Subject: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 03 Feb 2001 12:59:18 GMT From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. -The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. -The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in the medical professions. -It can be any form of the English language Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:46:09 -0600 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Emperor wrote: > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which > English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. The Spanish Armada successfuly invades England and destroys her prospects as a sea power and a colonizer. England is reduced to a miserable province firmly in the control and grasp of his most Catholic majesty. Bob Kolker When the Spaniards get through there will be no Isaac Newton and his physics. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:16:03 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:46:09 -0600, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > >Emperor wrote: > >> This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". >> >> Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which >> English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. > >The Spanish Armada successfuly invades England and destroys her >prospects as a sea power and a colonizer. England is reduced to >a miserable province firmly in the control and grasp of his most >Catholic majesty. > Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? Pete Barrett Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:20:02 -0600 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Pete Barrett wrote: > Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? Close to it. It is not spoken outside of Basque country. Well, hardly. Bob Kolker -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:28:36 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:20:02 -0600, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > >Pete Barrett wrote: > >> Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? > >Close to it. It is not spoken outside of Basque country. > >Well, hardly. > A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native region??? Pete Barrett Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 16:26:31 -0600 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Pete Barrett wrote: > A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native > region??? After the Spanish Conquista of England, there is a vigorous campaign to surpress the use of English. In about 3 generations English as a living language is extinct. Bob Kolker -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:24:43 GMT From: lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) Organization: Customer of Energis Squared Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 16:26:31 -0600, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > >Pete Barrett wrote: > >> A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native >> region??? > >After the Spanish Conquista of England, there is a vigorous >campaign to surpress the use of English. In about 3 generations >English as a living language is extinct. > In reality this is very difficult, see what happened with Welsh as a better idea of how to nearly kill a language (though it should be noted that it is thriving now). Some time early in the 15th Century parliament in England debated what language the tuition in the growing public schools should be. It was decided (ironically after a campaign by a Cornish MP) that it should be English as opposed to Norman-French or Latin. It is not inconceivable if the decision had gone for Norman-French that this could have formed the POD for the eventual extinction of English. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:30:03 GMT From: Ismael Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 In article <3A7DD716.D905DFB7@email.com>, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > > Pete Barrett wrote: > > > A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native > > region??? > > After the Spanish Conquista of England, there is a vigorous > campaign to surpress the use of English. In about 3 generations > English as a living language is extinct. Why they should do? And, if local languages have not dissapeared from Spain (Galician, Asturian, Catalan, Basque ...) after 1,000 years of Spanish, why English should do so fast? Ismael Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 05 Feb 2001 00:03:29 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Pete Barrett said: >A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native >region??? Basque isn't dead. Of course, if you're going to go by number of speakers, neither is Latin. Since it's the lingua franca of the Roman Church, and also studied by numerous scholars worldwide, there may well be more Latin-speakers in the modern world than Basque ones. -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 5 Feb 2001 21:18:11 GMT From: wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) Organization: Technische Universitaet Berlin, Deutschland Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes: >Pete Barrett said: >>A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native >>region??? >Basque isn't dead. Of course, if you're going to go by number of speakers, >neither is Latin. Since it's the lingua franca of the Roman Church, and also >studied by numerous scholars worldwide, there may well be more Latin-speakers >in the