Northumbrian as different as Occitan

How can we make standard English and Northumbrian as different from each other as French and Occitan within a united England? Have them be as different through divergence by at least the reformation.
 
I'm pretty certain that it was at least as far as peasants are concerned. Even today try to understand any of the Northern dialects if spoken at normal speed (Broad Yorkshire and Geordie both spring to mind). It was hard enough for a mere northerner to understand the Bristol dialect in the late 70s.
 
Viking North, Saxon south

How can we make standard English and Northumbrian as different from each other as French and Occitan within a united England? Have them be as different through divergence by at least the reformation.
The only way I can think of is not to have the Wessex dynasty conquer the East Midlands (the Five Boroughs) and Northumbria. Thus letting the languages diverge without a common "language of power" being imposed by a single court. That would also keep Lallands as a Scottish language.

Of course, that leaves the disunited England weaker and more vulnerable to pressure or invasion by continental states. There is also the problem that Wessex and "free Mercia*" (plus East Anglia) was the wealthiest and most productive part of England. So it might be tricky to avoid it conquering the rest of the country at some stage.

* Yay for Aethelfreda, Lady of the Mercians :D
 
The thing is, the differences between French and Occitan run far deeper than mere accents, but also diverge along grammatical lines as well as in vocabulary and phonology. That being said, I think it could be done. As a non-Viking-related outlier, if William the Bastard can be convinced to allow the Earldom of Northumbria to remain as-is, you might see a more sharply defined north-south split (especially if the former doesn't lose its prestige status like in the rest of England, perhaps being a bilingual society instead of trilingual). Keep the two societies within Greater England apart, and it may allow for a gradual distinction into two tongues to an equal or greater degree than English-Lowland Scots.
 
I'm pretty certain that it was at least as far as peasants are concerned. Even today try to understand any of the Northern dialects if spoken at normal speed (Broad Yorkshire and Geordie both spring to mind). It was hard enough for a mere northerner to understand the Bristol dialect in the late 70s.

Broad Yorkshire isn't that difficult to understand for a southerner. I'd not been exposed at all when I went to university in Yorkshire and I could get 95% of what people were saying.

Geordie is a different matter altogether.

Anyway, to get this you just want the Vikings to stay in control of the Danelaw longer.
 
Broad Yorkshire isn't that difficult to understand for a southerner. I'd not been exposed at all when I went to university in Yorkshire and I could get 95% of what people were saying.

Geordie is a different matter altogether.

Anyway, to get this you just want the Vikings to stay in control of the Danelaw longer.

Yorkshire accent is easy to understand, Yorkshire dialect especially in the remoter parts of the Dales much less so!::)
I think that the chances of a distinct "Northumbrian" language went with the Norman Conquest, and especially after the Harrowing of the North. Its chances were also, as mentioned before, lessened by Wessex taking over all of England.
If for some reason Northumbria, either Angle or Viking, can stay separate then it's language will develop differently, but run from Winchester or London it's doomed to be part of a general form of English. Look what happened to the Scottish language when Scotland joined to England economically and politically.
 
French and Occitan are languages (largely) independently evolved from Vulgar Latin. Anglo-Saxon was much less split one part from another.

So, you really need more than just separate evolution from, oh, say 800. I think you need a foreign influence on one side or the other (or both).

So Danelaw exists longer (to take northern 'English more Norse) would help (as others have pointed out); Having the 'south' (but not the North) conquered by Normans would work, too.

If Haraldr Harðráði wins in the North in 1066 and William the Bastard in the South, AND if neither side conquered the other for the next few hundred years, then that would fulfill the challenge nicely, IMO.
 
Or say the Harrying of the North results in a failure, with Northhumbia becoming defacto independent from the Normans in the south, maybe merging with the lowland scots (more specificly, Guspatric of Dunbar), into a middle kingdom seesawing between prefering the Scottish King, the English (Norman) King, or a third person.

Maybe make it so by Malcolm III of Scotland being so scared by the Norman invasion that he believes that the best way to keep them from looking his way is to set Edgar Etherling up as a puppet king and buffer against the 'Norman horde', and more interested in supporting the northumbian revolt under the implicit expectation that they'll join beneath Edgars banner.
 
Top