Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Theoretically there's one other possibility that doesn't depend on the
    extraordinary coincidence of loans outlined in your last para. The
    words might be cognate - related through a common ancestor, Proto
    Indo-European.  Evidence for that would be words related to the Gaelic
    words for 'dark' and 'pool' found in ANY other PI-E language group.  I
    think this is totally improbable. 
    
    As you say, Dublin was founded by the Norsemen, and Old Norse did
    indeed give Irish Gaelic many loan words.  But words left to Irish
    Gaelic by the Norsemen related mostly to commerce and the sea. Irish
    Gaelic has another (sometimes preferred) way of referring to Dublin:
    'Baile �tha Cliath' - the Ford of the Hurdles. So here's an idea: 
    
    	The city of Dublin was named by the Norsemen, who strung together
    	two local words. (Alternatively, a Gaelic-speaking collaborator
    	supplied the name for his Norse overlord - does anyone know
    	whether the Norsemen used collaborators? I thought rape and
    	pillage was more in their line.)
    
    Pro

    o  	this would account for the alternative Gaelic name

    o  	this would explain why some people say 'Dublin' is Old Norse -
    	 the components are local, but Norsemen decreed that they shd
    	 make one word - to refer to 'their' new city
    
    Con
    
    o	I can't imagine the Norsemen were so sensitive or wise	
	 sensitive - because it implies that they cared about
    		their victims' linguistic preferences
    	 wise - because it implies that they knew that place-names
    		are among the most conservative of words. 'Derry'
    		is still called 'Derry' by the local inhabitants,
    		although their conquerors (the British) insisted
    		on a new name - 'Londonderry'	
    
    o   I'd be very surprised if anyone could find any hard evidence
	 for the hypothesis

    
    Bob

    Since Norsemen of various nationalities also settled in Scotland, the
    double loan is not quite as improbable as it seems at first blush.
    Also, travel between Scotland and Ireland was heavy during the summer
    when the weather and the sea were favorable.  
    
    The Norse were neither as violent nor as ignorant as they are generally
    portrayed; they were generally interested in settling down where they
    landed and in learning the local culture.  For example, the Danes who
    took over Sicily became so thoroughly intermarried and intermixed with
    the native Sicilians that by the third generation (the grandchildren of
    the settlers) the colonists no longer spoke Danish, only Sicilian. 

    The Norsemen who settled in Ireland were, typically, interested
    primarily in gaining farmland.  While a lot of land was taken by
    plunder, much more of it was gained by marrying a local (Irish)
    woman with a good dowry.)  In either case, the settlers usually
    adopted local customs.  
    
    So the Norse compounding of Gaelic words isn't that improbable either. 
    
    I will fish out my linguistic and history books and see what, if
    anything, they have to say about this.
    
    --bonnie

    Re .1
    
    The Norse invaders did indeed use "collaborators". The became known
    in both Scottish and Irish Gaelic as "foreign Gaels" (I meant to
    look up the original but I had to paint the ceiling instead). The
    "foreign Gaels" were considered more fearsome than their masters
    in many cases. The Scottish form of this term eventually became
    the origin of the name Galloway.
    
    Phillip

    MLNOIS::HARBIG
                  Re .2
                  Bonnie,
                         I thought that by the time they conquered
                         Sicily they were no longer Norsemen but
                         Normans and that it was round about 50
                         years after William the Conqueror's invasion
                         of England in 1066 and in fact that wave of
                         Norman invaders were seeking fiefs using
                         William as an example.
                         Some like Bohemond set up kingdoms in mainland
                         Italy (Apulia and the Marche) but eventually
                         sailed off to "Outremer" where Bohemond became
                         Count of Antioch.
                         I may be wrong but I haven't read of any Scandin-
                         -avian invasions of Sicily from Viking times
                         which were other than pirate raids into the
                         Mediterranean where it is known they got as
                         far as Constantinople.
                                               Max

    I thought the Sicilian invaders came directly from Sweden. (Couldn't
    find it in my textbook last night; will try another tonight.)  I
    could be wrong, of course, since it's approaching 10 years since
    I was studying this sort of thing . . . 
    
    The rest might be a matter of interpretation.  "Norman" is only a
    shortened form of "norseman", so the distinction between the two
    groups might not be significant in the context of their relation
    to Sicily.
    
    The Danes/whatever you want to call them didn't make very many
    distinctions themselves. Iceland and the Orkneys were part of Sweden
    for a good part of the time, while the Danish peninsula was controlled
    from Normandy, and people moved freely back and forth among all
    the areas, intermarrying with little regard for nationality. 
    
    The bureaucrats that William imported into Britain spoke French, but
    I'm not sure about William himself, and many of his followers spoke
    dialects of old Norse. 
    
    Danes = what the native Britons, whether of Roman or Celtic ancestry,
            often called the invaders. Most of the ones who settled in 
            Britain came from either Jutland or Saxony.  (Sidelight:
            a great deal of our information about the primitive culture 
            and brutal behavior of the Danes in Britain and the vikings in 
            general comes from Mr. John of Salisbury, a learned man of great
            insight, who recounted the sufferings of his people in detail.
            One of his bits of evidence for the viking savagery:  "Every
            week they did bathe themselves, and put off their old clothes 
            and put on new, from whence they did seduce chaste matrons.")
    
