[ravana2]

Maybe that l-less is the way how norman ( french ) aristocracy will pronounce it ?

[Blackkdark]

Nah, Norman French was actually known for its Germanic pronunciation, and Old French was very phonetic, unlike Modern French. Like I said, I don't think that they are not pronouncing the /l/, but rather after a back vowel, it becomes what we call a dark liquid /l/ which is harder to hear. That means it might still be pronounced but you might not hear it so easily. I think elements of my own dialect do that, were many people even think Mall and Maw are pronounced the same.

[ravana2]

What is official name for your l-less dialect ?

Just philadelphian english or what ?

Thou wert or thou vert ?

[Blackkdark]

Lol, it's not l-less, it just CAN drop /l/ at the end of a syllable. It's actually fairly common. That's why some people think Law and Mall rhyme, or mall and maw are homophones. It's just the Philadelphian dialect of English, yes.

And why would it be vert. Wert of course.

[ravana2]

What is a difference between thou wert and thou wast ?

[Blackkdark]

It depends more of when it was written, mostly. Wast was used initially in the 1500s because of analogy. It basically was imitating the first and second person was. Wert was reinterpreted later to fit with were. Although in terms of Old English, wert would be more accurate.

[ravana2]

Beside wast/wath reform does it exist any other " bill " in reform of english in 1500 ?

I am white south european . May I know your race ?

[Blackkdark]

Wath? There should not have been a wath. It's not in the dictionary, not even under archaic. And what do you mean by " bill " in reform? Lots of things changed and formed over time, through analogy, sound shift, etc.

My family is of European origin, my father Eastern European Jew, and my mother Irish and Italian Catholics.

[ravana2]

You said that suffix -s is used in london . Th was used in the north of england .

So I can say was or wath . Right ?

[Blackkdark]

Yeah, but I was talking about the present tense. Even in Old English, the past tense endings are never -th. Was is the past tense, it was wæs is almost every dialect. In a few, if it retained the old forms, then it would be war or wær. Wath was never a part of English.

[ravana2]

In one sf movie I heard this :

I shall

Thou shallest

She shalleth

Is that producer`s joke or there were atempt to do something like that ?

[Blackkdark]

That is a joke. For one, I know it´s Thou Shalt. I´m also pretty sure it´s She Shall, since it´s a modal verb and has a weird conjugation. Most of them have the same in the first and third persons, and the Old English form is ic sceal, ðu scealt, heo sceal

[ravana2]

So I can use shall for third person singular . What is about plural like they shall ?

If shall cover all persons what is a difference between shall and will ?

I shall send you my name that we can be friends on Facebook . If you want .

[Blackkdark]

In practical Modern English, there is no difference between Shall and Will. The major one is that more people use WILL more often. Historically, Will implied that there would be some sort of want or wish involved, whereas Shall just implied obligation.
They are cognates to German Sollen (must, should, to have to), and Wollen (to want, desire). There was a time when you had to make a distinction, but today most say you use shall in the first person and will in the second and third persons. Ultimately, I think people find it weird if you use Shall a lot, since it sounds a bit archaic, and in the US the negative shan't is almost never heard.

[ravana2]

What about god and goddess ? That is not from roman languages .

[ravana2]

Can I say " i love ye " ?