AH Challenge: Angland?

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.
 
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 :eek: )
 

Thande

Donor
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.
Yeah.
Some latter day upsurge of anglo-saxon (emphasis on the angles) romanticism would have to be the way. Have a later people change the name.
 
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.

Pretty much so. There is also some evidence that /an/ was pronounced [on] in some dialects and thus might be easier to end up with Ongland :p
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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 :eek: )

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.
 

Thande

Donor
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.

There would definitely not be a Hastings. That's like saying "if the French colonised Virginia in the 1580s instead of the English, who would win the battle of Gettysburg?"
 
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
 

Thande

Donor
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
But how?

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.

Yet another: Tolkien used 'Angelcynn' at one point, which I think is Mercian - it literally means 'Angle-kin'.
 
Well the irony is that IIRC the Angles were associated with the strong plural, so I'm not sure how to achieve this.

Yeah, which is why a de-emphasised first syllable should help preserve "Ang" over "Eng" and that is best achieved with a longer vowel in the second so that even if the (admitted likely) strong vowel plural still takes place with Ang-whatever "Ang" will most often remain "Ang".
 

Susano

Banned
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.
Which it kinda is in German - Angeln (which, incidentally, also means "to fish", and also "fishing rods" :D ). Come to think of it, I couldnt clearly name you the singular of it in German...
 
Top