> Well, well, the truth is finally unveiled for all to see. DP
> Crisp and anyone else with eyes to see (i.e. not had them
> closed by Eng Lit academics) cannot help but notice that
> 1. Chaucer's English is our English bar the shouting
> 2. Anglo-Saxon is a foreign language.
> And anyone who thinks Chaucer is Middle English i.e. halfway
> between Anglo-Saxon and Modern English is not a Libran like
> what I am.
Not having read your book, I have nothing to contribute for or against your central argument (admittedly, I'm not all that clear what your central argument is, but that's probably accounted for by the fact that I haven't read your book).
Seeing as I introduced both Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales into the discussion elsewhere on this thread, I thought I'd just compile a collage of relevant (?) material, in the hope that you can clarify what (in your opinion) is wrong with the conventional understanding of how the English language developed. Beyond this idle curiosity, I'm afraid I've got nothing more to contribute.
"Beowulf, which is the largest surviving Old English poem, came down to us in a single manuscript, which is currently stored at the British Museum. The poem is believed to be composed by a Christian author in the 8th Century, but it was transcribed in the West Saxon dialect only towards the end of the 10th Century, a time at which there was a monastic revival in England and the literary culture had reached its high point. The fact that the poet of Beowulf is anonymous is not surprising as of all the Old English poetry, we know only two poets whose works survived: Caedmon and Cynewulf. It was only in the 10th Century that these manuscripts were written down in a single manuscript in the West Saxon dialect, in the MS (Cotton Vitellius A.XV) that we now have [...]."
For an on-line version of Beowulf in the original Anglo-Saxon/Old English: [www.sacred-texts.com]