I was just curious how the translation routine worked, so I chose a passage (apologies if necessary to the author), translated into French, and then back to English.
This is the final result
The street Patrick was not " English ", he was the " English ". The " English " (who " Saxon " called it British) had only arrived just to Great Britain at the medium of life of street Patrick (circa 385 - the circa 461 -- that I am not held on the obiit in theory 491.) In the same way in its life " Scotus " meant " Irishman " independently from where Irishman lived (if in Ireland or Great Britain). To say thus that Patrick was removed by slavers of " Scots " is only as long truth as no correspondence towards Scotland (which did not exist yet) is implied.
The street Patrick, in his writings, is considered Christian initially, the second Roman, and English third. Thus in its life the English were still Roman, though the emperor did not have direct authority in Great Britain of it since the 400' S early.
and this is the original
St. Patrick was not "English", he was "British". The "English" (whom the British called "Saxons") were only just arriving in Britain in the middle of St. Patrick's lifetime (circa 385 - circa 461--I don't hold to the obiit in 491 theory.) Similarly in his lifetime "Scotus" meant "Irishman" regardless of where the Irishman lived (whether inIreland or in Britain). So to say that Patrick was kidnapped by "Scots" slavers is true only as long as no connection to Scotland (which did not yet exist) is implied.
St. Patrick, in his writings, considers himself Christian first, Roman second, and British third. So in his lifetime the British were still Roman, even though the Emperor hadn't had any direct authority in Britain since the early 400's. ld be called and "English" town