Re: Representing futuristic English

On 28 Sep 2005 00:40:29 -0700, <triad3204@xxxxxxx> wrote in
rec.arts.sf.composition:

> Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> Here we go again. The argument can be made only by those
>> who are unaware of the facts. There has been about as much
>> change in English in the last 400 years as in the 400 years
>> from 900 to 1300 CE (Sarah Grey Thomason & Terrence Kaufman,
>> Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics,
>> Unic. of Calif. Press, 1988, §9.8.11)

> I can read Shakespeare.

Mostly, I expect, yes. (Without special study or references
you're likely to misunderstand some things, owing to changes in
meaning of some words and to some unfamiliar constructions.)

> Shakespeare couldn't read the English of 1200 AD.

And you know this how?

For that matter, what makes you think that it would be an
accurate measure of change? If you've actually read the thread
in its entirety, you should already know that it's not, from the
post in which I wrote:

You should also remember that some kinds of change are
easier to compensate for than others. There's been very
considerable change in English grammar in the last 400
years, for instance, but you mostly don't notice it, because
a lot of it involves the addition of new constructions:
apart from a few archaic ones that until recently have been
kept in people's minds by the King James Bible, the
constructions of 400 years ago are a subset of those
available today. (One example off the top of my head:
Shakespeare couldn't have said 'The house is being built',
because the passive progressive didn't exist in his day).

Shakespeare would have as much harder time with our English, even
our written English not using a lot of modern vocabulary, than
you have with his.

> So obviously the pace and degree of linguistic change DOES
> vary, a fact you implicitly admit when you choose to compare
> the last 400 years to a different span of 400 years rather
> than the immediately preceding 400 years.

Actually, I chose the interval 900 - 1300 because I could cite a
specific reference for that comparison.

And of course the rate of linguistic change is not constant; no
one said that it was.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Representing futuristic English
    ... > who are unaware of the facts. ... > Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, ... Shakespeare couldn't read the English of 1200 ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Representing futuristic English
    ... who are unaware of the facts. ... There has been about as much change in English in the last 400 years as in the 400 years ... Shakespeare couldn't read the English of 1200 ... ignorant people is too dangerous to live in." ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Representing futuristic English
    ... teenagers and ask them if Shakespeare is easy to understand. ... it's less likely that he could have understood 1200 AD English than I ... I'm not, by this, saying anything about language ... >> (One of the texts I read this afternoon said that at some point there ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Representing futuristic English
    ... >> English except with different spelling. ... That's the same time before Shakespeare ... was a sharp discontinuity between the language of surviving texts not ... So this is not evidence for the specific case, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Plausibility Check
    ... the words that are much less different that "zwanzig tausend" and "zwei ... Sloppily pronounced zwAEnztuusig - zwEI hnr tuusig ... open the site on Shakespeare vs. Bacon, ... 500,000 words in present-day English, well, that seems ...
    (sci.lang)