Re: English *there*

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, John Cowan wrote:

> It seems from perusing the Kernu Grammar that English *there* is
> a tad archaic by the standards of *here*, which is not too surprising.
> In particular, "thou" and "thee" have been preserved, though their
> matching verb forms have been assimilated to the regular form:
> "thou were", "thou have", and presumably "thou are".  The collapse
> of "ye" into "you" appears to be complete, however.

Well, as the Kernow are fond of saying, that puts me in the sack with the
cat and the badger.  The above effect was (honestly) innocently and
unwittingly injected into the work.  In other words, it wasn't necessarily
my intent to conlang *there's* English in the middle of another conlang.
But I'll happily accept that *there's* English is a bit more archaic than
*here's*.  When I write anything in an archaic style of English, that's
simply how I do it.  I consider "thou hast" and "thou wert" to be a bit
stuffy.  In other writings, I have vacillated somewhat between "thou have" 
and "thou has", though.

> 
> Anybody else noticed effects on the tongue of the Angles?

The Cumbrian variety is laced here and there with words borrowed from
Brithenig.  "...Tyan charver ho sais: 'Wos fannen ye laddes then, eh?' An
tyether he sais: 'Weill, we're lowpen ower yon yat, laik.' 'Calles thou
yon a yat? I calles yon a lil wecket.' Or, thers nowt worse then callen a
chores yat "lil" or "wee".  Sais Jocko, 'Or deek here, pal ...'" [Smith, 
1966. "Folklore of England. Volume 5: Cumbria"]

Padraic.

> 
> -- 
> John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
> 	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
> 	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
> 		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
>