modern world than Basque ones. Latin isn't dead in a very different sense. It's spoken by hundreds of millions all around the globe. We just don't call it "Latin" any more, but "French", "Spanish", "Italian" and so on. The version of Latin we call "dead" is merely a petrified stage of the same language. If you want a tight analogy, the scenarios where the English language completely dies out are off the mark. Instead it'd have to be one where the descendants are alive and well, but have evolved apart. American, Indian, Australian, Scottish, Irish, Anglish (or whatever word they might come up for the future language of England) are considered distinct languages with a common ancestor, which in turn is taught as a "classical" language, for example using the works of Shakespeare. This may actually be the future of English, but then this isn't alternate _history_ any more. The only way to make it happen in the past is to have England's colonisation of the world start much earlier, thus giving more time to its colonial dialects to evolve apart until today. Regards -- wolfi@techno.de+wolfi@berlin.snafu.de+http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/+IRC:wolfi feel the rain like an english summer Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 05 Feb 2001 22:25:54 +0100 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes: > Latin isn't dead in a very different sense. It's spoken by hundreds > of millions all around the globe. We just don't call it "Latin" any > more, but "French", "Spanish", "Italian" and so on. The version of > Latin we call "dead" is merely a petrified stage of the same > language. This gets into the area of what actually constitutes a different language. French, Spanish and Italian are generally considered to be separate languages, even though a person who is fluent in one will probably be able to fumble their way through a conversation in either of the others. Latin itself is not spoken by anyone except for a few academics and churchmen (& teen-agers in the Jordanverse). So, in that sense it is dead. However, it's descendents are alive and kicking. ===================================================================== To find out who and where I am look at: http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html ===================================================================== Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 6 Feb 2001 21:42:41 GMT From: wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) Organization: Technische Universitaet Berlin, Deutschland Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Steve Holland writes: >wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes: >> Latin isn't dead in a very different sense. It's spoken by hundreds >> of millions all around the globe. We just don't call it "Latin" any >> more, but "French", "Spanish", "Italian" and so on. The version of >> Latin we call "dead" is merely a petrified stage of the same >> language. > This gets into the area of what actually constitutes a different >language. No not really. The point is that the two are different evolution paths. In the scenarios considered here, English dies out, and that is that. In contrast, Latin survived and evolved into something else. There's no point in time where Latin or its descendants "ended". It doesn't matter that at one stage we decide to no longer call that language (or collection of dialects) by the same name. The separation between related languages which really form a continuum in place and/or time is an arbitrary concept BTW, Regards -- wolfi@techno.de+wolfi@berlin.snafu.de+http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/+IRC:wolfi feel the rain like an english summer Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: 06 Feb 2001 09:01:50 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Steve Holland said: >Latin itself is not spoken by anyone except for a few >academics and churchmen (& teen-agers in the Jordanverse) What "Jordanverse?" These are two people whom I know personally, online. Are you trying to claim that they don't exist? They _are_, of course, not "average" teenagers. They are geniuses, who attend a school for the gifted. But then, did I ever claim that they were "average?" -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:15 -0400 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Jordan S. Bassior wrote: > > Pete Barrett said: > > >A dead language is one that is hardly spoken outside its native > >region??? > > Basque isn't dead. Of course, if you're going to go by number of speakers, > neither is Latin. Since it's the lingua franca of the Roman Church, and also > studied by numerous scholars worldwide, there may well be more Latin-speakers > in the modern world than Basque ones. The best definition of a dead language that I've heard of is that it is a language no longer used in everyday community life. If you go to Bilbao, you can live your life speaking only Basque. You can go shopping speaking only Basque, you can send your children to school where they will learn the alphabet and basic addition via the Basque language, you can watch Basque-language television networks, and so on. Most importantly, you can expect -- if you're born in Bilbao -- to learn the Basque language as your native language. You can't do that, with Latin, anywhere in the world. > -- > Sincerely Yours, > Jordan > -- > "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On > the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too > late." (Churchill, 