English without Norman AND Norse invasions

[Otto Kretschmer]

How would English look like if the Norman invasion never happened and the Norse ones were readily repulsed as well?

Of course the pronoun "they" would never enter usage in English. Something would still need to replace it as the 3td person pronouns in singular and plural were too similar.

As a whole England would experience more Low German influence and less French, London and other cities might become members of the Hansa

[Ares Land]

Relevant: http://jbr.me.uk/allo.html

OK, Justin B Rye has English without the Normans but with the Norse. Still worth looking at!

[Richard W]

Of course the pronoun "they" would never enter usage in English. Something would still need to replace it as the 3td person pronouns in singular and plural were too similar.

As 3s feminine was taken from the 'that' demonstrative, it makes sense for the plural to be taken thence as well, so we might have ended up with tho, them/'em, thore.

[Vijay]

How would English look like if the Norman invasion never happened and the Norse ones were readily repulsed as well?

Like Frisian?

[Otto Kretschmer]

Probably still somewhat different due to insular isolation.

And there would still be significant trade with Denmark and Norway, more so than for any other Germanic country

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Orthographically, it would probably a bit like this:

æ/ä (short) — [æ]
æ/ä (long) — [ei]
a (short) — [ɒ] (NA: [ɑː] in all stressed contexts), usually terminally a schwa
a (long or prerhotic) — [ɑː]
ai, aiȝ, ay — [ei], sometimes [iː] terminally
au, auȝ, aȝ, aw — [ɔː] (NA: [ɑː])
i/y (short) — [ɪ]
i (long) — [iː] (through Latin/French influence)
ie — [iː]
y (long) — [ai] (from Chaucer, also influence of Dutch ij
iȝ, yȝ — [ai]
u (short) — [ʌ]
u (long) — [au]
u (long, after [j], or before [m p b f v] — [uː]
eu, iu, euȝ, iuȝ, uȝ — [juː]
-ue (usually in words from French, but sometimes also native ones) — [juː]
uy (probably rare) — [ai]
e (short) — [ɛ]
e (long) — [iː]
ea, ee — [iː]
ei, eiȝ, eȝ, ey — [ei] stressed or medially, [iː] terminally
o (short) — [ɒ], but [ʌ] before [m n]
o (long) — [ou]
oa, ou, ouȝ, oȝ, ow — [ou], but "ou" probably [uː] in words of French origin, which would be fewer, and mostly Parisian; ouȝ is often a schwa in "borouȝ" and some other words
oi, oiȝ, oy — [ɔi]
ae, oe — (in classicalisms) [iː]
-oe — (terminally, especially in monosyllables) [oː]
ů, o̊ — [ʊ]

b — [b], silent in some classically-derived words, like bdellium
c (hard) — [k~c~c͡ç]
c (soft) — [tʃ]
cj + "hard" vowel — [tʃ]
-ce (terminally) — [tʃ]
cg (medially, before soft vowels) — [dʒ]
ch (before soft vowels and consonants in some classical words) — [k] (in a few Scottish or Irish words, possibly [x]); sometimes used for [ʃ] in words of French origin, but frequently respelled "sc(j)~sce" in these ("quiche" would be either written with its French spelling, or with a New-English "kisce" or "chisce" or "cheasce" or the like, depending on authorial preference)
d — [d]
dj, unstressed di + vowel — [dʒ]
f (initially) — [f]
f (medially, terminally) — [v]
ff (medially, terminally) — [f]
ph (in classical borrowings) — [f]
v (usually in borrowed words) — [v] (from French), [w] (from Classical Latin), sometimes replaced by "w" in the latter case
g (hard) — [g]
g (soft) — [dʒ]
ȝ/gh (terminally) — usually unpronounced, solitary ȝ may also be used as a substitute for "j" for an old-timey flair
h — [h]
j — [j]
k — [k] mostly in loanwords from Dutch, German, Russian, Japanese, or Modern Greek
kh — [k], or [x] by some hypercorrect speakers, largely only in loanwoards
l — [l~ɫ], or possibly [w] contextually, depending on the dialect
m — [m], silent in classically-derived words like mnemonic
n — [n], silent in classically-derived words like hymn
p — [p], silent in classically-derived words like pderodactyl
qu — [kw] in native words, or in words from Latin or Italian, [k] in words from French (in which it is sometimes respelled "ch" or "k")
r — whatever rhotic is dialectally present, triggering the same vowel changes it does in the English we now have
s (initially, or before voiceless consonants) — [s]
s (medially, terminally) — [z]
ss (medially, terminally) — [s]
sc (before soft vowels), scj (before hard vowels) — [ʃ]
(s)sce (terminally) — [ʃ]
tsc (before soft vowels), tscj (before hard vowels), -tsce (terminally) — sometimes used to write [tʃ] in borrowings from German
tsch (in unassimilated German vocabulary) — [tʃ]
sch (before soft vowels) — usually [sk], but [ʃ] in some unassimilated German words, often replaced with "sc(j)" or -"sce"
t — [t], in NA usually [d] between vowels, sometimes undergoes decay to a glottal stop
tj, unstressed ti + vowel — [tʃ]
In "antient", and "tion" — [tʃ] or [ʃ]
þ/th (initial, terminal) — [θ]
þ (intervocalic) — [ð]
þþ (intervocalic) — [θ]
ð/dh (initially only) — [ð]
w — [w]
x — [ks]
y — [j] in some French words, but often replaced with "j"
z — [z], [ts] in some German or Italian words, but then often replaced with "ts" or "tz"

