Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Eald Englisc to Niwum Englisce

From:Padraic Brown <pbrown@...>
Date:Wednesday, April 14, 1999, 17:12
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, dunn patrick w wrote:

> All right, I suspect that's wrong; annoying language. > > Which is, of course, why I'm thinking of working on creating a new > language based on Anglo-Saxon.
A commendable project! And there are at least two with a fair amount of knowledge of AS to push you in the right direction. Or at least to push you about. :-)
> > Some questions: > > Why do we say /gIv/ instead of /yIv/? It comes from giefan, which was > pronounced like /yievan/. > > Why did we choose to change cg -> dg, sc -> sh, thorn -> th, and ae -> a?
"We" didn't. The Normans are the ones who introduced these orthographic conventions, I believe.
> > What caused the vowel shift? > > To vowels tend, in most languages, to become more open, more closed, > longer, shorter, midder, backer, forwarder? :) > > How does this look for a typical noun format?
I though 'ship' was one of those words with the same form in nom/acc sing. and plural, like 'word'. In any event, if you're after levelling of odd forms like that, your declension looks fine.
> > ship > > nom ship shipas > gen ships shipa > acc ship shipas > dat shipe shipum > > This would hold true for most nouns (even those that don't follow the > paradigm in OE, like "hond" and maybe even "man," but I doubt it -- man > will probably be irregular: > > man men > mans menna > man men > men mennum > > Then we'd have the definite article > > nom se the > gen the the > acc thon the > dat thom the >
Looks nice so far. Padraic.