1934) > -- Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:27:16 GMT From: Ismael Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 In article <3A7C9222.33456C3F@email.com>, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > > Pete Barrett wrote: > > > Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? > > Close to it. It is not spoken outside of Basque country. > > Well, hardly. Well, it is spoken by 515,000 people (25% of population) in the Spanish Basque Country, 70,000 (27%) in the French Basque Country and 50,000 (11%) in Navarre. That means 8% of speakers live outside the Basque Country :-) Ismael Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:24:44 GMT From: lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) Organization: Customer of Energis Squared Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:27:16 GMT, Ismael wrote: >In article <3A7C9222.33456C3F@email.com>, > "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: >> >> >> Pete Barrett wrote: >> >> > Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? >> >> Close to it. It is not spoken outside of Basque country. >> >> Well, hardly. > >Well, it is spoken by 515,000 people (25% of population) in the Spanish >Basque Country, 70,000 (27%) in the French Basque Country and 50,000 >(11%) in Navarre. > >That means 8% of speakers live outside the Basque Country :-) > >Ismael Ummm I think your tongue was firmly in your cheek there, as both the French Basque Country and Navarre are part of the Basque homeland and there for should really be regarded as part of the Basque country proper - the reunification being a prime demand of ETA. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:58:04 +0100 From: "Antonio González" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 "Lyn David Thomas" escribió en el mensaje news:3a803d59.1037603@news.freeserve.co.uk... > > Ummm I think your tongue was firmly in your cheek there, as both the > French Basque Country and Navarre are part of the Basque homeland and > there for should really be regarded as part of the Basque country > proper - the reunification being a prime demand of ETA. Beware! You are entering in quicksands! I don't think Ismael was joking here. The definition of "Basque country" is not, and it musn't be, defined by ETA claims, but for the opinions of the people living in the areas in dispute (although the Spaniards or French that live outside, -and even the EU or the UN- can have some words and votes about it). The fact is that in Navarre, the Basque nationalists are a minority, and in the "French Basque country" a very small minority. So, although the PNV (Basque Nationalist Party) speaks about the 7 provinces and includes them in their maps (even in the weather forecast in the Basque TV), most people outside the three provinces of the Spanish Basque Country disagree with this inclusion. Of course, we can define "Basque Land" as "the land where Basque is spoken", and then is evidently true that Basque is spoken only in the Basque Land. Or "Basque Land" is "the land where people consider themselves as Basques", or "the land where people have Basque descent and have eight Basque surnames" In this case, it's true that Basque is spoken outside the Basque Land. Antonio Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:13:25 GMT From: lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) Organization: Customer of Energis Squared Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:58:04 +0100, "Antonio González" wrote: > >"Lyn David Thomas" escribió en el mensaje >news:3a803d59.1037603@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> >> Ummm I think your tongue was firmly in your cheek there, as both the >> French Basque Country and Navarre are part of the Basque homeland and >> there for should really be regarded as part of the Basque country >> proper - the reunification being a prime demand of ETA. > >Beware! You are entering in quicksands! > >I don't think Ismael was joking here. The definition of >"Basque country" is not, and it musn't be, defined by >ETA claims, but for the opinions of the people living >in the areas in dispute (although the Spaniards or French >that live outside, -and even the EU or the UN- can have >some words and votes about it). The fact is that >in Navarre, the Basque nationalists are a minority, >and in the "French Basque country" a very small >minority. So, although the PNV (Basque Nationalist >Party) speaks about the 7 provinces and includes >them in their maps (even in the weather forecast >in the Basque TV), most people outside the three >provinces of the Spanish Basque Country disagree >with this inclusion. > >Of course, we can define "Basque Land" as "the land >where Basque is spoken", and then is evidently >true that Basque is spoken only in the Basque Land. >Or "Basque Land" is "the land where people consider >themselves as Basques", or "the land where people >have Basque descent and have eight Basque surnames" >In this case, it's true that Basque is spoken outside >the Basque Land. I think this is the problem of definition. I am well aware that a majority of the electorate who voted in Navarre voted against inclusion in the autonomous Basque Country but that doesn't mean that they aren't Basque, likewise the population of the French Basque country. Maybe we should distinguish between the Basque Country (a legaly defined autonomous community of the Spanish Kingdom) and the Basque country, ie those areas where the majority would seem themselves as Basque (regardless of