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".