118 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] thread
This is a good quick example, almost like an eye test where the characters are harder to interpret when you go down the page because they are smaller.

Only for this the font stays the same size, and it gets harder to interpret as is deviates further from modern English.

For me, I can easily go back to about when the printing press got popular.

No coincidence I think.

Yeah, I think[*] that's common for most languages: With much more material in writing, vocabulary and spelling stabilize.

___

[*]: I guess, from what I've understood -- absolutely no expert, just interested.

the experience of grendle in the original flashing between comprehensibility and jumbled letters is as far back as I have gone, but I read everything truely ancient that I can get my hands on from any culture in any language(translated) and try and make sense of it best as I can
How far into the future is my concern
Should be "how far back in time can you read English?" The language itself is what is spoken and the writing, while obviously related, is its own issue. Spelling is conventional and spelling and alphabet changes don't necessarily correspond to anything meaningful in the spoken language; meanwhile there can be large changes in pronunciation and comprehensibility that are masked by an orthography that doesn't reflect them.
> Should be "how far back in time can you read English?"

Made a version with modern glyphs to help separate language familiarity from writing familiarity:

https://gist.github.com/terretta/5be1e14b42cf62ec9c235c7cd88...

All credit to original, just agreed with your point this munged two things as presented and preferred to focus on the language.

I honestly didn't know English had so many non-Latin characters in those centuries. Like a modern English reader can more easily read (but not understand) a Roman inscription than some of these examples.
I am an ESL, but I can easily comprehend 1600. 1500 with serious effort.
At around 1200, Godzilla had a stroke
(comment deleted)
Seems to be heavily focused on orthography. In 1700s we get the long S that resembles an F. In 1600 we screw with the V's and U's. In 1400, the thorn and that thing that looks like a 3 appears. Then more strange symbols show up later on as well.
If you want to improve your score, the blog author (Dr. Colin Gorrie) has just the thing: a book which will teach you Old English by means of a story about a talking bear. Here's how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZhlWdVvZfw . Your dream of learning Old English has never been closer: get Ōsweald Bera https://colingorrie.com/books/osweald-bera/ today.
Yes. I could get over the 1300 hump and at least make general sense of everything past there because I have read about half of Ōsweald Bera
> No cap, that lowkey main character energy is giving skibidi rizz, but the fanum tax is cooked so we’re just catching strays in the group chat, fr fr, it’s a total skill issue, periodt.

I'd say around 2020

Around 1300 to 1400. Some words were harder. But English isn't my first language either. So I guess that's alright. I guess I'd be fine in the 1500 in England. At least language wise.
It will be interesting on how texting will change things down the road. For example, many people use 'u' instead of 'you'. Could that make English spelling in regards to how words are spoken worse or better then now ?
1500 is the threshold I think. I don’t understand 1400. I can go a bit further back in my mother tongue, but 1200 is definitely tough for me.
I can get through 1300 with some effort, but from 1200 I get nothing. Just a complete dropoff in that one time frame.
The other difficulties with older texts is not just the different spellings or the now arcane words - but that the meaning of some of those recognisable words changed over time. C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent book that describing the changing meanings of a word (he termed ramifications) and dedicated a chapter to details this for several examples including ‘Nature’, ‘Free’ and ‘Sense’. Would highly recommend a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_in_Words
Would be curious to know from other HN readers: how far back can you understand written prose of your own language, assuming the writing system uses mostly the same letter or characters?

Medieval French, Middle High German, Ancient Greek, Classical Arabic or Chinese from different eras, etc.

I'd love to see actual, authentic material that was rewritten through the years. One possibility is a passage from the Bible, though that's not usual English. Another is laws or other official texts - even if not exactly the same, they may be comparable. Maybe personal letters written from or to the same place about the same topic - e.g., from or to the Church of England and its predecessor about burial, marriage, or baptism.

The author Colin Gorrie, "PhD linguist and ancient language teacher", obviously knows their stuff. From my experience, much more limited and less informed, the older material looks like a modern writer mixing in some archaic letters and expression - it doesn't look like the old stuff and isn't nearly as challenging, to me.

This is cool, I love the concept.

I wonder how much our understanding of past language is affected by survivorship bias? Most text would have been written by a highly-educated elite, and most of what survives is what we have valued and prized over the centuries.

For instance, this line in the 1800s passage:

> Hunger, that great leveller, makes philosophers of us all, and renders even the meanest dish agreeable.

This definitely sounds like the 1800s to me, but part of that is the romance of the idea expressed. I wonder what Twitter would have been like back then, for instance, especially if the illiterate had speech-to-text.

There's also a lot of historical writing out there that's more or less the shorthand scribblings of shopkeepers, foremen, and low-level clerks, so it's not all flowery prose. There's even surviving Egyptian hieroglyphics that are more or less just work logs, and they're quite different than the painted ones in the tombs. Then there's the graffiti that's all over Pompeii.
Well, for a native speaker of Dutch who doesn't speak English at all (not many left since my grandmother died in 2014), I'd say old English is actually easier to read than modern - starting around 1400.

Around 1000, English and Dutch must have been mutually understandable.

That’s because Dutch is close to the original old german that it is derived from, just like English and modern German. English or as it is also known as Anglish, the language of the German tribe of the Angles, also known as the Anglo-Saxon group of Germanic people, are essentially Germans just like the indigenous ethnic people of modern Germany, as well as the ethnically German people of the Netherlands, aka the Dutch. That is of course also why the Netherlands is called the Nederlande in “Dutch” which is a reference to the lowland Germans. This becomes far clearer when you understand that the Germans refer to themselves as die Deutsche, which is where the “Dutch” get their English name, i.e., Nederland Deutsch, which means… self-referential… the lowland German people.

The unfortunate history of Europe is that the indigenous people of Central Europe are essentially all German people who have been divided and conquered by a ruling parasitic class that we all know moved around the continent, marrying into each other’s families and becoming the people’s aristocratic slave masters over centuries, which included linguistic divisions in things like naming, and even language “reforms”. Heck the English ruling class itself are Germans and they just changed their names when it was expedient to do so in order to continue filling the English people by not drawing attention to the fact that they were being set to fight their item bothers and sisters in WWI so that the British ruling class could remain their parasitic masters.

I'm fairly certain the "ruling parasitic class" in this bit:

> ...all German people who have been divided and conquered by a ruling parasitic class that we all know moved around the continent, marrying into each other’s families and becoming the people’s aristocratic slave masters over centuries

...is a weasel-worded way of saying "Jews". That is, this is just a re-spewing of the same old racist talking points from the original Nazis (and earlier).

Just in case anyone didn't see this for what it (almost certainly) is.

Eddie Izzard speaking old English to a Frisian farmer:

https://youtu.be/OeC1yAaWG34?si=lkoQ--uZNN8Ntpqy

As a Norwegian who speaks English and school-German, Dutch is fairly easy to read but sounds like you're speaking a mix of English, Norse and German with a mouthful of gravel (similar to the Danish, who Norwegians like to say speaks Norwegian with a potato in their mouth)

Almost correct, except it's Swedish the Danes are speaking with a hot potato in their mouth.
Well, I 100%'d Dark Souls, so surprisingly (or not) I can understand a lot of it.
@huflungdung:

Good for thee, ackcherly.