which state they are in and which language they speak). -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:58:22 GMT From: Corvus Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 In article <3a8067af.11877163@news.freeserve.co.uk>, lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) wrote: > I think this is the problem of definition. I am well aware that a > majority of the electorate who voted in Navarre voted against > inclusion in the autonomous Basque Country but that doesn't mean that > they aren't Basque, likewise the population of the French Basque > country. Maybe we should distinguish between the Basque Country (a > legaly defined autonomous community of the Spanish Kingdom) and the > Basque country, ie those areas where the majority would seem > themselves as Basque (regardless of which state they are in and which > language they speak). Then you might have to include sections of Idaho and Nevada. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:11:46 +0100 From: "Antonio González" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Robert J. Kolker" escribió en el mensaje news:3A7C9222.33456C3F@email.com... > > > Pete Barrett wrote: > > > Like the Basque country. Is Basque a dead language? > > Close to it. It is not spoken outside of Basque country. > And Catalan? Because there are more Catalan-speaking people in the world than Swedish-speaking or Norwegian-speaking ones. Antonio Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 15:19:39 GMT From: Spiritualist Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) wrote: > > > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which > English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. Interesting, very interesting. > -The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. I see. Originally I was thinking of having a Latinized Celtic language like Brithenig evolve in Southern Englang. This probably would also take hold in the other Celtic languages in the Isles, like in Scotland and Ireland. The Anglo-Saxons still evolve into their English language, and when the Normans take over English continues to develop as OTL. I was going to have England be rather small, the combination of a larger Wales (This Brithenig homeland) and larger Scotland. England and France are eventually united, but with the French being dominate over the English. Eventually English is dead, with most people speaking French in what we know as England. You might be able to do something like this after 1066. > -The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be > spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in > the medical professions. Hmmm, what are the English good at. You might have kept as part of the language of cooks? Farmers? Storytellers? Not sure. > -It can be any form of the English language I'm tempted to use the Franco-English Empire WI. -- Spiritualist Shades of History http://www.alternatehistory.com/hosting/spiritualist/ Alternative Zoology http://members.nbci.com/agrarianist/index.htm "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."- John Adams "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together"- James Madison Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 16:22:44 +0000 From: sophia Organization: The Court of Faerie Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, Emperor writes > > > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which >English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. > >-The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. Well, the English (Anglo-Saxon) that was spoken at the time of the Conquest _is_ dead OTL. The language of that time is completely different from Modern English - it's inflected for a start and has a radically different grammar structure, grammatical gender, a wealth of unusual cases and declensions and even different letters. In appearance it resembles a Germanic or Scandinavian language: a modern English-speaker (or Dutch, German, Danish or Norwegian speaker) will recognise a few words but they will not be able to understand the text without learning the language. It isn't like 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' or Chaucer, where one can guess fairly well what's going either with recourse to a Middle English dictionary or reading it a north country accent. > >-The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be >spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in >the medical professions. Old English is certainly spoken by scholars, and is also inflicted on undergraduates taking English at many universities in the UK. It isn't a beautiful language (at least in my opinion) and its cause isn't helped by the fact that almost all the surviving material is deeply depressing and or religious, or just dull. (Beowulf is pretty good though.) One of the most frustrating things about Old English is how little we've got compared to what we know existed. We have only one example of epic poetry from the English version of the Northern heroic tradition, and none of the English versions of the tales of the Gods and monsters. Imagine if they had survived. If they were known since the time of their creation through to the modern period the would undoubtedly have had an incalculable effect on the development of literature. If they were rediscovered say in Victorian times some interesting things could still happen. 