS IV.

Till Ethelred the Unready. Whereafter Canute. But, yes, your point is valid!

That's a very interesting point. I'm not sure how well it's borne out by experience, though, because what actually happened was that the Vikings (and their forerunners) eventually attacked Romano-British, Gallic and Celtic coasts, and eventually made settlements on all of them (not to mention Iceland and beyond!). Whether Britain was partly Roman or not seems to have made little difference to their activities.

G.O., if this is of any help, I've compiled a list of Latin terms used by genealogists to define relationships: Avus Paternus = Paternal Grandfather Proavus Paternus = Paternal Great-grandfather Abavus Paternus = Paternal Great-great-grandfather Atavus Paternus = Paternal Great-great-great-grandfather Tritavus Paternus = Paternal Great-great-great-great-grandfather Avus Maternus = Maternal Grandfather Proavus Maternus = Maternal Great-grandfather Abavus Maternus = Maternal Great-great-grandfather Atavus Maternus = Maternal Great-great-great-grandfather Tritavus Maternus = Maternal Great-great-great-great-grandfather Avia Paternis = Paternal Grandmother Proavia Paternis = Paternal Great-grandmother Abavia Paternis = Paternal Great-great-grandmother Atavia Paternis = Paternal Great-great-great-grandmother Tritavia Paternis = Paternal Great-great-great-great-grandmother Avia Maternis = Maternal Grandmother Proavia Maternis = Maternal Great-grandmother Abavia Maternis = Maternal Great-great-grandmother Atavia Maternis = Maternal Great-great-great-grandmother Tritavia Maternis = Maternal Great-great-great-great-grandmother Sorry I couldn't find any specific terms for 5x great and greater. But you can find the Latin terms for other degrees of cognatio at this link for Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. -- Nephele Thanks very much, Nephele. I have to take back nearly all of what I said above -- I completely missed those Ab- At- and Trit- words. I notice the only surviving evidence for the Trit- forms seems to be in Justinian's law code (very late Latin, therefore) but that is probably only because people are not always talking about their great-great-great-great-grandfathers, so the words didn't happen to be wanted in earlier texts. They were there if wanted.

Very well put, Kosmo. I don't usually comment on modern political threads, but I just had to say I agree with you totally on this.

It's a nice picture, incidentally, JPV!

Thanks very much for the link -- I missed that earlier thread. How were the Welsh tribes governed? I got the impression, when researching for "Language in Danger", that there was some very slight evidence (towards the end of the Roman period) of Welsh tribal rulers being responsible to the Roman governor of the province. Can you confirm that, or am I imagining it?

Just as long as we remember to wash our feet first ...

I can't think of an example in a Latin text (I can in Greek, but that's no use). English is the only language I know in which you can repeat "great" and people will understand -- they don't understand if you try it in French! So. In Latin you have avia for grandmother, proavia for great-grandmother, and then what? My instinct is to say "avia meae aviae", the grandmother of my grandmother (or, in the other case, "avia mei avi", the grandmother of my grandfather). That is in fact the way it was done in ancient Greek. Avia is the usual spelling of the word, but ava is also possible. EDIT: Now I realise I haven't answered your precise question! I think you have to say avia proaviae meae proaviae, the grandmother of the great-grandmother of my great-grandmother (have I counted correctly?). That's assuming that the descent is entirely in the female line. You would have to change it if the descent is partly in the male and partly in the female line. No Latin translation exists that would meet all cases (and, incidentally, that often happens in translating kinship terms into other languages. To give a proper translation you may often need to know more than the English words tell you).

... this, in my view, hardly justifies the occupation of Wales. The conquest of Wales was more of an organic process rather than a preset planned operation