Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[Monaco_Totty]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

I to add to the mix - many successful people or businesses failed many times before learning the lessons from that to be successful. Modern society seems to struggle to recognise that.

Similarly, taking risks and being first is often a key metric too.

Politics is often about stupid points scoring and highlighting failures to damn opponents with no recognition that this might impart knowledge and skills to learn from the success and turn it into failure.

[Monaco_Totty]

An apt Latvian saying - to have one eye on the past is to be blind in one eye, to ignore the past is to be blind in both eyes.

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

True H ☺
My pharmacist said similar when i walked away from taking advised prescription drugs which back then suppressed my brain to a frazzle.

In readings of History & mitigating for explanation then methodology includes vast ways to collect the info to decipher & further analyse it's data, so you have to dig deep & then dig deeper still often with your boots on the ground before trying to explain your rationale behind the methodology you wish to project to those who want to listen.

Or as they'll say next door to Latvia -
"Arkli pazinsi is dantu, mogu - iskalbuz" !

(You will know a horse by its teeth & a man by his talk).

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

[Monaco_Totty]

How many languages do you speak MT - think it?s four but have a feeling maybe a couple more?

Four ?
Close, but actually English (Sarf Landun), fluent
French, passable Lithuanian & a decent flow of Irish Gaelic which Gran taught me as she's from Ireland originally before marriage & then moved to Derry/Londonderry.
My sis & younger bro' the same but as they're French born, school's also got them speaking fluent Italian too. My older brother via work speaks quite a passable few via his work in the Euro media.

It's Mum who is the fluent lingo Queen at around ten fluent languages in 'da house' !
An unbelievable experience sat in her car driving while she instantly switches fluently from one lingo to another with clients in such quick succession via the hands free & as for her range of swear words, jeez, particularly in her English Yorkshire accent 😂

Like everything, the more you use it the easier it becomes but sometimes the brain does freeze for me on here trying to remember my lesser used Englsh words now & again, for sure via recall.
But any child of mine will be taught the lingo that I was, defo from the off.

[WTF11]

Should a theory be dismissed ?

The issue of dismissing a theory is a more complex issue than just making a judgment about one specific statement. One aspect of the theory, for example one assumption, could lack support, but that would not necessarily make the theory as a whole uninteresting if it provides explanations on other aspects.

What I will say further is that noting certain aspects through my eyes & ears living in the UK balanced with residing in France & able to visit most of Europe freely, then one does have a greater depth of understanding, particularly seeing, hearing, reading & visiting battle sites of historic events going back to even medieval days.

I often ask myself can one living in a country that was under foreign occupation & one who has actually not even share a common theory ?
Identifying & mitigating bias in historical analysis as objectivity in selecting methodologies that are tailored to historical data sets, some would argue to.

Is historical theory a subject that is open to debate & challenge ?

The debate about the role of theory in history has been a part of the academic discipline since its inception & some say that the discipline of history has become too dominated by empiricist approaches & that the role of theory has been neglected.

As I said, the suggestion that there were alternative realities had different paths been taken/decisions made in the run up to the outbreak of and during WWII isn't a theory, which suggests and outcome given certain conditions, a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong, it's postulation about what may have happened had events been differently dictated.

Obviously Hitler could have decided not to invade the USSR, re-inforce Rommel (more than he actually did), or it might have been that the House of Commons rejected Churchills exhortation to resist and abandon any thought of appeasement. None of that happened and the rest, as they say, is HISTORY, not theory.

[Monaco_Totty]

As I said, the suggestion that there were alternative realities had different paths been taken/decisions made in the run up to the outbreak of and during WWII isn't a theory, which suggests and outcome given certain conditions, a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong, it's postulation about what may have happened had events been differently dictated.

Obviously Hitler could have decided not to invade the USSR, re-inforce Rommel (more than he actually did), or it might have been that the House of Commons rejected Churchills exhortation to resist and abandon any thought of appeasement. None of that happened and the rest, as they say, is HISTORY, not theory.

Disagree.
Like many folks my age the Brexit vote & subsequent fallout saw many of us leave our UK shores feeling let down by our elders decision making via alleged evidence given regarding all facts at that time.

The Churchill Archives Center hold collection of papers not previously available but when declassified are made public - they often includes personal letters, speech-notes & diary entries of Churchill.

Such acquired "Papers" offer an unrivalled view of not only Churchills personal & political life but also the global politics of the 20th century which are an interesting read that draw light on matters not previously known to the public.

The continued process of opening up of such archives is a valuble source to draw opinion for researchers of theory past & present, as the RF Foreign Ministry declassifies an amount of document evidence relating to the WWII period rarely.