1830: WI a scholar turns up from a country house library (perhaps a former abbey) an English equivalent of the Elder Edda. Assume it's a work of searing power, could this provoke a revival of interest in all things Anglo-Saxon? A movement to revive the language in the same way that Hebrew was revived. More sinisterly, might Old English become a totem for various silly nationalists or weird cults... > -- Sophia Faith in Fabulousness www.arxana.demon.co.uk/ icq: 93834408 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:24:45 GMT From: lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) Organization: Customer of Energis Squared Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 16:22:44 +0000, sophia wrote: >In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, >Emperor writes >> >> >> This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". >> >> >> Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which >>English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. >> >>-The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. > >Well, the English (Anglo-Saxon) that was spoken at the time of the >Conquest _is_ dead OTL. The language of that time is completely >different from Modern English - it's inflected for a start and has a >radically different grammar structure, grammatical gender, a wealth of >unusual cases and declensions and even different letters. In >appearance it resembles a Germanic or Scandinavian language: a >modern English-speaker (or Dutch, German, Danish or Norwegian >speaker) will recognise a few words but they will not be able to >understand the text without learning the language. It isn't like 'Sir >Gawain and the Green Knight' or Chaucer, where one can guess fairly >well what's going either with recourse to a Middle English dictionary >or reading it a north country accent. Or better still a Black Country Accent. Chaucer is no problem to a kid from Cradley Heath or Gornal. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:11:45 +1300 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Emperor wrote: > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which > English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. Easy. About 1200, a couple of Saxon servants plot to murder their Norman employer. They discuss the plan in English, which he doesn't understand. Their plan works, he's horribly murdered and they escape with all his money. The Normans are terrified and quickly ban any use of English in their homes or in their presence. In order to get any kind of job interacting with the nobility the Saxons have to speak French at all times, encouraging the spread of the language. English slowly becomes a language only of peasants. When Chaucer writes the Canterbury Tales in 1387, it's in "English French"; a form of Norman French with some sound changes and English loan words. By 2001, 800 million people all over the world speak EF, to the great irritation of the original French. English is confined to the north of England, where it's slowly dying despite a government effort to preserve it. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:16:10 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 03 Feb 2001 12:59:18 GMT, cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) wrote: > > > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which >English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. > >-The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. > >-The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be >spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in >the medical professions. > >-It can be any form of the English language I think there's only one possibility for this - after 1066, the Anglo-Saxons adopt Norman-French as their native language, rather than the other way around. But how to bring it about is a real problem, given the small amount of French immigration in England. So: 1.) Increase French immigration, particularly labourers, peasants, and artisans (as opposed to nobles and higher clergy). And concentrate that immigration in the region of London, to the extent that London become more or less equally divided between native English and French speakers by 1100. The presence of the court will ensure that the English learn French rather than vice versa, and by 1150 (when all the adult inhabitants of 1066 will be dead), monoglot English speakers will be a tiny minority, while monoglot French speakers will make up ca. 30%. 2.) Increase the use of French in the administration at the expense of Latin. The Anglo-Saxons ran their administration in the vernacular, so it's no great leap to get the Normans to take over the idea, but using their own vernacular in place of English. That should give even more prestige to French. 3.) Have the Norman-French language (differentiated from continental French) identified in the minds of the public with the growing national feeling of the late 13th century. The Welsh speak Welsh. Bruce and his rebels speak an English dialiect. True born Englishmen speak Norman-French! Personally, I don't think even all this will work, because of the disparity in numbers between the English speakers and the French speakers. However, if we can move the POD back to before 1066 (presumably your specification that it was to be after was to prevent PODs which would stop England being an Anglo-Saxon speaking country in the first place, along with the Anglo-Saxon invasions), we can add one more subtlety - have the English dialects more divergent than OTL, and prevent West Saxon from becoming the predominant literary language. That way, if by 1150 English dialects are mutually unintelligible