Once upon a time there was a rat who couldn’t make up his mind. Whenever the other rats asked him if he would like to come out hunting with them, he would answer in a hoarse voice, “I don’t know.” And when they said, “Would you rather stay inside?” he wouldn’t say yes, or no either. He’d always shirk making a choice.

Wonse upponn a tyme ðerre wos a ræt whu cůldn't mæche up his mynde. When-ever ðe oððer ræts æsched (or æschd~æscd?) him if he wůld lyche to com ute hunting wiþ ðem, he wůld anser, in a hoarse voice, "Iȝ don't ȝnouȝ." Ænd when ðey sed, "Wůld yu ræððer stay insyde?" he wůldn't say jes, or no yðer (or eðer~eaðer). He'd aulways scirc mæching a tjoisse.

It isn't horrible, I guess, but it does look rather odd to eyes accustomed to reading modern Normandised spelling. Some fashionable -er > -re shifts may also have occurred, depending on how Francophillic the speakers were feeling around the time at which spelling would be standardised. Of the eth, wynn, yogh, and thorn, I only dropped Wynn because of how much it resembles a "p", and how readily "w" seems to have been innovated, but I could see it potentially surviving, too, if people were very conservative with their spelling.

(I also haven't gone through and replaced the vocabulary, obviously.)

[Emily]

i would imagine a lot more influence from celtic, although to really say for sure we'd need to figure out the subsequent 1000-1500 years of british history

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Yes, I hadn't taken that very strongly into account, but rather produced an orthography assuming the sound changes would simply happen in a bit of a void, with Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh remaining marginalised, which they rationally probably wouldn't. If English developed with a more strongly Celtic influence, it would also very likely be the case that there would be phonetic developments for which my hypothetical orthography couldn't easily account (possibly more palatalisation, and the development of an Irish-style system of lenitions, possibly even initial mutations if the syntax were realigned to be a bit more Celtic, and adnominal markers were subsequently lost).

[Otto Kretschmer]

No Norse invasion assumes PoD after 800 AD at which time Celtic influence on English was not possible anymore.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What's "PoD"?

[Otto Kretschmer]

the moment when history diverges from our own.

By the time of Viking invasions of England, Celtic languages have been reduced to pockets in Wales and Cornwall. They could not influence English significantly at that point

If you concocted a different Anglo Saxon takeover of England with the population becoming bilingual, thst would be a possibility.

Today even though English oeople are 80% Celtic on ancestry, Celtic influence is limited to some place names and POSSIBLY the do-support in questions and the continuous tenses but its far from confirmrd

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Well, all right then, you have a possible orthography; are you thinking of making this language?

[keenir]

No Norse invasion assumes PoD after 800 AD at which time Celtic influence on English was not possible anymore.

does this English lack the (periphrasic) do that OTL {our timeline} English picked up from Celtic?

[Otto Kretschmer]

No Norse invasion assumes PoD after 800 AD at which time Celtic influence on English was not possible anymore.

does this English lack the (periphrasic) do that OTL {our timeline} English picked up from Celtic

It may. Did the construction already exist in Old English?

There msy be other differences. The participle in -end rather than -ing may be predominant. German-like bin-bist verb may supplqnt eom-ert

[Travis B.]

There msy be other differences. The participle in -end rather than -ing may be predominant. German-like bin-bist verb may supplqnt eom-ert

The informal participle ending -in in English varieties may descend from -end rather than from -ing, which originally was a gerund ending.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Werent there two competing participles in Middle English? One with -ende ending and another one with -ynge?

[Frislander]

My conjecture is that an English without the Norman and French invasions woudn't be all that different from OTL English outside of the lexicon. Like sure, Norse contact may have started the trend in some paradigmatic levelling in nominals, but what really killed the old case and declension system for good was the loss of all those unstressed schwas in the Middle English period, well after both of the invasions and afaict independent of them. Ditto for do-support. Indeed to me the idea that this in particular is the result of a Celtic substratum is ridiculius because 1 it's a natural extension of a trend towards auxilliary constructions over finite verbs we see elsewhere in Germanic and western IE in general 2 do-support in particular arose only within the Middle English period, well after the period when significant Celtic influence was feasible and 3 the contexts where do came to be used, i.e. the leftovers once the much more Celtic-looking be-progressive and the SAE have-perfect came along, are precisely those contexts (habituals and perfectives) where the Celtic languages have preserved finite verbs (see e.g. English I saw him/I did not see him vs. e.g. Gàidhlig chunnaic mi e/chan fhaca mi e and (somewhat formal) North Welsh mi welais i o/welais i ddim o), plus Celtic doesn't use "do" as an auxilliary anyway.

