Re: -es vs -en in English

On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Sally Caves wrote:

<...>

> And
> remember:  despite the fact that William conquered England and brought
> his language to the throne,  ENGLISH STILL PREVAILED!  Norman French
> became Anglo-Norman, and eventually middle English.  The Norse didn't
> impose their language on Northern England.  They adapted, and started
> speaking English.  It's an amazing thing!  Conquer and assimilate.
> That's
> the staying power of English... probably because it was plastic enough
> to admit changes and still retain its basic shape.
>
Well, I think that this shows the basic, most common pattern, and nothing
much to do with the inherent qualities of English. Invaders start to
rule, and then adopt the language of the people they conquered. See what
happened to the Manchu speaking conquerors of China.  Of course, the
demographics must be right: the invaders must be a minority.  And the
capital of the conquering people must be moved into the conquered
territory. I don't think William's ancestors would ever have spoken
English if he'd staid on the continent. The spread of Indo-Aryan languages
in Nepal is occasioned not just by the conquest of Prtvi Narayan Shah,
but also by the spread of Khas people throughout the mountains. If half
of France had moved to England, drowning the Anglo-Saxons in Frenchiness,
then English would never have survived.

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org