I often read released "papers" following 'selection' that are prepared for readers of the International Affairs reading journal, Oxford, which can be of interest to me & often comprise of telegrams bearing on achievement of mutual understanding in the political & military sphere back then.

One declassified paper detailed I still hold on laptop file was the subsequently ensuring effective interaction between the Soviet Union & Great Britain, which became the core of the military union of powers great & small that defeated Nazism.

1,700 pages that changed opinions cos of unknown facts never seen before created debate for comment for those to formulate fresh opinions on this said evidence.

Not sure how you research but this declassified stuff can sometimes make uncomfortable reading - one of many thousands is below as an example, released by Anatolii Filev, Consultant of the Historical-Documentary Department of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From I.M. Maiskii to the USSR Peole's Commissariate for Foreign Affairs (NKID)
June 26, 1941
Urgent and most secret.

Now, four days after the Nazi attack against the USSR, there is cause to say with satisfaction that we have won the first round in ensuring political support for the war effort, insofar as Great Britain is concerned.

Hitler's calculation, which was implicit in, among other things, his proclamation, was perfectly clear: funneling the entire firepower of his army and aviation to strike eastward, once again assuming the role of "savior of civilization from Bolshevik barbarity," thus appealing to the mood of the most conservative circles of the British bourgeoisie, dividing the "national front" here, and achieving peace in the West, or at least considerably weakening Britain's military activity and U.S. assistance to Britain.

The purpose behind Hess's "visit" now becomes absolutely clear: It was to lay the ground for a British-German deal shortly before or at the beginning of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Hitler's calculation at this stage has completely misfired. Britain did not allow itself to be deceived and agreed neither to a peace deal nor scaled down its military activity. Quite the contrary, through Churchill, it declared, more firmly than ever, its intention to continue the war until Nazi Germany was routed.

Moreover, Britain enlisted the support not only of its empire but also of the United States.This turn of events is hardly surprising. Recently (in early May), I already set out in detail the circumstances that predetermine the militant stand adopted by the British bourgeoisie (a relatively strong social base and recognition that a "Nazi world order," which is the solely possible scenario at present, means the fall of the British empire within five year at the most).

The Soviet Union's entry into the war against Germany had two extremely important consequences for Britain. First of all, it further strengthened the "unified front" (and therefore, the social base, for the time being) as now even the Communists have dropped their opposition to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other further evidence in diary entries go further into Europe events back then, including letters sent to the Duke of Windsor regarding his dubious role in 1937 sent by Churchill, that prior only created theory about their possible existence & now have been confirmed by evidence in Churchhill's own hand.

So upon reading many journal releases from other Governments once classified, then i'd suggest a more broad viewing of your literature choices, politely,for contemplation before jumping to tag all events as "historical fact" - unless you have access to original evidenced historic classified papers.
Not arguing with you but expressing my firm opinion after reasoned study from information that emerges after a period of time for public view for a reason.

Totty xx

[WTF11]

Disagree.
Like many folks my age the Brexit vote & subsequent fallout saw many of us leave our UK shores feeling let down by our elders decision making via alleged evidence given regarding all facts at that time.

The Churchill Archives Center hold collection of papers not previously available but when declassified are made public - they often includes personal letters, speech-notes & diary entries of Churchill.

Such acquired "Papers" offer an unrivalled view of not only Churchills personal & political life but also the global politics of the 20th century which are an interesting read that draw light on matters not previously known to the public.

The continued process of opening up of such archives is a valuble source to draw opinion for researchers of theory past & present, as the RF Foreign Ministry declassifies an amount of document evidence relating to the WWII period rarely.

I often read released "papers" following 'selection' that are prepared for readers of the International Affairs reading journal, Oxford, which can be of interest to me & often comprise of telegrams bearing on achievement of mutual understanding in the political & military sphere back then.

One declassified paper detailed I still hold on laptop file was the subsequently ensuring effective interaction between the Soviet Union & Great Britain, which became the core of the military union of powers great & small that defeated Nazism.

1,700 pages that changed opinions cos of unknown facts never seen before created debate for comment for those to formulate fresh opinions on this said evidence.

Not sure how you research but this declassified stuff can sometimes make uncomfortable reading - one of many thousands is below as an example, released by Anatolii Filev, Consultant of the Historical-Documentary Department of the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From I.M. Maiskii to the USSR Peole's Commissariate for Foreign Affairs (NKID)
June 26, 1941
Urgent and most secret.

Now, four days after the Nazi attack against the USSR, there is cause to say with satisfaction that we have won the first round in ensuring political support for the war effort, insofar as Great Britain is concerned.

