On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:50:48 +0000
Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 2. How would this effect spelling?  Clearly <h> = [h] would remain.
> Would there have been a tendency to omit inherited silent <h> in words
> of Latin origin?  AFAIK the only Romancelangs to have done this are
> Italian and Romanian; Romanian does have <h> but only in words of
> non-Latin origin.
> 3. If silent <h> is retained then we have a language in which one has
> to learn which words have this redundant letter.  We would get
> something aking to French 'h-aspiré' ~ 'h-muet', except in Britainese
> 'h-aspiré" would be aspirated.  :)

Most Romance languages were seldom written in the Dark Ages unless one
really had to (Strasbourg Oaths): writing meant Latin. When the British
wrote their own language, they would have some words with /h/-, so no
reason to put {h} elsewhere in imitation of Latin: consider Rumanian
hol "hall" but aven "we have". The inherited words in French (e.g.
avoir) lost their {h} and the later loans didn't write it until the
fourteenth century, by which time spelling and punctuation were
parting company: abillier, erbe were standard in the 13th century.

> Clearly the Ingvaeonic settlers in Britain would have preserved [θ] in
> BART just as they did in OTL.  So it could be argued that just as in
> OLT [θ] and [ð] survived in the Germanic language of Britain (i.e.
> English) while continental Germanic languages lost these sounds, so
> in BART [θ] and [ð] were retained in the Romance language of Britain,
> i.e. Britainese, but not in many of the continental Romancelangs (tho
> infact as we have seen some Romancelangs do have [θ] and [ð], but not
> in Germanic borrowings)?

I suppose it depends on how bilingual they were. Did the Romance
speakers really master Ingvaeonic, or did they make a mess of it? I
championed /θ δ/ the other day, but I should have admitted that they
didn't survive in Gaelic. Their survival in English may be aided by
their heavy use in demonstratives and pronouns.