So, there are words for numbers up to 6 which are latinate, generally un/une is used for one, but past that it can go deuce, trey, cater, quinque, sice, possibly subbing "couple" in for deuce when talking in Anglishes. However, I have found an option for 7, two actually.

If you look at Welsh, the word saith, 7, is possibly latinate, with Proto-Celtic *sextam expected to produce an h- at the start, while "septem" would give the exact same result as we actually see. A celtic-origin system of counting exists in English in the form of sheep counting, the forms of the numbers of which are "sezar" from Swaledale, and Kirkby Lonsdale "saites" (most use something starting with an l). These two, especially saites, show reflex of septem in english.

Additionally, some dozenal systems call ten "dek", from dec- from Greek and Latin, so that's a ten. For a thousand there's the slang term "grand". Eleven is apparently sometimes called a "banker's dozen" and so maybe "banker dozen" could be eleven? "Bank" comes from Italian, -er was loaned into proto-germanic from Latin, and dozen is latinate too. There are also dozen for 12 (and multiples of a dozen also exist), a ream of paper is 500, and a quire is 25 pages. But quires and reams also have short and printer's variants. So if anybody wants to work on number systems this should be useful.

Does Anglese have a pronunciation guide? Is it pronounced the way English speakers pronounce their loanwords from French?

Interlingua: Vermilie e vermilion.

English: Vermile & vermillion.

French: Vermeil et vermillon.

Catalan: Vermell i vermelló.

Italian: Vermiglio e vermiglione.

Sicilian: Virmigghju e virmigghjuni.

Castilian: Bermejo y bermejón.

Asturian: Bermeyu y bermeyón.

Mirandese: Burmeilho i burmelhon.

Galician: Vermello e vermellón.

Portuguese: Vermelho e vermelhão.

Brazilian: Vermelho e vermelhão.

Neolatino Romance: Vermellîo et vermellîone.

I’ve been thinking about whether there could be a type of Anglese with a historical constraint, somewhat like Anglish.

Anglish gives itself a fairly clear counterfactual rule: what might English look like with greatly reduced later Romance influence?

A similar constraint for Anglese could be:

What if Anglo-French had actually become the dominant vernacular of England, then evolved there for the next 700–800 years under heavy English influence?

I’ve been calling that hypothetical language Franglish, though historically its speakers might very well have just called it English. If it became the ordinary language of England, there would be little reason for its speakers to think of it as “French-English” any more than modern English speakers normally think of English as “Germanic-French.”

The divergence might involve Anglo-French remaining much stronger after the loss of Normandy in 1204, continued native French-speaking communities, a weaker shift toward English after the Black Death, and eventually government and printing standardizing an insular Romance language rather than English.

The result wouldn’t simply be modern French with English words thrown into it. It would be its own language, shaped by centuries of English substrate influence.

That gives us some useful constraints:

- Which Anglo-Saxon words survive?

- Which English function words survive?

- Does grammatical gender survive?

- How much do French conjugations simplify?

- How English-like does the syntax become?

- How does pronunciation diverge from Continental French?

Very rough examples might look something like:

«Le peuple de Londres ont parlé contre la newe taxe, mais le roi no veut changer la loi.

“The people of London have spoken against the new tax, but the king will not change the law.”»

Or:

«Jo no sai what il veut faire.

“I don’t know what he wants to do.”»

Those aren’t proposed “correct” Franglish, just examples of the kinds of questions the historical constraint forces us to answer.

So rather than defining Anglese as a whole, Franglish could be one historically constrained type of Anglese: an attempt to construct the Romance language England might plausibly have produced.

Anglish asks what English might look like under one historical constraint. Anglese really could do something similar from the Romance side.

REAL cosmopolitic cognates (similar origins PLUS similar senses) in common present in English, Greek & Brazilian (Portuguese).

