October 16, 2016
Think upon this: the 14th of October 2016 marks the 950th mind-day of the Battle of Hastings, the day that wrixled (changed) everything! (Note anniversary: Old English mynddæg ‘mind-day’; ‘year’s-day’ would also fit the Germanic mould). It was on this day that Harold, king of the English, was felled, and the conquest of England by the Normans began.
How would the English language be different if 1066 and its fallout had never happened? Nobody knows for sure. But here’s some thoughts.
- We still would have borrowed words, including from French, just as the other other Germanic languages have done. However, we would likely have borrowed far fewer. See Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a good example.
- However, funnily enough, the fewer words that we would have borrowed would be more obviously French as they would have had less time to become Anglicised, aka, bishop-shifted. Set English adventure, menu, and point by Swedish aventyr, meny, and poäng, for example. The Swedish words more closely keep to the French pronunciation.
- We wouldn’t necessarily have kept up the Old English alphabet with its various letters. This is down to English already using other forms in the Old English period itself, such as <th> instead of <þ> and <ð>, and <uu> instead of wynn (keep in mind that <uu> is the old form of <w>). And the loss of yogh (the Middle English development of the Old English form of writing <g>) had little to do with 1066 and all that. However, I feel that, owing to the eventual dominance of Wessex, the late West Saxon use of <þ> and/or <þ> along with perhaps <æ> would likely have kept them in our alphabet up to nowadays. Yogh may have, too, but wynn would almost certainly have been replaced.
- Other spellings would be changed (or, rather, wouldn’t have changed). For example, the use of <qu> for /kw/ would likely not have been used, <cw> being used in its stead (see analogues crab and club, and Old English cwene “queen” for comparison; <k> is only used to keep the /k/ sound where would otherwise go soft, for example, king). Other changes are less obvious but no less sure. Take olden long i, which became said as “eye” after the Great Vowel Shift, so now we have win (OE winn) and wine (OE win). However, olden long u came to be spelt the French way (compare Anjou, bijou, frou-frou). Yet, after the Great Vowel Shift, this came to be pronounced as in out. Therefore, without 1066 and all that, ancient long u, just like its brother ancient long i, would have carried on being spelt as it was. So what we now know of as house, out, and cow (<ow> being the word-final variant of <ou>; compare out, bout, and bow), would have stayed as hus, ut, cu.
Whatever other changes would have happened, English still be very much its own beast, the black sheep of the Germanic language family. But I should point out, Anglish and the project of this site, is not a try at making English as it would have been had the English won the Battle of Hastings. Rather, Anglish and this project is about uncovering the English roots of English, to come up with a more Saxon, plainer English.
© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry
featured image from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry#
Leave a Comment » | 1066, Anglish | Tagged: 1066, 1066 and all that, 950th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings, anglish, artlang, auxlang, ð, þ, conlang, Harold Godwinson, Harold II, inkpot, Norman Conquest, svenska, Swedish, Thorn, What if Harold had won the Batle of Hastings, what if the Normans had lost, What is Harold had won the Battle of Hastings, William the Bastard, William the Conqueror, wynn, yogh | Permalink
Posted by bryanajparry
March 10, 2016
As you might have noticed, I have not long ago added a logo to this blog. The logo features a “W” crowned on top of, not a “P”, but the old English letter wynn. This letter comes from the Germanic runic alphabet as used in Old England and stood for the sound /w/. However, after the Norman Conquest, this letter quickly fell out of use in favour of the Latin “VV”, which later became joined as a ligature to become “W”. (Bear in mind that almost all English words in “P” were borrowed, so the alikeness of “P” and wynn was never a problem.)
The meaning of this logo is manifold. Firstly, the name of this blog is Wrixlings, the homeborn English word for “changes”. Changes that were wrought by 1066 and all that and its fallout, and changes that I am making to Modern English in this project. The first letter of the word is “W”, hence the “W” and the wynn in the logo. The “W” is on top, as a crown, as it and everything it stands for has won out over the homeborn wynn. However, wynn still exists there in the logo, at the root, ready to push up and overthrow “W”; overthrowing the kingdom of everything “W” is associated with, and growing a strong English oak from the homeborn roots.
Now some other stuff.
The word “logo” is short for “logogram”, meaning ‘a sign or character representing a word’. It comes from the Greek λογος logos ‘word’ and γραμμα gramma ‘character, written thing’. It’s also interesting to note that “logo” is therefore a bishop-shifting of the word “logogram”. So “logo[gram]” is not homeborn English. What could we come up with instead? Well, “logos” is “word”, and “-gram” is a pretty close fit for “token”, which of course means “sign, symbol”. So, I suggest that “logo” could be wordtoken in Saxon English. We could make a portmanteau (?blendword) of this as woken or wooken: wo[rd]+[t]oken.
I spoke of how “W” began as a ligature of two “V”s. A ligature is a special joined form of two other letters. Another ligature is Æ. “Ligature” is clearly a Latin word. A ligature is a joined, tied, bound or blended letter. So… Tieletter? Bindletter? Blendletter? I quite like this last one.
“Letter” itself is Latin; the ?eremost (original) word in English was bocstæf: “book-staff” (“staff” more as in the thing Gandalf carries — a stave, a stick, a rod — than the employees of a company). We could try to bring back “bookstaff” or “bookstave”, as this word still exists in other Germanic languages: Swedish bokstav, German Buchstabe. But this would probably be a bit too much of a Germanicisation, and not English enough.
A “Letter” is literally a symbol, sign or token which stands for a sound or a combination of sounds; so why not soundtoken? Okay, “sound” in this sense is not homeborn, but it’s as good as we’ve got. So… tie/bind/blend+soundtoken. When all’s said and done, and despite it being a mongrel word, I would opt for keeping the word “letter” but ditching “ligature” for blendletter.
© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry
Leave a Comment » | bishop-shifting, vocab, words | Tagged: 1066, 1066 and all that, anglicisation, anglish, answer me these questions three ere the other side you see, conlang, Greek, linguistic purism, logo, logogram, logos, portmanteau, pure English, runes, vocabulary, william barnes, wordhoard, wordset, wordstock, wrixlings, wynn | Permalink
Posted by bryanajparry