Live data from Hacker News

How far back in time can you understand English?

deadlanguagesociety.com

361–370 of 432 posts

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

#361
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His subsequent podcast: "revolutions" is also really good.

The revolutions podcast is perhaps one of my favorite podcasts of all time. The American, French, and Russian revolution seasons are all incredibly enlightening to the world that we live in, while plainly also being just so entertaining.

I've only listened to the French revolution, but it was absolutely electrifying. I would listen on my car ride home -- one day I burst through the door to my house and yelled "CHARLOTTE CORDAY MURDERED MARAT!!!" at my wife like it was breaking news.

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

#362

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.

Eddie Izzard speaking old English to a Frisian farmer:

https://youtu.be/OeC1yAaWG34?si=lkoQ--uZNN8Ntpqy

As a Norwegian who speaks English and school-German, Dutch is fairly easy to read but sounds like you're speaking a mix of English, Norse and German with a mouthful of gravel (similar to the Danish, who Norwegians like to say speaks Norwegian with a potato in their mouth)

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often had the same thought coming from the other direction, as an English speaker learning Dutch for the past couple of years: I hear many little echoes in Dutch of archaic or poetic English forms.

That’s because English and Dutch are basically German dialects that the ruling aristocrat classes worked hard to differentiate and abstract from their ruling aristocrat class competitors in other places. You may want lol into that, since you are realizing and noticing things, but you are seemingly still not connecting the dots correctly. Another hint, Dutch comes from Deutsche, how the “Germans” refer to themselves,…

The continuum of the North Sea languages is much more apparent if you undo the High German consonant shift... (and of course if you minimise the use of the words English have imported from France)

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

#364

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.

Really? I read German (not at a very high level anymore admittedly), and I find that while Old English is closer to German than modern English is, I would still say a deep knowledge of Modern English helps me more, and that most things have be learned frlm scratch. Like does Dutch have anything like "cƿæð"? Or "Hlaford"? Or "soð"? "þeah þe"? I know Dutch should be a little closer to Old English than German, but if yo…

As a native English speaker who also knows some German and has studied some Anglo-Saxon... I'd say the High German sound shift can really mess up hearing Anglo-Saxon for German speakers but reading it is easier than it might be for a modern English speaker...

The orthography of Anglo-Saxon can make it look easier to read for a modern German or Dutch speaker, but to actually hear it could be confusing. Specifically around the words written with the past tense marker "ge" -- or other words using "ge", which is pronounced like modern English "ye" (hence English 'yester[day]' instead of German 'gestern'), not hard "ge" like in modern high German.

And yes Dutch (or modern Low Saxon dialects or Frisian) could be closer but the orthography is very different and also Anglo-Saxon had a palette closer to the front of the mouth than the back like Dutch.

Also other West Germanic (and North) languages lost the dental fricatives ("thorn" (þ) and "eth" (ð)) while English (and Icelandic) kept it. And Anglo Saxon used them heavily. Old Franconian and Old Saxon had this sound, too, but lost it (hence "the" vs der/die/das etc)

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

#366
Reading it vs hearing is deceiving. The orthography shifted markedly after the Norman invasion when French speaking elites imposed a continental Romance / French language spelling system over top of the ordinary people's Germanic language. In actual spoken language there was likely far more continuity, we just don't have good records of it because the ruling elite was disdainful of English and used French at the court.

So someone who is a modern German or Dutch speaker will have an easier time reading Anglo-Saxon than an English speaker, perhaps. But that's a bit deceiving. Many of the sounds written there had a very different spoken sound than their modern German or Dutch counterparts, and are actually closer to their modern English variants. (ge in particular pronounced "ye" not hard-g, so words like yesterday were spelled with "gest" similar to modern German, but not spoken that way at all).

Simon Roper on YouTube does a better job of this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=842OX2_vCic

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

#368
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because English and Dutch are basically German dialects that the ruling aristocrat classes worked hard to differentiate and abstract from their ruling aristocrat class competitors in other places. You may want lol into that, since you are realizing and noticing things, but you are seemingly still not connecting the dots correctly. Another hint, Dutch comes from Deutsche, how the “Germans” refer to themselves,…

The continuum of the North Sea languages is much more apparent if you undo the High German consonant shift... (and of course if you minimise the use of the words English have imported from France)

That seems to me like a really worthwhile effort, especially for the continental Europeans if they want to keep the EU alive, even if it needs major, structural reform that I am not confident it can implement without total deconstruction first. If the EU wants to survive it simply cannot allow English to dominate it, nor is even French ideal, making Dutch the official language is of course silly for obvious reasons (regardless of my affinity for it), contemporary German seems to be self-deleting in many different way for many different reasons, and nonsense like Esperanto speaks for itself. But a kind of merging or integration of the German languages of central Europe would be an ideal candidate to bring about European unity in a sustainable and healthy manner... a meeting in the middle, maybe a restoration of old high German even that is the common node.

I am generally even just sad writing this because even my proposal invariably means the total destruction of many languages, traditions, cultures, and true and healthy diversity that has defined Europe over all of recorded history; but at least if this effort of trying to mash Europe into a kind of neo-communist of uniform sludge, at least try to create something new and beautiful out of it, not some disgusting brown mush where the non-english EU speaks English, while by the end of the century the majority of people will not even be indigenous Europeans anymore.

It is sad realizing that what we are all currently witness to is a cataclysmic collapse and destruction of civilization in Europe on an order that humanity has not witness since the civilizational collapse of the Americas or even the Bronze Age collapse and minor cultural collapses and ethnocides that were perpetrated through the French proto-communist Revolution, the Russian communist revolution and the Chinese communist revolutions. It is astonishing knowing that I am living through a historical event that may even never be recorded, let alone well, because the likelihood that it will be recorded at all, let alone accurately is very low.

If a common German language could be created, along with maybe a common Romance language for Hispania and Italy, etc. at least there would be a kind of remaining legacy akin to how the Egyptian icons are enigmatic, even if their culture did not survive.

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

#370

Earlier 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.

And yet we manage it with speaking. This is why I call it brain damage. It's like trying to explain red to a blind woman.
Post reply on HN