and not written down, the Norman-French could become a de facto standard national language, much as English is in India today (a couple of days ago I heard on the news a boy recovered from a house in Gujerat asking for water in English, not Gujerati). Once the same attitudes that nearly killed off Welsh and Gaelic in Britain kick in, they would probably do for English as well. Pete Barrett Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:04:42 GMT From: gromgoru@my-deja.com Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) wrote: > > > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which > English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. > > -The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. > > -The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be > spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in > the medical professions. > > -It can be any form of the English language The Spanish Armada wins. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:40:07 +0100 From: "Antonio González" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 escribió en el mensaje news:95j5va$iq1$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, > cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) wrote: > > The Spanish Armada wins. That's not enough. If we had crushed the perfidous Albion, ...erm... if Spain had defeated England, perhaps it would have become a part of the Hispanic Monarchy, that was confederal in many ways. The King was the King of Castille, Aragon, Napoles, Low Countries,... Each kingdom had their own institutions and in many cases its own language. The rule of the hispanic king did not end with Catalan, Basque, Galician, Flemish, Dutch and others. So, English would have survived. That's assuming that Spain conquers England completely. The most probable result of a victorious Armada would have been a puppet catholic king. In that case, there is no threat to the English language. The king, many nobles, diplomats and clerics would probably know Spanish, but that's all. Antonio Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:55:29 GMT From: mark edward hardwidge Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Antonio Gonz?lez" wrote: >> The Spanish Armada wins. > So, English would have survived. For a while, perhaps. But clearly the Spanish weren't invading because they wanted to be friendly, and clearly lots of bad stuff would have been done to the English had the Spanish conquered them. It is conceivable that England would never be an 'important' country, either because of a long time under Spanish rule, or perhaps future conquests if they were weaker than in OTL. If they were unimportant enough, it is conceivable that they would eventually adopt a more 'useful' language. (The opposite of everyone learning English in OTL.) > That's assuming that Spain conquers England completely. > The most probable result of a victorious Armada would have > been a puppet catholic king. What was the real point of attacking, then? That seems like a pretty small prize for which to settle. -- Mark E. Hardwidge hardwidg@uiuc.edu Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:19:32 +0100 From: "Antonio González" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "mark edward hardwidge" escribió en el mensaje news:5pxf6.1109$DL1.14102@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... > > What was the real point of attacking, then? That seems like a > pretty small prize for which to settle. Not so small. With England on Spain's side, France would be completely surrounded (and that could lead to the deposition of Henry IV by the Spanish-backed Guises), and the Low Countries could be completely conquered (that was the ultimate goal of the whole affair). In any case, the project was ill conceived from beginning to end. Assuming that the weather didn't destroy the Armada (Drake was very sure in the port and didn't fight the Spanish fleet), what then? The Armada was on his way to the Low Countries. There it had to pick Farnesio's troops to come back and invade England. But if the tercios are sent to England for a long campaign, how would it secure the Low Countries in the short term? Antonio Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:30:11 GMT From: mark edward hardwidge Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Antonio Gonz?lez" wrote: > Not so small. With England on Spain's side, France would be Wait, how is England on Spain's side? Certainly the people would try very hard to gain their freedom, and wouldn't work to help Spain, unless they had no choice. But if that was the case, that isn't really a 'puppet' rulership, I think. What sort of (net) military support would you expect to get from England? -- Mark E. Hardwidge hardwidg@uiuc.edu Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:32:17 +0100 From: "Antonio González" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 "mark edward hardwidge" escribió en el mensaje news:DVxf6.1112$DL1.14120@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... > "Antonio Gonz?lez" wrote: > > Not so small. With England on Spain's side, France would be > > Wait, how is England on Spain's side? Certainly the people > would try very hard to gain their freedom, and wouldn't work to help > Spain, unless they had no choice. But if that was the case, that > isn't really a 'puppet' rulership, I think. What sort of (net) > military support would you expect to get from England? Not very much, of course. The benefit would be to get rid of an enemy