3 ms·
Sure, I just think it would make more sense to pick a real date then. No words that would be unrecognizable to a typical English speaker before 1066? Sure. You'
by bloppe 4y ago
Sure, I just think it would make more sense to pick a real date then. No words that would be unrecognizable to a typical English speaker before 1066? Sure. You'd still have to define "typical" because even modern English speakers do not all speak an identical language, and this notion of "updating to modern spelling and phonology" becomes a strange exercise.
All I'm saying is, the word "pure" doesn't make sense to me here.
- nerdponx 4y agoIt's also not like Norman French was a "pure" offshoot of Latin either. It was heavily influenced by the languages of the Franks and Gauls. That said, what I find really interesting here is that William The Conqueror was only something like 4 generations removed from people whose "French" was more or less still a dialect of Latin.
- philwelch 4y agoAnd that’s not to mention that William’s great-great-great grandfather Rollo was a Norseman who himself conquered part of northern France, and was allowed to keep his conquests in exchange for swearing allegiance to the French king and converting to Christianity. I think the term “Norman” is actually related to “Norseman”, in fact. (“Rollo” was, incidentally, probably not his real name.)