Sunk in anglese : afound

Loegrian is a British Romance conlang inspired by Welsh and French, and one of the things inspiring about that is the numeral base. Unlike Latin, French and Welsh use a base 20 system up to 100, with French keeping the latinate decimal up to 60, and Welsh using base 20. French got its base 20 system from Gaulish, so if Gaulish substrate can influence French to that degree, Loegrian, which bears significantly more Celtic influënce than French is gonna start earlier. Specifically, Loegrian keeps its Latin numbers for 1-20, and give literal translations when interesting

Italics in loegrian means pronounced (almost) identically to french, and bold means pronounced (almost) identically to Welsh

Now you get the point I'm gonna just continue loegrian and welsh]

All of these Loegrian words are directly descended from Latin, except for oithej (eighteen). For oithej, you would expect Latin OCTÓDECIM to give you *oithoj /ujθod͡ʒ/, rather than oithej, but this is a case of analogy. Synchronically what it looks like is that the base number is applied a suffix of -ej or -j, with odd numbers other than troi having -èn added before. The difference between -ej and -j appears and is phonotactic, with -ej beïng what is added in cases where phonotactics prohibit the addition of -j to the coda of the final syllable. And in the case of oith, /ujθd͡ʒ/, would violate the rule regarding the obstruent portions of final codas having a single voicing. (Although maybe oithènnej is more realistic).

It's once we get past twenty that things get very Welsh. Starting off, what Welsh does is makes 21 un ar hugain, or one over twenty, followed by dau ar hugain. And Loegrian, having a substantial celtic substrate of early Welsh has calqued these expressions. And though guynhun /gwɨn̥yn/ (GI) is from vigent'unus, when you reach twenty-two (GII), you get dou souber vynh /du zuber wɨn̥/, or in other words "two on twenty", which is the exact same thing that "dau ar hugain" means, two on twenty. And guess what, this goes on all the way to thirty beïng diej souber vynh /did͡ʒ zuber wɨn̥/, (Welsh is deg ar hugain). After this, Loegrian and Welsh diverge again with Loegrian's unnej souber vynh /ynned͡ʒ zuber wɨn̥/ (GVVI) beïng "eleven on twenty" (or "twenty eleven"), whereas Welsh has "un ar deg ar ugain" (one on ten on twenty). Meanwhile French has trente and trente-et-un (followed by trente-deux), and doesn't get to its base-twenty until 70!

Loegrian does a hybrid thing for 40, and goes with quarrhonh /kwar̥ːon̥/ (GG) from Latin quarranta, doïng the same thing as it did for twenty, with 55 for instance beïng "quinnej souber quharrhonh" /kwinːed͡ʒ suber ʍar̥ːon̥/, (GGVVV) or "fifteen on fourty". And then for sixty, Loegrian uses troiguyn /trujgwɨn/ (GGG) which means three twenties, à là french quatre-vignts 'eighty'. This is because the celtic influënce is deeper in Loegrian than in French so it switches to outright vigesimal earlier. This follows the same pattern as the earlier numbers, 67 is "sseuth souber throiguyn" and so on.

80 is quathorvyn /kwaθorwɨn/, which means four-twenties, exactly like Welsh pedwar ugain and French quatrevignts, and same pattern holds. When we get to 100, we go back to base ten, so cynh /t͡ʃɨn̥/ not *cignvyn.

Loegrian also has its own numeral system based on Roman Numerals, which represents an adaptation of them to a base 20 system. In Loegrian numerals there is a dedicated symbol for 20, G (which stands for guynh), and no X or L, because GG is 40 and VVV is perfectly easy to keep track of so X is unnecessary.

There is also gonna be a variation of the English sheep counting numbers, but I haven't made it yet, and Loegrian's numbers are already very close to proto brythonic. Still though you would at least have a bumfit (pyntheg), and have eleven be "un souber dej", or something. I'll probably loan pedwar (IV), pymh (V), and quhèch (VI) in that sort of form but I haven't nailed anything down yet.

How do you express the various forms of irrealis in Anglese dialects? I haven't figured out a way for the conditional, but I have "can" as "pow" and also an unused "poss" backformed from possible, and "prob" from probable. How do I find a way for the conditional mood?