Hitler's calculation, which was implicit in, among other things, his proclamation, was perfectly clear: funneling the entire firepower of his army and aviation to strike eastward, once again assuming the role of "savior of civilization from Bolshevik barbarity," thus appealing to the mood of the most conservative circles of the British bourgeoisie, dividing the "national front" here, and achieving peace in the West, or at least considerably weakening Britain's military activity and U.S. assistance to Britain.

The purpose behind Hess's "visit" now becomes absolutely clear: It was to lay the ground for a British-German deal shortly before or at the beginning of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Hitler's calculation at this stage has completely misfired. Britain did not allow itself to be deceived and agreed neither to a peace deal nor scaled down its military activity. Quite the contrary, through Churchill, it declared, more firmly than ever, its intention to continue the war until Nazi Germany was routed.

Moreover, Britain enlisted the support not only of its empire but also of the United States.This turn of events is hardly surprising. Recently (in early May), I already set out in detail the circumstances that predetermine the militant stand adopted by the British bourgeoisie (a relatively strong social base and recognition that a "Nazi world order," which is the solely possible scenario at present, means the fall of the British empire within five year at the most).

The Soviet Union's entry into the war against Germany had two extremely important consequences for Britain. First of all, it further strengthened the "unified front" (and therefore, the social base, for the time being) as now even the Communists have dropped their opposition to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other further evidence in diary entries go further into Europe events back then, including letters sent to the Duke of Windsor regarding his dubious role in 1937 sent by Churchill, that prior only created theory about their possible existence & now have been confirmed by evidence in Churchhill's own hand.

So upon reading many journal releases from other Governments once classified, then i'd suggest a more broad viewing of your literature choices, politely,for contemplation before jumping to tag all events as "historical fact" - unless you have access to original evidenced historic classified papers.
Not arguing with you but expressing my firm opinion after reasoned study from information that emerges after a period of time for public view for a reason.

Totty xx

Appreciate the trouble taken, but you're still wrong. All the evidence of papers (unclassified or not), which show what views and opinions might have been contemporaneous or not are documents which throw light on historical fact. They do not support the assertion that assessing one possible version of events against another is theorising, quite the contrary. Published and documented historical events may change their shape and the contemporary view is likely to differ from that of those involved previously.

Revisionism is a dangerous and very slippery slope, to be avoided at all costs, despite the insatiable appetite on the part of some to impose their own (IMHO biased) view on historical fact. Very few remain who are able to provide first hand accounts of these events and I count myself fortunate in having had such an opportunity to acquire such a view from my father-in-law and to an extent from my father who served with British forces during our overseeing of the mandate given to Britain by the UK which saw the establishment of the state of Israel.

WTF xx

[WTF11]

The Palestine/Israel mandate was if course given by the UN not the UK, predictive texting strikes again!

[Monaco_Totty]

Theories are refined or rejected based on new evidence. If the theory is refined, it may be modified slightly or significantly depending on surfaced validated evidence - it is allowed to evolve to some degree over time.

In the summer of 1945, the USA & Britain agreed that Soviet citizens were those who had resided in the Soviet Union at the outbreak of war on September, 1,1939. Thus, Ukrainians living in pre-war Poland before the war were to retain their Polish citizenship if they wished but had to move within the new postwar Polish borders that had been decreed.

Similarly, Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians were also considered exempt from involuntary repatriation since the USA & Britain did not recognize the 1940 Annexation of their homelands.

Many displaced Lithuanians had wandered around Europe in abject poverty after Germany moved in while some got shipped onto the UK to help the allies defeat the Germans & who did not want to live later under the Soviet power rule either & again many were left all over destitute & broken as they were no longer required by anyone.

Thus, in 1951 the United Nations legitimised each individual?s right of Asylum & assistance based on persecution, or fear of persecution, regardless of former citizenship, race, or religion - a point I previously have highlighted.

This laid the foundation for the current definition of refugee, which the UN adopted in 1967. So yeah, via research into European fact & fictions through Global & European eyes I learned more & it's certainly not a pleasant re-call to tell, particulary regarding what the history books say & what actually the people concernced know & say as many Lithuanians of my bloodline, sadly, deemed a hell of a lot of matters were kept under wraps from the public at the time of their plight & well after the land grabs.

My grandparents were moved all over & finally against their will to the west into Poland after fleeing Germans & Russians & from their testimonies the land they were literally left in was utterly destroyed & useless compared to what they had before the war which after was given over to the hands of the east. There is a myth that they had received more developed western areas. It wasn?t developed but completely ruined & everything had to be rebuilt from scratch, while Stalin took all that survived in their homeland.

