Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout
If a 21st century anglophone were plopped into 10th England they wouldn't understand anything because it was literally a different language. Just try reading Beowulf.
Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.
|
In fairness, most European people would have a hard time reading their language from the 10th century. English speakers more than others of course, because of the vast changes in the English language after the Norman conquest, but French, Spanish, or German speakers would have a hard time reading their languages written in the 10th century nonetheless.
Regarding French, as I am some sort of "expert" in reading Medieval texts now, I'd say modern French speakers can read and understand reasonably well texts written from the end of the 13th century, and especially since the middle of the 14th century. The gap is not as large as people who don't know usually think it is. They often call it "old French", but really when you read a text from 1400, or 1350, it's really just French, with just a few odd and strange words here and there, and some ways of expressing things that can sound a bit strange at first.
English has undergone much more changes. I couldn't understand an English text written in 1350 (neither could you), whereas I can understand 90% or more of a French text written in 1350.
Now when you go back earlier than 1250, then French becomes really, REALLY different, and is hard to read. I would put the threshold at mid-13th century. Everything since the end of 13th century is readable, everything before the middle of the 13th century (i.e. before Philip the Fair, say), is very foreign, and needs learning a new grammar, new vocabulary, etc.
As an example, this is a text written in the year 1329. It's a royal charter that grants some privileges to a royal chapel which I found in the archives of the royal chancery. Apart from the spelling (which has some differences with modern spelling, but is quite regular and not an issue once you're used to that spelling... a spelling easier for English speakers by the way, since that's the way a lot of these French words are spelled in English, i.e. Medieval spelling), a few gender oddities (such as some words being masculine in 1329 and feminine today, or vice versa), and a few words that have now disappeared, it's largely understandable by a modern French speaker I think.
"Philippe par la grâce de Dieu roi de France, savoir faisons à tous présens et avenir que nous avons octroié et octroions de grâce especial à noz chappellains de nostre chappelle du Gué-de-Mauny pour eus et pour leurs successeurs que toutes fois que nous, la royne nostre chière compaigne, et nostre aisné filz et noz successeurs rois de France, la royne et l'aisné filz qui pour le temps seront, venirons et serons demouranz au Gué-de-Mauny, noz diz chappellains et les clers de ladicte chappelle aient table de boire et de mangier tant au diner comme au souper à nos deppens et de nos diz successeurs rois de France. Si donnons en mandement aus maistres de nostre hostel qui pour le temps seront que les diz chappellains et clers lessent et facent joïr de nostre présent octroy sanz leur mettre nul empeschement. En tesmoing de laquelle chose et que elle soit sure et estable à touzjours, nous avons fait mettre nostre seel en ces lettres. Donné au Bois de Vincennes l'an de grâce mil CCC vint et neuf au mois de décembre."
"Gué-de-Maulny" was a royal palace where that royal chapel was located, and in which the king sometimes stayed with his retinue. Once you know that, I think the entire text is rather clear and understandable for any French speaker today, despite having been written 700 years ago. Do the Québécois forumers here understand it? In this entire text written 700 years ago there is only one word that is really different from today, that's "si" (which is "ainsi" in modern French). All other words still exist today. Some expressions can seem a bit odd at first, such as "qui pour le temps seront", which means "at that time (in the future)", but not too hard to understand either.
The only real difference with modern French is the spelling, especially the use of final -z instead of final -s, and the lack of final -t for
participe présent in the plural (where we write "les gens sachant bien écrire etc." today, people wrote "les gens sachans bien écrire" until the end of the 18th century, and even "sachanz" further back in time). The modern spelling rule is
participe présent in the plural never gets a final -s (unlike the adjective which gets a final -s in the plural), which is one of these complex rules kids have to learn ("des hommes charmants", adjective, vs. "des hommes charmant une femme"
participe présent), but before the 19th century and the pedantic addition of final -t and deletion of final -s, the spelling was much more simple, final -s for all, adjective or
participe présent, and no final unpronounced -t for the
participe présent in the plural.
I've tried once to read some 14th century English writs. It's just impossible to understand beyond a few words. Massive spelling differences with modern English (much more than in my French example), but also vocabulary and grammar differences.
For example this is a text I've found online written in English at the end of the 14th century, i.e. more than half a century AFTER my French text above. Who here understands what's written (without looking for the translation)?
"Latyn as I trowe can nane, bot thoo that have it at scole tane. Somme kan Frensch and no Latyn, that used have court and dwelled therin. And somme kan of Latyn a party, that kan Frensch ful febelly. And somme understonden Englysch, that kan nouther Latyn ne Frensch. Bot lered and lewed, olde and yonge, alle understonden Englysch tonge."
A text closer in time from my French text would be even harder to understand. For example, written in 1340:
"Ymende. þet þis boc is uolueld ine þe eue of þe holy apostles Symon an Iudas, of ane broþer of þe cloystre of sanynt Austin of Canterberi, ine þe yeare of oure lhordes beringe 1340.
Nou ich wille þet ye ywyte hou hit is y-went: þet þis boc is y-write mid Engliss of Kent."
Prev
Linear Mode
