# By what time period did English become intelligible to 21st century Americans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841 "2004-01-23T23:55:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/21 "2004-01-26T21:43:19Z")
I defy any of you to easily read Old English/Anglo Saxon: > [@](#): > > \*\*A scyle geong mon wesan geomormod, > heard heortan geþoht, swylce habban sceal > bliþe gebæro, eac þon breostceare, > > sinsorgna gedreag, sy æt him sylfum gelong > eal his worulde wyn, sy ful wide fah > feorres folclondes, þæt min freond siteð > under stanhliþe storme behrimed, > wine werigmod, wætre beflowen > > on dreorsele. Dreogeð se min wine > micle modceare; he gemon to oft > wynlicran wic. Wa bið þam þe sceal > of langoþe leofes abidan.\*\* This is from a poem called “The Wife’s Lament.” It’s very sad and mysterious, about a woman desert on an island by her lord/husband. The last time: “Wa bið þam…” translates as: > [@](#): > > **Woe is that which shall abide from longing for beloved ones.** ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/22 "2004-01-26T22:26:23Z")
Here is a bit of the Cantebury Tales, written in the 1390’s Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote The droghte of March hath perced to the roote And bathed every veyne in swich licour, Of which vertu engendred is the flour; 5 Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth Inspired hath in every holt and heeth The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne, And smale foweles maken melodye, 10 That slepen al the nyght with open eye- (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages); Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; 15 And specially from every shires ende Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende, The hooly blisful martir for the seke That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke. Bifil that in that seson, on a day, 20 In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage To Caunterbury with ful devout corage, At nyght was come into that hostelrye Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye 25 Of sondry folk, by aventure yfalle Some parts are pretty easy to follow, others leave me at a complete loss, such as " To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes" ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/23 "2004-01-26T22:57:05Z")
Having transcribed a number of American documents of the 1600s, I find it pretty intelligible to read once I got down with the idea that many writers liked to show off by seeing how many _different_ ways they could spell a word, particularly place names. I think that actually provides a pretty strong clue as to how the word is pronounced. [Here](http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/charter_new_plymouth.asp) is an interesting example of a variably spelled place name from 1629: Coa hassett alias Cona hassett Coahassett alias-Cone hassett Coahassett alias Conahassett Which is almost certainly modern-day [Cohasset](http://www.state.ma.us/cc/cohasset.html), Massachusetts. Of course, it takes me a few days just to really get familliar with a Scot’s accent, so there can be plenty of variation in the way something is spelled and the way it’s pronounced. Still, I think the near-phonetic spellings of the 1600s indicate that the spoken language was not too dissimilar from today’s. ---
**Author:** ![Kempis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kempis/32/19248_2.png) [@Kempis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kempis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/24 "2004-01-27T02:06:27Z")
> [@istara](#): > > I defy any of you to easily read Old English/Anglo Saxon: I think istara’s example of Anglo-Saxon shows that Old English is not intelligible to modern English-speakers. Also, I think the above clip of Chaucer with modern spelling shows how modern people can understand a lot of what’s written and puzzle out most of the rest of it based on context. Does anyone has an example of something written between 1066 and Chaucer’s time? It’s fun to imagine how far back in time I would be able to go in England and still be able to reasonably converse. -k ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/25 "2004-01-27T02:32:13Z")
> [@Kempis](#): > > I think istara’s example of Anglo-Saxon shows that Old English is not intelligible to modern English-speakers. > > Also, I think the above clip of Chaucer with modern spelling shows how modern people can understand a lot of what’s written and puzzle out most of the rest of it based on context. > > Does anyone has an example of something written between 1066 and Chaucer’s time? It’s fun to imagine how far back in time I would be able to go in England and still be able to reasonably converse. > > -k It’s interesting that you should ask that using Chaucer as an example. If Chaucer himself were to read the Canterbury Tales to you, you’d wonder what the hell he was saying. Pronunciations have changed significantly in the past 600 years. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/26 "2004-01-27T08:07:57Z")
