u/Relative-Leg5747

I'm a bit confused on how creoles are different grammatically from other languages as it seems like English underwent similar changes and usually isn't seen as a creole. It seems like grammatically the creole Unserdeutsch is closer to English than either of the two are to German.

In English speaking countries it seems to be a common misconception about English, probably due to all the Old French and French influence in the language, some passing knowledge the Romans were once in Britain, and history not being taught very much. Though Germany was also part of the Holy Roman Empire, and both Germany and countries in the Anglosphere have a lot of Roman influence, so does a similar misconception occur?

I'm a bit confused on how the dialect continuum would've worked if history were a bit different and the English had contact mainly with German and Dutch speakers rather than the Norse and Normans. Would it have forced changes that make them mutually intelligible or would English still have been kind of a bit different?

It seems weird for it to be spread like this across the other English speaking countries when the feature isn't common in the UK itself.

In questions like "aren't you going to the store?", if you uncontracted it then it would literally be "are not you going to the store?" which sounds wrong, and the correct uncontracted sentence would actually change the word order to "are you not going to the store?", why is that?

Will it ever happen or are we doomed forever to pretend these words have a Latin etymology? I think it's kind of depressing that scholars in the past cared so little for accuracy and just assumed all words came from Latin because they could not be bothered to take a single look at Old English.

In most cases of linguistic imperialism, the language which is supposed as being imperialistic is being used as an active force by the civilization which speaks that language, so in the case of English, its spread was encouraged by the British Empire and United States, both native English speaking societies. The language is assumed to be tied to the civilization it stems from, which that isn't the case with educated people in the English speaking world learning Latin and Greek to borrow from those languages, they are not inherently connected to those civilizations at all and this is happening within English speaking societies by its own society, the force is internal even though they are learning an external system not of the common people (Latin and Greek), when they do this, to coin words, they are doing two things, they are learning tongues which most people do not have access to, and also indirectly socially shunning the productivity of native words in the language for educated thought or even at times, normal thought. Take the word "depression", most English speakers know what this word means, however, it could have only been coined with knowledge of Latin, it could not have been made in English, the knowledge of it was given to us by the medical field. If common English were to attempt to make a word for it, it would likely be some Germanic compound which would be perceived as somewhat crude sounding by us. Something such as "downpressness" As these Latin rooted words tend to sound more sophisticated or intellectual or proper to us, then the word building capabilities of common people without awareness of Latin, who can only build Germanic compound words or compounds of very transparent Latin roots in English, seem to be at a disadvantage, their capability for productivity in the language implied as socially lesser. I'm not really saying linguistic purism is great or we need to use "Anglish", but these institutions are built of people who have explicitly learned some of Latin and Greek (which 99% of the population in the English speaking countries have not) and are coining most of our new formal words with this knowledge. Why do we see it as more neutral for educated people to learn a dead language and make words from it than for them to use their own language? Could this be a form of linguistic imperialism?

Words like Roma are manageable but I keep pronouncing words like Hispania and Germania with a /j/ after the i and right before the a if I make the a stressed, is that a common mistake and is there any tips on how to avoid that aside from just practicing pronunciation more?

With a time limit of three months to kill the other or they both die, they know what the other person is capable of but not what they look like or their name.

The whole subject of languages in India is pretty confusing to me

Also was there a time where Norse and Norman French coexisted in England, and if so, did the Normans have any views of Norse specifically?

Do you think they would find it to be foreign, simplistic or childish in grammar, hate it, feel sadness, or have no opinions? Could they accept it as English?

In older English the order was the other way around so something like twenty one would've been one and twenty, and neither German or Dutch count like Modern English, but with that system Old English had, though it seems like in Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian also count this way like English, so twenty one would be tuttugu og einn, tjugoett, and tjueen in those languages, and it seems like Norse used both orders, it didn't matter which one you used. So do all of these Languages have French influence in counting or is it being misattributed to French?

Would they be able to handle it changing? How would they likely perceive it? Would they be able to remember how it was spoken when they first learned it?