Language evolution

 

Chaucer can still be read today despite the fact that he wrote 700 years ago. His words are even more understandable for someone who knows Dutch. In fact, the spoken language has changed relatively little over the last 800 years. The very same can be said about most other local tongues in Europe. A major change since the Middle Ages was the introduction of the ‘general’ or national languages in Europe.

Officially and allegedly, England is a notorious exception to the known fact that local populations are very reluctant to change their language.

Suppose that 2000 years ago all Britons spoke a Brythonic language (proto-Welsh). The Romans conquered their land, and soon the British upper-class assiduously started to learn Latin. During almost 400 years, the British aristocracy would help to introduce Latin as a daily language. The example here is Gaul, but also Spain and Portugal.

In the fifth century, England was 'conquered' by the Anglo-Saxons, even before the fall of the Roman Empire. Logically, as Latin had been introduced for 400 years, only an estimated 35% of Britain would have changed its language into Gallo-Roman (Gallo-Roman is defined here as an early mixture of Latin and what remained of the local Brythonic language). After 400 years of Roman occupation, mainly cities and important centres would speak this Gallo-Roman, just like in Gaul. The less developed countryside would have kept its local Brythonic tongue. Cities represented less than 10% of the total population until the 19th century. [1]

According to the CBA (Celtic Britain Assumption), 600 years after the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion', seven different languages were supposed to be present in England [2]:
1- Latin (mainly in writing - the Church).
2 -Gallo-Roman (spoken by the old upper class).
3- Welsh is supposed to be the original language (spoken by isolated farmers in eastern England).
4- English ( by the new upper class).
5- Danish, where they took over parts of the country from the Anglo-Saxons (aristocracy + army).
6- Viking language as they conquered the North (aristocracy & some farmers).
7- French. The Normans came in 1066, conquered the whole of England, and imposed evidently their idiom (spoken by the aristocracy).

Each language survived in pockets and consequently, each language pocket should be traceable in local place-names. These language pockets and subsequent place-names must be spread all over Britain. Logically, in 1166, 100 years after William the Conqueror, a patchwork of languages would have existed. Indications of that situation should have been reported since the early Middle Ages [3].

Despite this logical evidence, all the mentioned languages managed to merge in 1366, only 300 years after the conquest by the Normans, into the very recognizable language of Chaucer. Moreover, all traces of languages other than English had disappeared in England [2] except for Latin in writing and many French words that had been freshly introduced. The very presence of those words in English can be understood as a proof that the language was indeed greatly influenced by Latin and French. But where are the typical Welsh words? They should have been more present if we compare this with the number of Brythonic words in modern French. More words of colonial origin were introduced in the English language than words of Brythonic origin. Australia gave words like boomerang, kangaroo. America gave words like tomahawk, etc. English always had the capacity to absorb foreign words.

By contrast, the original Welsh language remained in Wales, parts of Scotland and Cornwall and is still well traceable there. Why is there no trace of all other languages in the east of Britain? [4]

The evolution of English is presented as if all started with the oldest texts like Beowulf and then evolved in a straight line into modern English. This is not true. There is a major distance between the language used in the Beowulf poem and Chaucer's English. This can only be explained by stating that Beowulf was a local, northern language which already in the 6th or 7th century was remote from the language spoken in the southeast. Chances are that in those days, a northener could not easily understand the southern dialects. There is no such thing as Old English. There are many Old English texts and they differ much from each other. Modern English is a mix of those ancient local dialects.