I find the Bard a struggle to understand, though I have watched and enjoyed perhaps a dozen or so of his plays. That said, I suspect that it is misleading to consider his speech representative of Elizabethan England: the Mayflower Compact (1620) and _A Model of Christian Charity_ (John Winthrop, 1630) are fairly lucid to my eyes and ears. Here’s a sample: Mayflower: > [@](#): > > In the name of God Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James by the grace of God, of great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of the faith, &c. > > Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countryie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, convenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick; for our better ordering , & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame shuch just & equal lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitusions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for the generall good of the Colonie: unto which we promise all due submissiom and obdedience. Ok, but when was the phrase, “run-on sentence” coined? Winthrop : God Almightie in his most holy and wise providence hath soe disposed of the Condicion of mankinde, as in all times some must be rich some poore, some highe and eminent in power and dignitie; others meane and in subieccion. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/27 "2004-01-27T14:11:46Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Ok, but when was the phrase, “run-on sentence” coined? > > Winthrop : > God Almightie in his most holy and wise providence hath soe disposed of the Condicion of mankinde, as in all times some must be rich some poore, some highe and eminent in power and dignitie; others meane and in subieccion. That’s a run-on sentence? That’s NOTHING! Check out a couple of pages from the likes of Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan). Apparently, the cost of periods was considerably more than semicolons a few centuries ago. Either that, or periods were so rare that writers felt duty bound to conserve them. Hobbes’ sentences were often hundreds of words long and replete with parenthetical thoughts. (I think he and his peers were showing off–showing the complexity of their minds.) **Ultrafilter** is right about Chaucer. I’ve heard it read in the original. Almost impossible to understand. Re: the statement of **Measure for Measure** : “I find the Bard a struggle to understand, though I have watched and enjoyed perhaps a dozen or so of his plays.” I think many contemporary Americans would agree. That said, I’m guessing Shakespeare deliberately wrote in a sophisticated style for his time period. Can anyone confirm this? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/28 "2004-01-27T14:24:40Z")
Shakespeare is more difficult to understand than most writers of his period for several reasons. First, his plays are written in a metrical pattern, and the grammar is often twisted to accommodate this. Second, they’re full of allusions, and it takes a knowledge of the scientific, literary, political, etc. facts of his day to understand. Third, he had an enormous vocabulary. I’ve seen estimates that he must have had one of the largest vocabularies of anyone who’s ever written in English. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/29 "2004-01-27T15:09:52Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > , I suppose, to a modern reader unversed in Old English. And that’s over a century older than the ballad. Nit pick, but that verse is NOT written in Old English. It’s middle english. Old english would be almost completely uninteligeble to a modern englich speaking person, or even a german person, regardless of it’s germanic influence. Middle engligh, specially towards later periods is much more easily understood, but only when written. If you were to hear a person speak it, I’d guarantee you would likely not make out more than a word or two. The pronounciation is very germanic/french like, and not like modern english. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/30 "2004-01-27T17:37:46Z")
Arrrgh…until you said that, **Kinthalis** , I had no idea I typed that. **Duke** ’s brain: “That’s it, I’m outta here…” (sound of door slamming, brain walking away) ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/31 "2004-01-27T18:28:44Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > Third, he had an enormous vocabulary. I’ve seen estimates that he must have had one of the largest vocabularies of anyone who’s ever written in English. Depending how you count them, Shakespeare used between 29,066 and [31,534](http://spruce.flint.umich.edu/~hwall/psy301/shakespeare.html) different words in his works, including proper names. However, when you count the number of root words, or lemmas, that number is reduced to about 18,000 to 20,000. According to research by Professor [David Crystal](http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/howmany.htm), one of the world’s foremost authorities on language, the average college graduate may have an active vocabulary of 60,000 words, and a passive vocabulary of 75,000 words, counting only dictionary head words. [Crystal on Shakespeare’s vocabulary.](http://www.penguin.co.uk/shared/WebDisplay/1,,62049_1_10,00.html?cs=10) ---
**Author:** ![Kempis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kempis/32/19248_2.png) [@Kempis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kempis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/32 "2004-01-27T18:48:18Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > It’s interesting that you should ask that using Chaucer as an example. If Chaucer himself were to read the Canterbury Tales to you, you’d wonder what the hell he was saying. Pronunciations have changed significantly in the past 600 years. That sounds reasonable, though now I’m curious to know how linguists have come to this conclusion. -k curious ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/33 "2004-01-27T19:20:48Z")
Quoth **zimaane** : > [@](#): > > Some parts are pretty easy to follow, others leave me at a complete loss, such as " To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes" The only word that leaves me at a complete loss there is “kowthe”. I would think it related to modern “go”, except that we’ve elsewhere seen “goon on pilgrimages”. “To” and “in” are, of course, the same as modern. “ferne” might be cognate to “foreign”, or it might be to “fern” (a reference to palms?). “halwes” would be holy or hallowed, and “sondry londes” are “sundry lands”. And this is all without any knowledge of Germanic languages (other than modern English, of course). Of course, one might even argue that modern American English and modern British English are not completely co-intelligible. Ask a Brit sometime what he thinks of the idea of making a “peanut butter and jelly sandwich”. