Live data from Hacker News

How far back in time can you understand English?

deadlanguagesociety.com

181–190 of 432 posts

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#181

1400 seems fine except for the one big hurdle being "Þ", which I feel like I'd seen at some point but did not recall. ("ȝ" is useful but that's somewhat easier to guess and not too critical. "ſ" is also easy to guess and I'd seen it before.) 1300 is noticeably harder and needs some iterative refinement, but once you rewrite it, it's surprisingly not too bad: > Then after much time spoke the master, his words were col…

> 1400 seems fine except for the one big hurdle being "Þ",

Someone here needs to brush up on their Icelandic!

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#182
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah same. The explanation at the bottom is interesting, lots of the words imported from Normandy drop off then, and the grammar changes more significantly.

I think people see "The blog ends there. No sign-off, no “thanks for reading.”" and stop reading everything after that xD

Yes, I nearly missed it myself

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People read Shahname[1] regularly in Iran, and it was written at around 1000 CE, but there isn't much before 900 CE that is comprehensible to a modern day Persian speaker. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh The Shahnameh is a long epic poem written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi between c. 977 and 1010 CE and is the national epic of Greater Iran. Shahnameh is one of the world's longest epic poems, and the long…

Most European people know about Odysseus, but few have read Homer, even in translation. I one met a visiting Iranian academic just after I'd learned about the Shahnameh. I'd also read the opinion of a French scholar who thought its language was, for a modern Iranian, like Montaigne for a modern French. The Iranian woman told me that very few people in Iran actually read the book. It's very long, and hard to grasp for…

> The Iranian woman told me that very few people in Iran actually read the book. It's very long, and hard to grasp for untrained readers.

She makes a fair point. Reading and fully understanding Shahnameh is not straightforward. The difficulty does not primarily stem from drastic linguistic change, although the language has evolved and been somewhat simplified over time, but rather from the nature of Persian poetry itself, which is often deliberately layered and intricate *.

That said, Iranian students are introduced to selected passages and stories from Shahnameh throughout their schooling. Teachers typically devote considerable time to these texts, as the work is closely tied to cultural identity and a sense of historical pride.

* Persian, in particular, is often described as highly suited to poetic expression. Its flexible grammar and word order allow for a degree of intentional ambiguity, and this interpretive openness is frequently regarded as a mark of sophistication (difficult to master at a high-level for a layperson). A single ghazal by Hafez, for instance, can be read as a dialogue with God, a beloved man, or a beloved woman, with each interpretation leading to a different emotional and philosophical resonance. This multiplicity is the core part of the artistry.

Personally, I did not truly understand Hafez until I fell in love for the first time. My vocabulary and historical knowledge remained the same, yet my experience of the poetry changed completely. What shifted was something more inward and spiritual and only then did I begin to feel the full force of the verses.

For example, consider the following (unfortunately) translated lines:

  O cupbearer, pass the cup around and offer it to me --
  For love seemed easy at first, but then the difficulties began.
The Persian word corresponding to "cupbearer" may be read as a bar servant, a human beloved, a spiritual guide, or even the divine itself. The "wine" may signify literal intoxication, romantic love, mystical ecstasy, or divine knowledge. Nothing in the grammar forces a single interpretation, the poem invites the reader's inner state to complete it (and at the same time makes it rhyme).

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am Indian. I read easily to 1400. But then 1300 is suddenly difficult to read

I speak English natively. I read to 1400 without difficulty, read 1400 and 1300 with some sruggle, and found beyond that it was largely unintelligible; I can understand maybe 1 in 3 words.

1200 looks harder than it is because of the change in pronouns.

...Nor shall I never it forget, not while I live!

... and that was a wife [= woman], strong and [stith]! She came in among the evil men and me [nerede] from their hands.

She slew the heathen men that me pinned, slew them and felled them to the ground. There was blood and [bale] enough. And they fell [and] lay still, for they [] might no more stand. And the Master, the [wraþþe] Master, he flew away in the darkness and was seen no more.

I said [to] her, "I thank thee, [leove] wife, for thou hast me [ineredd] from death and from all mine [ifoan]!"

Interestingly, nerede/ineredd has no descendant in modern English, but it's not difficult to understand in the passage, while leove and ifoan do have descendants, and in the case of ifoan the meaning hasn't changed, but they are harder to read.

In 1100 the idea of "just substitute the modern word in for the old word" starts to break down.

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#185
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I remember being in Oxford in the 90s and an older man approached me and spoke to me in English and I couldn’t understand a word he said. My ex-wife, who’s an ESL speaker who speaks fluently and without an accent has trouble with English accents in general. Similarly, in Spanish, I find it’s generally easier for me to understand Spanish speakers than Mexican speakers even though I learned Mexican Spanish in s…

> older man approached me and spoke to me in English and I couldn’t understand a word he said like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs-rgvkRfwc ?

I was expecting the hooligans from Eurotrip.

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#186

Well, for a native speaker of Dutch who doesn't speak English at all (not many left since my grandmother died in 2014), I'd say old English is actually easier to read than modern - starting around 1400. Around 1000, English and Dutch must have been mutually understandable.

Most of what I understood from that far back was because of Afrikaans, more than English.

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#187
post #33

I can get through 1300 with some effort, but from 1200 I get nothing. Just a complete dropoff in that one time frame.

I was able to get the gist of 1200, with some effort. By paragraph: P1: Unclear, but I think it's basically saying there is much to say about all that happened to him. [Edit: the more I stare at it, the more sense it makes. "There is much to say about all that ? was wrought on me, ???. I shall never forget it, not while I live!"] P2: Unexpectedly, a woman ("uuif", wife) appeared at "great speed" to save him. "She cam…

Same here, pretty much. I was able to get to 1200 without much difficulty but 1200 took a lot of effort to decipher.

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#189

1400 seems fine except for the one big hurdle being "Þ", which I feel like I'd seen at some point but did not recall. ("ȝ" is useful but that's somewhat easier to guess and not too critical. "ſ" is also easy to guess and I'd seen it before.) 1300 is noticeably harder and needs some iterative refinement, but once you rewrite it, it's surprisingly not too bad: > Then after much time spoke the master, his words were col…

I found it helped me to read it out loud in a pirate voice.

Fun fact: stereotypical "pirate speech" is actually a relic of the English West Country dialect.

Re: How far back in time can you understand English?

#190

Should be "how far back in time can you read English?" The language itself is what is spoken and the writing, while obviously related, is its own issue. Spelling is conventional and spelling and alphabet changes don't necessarily correspond to anything meaningful in the spoken language; meanwhile there can be large changes in pronunciation and comprehensibility that are masked by an orthography that doesn't reflect t…

Yeah it’s really just the glyphs that are changing here, and occasionally the spelling, otherwise the words themselves are still fairly recognizable if you’re well-read.

there'd be a discontinuity around 1066 since Normans brought over Latin-derived vocabulary aplenty, and overlayed germanic vocabulary. it's super evident if you learn Swedish (for example...very related to pre-1066 English) and have learned Latin (or French), while speaking English.
Post reply on HN