> 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