English without Normans (was Re: open/closed syllables)

Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, David Stokes wrote:
>
> > I was particularly interested in the transitions, since I am mapping out a
> > conlang project for English without the Norman conquest (and the
> > subsequent influx of French). Its still in an embryonic stage so I won't
> > go into details yet. Stay tuned...
>
> AAARRRRHHHHHH!  I wanted to do that!  :)
>
> Maybe we could both play?  After all, we're likely to pick different sound
> changes.
Certainly fine with me if you work on one too. I'd welcome someone to
discuss things with. My inspration for this idea was all the fun people
seem to have discussing their con-romance langs. But I know very little
about that language family so can't play along in that game. I know
English and a little of its history and I know there are other members
of the list I can discuss it with. So it seems like a good oppurtunity.

>
> I've already decided that we wouldn't have hands, we'd have honds, and I
> wouldn't be a man, I'd be a mon.  But figuring out the vowel changes
> without the Shift, or with a very different Shift, is a litle beyond me
> right now.
Nik Taylor wrote:
>So, would this conlang keep more of the strong verbs and the old nominal
>inflections?  Also, why wouldn't there be a Shift?  Is that just to make
>it more distinct?
Well my language is not very far along yet. But I know I want to
emphasize the strong verbs and the vowel mutations in nouns. You know --
the stuff thats a headache for Modern English speakers. I was thinking
that the nominal endings could get worn down and the vowel mutation
patterns could expand to take their place. Mouse - mice, goose - geese
as the standard plural paradigms, what fun.

I haven't started working on actual sound shifts yet. I just started
thinking about htis project a couple of days ago. I'd like the outcome
to end up someplace recognizeable but a little different.

David

Reply