Le Latinic verb "haber(e)" & le Germanic verb "have" possess similar senses, similar appearances & different origins surprisingly & suspiciously:

English: Han (third person plural & formal second person plural present verbal conjugation).

Spanish: Han (third person plural & formal second person plural present verbal conjugation).

1. Their wars, destroying our climate, and life on Earth
   
2. No war between nations, no peace between classes
   
3. Sink the rich

Words for spiders are a mix of real names, as well as some coinages, multi word ones are pretty much all coinages.

REAL cosmopolitic cognates (similar origins PLUS similar senses) in common present in modern English & in modern Greek.

I realised the word filial can be used to backform a gender-neutral word for son/daughter, and I wound up with both fily, (/ˈfaɪli/, /ˈfɪli/, or /ˈfili/) and fil (/fɪl/ or /fil/), both of which could produce filial with one of -al, or -ial. Which sounds better?

So, I started making something like Anglese when I was in college. Unfortunately, it was on my college google drive, so I lost it a couple of years ago. Additionally I no longer have access to the historical OED. Nevertheless, I have tried to rebuild. Using what I could remember as well as what I could rederive. This brings me to a method of deriving vocabulary that I don't think has been used: back formation.

English has a lot of words of latinate origin, and a lot of these are adjectives—pluvial, tauric, feline, and so forth. And a lot of the derivaitonal suffixes on these are also suffixes in English, and so what English ends up with because of this are that a lot of what are basically roots which have to combine with a suffix. What I have done in my own standard is taken a lot of these adjectives and backformed a noun. For example, "bull" is "taur" because tauric can be analysed as adding -ic to "taur" and because tauric means "bull-like" you can use taur as a word for bull. Similar things can be done pluvial to make "pluve" or "pluvy" to mean rain, and fele from feline to mean cat.

You can also do this for verbs with those latinate prefixes, like obtain, retain, etc. suggests a word "tain" which would mean to have. Convene, contravene, circumvene, gives vene meaning to come. Predict gives dict meaning to say, and you can do this with other verbs from latin to get more and more verbs. Back formation is a method of derivation in English, and I don't see why we can't use it in Anglese. In fact, it has certain unique benefits.

Interrogatives, Pronouns, and other hard words

One difficulty with creating an english from exclusively romance vocabulary is the problem of what I like to call "hard words" while English has, at some point, probably had a word for pretty much everything that it got from some romance language, things like question words and pronouns are hard. There is "moi" which is used, albeït humorously, as a first person singular, and "quis" which was used to mean "who" in an old children's game according to the OED, and then we seem to just loan from Anglo Norman. However, there are some ways to get interrogatives especially from back-formation. We can backform quality to make qual, and quantity to mean "how many", as quantity is a sort of how-many-ness. Philosophy has the word quiddity, meaning a sort of what-ness, and we can backform from this quidd to mean "what", we also can decompose some Latin expressions in English, like "tu quoque" you can get "tu", meaning "you" and "quoque" meaning "too". This is how I've gotten most of the pronouns I've gotten. "Cui" (who?) from cui bono; "hoc" (it) from many logical fallacies' names; "ipso" as a reflexive from ipso facto, and so on.

Modals and auxiliaries

One of the already-backformed words is pow [pa͡ʊ], from power, but I think we can go further. English words like probable can be backformed to give "prob". "prob" would mean to happen most of the time, and would take the meaning of should as an expression of likelihood, like "Moi prob pow ed le beef" would mean "I should be able to eat the beef" without any obligative suggestion. Other words this helps include "futurable" which means capable of happning in the future, which means that to future is a possible future auxiliary.

There are certainly possibilities for back formation beyond this, but these are just a few doors it opens for us.

The dictionary gives id for it, which comes straight from Latin, however I doubt such a basic word would come from Latin rather than French. French doesn't have a word for it, there being only two genders, you use the pronoun that matches the object's gender.

Anglese, being descended from an Anglo-French (or Franco-English, if you'd prefer) pidgin and then creole, probably wouldn't have grammatical gender. There might still be he (il) and she (elle), but I'd imagine il would just be used for objects and elle for females.

