Print

Print


Ah, excuse me, I understood the question to be factual, not conhistorical!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Mar 2014, at 19:10, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/03/2014 15:34, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones wrote:
>> There was an awful lot of contact between the coasts
>> between the Roman retreat and the Norman invasion:
>> indeed, the whole reason English is a Germanic language
>> is because German, and later Norse, tribes, invaded,
>> whilst the Norman Conquest was justified not least in
>> terms of Duke William's familial ties to the English
>> throne. Before that, not only were the Celtic and,
>> later, the Anglo-Saxon tribes converted to Christianity
>> by people crossing over from the continent, but a
>> certain Northumbrian scholar-prince whose name escapes me
>> was one of Charlemagne's principal advisors.
> 
> All true *in our timeline*.  But if any Romance lang took
> root in Britain we have to have a different timeline.
> Andrew Smith's Brithenig developed in the Ill Bethisad; mine developed in the "British Alternative Romance
> Timeline" (BART):
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Britannic/index.html
> 
> BART is not up for discussion.  It is only the
> _conlang_ itself that concerns me at the moment.
> 
> -- 
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".