*here* a history, *there* a history

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> 
> Do what you will with the history *there* (tho it strikes me that if there
> is no USA, the history of the modern world will be very different) - I
> confess 'alternate histories' are not things that I can get excited about.
> It's the language that got me interested in Brithenig.

I've admitted several times that I am by no means an historian...so I'll
not argue *here*'s history anymore.  I was in over my head from the first; 
but the path that History seemed to be taking *there* was _way_ too close
to what we know and despise of our own history.  I felt it necessary to
point that out. 

Thank you for realising the vast impact upon modern history of the USA!
That's been my point for months.  There is no USA *there*, therefore we
_can not_ have the same history.  I am in full agreement that it's the
language itself that sparked my interest; but languages _die_ in a vacuum
with no history and culture to shape them.

I thought it important to make sure that the history of *there* fit the
circumstances of that place.  This will provide the framework for certain
language features (especially vocab., borrowed or otherwise); and knowing
who is where, when and why will allow us to discover all the rich dialects
that would naturally bud off from the parent tongue.  And that means
chipping away at anything that England has done *here*, as the fountain of
much history, for the simple fact that there is no England *there* either!

[End of rant; stepping off soap-box, etc.]

Padraic.

> 
> Ray.
> 
> 
>