According to the scholars of the English language, it is established there is not a big impact of the Celtic languages on the formation of the language. So is this really true? Do the origins of English rely on the Roman Empire and the conquest of Britannia as a Province? Historians suggest trying to confirm that Latin and Germanic were the main frame.
The Romans arrived first, seconds the Saxons and Angles that were Germanic people. Centuries later came into the British Islands the Vikings and Nordmans with their own speech language. All these people came from the East and they pushed the Celts towards their West. Each of them mixed with the population, the culture and their words, building a new language, a pidgin or creole. Furthermore, as we know today, English has developed through generations with new influences. I’m fairly sure that you will all agree with me when I say there is a missing point.
Talking of toponymy, the names of the places, we consider the strong relationship between people, culture and landscape. It is like naming a child, because having a proper name is one of the most important things linked to a person. So it is the same with the places where we live. There is a way to connect with nature and ourselves. Sometimes during our lifetime it is possible to change or adopt a new name, but the previous one belongs to us.
Then, how was it possible that after the Romans defeated the Celts, there was no influence of the Welsh or Cornish into the British mixing? Did the Celts speak Latin as a mother tongue? It seems that the English language has no Celtic background at all, but if this statement was right, we wouldn’t think the language as a whole. The Roman Empire was not newly born in England in the 1st Century. A language has different layers during its lifetime, so we have to look for the first layer. In this matter, we can search about the background of Celtic languages in the formation of the English.