that send pirates to the Spanish posessions and supports the Dutch rebels. Even with a guaranteed neutrality from English side, Spain would win. Then, are geographical considerations. What could France do, being completely surrounded by Spanish controlled lands? And the absence of England in the game would help in the war against the rebels of the Low Countries. And, we shouldn't forget that Phillip II was a fanatic. He was disposed to attack Elisabeth I simply for the fact that she was heretic. Antonio Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:53:51 GMT From: mark edward hardwidge Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 "Antonio Gonz?lez" wrote: > Not very much, of course. The benefit would be to get rid of an > enemy that send pirates to the Spanish posessions and supports the > Dutch rebels. Hmm. Isn't this a chicken/egg situation? Did Spain need to attack England because England was sending 'pirates', or did England need to send privateers to keep Spain from conquering them? Is there an objective answer? -- Mark E. Hardwidge hardwidg@uiuc.edu Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:49:51 GMT From: Ismael Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 In article , mark edward hardwidge wrote: > "Antonio Gonz?lez" wrote: > > Not very much, of course. The benefit would be to get rid of an > > enemy that send pirates to the Spanish posessions and supports the > > Dutch rebels. > > Hmm. Isn't this a chicken/egg situation? Did Spain need to > attack England because England was sending 'pirates', or did England > need to send privateers to keep Spain from conquering them? Is there > an objective answer? Yes, it is: the main ennemies of Spain were France, Turkey and Dutch rebels (in any order); England was a second class power, traditional ennemy of France, and thus, an potential ally of Spain (as it was in Charles V times, or even Philip II ones, with queen Mary), and the main interest of Spain was to keep it in this way. Even when England becomes protestant, and can't be an ally no more, there is no interest in Spain to waste forces in invading it (by the same way that there is no interest in invading Denmark, for example), what do they win, doing it? more problems? Ismael Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:40:31 GMT From: mark edward hardwidge Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Ismael wrote: > interest of Spain was to keep it in this way. Even when England becomes > protestant, and can't be an ally no more, there is no interest in Spain > to waste forces in invading it (by the same way that there is no Wait, I'm confused...what was the Armada for then? -- Mark E. Hardwidge hardwidg@uiuc.edu Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:04:50 GMT From: Ismael Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 In article , mark edward hardwidge wrote: > Ismael wrote: > > interest of Spain was to keep it in this way. Even when England becomes > > protestant, and can't be an ally no more, there is no interest in Spain > > to waste forces in invading it (by the same way that there is no > > Wait, I'm confused...what was the Armada for then? "... to get rid of an enemy that send pirates to the Spanish posessions and supports the Dutch rebels", or course :-) No pirates, no support to Dutch, and there is no need to send an Armada (as there was no need to send it to Denmark, Savoy, Parma ...) Ismael Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: "It's a dead language...." Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:41:40 GMT From: toroa500@my-deja.com Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <20010203075918.09936.00000590@ng-ck1.aol.com>, cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) wrote: > > > This was inspired by the "Space Shuttle ISOT". > > Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a PoD in which > English is a "dead" language by 2001, to the point that Latin is today. > > -The PoD must take place after the Norman Conquest. > > -The English language doesn't have to be completely dead. It can still be > spoken by scholars, or have been adopted into professions, like Latin has in > the medical professions. The Henry VI, surnamed the Pious, of OTL, in this ATL is Henry VI, the Conqueror. Cleans up rest of French resistance, sets up Royaume Uni d'Angleterre et France, and gets involved in battles on the Rhine border, meaning that he takes up residence in Paris permanently. His son, Henry VII, the Brutal, takes time out to crush possible English rebellions, under english lords, puts his English domains under French speaking courtiers whom he can trust and control. France under unaccustomed tho fearful peace, is far wealthier thatn the English dominions, and French trade soon dominates the London market. Under other strong kings the English French kingdom becomes fully centralized and stable. By 1800 English is spoken only among uneducated peasantry. The National Education Decree by Henri XX makes the French language universal throughout his domains. By 2001, English is spoken only in pockets of Scotland; there have been attempts to revive it further South, but the situation is rather like that of Irish OTL. Not quite extinct, but dying. Ironically the official title of the Kingdom is Royaume Uni d'Angleterre, the France bit having been dropped by Henri XII, who used to fond of his English origins, and had always meant to find a clean enough peasant to teach him English.... Tim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/