It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos Really interesting. I noticed that you can pick up pronunciation clues from the later posts and apply them to the earlier ones.
So " miȝt" is "might".
1400 is reasonably readable.
1300 is quite fragmentary.
1200 is a mess.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos Studying Anglo-Saxon in college helps
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos I gave up after 1400, which, as an ESL person who didn’t get the benefit of covering Chaucer in high school, I think is pretty good…
-
@yogthos Really interesting. I noticed that you can pick up pronunciation clues from the later posts and apply them to the earlier ones.
So " miȝt" is "might".
1400 is reasonably readable.
1300 is quite fragmentary.
1200 is a mess.
@oblate yeah 1200 was where I hit a wall
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos Meh. You can make the whole thing more or less difficult depending on graphic conventions. Why use "ſ" for "s" for example? That was not a rule and it's not a difference in language just in typography. Both co-existed depending on the publisher. Same with handwritten "u" and "v" before printing.
Finally, between the 11th and 15th Centuries, English was not standardized at all.
This whole thing is more clickbait than anything accurate or historical.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos back to the 1300s was ok. Then it got really hard. Helps being Scandinavian, it seems.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos really struggled at 1200 but still got the message, didn't understand a thing at 1100.
(Non-native English speaker, though. Learned untill college) -
@yogthos really struggled at 1200 but still got the message, didn't understand a thing at 1100.
(Non-native English speaker, though. Learned untill college)@dremmwel 1200 was the cut off for me
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos super intéressant, malheureusement je ne suis pas assez anglophone pour percevoir l'apparition des formules désuètes au XIX, XVIII, XVII siècles, ce serait bien d'avoir cela en français.
-
@yogthos Meh. You can make the whole thing more or less difficult depending on graphic conventions. Why use "ſ" for "s" for example? That was not a rule and it's not a difference in language just in typography. Both co-existed depending on the publisher. Same with handwritten "u" and "v" before printing.
Finally, between the 11th and 15th Centuries, English was not standardized at all.
This whole thing is more clickbait than anything accurate or historical.
@David if you bothered reading the discussion at the end, you'd actually see why they used the typography and could've saved yourself embarrassment
-
@David if you bothered reading the discussion at the end, you'd actually see why they used the typography and could've saved yourself embarrassment
@yogthos What embarrassment? Why should I read the thing til the end if I find it unsound?
Also, why the aggressive tone? Oh yes, sorry, we're on social media, where one can't disagree with someone without making it personal. I thought we were supposed to be better than that here. No?
-
@David if you bothered reading the discussion at the end, you'd actually see why they used the typography and could've saved yourself embarrassment
@yogthos Okay, I read the part where they mention the use of "ſ" and there is no justification for it, it's an artifice to make the English look older than it is or something like this. Why use "ſ" and not "st" to only mention this one?
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos I lost track around 1300, but the Deepl automatic translator was able to make sense of all but the last sentence of the story.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos @petrillic I was able to make it back to 1300, but 1200 really stumped me.
-
@yogthos Okay, I read the part where they mention the use of "ſ" and there is no justification for it, it's an artifice to make the English look older than it is or something like this. Why use "ſ" and not "st" to only mention this one?
@David the justification for it is to illustrate how things were commonly written, I think you really gotta work on that reading comprehension of modern English before criticizing their examples from 1500s
-
@yogthos What embarrassment? Why should I read the thing til the end if I find it unsound?
Also, why the aggressive tone? Oh yes, sorry, we're on social media, where one can't disagree with someone without making it personal. I thought we were supposed to be better than that here. No?
@David why should I read something I intemd to criticize says the intellectual in my replies
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos at about 1300 it started needing active thought to translate bits. 1200 felt like i was missing details & nuances even if I could follow along. 1100 the following along wasn't certain. 1000 I got it less than I thought I did.
Knowing Scandinavian, having taken a couple of years of German back in school, and having some interest in linguistics sure did help.
-
It’s a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post. Read it and notice where you start to struggle. Notice where you give up entirely.
https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english
@yogthos 1200 I had to work hard at it. 1100 I think I got the gist? 1000 was incomprehensible.
-
@yogthos 1200 I had to work hard at it. 1100 I think I got the gist? 1000 was incomprehensible.
@akamran I started hitting a wall at 1200, I could make out words, but I was guessing overall meaning at that point
-
@yogthos @petrillic I was able to make it back to 1300, but 1200 really stumped me.
