One thing I learned while going on this rabbit hole though is that the Normans for some reason didn't record the Norse name and instead recorded it as Everwic and Euruic, so that seems like something to consider when you have one group of people conquering a territory from someone who conquered...
Well, I see the point of disagreement at least. I look at just the root. The Roman name, Colonia Eboracum means "colony of ebur" with the ebur meaning something like yew trees. The Angles which settled there called it *Eburwic meaning "village of ebur" with the ebur meaning boar. Due to regular...
What? You got Eboracum in Latin and Eburakon in Brythonic, with the cum/kon being grammatical hanky-panky. The stem "ebora/ebura" got slightly reduced due to "-az" being the ancient Germanic nominative suffix, so you get ebur- and you add the toponymic suffix -wic denoting some kind of...
We have the uninterrupted line in those though. There is a clear break between Eofer and Jor. Proto-West Germanic *ebur- is presumed to have become Old English eofer, hence the original name the settlers would've referred to the settlement would be Eburwic, which is the Latin. I don't see such a...
IDK, Jorvik seems different enough from the Old English (Eoferwic, which is almost certainly linked to Eboracum, which is definitely linked to Celtic Eburakon) that I'd say it's Norse origin.
It's about the prestige of the Roman Empire really, probably with a little bit of the importance of the Roman Catholic Church in the Medieval to Renaissance scholarship
It was definitely spoken before this, though we mightn't call it English. The language of the Anglo-Saxons would've been much closer to it than to modern English though.
This is an arbitrary cut-off date. The 5th century is when the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes, speaking the same language as the precursors of the northernmost dialects of Low German and the southernmost dialects of Jutland Danish sailed to England. The languages were still close enough that during...
Depends on where you live. I'm 5'8" and on the tall side for where I live, but if I went to Europe I'd be a hobbit. Speaking of hobbits, isn't Sam meant to be the character the reader identifies with in LOTR?
Umbridge is described as toad-faced, ackshually. And Hermione is meant to be seen as plain, not ugly. Regardless of Harry's opinion of her as a person, the salient features he always emphasises are the buck teeth and the bushy hair, right up until she gets her teeth fixed and then the bushy hair...
It didn't give me that impression at all. The valley next to the Sea of Dharr also seems way too big at this scale. It looks as big if not bigger than the Pannonian Basin to my estimation at this scale. If it's a formatting issue then OP should fix it, if not they should rethink these features