Whenever a new people settles a previously settled area, we should
expect to find linguistic evidence of the event even if there was no
archeological or other historical evidence to confirm it. The tongue
of the given area should show signs of influence from the migratory
group in question. Imprints made by migrants on previously existing
tongues are found throughout the world and confirm what linguists
have long known: the tongue is the map of our heritage and identity.

We know that very large numbers of Norwegians settled the following
lands of Great Britan: England, Scotland, Ireland, and Man. Each one
of these places has or had the following features: settlements where
Norse was the spoken tongue for centuries, Norse legal assemblies
such as the one Man is famous for, Norse names and a great number of
other cultural features. Evidence from English about Norse words and
the quality of their sounds at the time of the settlement is largely
obscured by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon-Jutish tongue was already
so similar to begin with in almost every respect. The more or less
seamless merger of Norse into English which resulted from this close
similarity has not resulted in a forgotten Norse heritage - on the
contrary: the modern inhabitants of these places have been known to
celebrate their Norse heritage with great fervor.

Despite the facts that this linguistic merger was more or less
seamless and that the large number of Norse words found in Celtic
tongues from the same region are much more obvious in nature, some
of the features of the Norse of the earliest settlers can still be
deduced. In reading what Gordon has to say about this topic, please
bear in mind that we are looking for evidence about WEST Norse only.
Here is what Gordon has to say in his appendix about the Old Norse
tongue in England:

"The earliest Scandinavian settlement in England was in 876, when an
army of Danish vikings took land in Yorkshire. Most of the
Scandinavian settlements in the east midlands too were made before
the end of the ninth century, and they also were almost entirely
Danish. Norwegian settlements were a little later, accomplished
mainly in the first half of the tenth century, in the north-western
counties and in Yorkshire. Most of the Norwegian settlers came from
Ireland, which had been infested with vikings since the middle of
the ninth century. Under the Danish kings who ruled England in the
eleventh century few settlements were made; Knút sent most of his
army back to Denmark when he had won England. Some of the Danish
leaders, however, got lands in Worcestershire, and a Danish trading
colony grew up in London. The distribution of Scandinavian place
names indicates that Scandinavian settlement was thickest in
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and the proportion of Scandinavian
population in Cumberland and Westmorland was also high.

Only fragmentary specimens of the Norse spoken by these settlers
have survived. Most of the Norse runic inscriptions in England are
obscure or illegible. Besides the late inscriptions given on p.186,
there are only three that can be read. (Please note two things:
Gordon´s book was first published in 1927 and these inscriptions
will not be included in this post) One of these is on a bone comb
found at Lincoln, now in the British Museum; the runes, which belong
to the eleventh century, form this sentence: "kamb koþan kiari
þorfastr", that is, "kamb góðan giori Þorfastr" "(I), Þorfast, make
a good comb". If this comb was really inscribed in England, it gives
evidence of a linguistic development in Anglo-Norse parallel to
continental Norse, the fronting og G before a front vowel. The Anglo-
Norse form borrowed in English (ME. 'gere' and 'gare') shows no
trace of the fronting of G. The inscription also shows that the
Norse inflexional endings were well preserved at a comparatively
late date in Anglo-Norse. Another inscription was found on a stone
in St. Paul´s churchyard, London (and is now in the Guildhall
Library), and is read: "(fi)na let lekia stin þensi auk toki", that
is, "Finna læt læggia stén þænnsi auk Tóki" "Finna and Toki had this
stone set up". The form "stin" shows that the language is EN., and
would naturally be Danish rather than Swedish. "þænnsi" and "auk"
are early forms, "þænnsi" being replaced by "þenna" in literary
Norse, while "auk" was shortened to "ok"; but it is possible that
the "au" in this word is a runic graph for "o". This inscription
also belongs to the eleventh century; Wimmer dates it c. 1030. A
twelfth-century inscription at Carlisle is read: "tolfihn uraita
þæsi runr a þisi stain", that is, "Dolfinn wræita þæssi rún(a)r á
þessi stain" "(I), Dolfinn, wrote these runes on this stone". The
demonstratives are not corrupt forms of "þessi", but are archaic;
similar forms occur on continental stones. "wræita" is notable as
preserving W before R; it also illustrates the tendency to regard
past tenses ending in a dental as weak; "blóta", &co., were
similarly treated in Icel. Norse linguistic tradition is better
preserved on this stone than on that of Pennington, p.186, which
cannot be much later. Other runic inscriptions in England are:
eleventh century, Harrogate (fragment: -suna s-), Bingley, Yorks.
(illegible), Skelton-in-Cleveland (only the conj. "ok" clear), and
from c.1100 Thornaby-in-Tees (lost since 1904)."

Note: this post will be continued as "Anglo-Norse Evidence from E.V.
Gordon - Part 2"