The good thing about it is that we, the grandchildren generation are able to put the history books right as Poland back then with its new borders & Germany were in similar state after the war, completely destroyed, collapsed countries & broken.
While Germany was lucky enough to be at least partially taken over by the western side Lithuanians & the like had to suffer for another half a century after the war !

That is the main reason for Lithuanian national trauma, lack of trust & the iconic pessimism with sadness which was common in post Soviet countries.
It?s getting better now, especially with the new generations coming through, I was born in the 80's & during my lifetime, the place has evolved & developed so much, that sometimes I think it?s a miracle after what happened.

It?s just sad, so sad, that after all this suffering we have another war in Europe & again in the Middle East over land divided by others as I truly believe that we, as a European society, yes I am a European, are still affected by its dark past & need to do everything we can to help our neighbours & get rid of this mess currently descending through dishonest, out dated politics with bygone day values that don't reflect what many of my age even want.

So the degree course of historical fact available became a history lesson re-taught & factuallly changed significantly by its end term forming my views of today's global politics.
As it has done also again over the years, since further reading of different factual accounts emerging via sources i've mentioned which are validated & now open for public debate of which need debate to learn from, imo.

Never again should be never again.

[WTF11]

Theories are refined or rejected based on new evidence. If the theory is refined, it may be modified slightly or significantly depending on surfaced validated evidence - it is allowed to evolve to some degree over time.

In the summer of 1945, the USA & Britain agreed that Soviet citizens were those who had resided in the Soviet Union at the outbreak of war on September, 1,1939. Thus, Ukrainians living in pre-war Poland before the war were to retain their Polish citizenship if they wished but had to move within the new postwar Polish borders that had been decreed.

Similarly, Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians were also considered exempt from involuntary repatriation since the USA & Britain did not recognize the 1940 Annexation of their homelands.

Many displaced Lithuanians had wandered around Europe in abject poverty after Germany moved in while some got shipped onto the UK to help the allies defeat the Germans & who did not want to live later under the Soviet power rule either & again many were left all over destitute & broken as they were no longer required by anyone.

Thus, in 1951 the United Nations legitimised each individual?s right of Asylum & assistance based on persecution, or fear of persecution, regardless of former citizenship, race, or religion - a point I previously have highlighted.

This laid the foundation for the current definition of refugee, which the UN adopted in 1967. So yeah, via research into European fact & fictions through Global & European eyes I learned more & it's certainly not a pleasant re-call to tell, particulary regarding what the history books say & what actually the people concernced know & say as many Lithuanians of my bloodline, sadly, deemed a hell of a lot of matters were kept under wraps from the public at the time of their plight & well after the land grabs.

My grandparents were moved all over & finally against their will to the west into Poland after fleeing Germans & Russians & from their testimonies the land they were literally left in was utterly destroyed & useless compared to what they had before the war which after was given over to the hands of the east. There is a myth that they had received more developed western areas. It wasn?t developed but completely ruined & everything had to be rebuilt from scratch, while Stalin took all that survived in their homeland.

The good thing about it is that we, the grandchildren generation are able to put the history books right as Poland back then with its new borders & Germany were in similar state after the war, completely destroyed, collapsed countries & broken.
While Germany was lucky enough to be at least partially taken over by the western side Lithuanians & the like had to suffer for another half a century after the war !

That is the main reason for Lithuanian national trauma, lack of trust & the iconic pessimism with sadness which was common in post Soviet countries.
It?s getting better now, especially with the new generations coming through, I was born in the 80's & during my lifetime, the place has evolved & developed so much, that sometimes I think it?s a miracle after what happened.

It?s just sad, so sad, that after all this suffering we have another war in Europe & again in the Middle East over land divided by others as I truly believe that we, as a European society, yes I am a European, are still affected by its dark past & need to do everything we can to help our neighbours & get rid of this mess currently descending through dishonest, out dated politics with bygone day values that don't reflect what many of my age even want.

So the degree course of historical fact available became a history lesson re-taught & factuallly changed significantly by its end term forming my views of today's global politics.
As it has done also again over the years, since further reading of different factual accounts emerging via sources i've mentioned which are validated & now open for public debate of which need debate to learn from, imo.

Never again should be never again.

None if which is "theory" or theorising, but a realisation of the reality of what was is now historical fact, as I have suggested in this dialogue. Theory suggests what might be, postulating examines what might have been, historians should be attuned to what WAS and the factual basis for arriving at any of conclusion thereof.

[Monaco_Totty]

? what if?s?! during times of war offer endless permutations. Unfortunate that many universities don?t offer that as ways of studying history or military tactics. You have to know what happened to do a lot of what if scenarios.

