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.
> 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.