Re: Representing futuristic English

In article <1h42nzg.1k2upgg1aqy6pgN%zeborah@xxxxxxxxx>,
zeborah@xxxxxxxxx (Zeborah) wrote:

> <random> An audio file of a verse of the Pearl:
> http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~holteir/companion/Navigation/An
> onymous_Texts/Pearl/SpecimenPearl/pearl.wav

Pretty.

> <random #2> Is this also hard to read?:
>
> "my tender and lvfin wif derlo thou hast thou pay for mee with wipin jes
> and sarofvl harts wich god abof do know wee thare war forst to part at
> that dolsvm plas abof riton bvt it my prayers for the and my sweet bab
> vpon my benddid nies and to the Lord mosthi I shall eaver pray and my
> sweet bab also the Lord prasarf yov both Crist kip yov all so pray for
> me swet lvf for my protexon and saf arifel kip well my lvf in stor and
> til sich times it shall plas god to bringe us to gather again jf plas
> god as that j hap he is I do in tend as sven as j Cum at that land and
> dissposed of I do in tend to send for thee"

Spelling is odd. Otherwise the language looks mostly straightforward.

"My tender and loving wife dear, although you have your payment for me
with weeping eyes and sorrowful heart which god above do know we there
were first to part at that dolsome place above riton but it my prayers
for thee and my sweet baby upon my bended knees and to the Lord most
high I shall ever pray and my sweet baby also the Lord preserve you
both, Christ keep you all so pray for me sweet love for my protection
and safe arrival keep well my love in store and untill such times it
shall please god to bring us together again if it please god as I hope
it does I do intend as soon as I come at that land and am disposed of I
do intend to send for you.

What most strikes me is the general incoherence from running it all into
one sentence--which I suspect is a characteristic of the writer, not the
language he speaks, and would have been a problem for a contemporary as
well.

....

> > How about English from c. 1200? That's the same time before Shakespeare
> > as Shakespeare is before us.

> <searches> No, I can't understand that. I recognise words, and I
> understand bits and pieces, but it's too far away for me to understand.
> Whether Shakespeare could have... <shrug> See below, where I say
> several times "I don't actually for certain know."

There isn't much we know for certain, but the claim that he couldn't
strikes me as a lot more plausible than the claim that he could
understand it as well as we can understand him--because how easily we
can understand him gives us at least some feel for how close his
language was to ours.

> > > > You are saying that there was a regional dialect in 1200 that
> > > > Shakespeare could have read as easily as we read him? Could you point to
> > > > examples?
> > >
> > > I am saying: "I don't actually for certain know. It may be a little
> > > easier, it may be a little harder. I doubt that it would be much easier
> > > or much harder."
> > >
> > > By the last sentence, I am saying specifically that I imagine there
> > > would be some regional dialects that would be easier and some that would
> > > be harder.
> >
> > You imagine that there were some English regional dialects c. 1200 that
> > would be easier for Shakespeare to read than he is for us to read? If
> > you come across one, I would be interested to read a sample.
>
> I never said that, either. Read: "I imagine there would be some
> regional dialects that would be easier [than others] and some that would
> be harder [than others]."

I asked if you were saying that there was a regional dialect in 1200
that Shakespeare could have read as easily as we read him. In your
reply--directly to that question--you said "It may be a little easier,
it may be a little harder. I doubt that it would be much easier or much
harder."

I don't see how one can parse that other than as "easier or harder than
we can read Shakespeare." In particular, "it may be a little easier, it
may be a little harder" makes no sense except in that sense.

> In my original "I expect it would depend largely...", read: "I expect
> the level of difficulty would depend largely...".
>
> (One of the texts I read this afternoon said that at some point there
> was a sharp discontinuity between the language of surviving texts not
> because English had changed in the meantime but because most of the
> texts we have before that point are from one region, and most of the
> texts we have from after are from the London region. Unfortunately, I
> was juggling two texts at the time, lost my place and couldn't find it
> again, nor can I remember what the time period was that it was talking
> about; I think it was the 14th or 15th, but it might have been the 12th.
> So this is not evidence for the specific case, just proof-of-concept.)