It?s also really stunning to think of what the terrible toll of war does to the pace of scientific and technological advancement. A century of development occurs in a decade.

I can?t even imagine what a conscientious objector goes through mentally in a time of war. Many corpsman were objectors and absolutely critical to the army.

I have found in discussions with the young folks at work that they studied no history or civics in college. Sad and alarming as these are key disciplines in studying human behavior.

My grandparents were orphaned children left behind in the evacuation of East Prussia in the carnage & chaos of the Red Army invasion in early 1945, moved around the rural outbacks living homeless among parts of East Prussia fed by Lithuanian resistance fighters families helping them safely over borders to eventually being adopted with no papers by Lithuanian families exiled to Poland welfare organisations.

A a woman the horrors my Grandmother saw & endured by the Germans & then Russians are unprintable, but I live with that disclosed testimony of knowledge & am proud to be stronger mentality for it.

During World War II, Lithuanian freedom fighters fought against the Soviet Union in a guerrilla war that lasted from 1944 to 1953 without the aid of machinery of destruction, just raw combat.

So although I do find stories of British conscientious objectors having a variety of reasons for refusing to fight, including pacifism, political beliefs & religious beliefs I also have great sympathy for them too, as I have shared too many hospital ward psychology sessions with modern day soldiers & veterans suffering serious mental illness which made my own diagnosed issues back then pale into insignificance.

[Monaco_Totty]

None if which is "theory" or theorising, but a realisation of the reality of what was is now historical fact, as I have suggested in this dialogue. Theory suggests what might be, postulating examines what might have been, historians should be attuned to what WAS and the factual basis for arriving at any of conclusion thereof.

Nope, theories are important in analyzing wars.
Such as in;

1.Just war theory.

A Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile the idea that taking human life is wrong with the duty to defend citizens & justice. It considers the practicalities of war and meta-ethical conditions.
This theory is divided into three categories of 1.jus ad bellum, 2 jus in bello & 3. jus post bellum - which roughly translate to justice towards war, justice in war & justice after war.



2.Military theory.

A multi-disciplinary field that studies the theories that define, inform & explain war and warfare. It examines war and trends in warfare & aims to explain the causes of military victory.

3.Feminist analyses of war.

Asking how the dynamics of masculinities & femininities shape how war is constructed, experienced & defined.

4.Balance of power theory.

Argues that concentrations of power are destabilizing & that hegemony never occurs.

5.Power transition theory.

Argues the opposite of balance of power theory & that a single dominant military & economic power is most stable.

6.Power preponderance hypothesis

Holds that war is least likely when one state has a preponderance of power over another.

Finally, via discovery of new evidence constantly being discovered & surfacing recorded history is often rewritten.

Was my Grans Irish history factually correct,
was my Lithuanian Grandparents history factually correct ?

Theory contemplation questions get to know differing facts when discussed which often can provide new evidence to consider & sometimes significantly re-write history - a history that those in powers above often dont want us to know.

That is my point of view & obviously not yours.
Totty xx
Finito 🤝

[spaldy]

In the "it's a small world category"....

I had a neighbor across the street from me in Fishers, IN that was Latvian. He passed at 90 back in 2021. I used to go help him cut down scrub and trees as well heights work. I had to force him to allow me to help him. 80+ year olds don't need to be on ladders or running chainsaws. Afterwards he'd offer me beers and tell some stories. Hard to get him to reveal anything personally. Near the end he told me a riveting story about his life.

He was a prisoner of war for 3 different countries. Enlisted to help the Fins fight the russians when they invaded. He knew they were next. I suspect that he was underage given his age and when the war started. He was taken prisoners by the Russians when the Fins were overrun. He was conscripted to fight the Germans who he had no real problem with so he figured out he could cook and went that route. He also was very good at languages and knew quite a few so used him as a translator. When the Germans were overun by the Allies he was taken prisoner again. By then he was a good cook and spent the rest of the war cooking for officers. He was shipped over near the end of the war to a prison camp in Indiana (no fences- he said many were very happy to be there). After the war he ended up being adopted by a local church under a program and ended up in the US the rest of his days. The russians killed off his family so no reason to go back. He also said that they all came in and took over the baltic states.

Other than a deep hatred for the russians (not uncommon to anyone subjected to their rule) he was a really well adjusted and happy person. You would never have guessed his life story.

As MT knows Latvian is a unique language branch. I think it's one of two languages in this branch. I went to his funeral and honestly did not recognize hardly a world. I have a passing familiarity with several languages (mainly the romance language branch) so it was totally alien to me trying to figure out any words or even how the language worked syntax wise.

I was really glad to have had the chance to meet him.