I'm not sure what 400 years of Norman political control really means. There was an invasion of England in 1066 by William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, which ended up with King William I of England. Subsequent monarchs of England/bits of France were no longer Normans per se. At least one variety of a French language at the time was introduced, wholesale, and became the court language of England. Latin of course remained the really "important" language of the Church and increasingly the law.

There are roughly three named "ages" of English (in England): old, middle and modern. I can just about understand written middle English and have severe problems with old English.

Modern English can be very flexible, which is probably why it has become popular as a lingua franca. There are no real noun genders. Word order can be fiddled with mercilessly too. Officially, English sentences are subject - verb - object (SVO) for example: "I sat on the bed". You can say "I the bed sat on" or "On the bed sat I" or "sat I on the bed" and it still works fine. Most of those variants are regionally correct, somewhere.

English spelling is an absolute nightmare! Linking pronunciation to spelling is absolutely awful. I can completely understand English as a second language speakers throwing their hands up in the air and declaring the whole thing as complete bollocks! However, that means that we are extraordinarily tolerent of speling mistaks. field or feild? sealed or ceiled? Who nose!

> Modern English can be very flexible, which is probably why it has become popular as a lingua franca.

You have the causality backwards here.

> Word order can be fiddled with mercilessly too. Officially, English sentences are subject - verb - object (SVO) for example: "I sat on the bed". You can say "I the bed sat on" or "On the bed sat I" or "sat I on the bed" and it still works fine.

This is just incorrect.

the rare forms/orders are allowed for the purposes of literature and other forms of art. the grammar of the modern english language and its gradual adoption through intellectual training was intentionally done. it was necessary in order to (1) elevate english to the level of latin and french, and hence (2) be a suitable tool for both art and intellectual writings. that was the only way it could unseat french and become the dominant language fit for all purposes.

> There was an invasion of England in 1066 by William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, which ended up with King William I of England. Subsequent monarchs of England/bits of France were no longer Normans per se. At least one variety of a French language at the time was introduced, wholesale, and became the court language of England.

There was more than that. For a while, England was a backwater of the Angevin empire and kings of England were native French speakers for quite a long time.

how did the normand invasion change the language? is there a study you could reference? did they influence the structure of the language itself or their language became a source of loan words? or what really happened?