It's proof-of-concept for the claim that some regional dialects would be
harder for us to read than others, which I agree with.

....

> Language changes faster at some times than at others; this is why I've
> readily admitted that it might have been either a little easier or a
> little harder or approximately the same for Shakespeare to read English
> from about 1200.
>
> I don't believe it would have been a *lot* easier or a *lot* harder.
> This is because language doesn't change overnight and it doesn't stop
> changing entirely for centuries (even decades, even years) on end.

As it happens, we have a pretty good idea of what was being spoken in
England six hundred years before Shakespeare--and it wasn't English.

> (The beauty of my argument, she says mischievously, is that I haven't
> defined either "a little" or "a lot".)

If in fact you intended to make an empty claim, why did you bother?

> > > > How about Beowulf? Do you have any opinion on how easily Shakespeare
> > > > could read that?
> > >
> > > No, because a) I haven't ever looked at the original of it, so I don't
> > > know how easily *I* could read it (probably not all all but one never
> > > knows), and b) I don't know precisely what Shakespeare's education was.
> >
> > Then I don't think you are in a good position to hold the opinions you
> > have expressed. To someone who has not studied Anglo-Saxon, Beowulf
> > reads like a foreign language.
>
> Beowulf was written in Old English around 1000 AD, perhaps earlier;
> we've been talking about 1200, which the texts I've read this afternoon
> all count as Middle English. I haven't expressed any opinions about
> 1000 AD.

You have expressed two opinions which the case of Beowulf is relevant to.

1. That James hadn't offered any evidence for his claims--when the
actual evidence he offered was texts. If reading texts from different
periods provides no evidence of how our comprehension of a text at some
time in the past compares to the ability of people at that time to
comprehend texts from some earlier time, then it still provides no
evidence when the earlier time is six hundred years earlier instead of
four hundred. That, I think, was the argument Brian was making when he
accused me of thinking I could read the mind of someone 400 years ago,
and you implied the same argument when you said James had offered no
evidence.

Do you disagree?

In the case of Beowulf the conclusion is pretty obviously false, hence
the general claim is false as well.

2. You wrote, more recently:

> I don't believe it would have been a *lot* easier or a *lot* harder.
> This is because language doesn't change overnight and it doesn't stop
> changing entirely for centuries (even decades, even years) on end.

The context was the amount of change between 1200 and 1600, and what you
could say of it on theoretical grounds, without looking at the texts.
The fact that stretching the time two centuries further makes the claim
clearly false is a good reason to doubt that you can deduce it on
theoretical grounds--I don't think you are claiming that how fast
language changes is something you know a priori to that degree of
accuracy.

....

> Thirdly, the only standard of evidence that I have proposed so far is
> that James actually present some. Any.
>
> If you think this is too high a standard of evidence to expect, then
> I'll modify it: that he simply tell what reason he has for believing
> it.

The evidence he presented was quoting texts, although I don't think he
got as far back as 1200.

--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
    ... Is that supposed to be cast-iron evidence? ... emperor we have evidence of a Christian NT that largely looks the same ... Most ancient texts have had a very quiet life ... How many Gutenburg Bibles, or copies of Foxes Book of Martyrs have been carbon dated... ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. ... 458 Manchester from the 2nd century BCE is the oldest ... hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from ... Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.
    ... complete foreign culture (including language) become practised by ... You say evidence of it does exist - ... >> Linguistics are a poor indicator as it relies VERY heavily on totally ... Instead, Old Norse ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "Its uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
    ... There is ample evidence that "intelligence" has had considerable ... > with other animals run up against a critical problem - we are capable ... > of things that other animals are not (language being the obvious ... Natural selection propels some species along a ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... I'm not arguing that you don't get to weigh the evidence for yourself. ... All I'm saying is that there are no contemporary texts that record the life ... the ancient churches all having the same four Gospels ... impression that your beliefs were a matter of faith. ...
    (talk.origins)