Top
Best
New

Posted by spzb 3 days ago

How far back in time can you understand English?(www.deadlanguagesociety.com)
371 points | 221 commentspage 4
bradley13 8 hours ago|
I've been living in a non-English speaking country for 35 years or so. Although I read a lot, my English is still somewhat "frozen". I would still ask you if you have "mown" the lawn - a tense that is now almost lost. Many irregular verbs are becoming regular, I expect due to the large number of ESL speakers.

Language changes. It's weird to see it happening in front of you...

strawhatguy 7 hours ago||
I actually wonder about his conclusion that 50 years hence English will be unrecognizable.

There will be changes of course. Yet we are also more connected than ever, whereas the next town over would be a whole day trip in the past. The separation allows for more divergence.

Well, maybe if we get to Mars, differences might crop up again.

loeg 6 hours ago||
I can just about comprehend the 1500 stuff (that was also my experience attempting to read Chaucer during jury duty, though I don't remember Canterbury Tales having the 1400s "þ" this article uses).
brandall10 9 hours ago||
Reading Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct", and he has a section that shows how the Lord's Prayer has changed over the ages.

What's interesting is the one in use today - from the early 17th century - is not the most modern variant. There was another revision from the mid-19th century that fell out of favor because it sounded a bit off, less rhythmic, less sacred (ie. Kingdom -> Government).

SkyeCA 8 hours ago||
I can read until the 1300s, which is about what I expected. I encourage people to go search up historical newspaper archives from the 1700s though, because it becomes significantly harder to parse when you have little to no knowledge of the events, people or even culture of the time.
BadBadJellyBean 11 hours ago||
Around 1300 to 1400. Some words were harder. But English isn't my first language either. So I guess that's alright. I guess I'd be fine in the 1500 in England. At least language wise.
Sharlin 11 hours ago|
In 1500 a lot of pronunciation would've been different too, it was in the middle of the Great Vowel Shift [1]. And of course while the UK is still (in)famous for its many accents and dialects, some nigh mutually unintelligible, the situation would've been even worse back then.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift

dhosek 10 hours ago|||
Or as I’ve heard it described humorously, the Big Vowel Movement.
BadBadJellyBean 9 hours ago|||
I'd assume I'd be able to adapt. Might take a little while bit seems comprehensible.
LAC-Tech 3 hours ago||
SPOILERS: if you give the last section, from 1000 AD, some more modern orthography, and applying a few modern sound changes, it may start to look more understandable.

___

The original:

And þæt heo sægde wæs eall soþ. Ic ƿifode on hire, and heo ƿæs ful scyne ƿif, ƿis ond ƿælfæst. Ne gemette ic næfre ær sƿylce ƿifman. Heo ƿæs on gefeohte sƿa beald swa ænig mann, and þeah hƿæþere hire andƿlite wæs ƿynsum and fæger.

Ac ƿe naƿiht freo ne sindon, for þy þe ƿe næfre ne mihton fram Ƿulfesfleote geƿitan, nefne ƿe þone Hlaford finden and hine ofslean. Se Hlaford hæfþ þisne stede mid searocræftum gebunden, þæt nan man ne mæg hine forlætan. Ƿe sindon her sƿa fuglas on nette, swa fixas on ƿere.

And ƿe hine secaþ git, begen ætsomne, ƿer ond ƿif, þurh þa deorcan stræta þisses grimman stedes. Hƿæþere God us gefultumige!

___

Applying the following changes mechanically (which I often do in my head when I see a un-familiar word in old english)

ģ = y, ċ = ch, sw = s, ƿ = w, p = th, x = sk,

we get:

And thæt heo sæyde wæs eall soth. Ich wifode on hire, and heo wæs ful shyne wif, wis ond wælfæst. Ne yemette ich næfer ær sylche wifman. Heo wæs on gefeoghte sa beald sa æniy mann, and theah wæthere hire andlite wæs wynsum and fæyer.

Ac we nawight freo ne sindon, for thy the we næfer ne mighton fram Wulfesfleote yewitan, nefen we thone Laford finden and hine ofslean. Se Laford hæfth thisne stede mid searocræftum gebunden, thæt nan man ne mæy hine forlætan. We sindon her sa fuglas on nette, sa fiskas on were.

And we hine sechath yit, beyen ætsomne, wer ond wif, thurgh tha deorcan stræta thisses grimman stedes. Wæthere God us yefultumige!

__

My translation attempt:

And that which she said was all true. I made her my wife, she was a very beautiful woman, wise and steadfast when dealing death[0]. I had never met such a woman before. She was as brave in a fight as any person, yet her appearance was winsome and fair.

But we were no longer free, because we could neaver leave Wulfleet, even though we found the lord and slew him. The lord had bound this town with sorcery, such that no one could leave it. We were trapped like birds on a net, like fishes are by a man.

And we searched yet, being together, man and wife, through the dark streets of this grim town. God help us!

___

[0] my best attempt at translating "ƿælfæst"; it's like slaughter + firm/fast/stable. I guess it means she is calm while killing people :))

alamortsubite 9 hours ago||
If you enjoyed TFA, check out this excellent BBC tv doc (and companion book) with Melvyn Bragg, The Adventure of English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1XQx9pGGd0
WillAdams 11 hours ago||
A recent book which looks at this in an interesting fashion is _The Wake_ which treats the Norman Conquest in apocalyptic terms using a language markedly different and appropriate

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21023409-the-wake

inglor_cz 11 hours ago|
There is an interesting review of The Wake on the PSmiths literary substack:

https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/guest-review-the-wake-by-paul-k...

WillAdams 9 hours ago||
That has moved it out of a wish list and into my cart for my next purchase.

Makes me wonder what J.R.R. Tolkien would have thought of this.

CamperBob2 6 hours ago||
If you go far enough down the Psmiths' online rabbit hole, you'll find (via footnote 7) some speculation on that. Tolkien was apparently of the opinion that the Norman Conquest was a Very Bad Thing for English historical language and culture, hence his frequent references and allusions to Anglo-Saxon mythology. It sounds like he would have been a fan of The Wake as described here.
WillAdams 4 hours ago||
That was my thought as well, and it's an interesting thought exercise, but unless there is some note on this which I'm not aware of, it's just reasoned speculation.
7v3x3n3sem9vv 12 hours ago|
an audible example:

https://loops.video/v/dxXFQREMjg

leoc 12 hours ago|
And here's the Simon Roper videos acknowledged in the article: "From Old English to Modern American English in One Monologue" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=842OX2_vCic (short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_pS3_c6QkI ). This runs forward rather than back in time. However, Roper's "How Far Back Can You Understand Northern English?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Zqn9_OQAw does run backwards in time.
More comments...