    Norsemen = men from the north, meaning most anybody who didn't come
               from the south.
    
    Irish = Norsemen who lived in and raided from Ireland (another 
            sidelight: a British scholar analyzed the detailed
            records of an abbey that was subject to repeated "viking" 
            raids during the days of the Saxon invasion and found that
            of the parties whose nationalities could be determined,
            a third of the invaders were indeed norse vikings, a third
            of them were mixed parties of vikings and celtics, and a
            third of them were entirely celtic. The earliest raids are
            by purely celtic parties slightly before the Danish invasions.
            So raiding appears to have been a sport common to invader 
            and native alike.)
    
    viking = one who goes raiding (presumably from "vik", the mouth
             of a river, which is where most of the good towns for raiding
             were found.)
    
    I forget when the term "Swede" came into use. 

    Bohemond would be technically a Norman, since he [was/may have been]
    from Denmark when it was part of Normandy. 
    
    The pirate raids in the Mediterranean were of varying sizes and degrees
    of severity, and went on for several hundred years.  Groups of
    Norsemen, mostly from Sweden and Norway, did go to Constantinople, not
    to raid but to take service there as mercenaries -- raiding for the
    government was more profitable than raiding on your own and having to
    run from the government. 
    
    --bonnie

    Yeah, I can see why John of Salisbury didn't like them. Bathing and
    changing clothes for the purposes of seduction is hitting below the
    belt. Not to mention dirty pool! 
    
    	Jon

    Obviously if John of Salisbury were to have been thrown in the water,
    he would have left a very dirty pool!
    
    --bonnie
    

    MLNOIS::HARBIG
                  The Normans invaded Sicily in the 11th Century.
                  They couldn't have come directly from Scandinavia
                  since they hired a Pisan fleet to transport their
                  invasion forces.
                  There are a few centuries between Norsemen (Vikings)
                  and Normans.
                  They were already speaking Norman French when they
                  invaded England and had developed from the original
                  maritime invaders, who sailed into the Seine, into land
                  fighters.
                  The Norman heavy armoured cavalry was the ultimate
                  weapon of war in the 11th century and the mercenaries
                  taken on by the Byzantine Empire of the East were
                  Norman armoured knights not vikings.
                                                       Max

    Bonnie's explanation in .5 raises another possibility: the 'Norsemen'
    who founded Dublin were in fact a mixed party.  The people who named
    the city naturally used Celtic words.
    
    Is 'dirty pool' the American English equivalent of British English
    'not cricket'? 
                  
    b
    

    "Not cricket" is what is happening at Lord's at the moment.
    
    Phillip

    re .9:
    
    Yes, "dirty pool" is much the same as "not cricket." 
    
    re .7:
    
    Thank you, Bonnie. I was hoping you'd notice that.
    
    	Jon

    So what's the derivation / expanded meaning of "dirty pool"?
    
    "Not cricket" derives from cricket basically being a "gentleman's
    game", i.e. you don't argue when the umpire says you're out, you
    don't punch the opposing players etc.  So anything that is underhand,
    devious, or deceitful is "not cricket".

    See also: "playing with a straight bat", "keeping a stiff upper
    lip", "bowling a maiden over", etc.
    
    Jeff.

    I always assumed that "dirty pool" was a less than up-and-up game
    of billards.
    

    re: .8
    	Harald Hardradi, half brother to the king of Norway, fled Norway
    at the age of 15 with a band of his own household. As mercenaries
    in the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire they fought all round
    the Mediterranean, including Sicily and Palestine, before returning
    to become King of Norway. In 1066 he invaded Northern England with
    a fleet of 300 ships, with the intention of taking England for himself.
    However, he was defeated and killed by the army of King Harold of
    England.

    	You can read all about this in King Harald's Saga by the Icelandic
    historian, Snorri Sturluson.

    Re .14   There is an excellent re-telling of the tale in three volumes
    by poul Anderson, titled "The Last Viking". Many fictionalized
    scenes, but historically accurate, and colorful. 

    re: .14 --
    
    And that's why William was able to conquer England a few months later.
    Harold of England had, of course, called all his nobles together and
    marched a force to the eastern coast where he successfully fought off
    Harald of Norway.  But feudal retainers were only required to supply
    a certain number of soldiers for a certain number of days, and many
    people filled their quota in that campaign.
    
    So when Harold got word that William had crossed the channel, he
    had only a shorthanded army, already weakened and battle-weary,
    to march all the way across England to try to defend himself with.
    It's a wonder he even managed to put up a good fight.
    
    --bonnie

    MLNOIS::HARBIG
                  Re.16
                  From what I remember of my history that was one
                  of the major reasons for the defeat at Hastings.
                  I seem to remember that the battle against Harald
                  Hadrada was called the Battle of Stamford Bridge?
                                                 Max

    Yes it was. 

    re: .16
    
    	It was hardly a few months later. The battle of Stamford Bridge
    was 25-Sep-1066, while that at Hastings was 14-Oct-1066.
    
    	With 300 miles for the already battle-weary soldiers to walk
    to get to the second one on time it is hardly surprising that they
    lost when they got there.