What would it take to have England referred to as Angland, English as Anglish and the English people to be known as Angles?
Yeah.I don't think the Angles were known as the Angles contemporarily. The plural was formed in the strong vowel shift way, one Angle, two Engla. Which is ultimately the root of England and English.
I don't think the Angles were known as the Angles contemporarily. The plural was formed in the strong vowel shift way, one Angle, two Engla. Which is ultimately the root of England and English.
The Saxons stay on the continent and the Harold wins the Battle of Hastings?
(these might be contradictory as Harold might have been a Saxon)
Yeah, and if the Saxons stay on the continent, and just the angles and the jutes move to Britain, there would be so many butterflies. You would probably not even have a Hastings.
What would it take to have England referred to as Angland, English as Anglish and the English people to be known as Angles?
You challenge, should you accept it, is to find out. The POD is up to you.
But how?Having looked up my book on the Old English Language, I think the best best for Ang- variants would be for the plural not to be of the strong form or the final vowel to be more stressed:
e.g.
Angeol pl. Angeolas > Angill, Angilles
Angeolland > Angilland > Angland
Well, yes is a bit ASBish but couldn't find a decent linguistic POD.
And Bede used Angelfolc (Angle-folk).
Well the irony is that IIRC the Angles were associated with the strong plural, so I'm not sure how to achieve this.
Which it kinda is in German - Angeln (which, incidentally, also means "to fish", and also "fishing rods"Another possibility - IIRC, the Kentishmen (and therefore the Jutes?) used the -n plural as in German (nowadays only retained in 'children', 'brethren', 'oxen'). So we could have ended up as the Anglen, or something.