[keenir]

My conjecture is that an English without the Norman and French invasions woudn't be all that different from OTL English outside of the lexicon. Like sure, Norse contact may have started the trend in some paradigmatic levelling in nominals, but what really killed the old case and declension system for good was the loss of all those unstressed schwas in the Middle English period, well after both of the invasions and afaict independent of them. Ditto for do-support. Indeed to me the idea that this in particular is the result of a Celtic substratum is ridiculius because 1 it's a natural extension of a trend towards auxilliary constructions over finite verbs we see elsewhere in Germanic and western IE in general 2 do-support in particular arose only within the Middle English period, well after the period when significant Celtic influence was feasible and 3 the contexts where do came to be used, i.e. the leftovers once the much more Celtic-looking be-progressive and the SAE have-perfect came along, are precisely those contexts (habituals and perfectives) where the Celtic languages have preserved finite verbs (see e.g. English I saw him/I did not see him vs. e.g. Gàidhlig chunnaic mi e/chan fhaca mi e and (somewhat formal) North Welsh mi welais i o/welais i ddim o), plus Celtic doesn't use "do" as an auxilliary anyway.

If thats so, then why would Dr. McWhorter (in What language is) say that the periphrasic(sp) "do" is found in English and Celtic languages (as well as an Italian dialect)...but not in other Germanic languages? (are those perfectives and habituals? wouldn't he know that they are?)

[Frislander]

If thats so, then why would Dr. McWhorter (in What language is) say that the periphrasic(sp) "do" is found in English and Celtic languages (as well as an Italian dialect)...but not in other Germanic languages?

Whelp turns out I was slightly incorrect and there is some do-support in Brittonic, obviously I was working under the impression that Brittonic was like Goidelic (which does lack those formations). I still don't quite see how the timeline lines up though, unless we say that it was initially borrowed into West Country English/English in the Welsh Marches and just took a few centuries to reach the Oxford/Cambridge/London triangle. In any case most of the legwork and back-and-forth in actually establishing do-support in English was language-internal; negation was of course still being used with finite verbs in Shakespeare's day, and I recall "do" didn't come to be used in indicative contexts extensively till the modern period. But really that's little more than speculation really, and one which would be hard to substantiate with actual written evidence - at it stands it appears that using "do" as an auxilliary verb is very much something found in normal speech but less so in writing (it does appear to be attested in the Middle Welsh corpus at least, though not so the Old Welsh one, which admittedly is a tad on the small side it seems). So possibly he is correct that English do-support may ultimately derive from the Brittonic construction, but it's not a straightforward derivation, because there are some significant differences, e.g. in Brittonic it appears to be optional in all contexts, whereas in English it's obligatory outside of the positive indicative.

But I suppose the fact I was mistaken kinda brings up a different point, which is that I see a lot of people talking about "Celtic" when they really ought to be specifically saying "Brittonic", because you can then get confusions like this where someone who's familiar with Goidelic and assume that because they're talking about "Celtic" the fact that Goidelic languages don't show the feature being claimed disproves the whole thing.

Also the contention periphrastic "do" is unattested outside of Engish within Germanic is also untrue, as many colloquial German varieties also have the construction and was only removed from Standard German through purism (as Nils Langer argues in Linguistic Purism in Action: How auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German), so it is not out of the question that English could have innovated do-support independent of Celtic.

(are those perfectives and habituals? wouldn't he know that they are?)

They are past perfectives ("preterites") yes, while the habituals would be identical with the future forms (a common Celtic feature), i.e. Chì mi e, Mi wela i o. In Scottish Gaelic you can even use a future progressive as a habitual.

[keenir]

So possibly he is correct that English do-support may ultimately derive from the Brittonic construction, but it's not a straightforward derivation, because there are some significant differences, e.g. in Brittonic it appears to be optional in all contexts, whereas in English it's obligatory outside of the positive indicative.

huh. interesting; thanks for that.

in hindsight, Dr. McWhorter says its present in English, but I don't recall any Middle English or Old English examples of the p. "do"...just Cornish and (Welsh? need to re-find that book)

But I suppose the fact I was mistaken kinda brings up a different point, which is that I see a lot of people talking about "Celtic" when they really ought to be specifically saying "Brittonic", because you can then get confusions like this where someone who's familiar with Goidelic and assume that because they're talking about "Celtic" the fact that Goidelic languages don't show the feature being claimed disproves the whole thing.

easy mistake to make

Also the contention periphrastic "do" is unattested outside of Engish within Germanic is also untrue, as many colloquial German varieties also have the construction and was only removed from Standard German through purism

ah, okay.

(as Nils Langer argues in Linguistic Purism in Action: How auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German), so it is not out of the question that English could have innovated do-support independent of Celtic.

cool; thanks.