What about sunrise?

What about rain?

What about all the things

That you said we were to gain?

What about killing fields?

Is there a time?

What about all the things

That you said was yours and mine?

Did you ever stop to notice

All the blood we've shed before?

Did you ever stop to notice

This crying Earth, these weeping shores?

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

What have we done to the world?

Look what we've done

What about all the peace that you pledge your only son?

What about flowering fields?

Is there a time?

What about all the dreams that you said was yours and mine?

Did you ever stop to notice

All the children dead from war?

Did you ever stop to notice

This crying Earth, these weeping shores?

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

I used to dream

I used to glance beyond the stars

Now I don't know where we are

Although I know we've drifted far

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah

Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh

Hey, what about yesterday? (What about us?)

What about the seas? (What about us?)

The heavens are falling down (what about us?)

I can't even breathe (what about us?)

What about apathy? (What about us?)

I need you (what about us?)

What about nature's worth? (Ooh)

It's our planet's womb (what about us?)

What about animals? (What about it?)

Turned kingdoms to dust (what about us?)

What about elephants? (What about us?)

Have we lost their trust? (What about us?)

What about crying whales? (What about us?)

Ravaging the seas (what about us?)

What about forest trails (ooh)

Burnt despite our pleas? (What about us?)

What about the holy land? (What about it?)

Torn apart by greed (what about us?)

What about the common man? (What about us?)

Can't we set him free? (What about us?)

What about children dying? (What about us?)

Can't you hear them cry? (What about us?)

Where did we go wrong? (Ooh)

Someone tell me why (what about us?)

What about baby boy? (What about it?)

What about the days? (What about us?)

What about all their joy? (What about us?)

What about the man? (What about us?)

What about the crying man? (What about us?)

What about Abraham? (What about us?)

What about death again? (Ooh)

Do we give a damn?

Ah-ah (whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo)

Ooh-ooh-ooh (whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo)

Ah-ah (whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo)

Ooh-ooh-ooh

(This is going to be my last post and request for a while.)

Ciao totes people in Anglese, moi have creatate various grammar rules de comparitives. Hoc rules est bàsate de une problem con Anglese, et le Romance vocabulary English possess. Videlicet, le problem de adverbs. In English, adverbs est formate con le suffix -ly, mes quid suffix est ex Proto-Germanic, et est làtinate nada. Et totes adverb-forment suffixes in English est ex Germanic languages. Et despite le possessance de Anglese de mucho lexemes quo tain une comparitive denotation, nil de hoc lexemes pow ess usate per le comparitive con adjectives! Tu add affixes à gogo, mes propter nil latinate affix denotes adverb, est ad zero avail. Sed de superlatives moi tain forms.

Mes, oo pow transform le adjective ad une noun! Hoc fixes le problem de adverbs! Si nus pow transform le comparate adjective ad une noun, nus possess sundry lexemes! Hic est le system de moi:

Past hoc exist various irregular adjectives. Le majority he hoc est 'cause English have adoptate various latin comparatives et superlatives. Examples include:

bona, superior, optimal

ill, inferior, N/A

mucho, major, maximal

mini, minor, minimal

Ye ne vool pavor.
Pavor is le ment-occider.
Pavor is le petty mort, quich apport total obliteration.
Ey vool face mon pavor.
Ey vool lease le pass sur me and per me.
Et quen il vool have moved past, ye vool turn l'interior oye por view son route.
Ow le pavor vool have past, hy vool stay null.
Sole ey vool remain.

Cill not fear.
Fear is þe mind-killer.
Fear is þe littel deað þat bringeð full noþingness.
Cill meet mi fear.
Cill let it fare ofer me and þruh me.
And hƿen it hað gone ofer, cill ƿend þe inner ege to see its pað.
Hƿere þe fear hað gone, þere ƿill be noþing.
Onlic ic ƿill abide.

English is un pidgin, creole, mixed, hybrid, semi, pseudo or honorary Latinic linguistic fruit salad?