Anglo-Saxon (answer to Mr. Siegel)

[Jules Siegel]

At 11:29 PM 05/2/97 +0000, "Umberto Rossi" <urossi at programatic.it> wrote:

[snip best brief history of the English language I have ever read]

>Nice, apparently clever; totally false.

Well. That certainly disposed of that part of my hypothesis. Glad I dodn't
see it reviewed in the Publications of the Modern Laguage Association!  As
you saw in my original message I was unsure enough of myself to hedge my
language carefully -- carefully, for me anyway.

You do help me with my main point when you write:

>I admit that from an anthropological point of view you are right. In
England the Germans mixed their blood with Celts and Latins.

[...]

>As for the cultural (and political) implications of linguistics, it is true
that the idea of basing cultural identity on language isn't completely
right--but this is another story.

This, in fact, is exactly what I'm trying to clarify. Now, do you know when
exactly the term "anglo-saxon" came into use as an anthropological and/or
linguistic description? Who first used it to describe the English? Who paid
for the research and its publication?

Eagerly awaiting further information, with many thanks for this scholarly
advice.


--
Professional English-Language Editorial Services
Jules Siegel http://www.caribe.net.mx/siegel/jsiegel.htm
>From US: http://www.yucatanweb.com/siegel/jsiegel.htm
Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501 Tel 011-52-98 87-49-18 Fax 87-49-13