IAJ, I think we may finally be onto the identity of this mysterious king of yours. That link you gave makes a reference to an event in 1362 during the reign of Edward III. This article here
Edward III of England - Wikipedia has very relevant information so I'll quote some of it:
quote:
...the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-French since the Norman conquest. Since the time of Edward I, popular myth suggested that the French planned to extinguish the English language, and like his grandfather had done, Edward III made the most of this scare. As a result, the English language experienced a strong revival; in 1362, a statute ordered the English language to be used in law courts and, the year after, Parliament was for the first time opened in English. At the same time, the vernacular saw a revival as a literary language, through the works of William Langland, John Gower and especially Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer.
Yet the extent of this Anglicisation must not be exaggerated. The statute of 1362 was in fact written in the French language and had little immediate effect, and parliament was opened in that language as late as 1377. ... Edward III”himself bilingual”viewed himself as legitimate king of both England and France, and could not show preferential treatment for one part of his domains over another.
Some things to note
1362 is definitely NOT circa 800 by a long shot.
The language at this time would have been MIDDLE ENGLISH. And Middle English would have ALREADY been incorporating French words slowly over time well before this date of 1362. But again, I say, it was during the time of Middle English, not Old English.
Although France and England were by this time engaged in the Hundred Years' War with each other, the idea that the French planned to extinguish the English language was a myth used for political purposes. The French probably had enough to worry about with the war.
All that happened was that a statute in 1362 ordered that English be the language for lawsuits. THAT'S ALL. English for lawsuits. Not an academy, not the formalising of English (English was already there!), and not an important book of law. As the article says, "the extent of this Anglicisation must not be exaggerated. The statute of 1362 was in fact written in the French language and had little immediate effect" (!)
I think some of the others in this thread might even agree that even if this event had not taken place -- if Edward III had not issued this decree about using English -- it would not have meant the extinction of the English language, its position usurped by French. More responsible, probably, for the revival of English in the Establishment was the literary revival of English as mentioned in the quotation above.
Most significantly for your theories, there was no academy or group of scholars, or formalization of the language, or purposeful incorporation of words. The incorporation of words had already been taking place for quite some time, and there was still much change yet to take place (e.g. the Great Vowel Shift of the 1400s)
I want to know if you can admit something? Can you admit that the emergence of English from Anglo-Frisian roots has taken place gradually over a number of centuries (500s - present day)? ("Gradually" means there were changes throughout the time period. A big change one year and then no changes for centuries is not gradual) And can you admit that these changes were not purposefully planned? (What I mean is that was not the intention of people who spoke Old English that the language change to the Modern English we know today.) In other words, can you say that English came about through the slow accumulation of gradual, random, non-directed changes over many centuries?
™ Version 4.2
