How Far Back in Time...

[Dogtrousers]

knowing the long s, and þe thorn, phonetic spelling gets me to 1300 with a bit of gueſſing

Þat's what ic Þouȝt

 

[classic33]

1100's, with parts of 1000's

 

[Once a Wheeler]

It is an interesting exercise but I find its usefulness is limited by the fact that this approach mixes up orthography, grammar and pronunciation. If we simply listened to the passages being spoken, and particularly if we were able to interrogate the speaker, our understanding would go back in time far farther than most people realize.

Studies of Elizabethan sailors have shown that most men would be functionally fluent in the language of any port they visited within about a fortnight of arriving. Their overwhelming advantage over us literary, educated, types was that they were illiterate. They just wanted to understand and communicate and were quite indifferent to what we would call 'mistakes'. Their only mistake was failure to communicate so their progress was rapid and relatively simple, anywhere in the world.

Language is a fascinating thing: humans use it and change it constantly. There is no ultimate 'correct' language, even though humans carry with them an idea of correctness and a social judgement on the way people speak. Listening from the other end of the audioscope, the story would run that it is the language itself that actually makes us human. So for a real, fascinating and never-ending debate, launch out into the discussions of speech and hearing impediments, undecyphered languages and feral children. Fascination awaits.

 

[DRM]

I can get the gist of what is being said at 1300, but not understand every word.

I was the same, but there are a lot of very old words still used in Yorkshire, that date back to the Viking era, and are very, very similar to modern Danish, Swedish & Norweigan words

 

[si_c]

I can read down to about 1200 comfortably, but that' sin no small part due to the fact that i read Beowulf for "fun" about 20 years ago.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

In a similar vein, Simon Roper does a really good test of our ability to comprehend older English but starting out at the historical end and coming forward in time.

Listen to this and see when it is you begin to understand everything. It might be a more accurate guide to your actual comprehension.


View: https://youtu.be/842OX2_vCic?si=RRLCCumBWveGIKZe

 

[Accy cyclist]

Is 1000 years BC on there? If so I'll be able to understand it!🧐

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Umm, to all people saying things like 1300 and so on... I can read things that written yesterday, not just earlier today! 😝

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Is 1000 years BC on there? If so I'll be able to understand it!🧐

That's the washing instructions for your vintage clothes, isn't it?

 

[tyred]

With a lot of effort, I could sort-of get 1400. 1500 was the past I could read without too much difficulty.

That would be roughly when Jim Davidson's joke book was published I suppose.

 

[Poacher]

Understood 1300, almost totally fuddled by 1200.

 

[a.twiddler]

Got through 1400, managed a sentence or two of 1300. I found it helped to read it aloud. I doubt if it would be any easier to follow if someone was speaking it as it would have sounded, though, as vowel sounds changed drastically between about 1400 and 1600 which would add to the confusion. In the time of Middle English and before, most people couldn't read, and local dialects were widespread so it is a bit artificial to look at the written form. I thought it was getting more like German as it went along, which was confirmed by the commentary at the end. If you already knew a few European languages perhaps it would help to get back another century or so.

A thought provoking exercise, I thought, which might help drum up some more recruits for the dead language society.