@AdmiralHip I'm not sure whether it's odd or not that rural/agricultural terms are more conservative in their evolution.
-
-
Replying to @NeolithicSheep
@civilwarbore language doesn't change as fundamentally as we might think within language groups1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@civilwarbore I mean a lot of changes are really just spelling conventions, but the base remains the same1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@civilwarbore English is weird because of the Latin-via-French influence from the 11th c onwards1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@AdmiralHip right, and I'm guessing it was because the nobility was replaced but the peasants weren't that ag words didn't shift.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeolithicSheep
@civilwarbore pretty much, but nobles starting speaking English too. It was a well rooted language. King Alfred did good work2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@civilwarbore in forcing everyone to learn how to read/write English.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@civilwarbore I think it was so well rooted within being English that French never caught on.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@civilwarbore and the Normans became the English pretty quickly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
@AdmiralHip I do find it really sad that it took so long for English kings to actually speak English. IIRC the Lionheart wasn't fluent.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@civilwarbore he wasn't, no. but i believe that john lackland was. not much good it did him, though.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.