2026: Emojis, Reaction Gifs, and AI
How far back in time can you understand English?
331–340 of 432 posts
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#332If you want to improve your score, the blog author (Dr. Colin Gorrie) has just the thing: a book which will teach you Old English by means of a story about a talking bear . Here's how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZhlWdVvZfw . Your dream of learning Old English has never been closer: get Ōsweald Bera https://colingorrie.com/books/osweald-bera/ today.
The Ørberg method is great, I wish more languages had media utilizing it.
There are actually several similar books for modern European languages, available as PDFs (in the public domain and/or out of print): https://blog.nina.coffee/2018/08/27/all_nature_method_books....
Ørberg may be the best, though.
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#333Should 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…
You can try this video to see how far back you can understand spoken English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=842OX2_vCic
I came here to post the same video. I couldn't understand it until 1600-ish. My wife immediately recognized swinu as pigs early in the video.
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it was the same for me, the language feels very different by 1300. The language in section 1300 isn't much different from section 1400. Almost all of it is still good English today if you give the words their modern spelling: Then after much time spoke the Master, and his words were cold as winter is. His voice was as the crying of ravens, sharp and shrill, and all that heard him were adread and durst not speak. "I…
Yeah but the spelling is part of how the language feels :) Also, you say spelling but e.g. "speken" feels more a grammatical than orthographic difference. By comparison, Dante's incipit to the Divine Comedy is 100% the same spelling and grammar as modern Italian (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita/mi ritrovai per una selva oscura/che la diritta via era smarrita)
Are you sure you haven't been victimized by manuscripts with modernized spellings?
When I look up ealry manuscript scans of the Comedy, I get:
*Nel mezo delcamin dinra uita / mi trouai puna(?) felua (long s letter) ofcura / che la diricta (some bizarre letter in there) uia era fmarrita (long s).
https://www.digitalcollections.manchester.ac.uk/view/PR-INCU...
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#335Earlier 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…
I think I read it's more "hillbilly" English that sounds like Shakespeare? Like coal mining towns where words like "deer" and "bear" are two syllables. Probably a combination of that and eastern seaboard. I only learned recently that the vowel shift and non-rhotic R's in Britain happened after the colonization of America. Americans still talk "normally" whereas the English got weird. Also why Irish accents sound clos…
Also why the non-rhotic American accents are all by the East Coast, they were influenced by the non-rhotic British visitors while the inland areas were spared.
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Phonetic spelling would perhaps make the language easier to learn for native speakers, but it would make it harder to learn for foreigners, at least those of us who come from Europe. BS. Phonetic alphabets are _much_ easier to learn for everyone. In Russia and Ukraine pretty much every child can read by the time they enter the first grade. It's _that_ easy because both alphabets are phonetic (although it's only one…
OTOH, I’ve seen what y’all call cursive, and want no part of it.
It depends on a writer, but it can be very legible.
I used to be able to jot down notes during lectures almost as fast as the normal spoken speed. We often traded notebooks when preparing for the exams, and I rarely had problems reading other people's notes.
It's also really nice to write, once you learn it. I was surprised after moving to the US that almost nobody here knows how to write in cursive anymore.
A part of this is a really terrible cursive variant that schools in the US used to teach ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Method ). Modern Russian (and Ukrainian) cursives are closer to the older Spencerian script: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencerian_script
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#337Earlier 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…
I have had to interpret between an Ulsterman and a South African, who were both speaking English. I think those accents have vowel shifted in opposite directions. I was also taught a bit of Chaucer (died 1400) in English at school. Although not any of the naughty bits.
I imagine a current generation high school English class would be giggling right from the first line about gooning while on pilgrimages.
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't standardise. That's the point. If you can understand how people speak you will understand how they write.
So you want a thousand different writing systems, or everyone just winging it as they go along? That would make reading anything extremely slow and difficult.
Worked for thousands of years with other phonetic written languages. Words change spelling over time, instead of pronounciation drifting without the spelling changing.
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this podcast, I've listened to it all the way through probably ten times. That acoustic guitar riff followed by "Hello, and welcome to the History of Rome" is how I'll know I'm dead and I've arrived at the gates of heaven
Acoustic picking 18 from garage band....
Oh my God, are you serious? I don't know how to feel about this
Re: How far back in time can you understand English?
#340Should 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…
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…
I didn't think it was possible to speak "without an accent."