Talk:Angles (tribe)

message: The root "ang" long ago meant "narrow/long" ("long" is synonymous with "narrow" as something which is long is characteristically also narrow, and vice-versa). 
Tacitus mentioned a tribe called the "Anglii" (the "l" being added due to an attempt to Latinize "ang" as the meaning was clearly not synonymous with Latin "angulus", and the "ii" to turn it into a tribal name), no doubt a reference to them being "tall" (a tall person is "long in height", "long-legged", etc). However, the placement of the "tall" people on the Jutland Peninsula is not correct, and having both "Anglii" and "Saxones" gave the false impression of the Anglii and Saxones being different tribes.  Such mistakes in information or communication often happen when dealing with peoples, places, and languages of fringe areas and beyond.
In Dutch and German, "eng" (which long ago was cognate with "ang") later came to mean "meadow" because meadows were typically narrow/long stretches of grassland along rivers. Thus, nowadays, England does mean "meadowland" in Dutch and German. Long ago, the name "English" would have meant "tall-ish" (characteristic of being tall) because "ang" used to also mean "tall", and "England", which came into use at a much later date due to a long period of, historically obvious, uncertainty about its usage, would have meant "tall-land", if it was formed by combination of "ang/eng" + "land". However, this is not the source of "England", which is actually derived from the word "igland" (meaning "island"). You see, "g" during the time of "igland" was pronounced as a soft, blended together "ng" sound, and later came to be pronounced as "ng" in Modern English, at which time the word "igland" was respelled "england".  Thus, England actually means "island".  Granted, England does not comprise the entirety of the Island of Britain, but this does not change the fact that "england" means "island".
Thibeinn (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We just report what published sources say. Can you cite any published sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  True meaning of the root word "ang" from long ago 

message: Not sure what exactly is controversial about this. The Angles settled southern and eastern Scotland heavily, many people living there today descend from them. How are the modern Scottish people not a related ethnic group? A huge part of their genetic, and an even larger part of their cultural heritage, comes from the Angles and the regions of Scotland they settled historically. 
I suggest you not revert it again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.140.143 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Scottish people in the south of Scotland are related to the Angles, but that claim needs a reliable source. Macedonian (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I added a reference to the Lowland Scots, I guess that should be enough. Macedonian (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Ethnic Groups 

message: The version 11:17, 29 October 2021 Dawnseeker2000 of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing stub.--Wing (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: The quote is, "Pope Gregory I, in an epistle, simplified the Latinised name Anglii to Angli,"
I don't actually believe this was simplification, but a change in meaning from "like the Angli" to just, "the Angli." It was more a political statement of recognition than a beurocratic orthography game.
Not sure the citations for this, but that's just what I read here. Phenylphenol (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Latinate quibbling around whether the English are Angels. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: It is clear from the discussion that it is nessecary to move away from the status quo. Because out of the 3 proposed alternatives, the options to either have no primary topic or to have a Primary Redirect at the basename garnered highest support wihout a clear preference for either of them, I will resrt to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. The pages are Moved as proposed and future discussions can be opened for the primary redirect.(non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy ping to participants at the RFD:   — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 May 2023 

message: Cf. Talk:Angles#followup to move discussion --Joy (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  followup to move discussion