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/34 "2004-01-27T19:32:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **zimaane** :The only word that leaves me at a complete loss there is “kowthe”. I would think it related to modern “go”, except that we’ve elsewhere seen “goon on pilgrimages”. “To” and “in” are, of course, the same as modern. “ferne” might be cognate to “foreign”, or it might be to “fern” (a reference to palms?). “halwes” would be holy or hallowed, and “sondry londes” are “sundry lands”. And this is all without any knowledge of Germanic languages (other than modern English, of course). > > Of course, one might even argue that modern American English and modern British English are not completely co-intelligible. Ask a Brit sometime what he thinks of the idea of making a “peanut butter and jelly sandwich”. I I’m almost certain that ferne = foreign and that halwes is related to halwes. ‘kowthe’ = ‘couth’, which is an obselet word, though uncouth is till sometimes used, if a littel archaic. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/35 "2004-01-27T19:44:31Z")
d’oh sorry I menat “I’m pretty sure halwes is related to hallow”, I’d hazard the gues that ‘halwes’ = ‘hallows’ = ‘saints’ (as in ‘all hallows’ = ‘all saints’) = ‘saint’s shrines’ ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/36 "2004-01-27T19:50:10Z")
For those of you who may be curious to hear what middle english sounded like: [http://www.umkc.edu/lib/engelond/prologue.htm](http://www.umkc.edu/lib/engelond/prologue.htm) (you’ll need real player). Close your eyes and don’t look at the words and you’ll see that it is very difficult to make out what the person is saying. Sounds beautiful IMHO too 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/37 "2004-01-27T19:57:53Z")
And a bonus treat: An Old English poem, “The dream of the rood”. Text: [http://www.flsouthern.edu/eng/abruce/rood/ROODTEXT/OE~1.HTM](http://www.flsouthern.edu/eng/abruce/rood/ROODTEXT/OE%7E1.HTM) Real media reading: [http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/noa/realmedia/TheDreamOfRoad.rm](http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/noa/realmedia/TheDreamOfRoad.rm) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/38 "2004-01-27T20:17:28Z")
> [@Mk VII](#): > > for a quick test, try Samuel Pepys’s diary at [http://www.pepysdiary.com/](http://www.pepysdiary.com/) Saturday 26 January 1660/61 Within all the morning. About noon comes one that had formerly known me and I him, but I know not his name, to borrow 5l. of me, but I had the wit to deny him. There dined with me this day both the Pierces and their wives, and Captain Cuttance, and Lieutenant Lambert, with whom we made ourselves very merry by taking away his ribbans and garters, having made him to confess that he is lately married. The company being gone I went to my lute till night, and so to bed. [HIJACK] Excuse me, but THIS is the greatest diarist in the English Language? "I stayed in all morning then some guy whose name I don’t remember dropped by to borrow some money but I turned him down. Then some other people dropped by and we ate and played games. After they left I played my lute and went to bed. And how big a loser do you have to be to get your name forgotten by a bigger name dropper than Truman Capote and Andy Warhol combined? [HIJACK] ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/39 "2004-01-27T20:32:31Z")
I don’t know if anyone saw Melyvn Bragg’s "The Journey of English’, they had a reconstruction of English as spoken by Shakespeare, it sounded like a west country accent (for Americans think generic Englsih farmer, pirate, peasant accent) with more than a touch of Brummie (the accent of Ozzy Osbourne). The intresting thing about Chaucer is that he was writing in the London/East Midlands dialect which formed the basis for standard English of the modern period. Therfore as he was writin in the arse-half of the Middle English period, his dialect should be one of the most understandable to present-day English speakers. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841/40 "2004-01-28T07:38:23Z")
Walloon writes: \> Depending how you count them, Shakespeare used between 29,066 and \> 31,534 different words in his works, including proper names. However, when \> you count the number of root words, or lemmas, that number is reduced to \> about 18,000 to 20,000. \> \> According to research by Professor David Crystal, one of the world’s foremost \> authorities on language, the average college graduate may have an active \> vocabulary of 60,000 words, and a passive vocabulary of 75,000 words, \> counting only dictionary head words. O.K., but how does that relate to what I was saying? A person may have an active vocabulary of 60,000 words, but that doesn’t mean that they are going to use that many of them in the body of their writings. That figure of 60,000 isn’t calculated by going through the body of their writings (which most people don’t have anyway). It’s calculated by getting them to write a few short essays and estimating from that how many words they could use in writing if they wanted to. I assumed when I started reading your post that you were going to give some examples of writers who had used more different words than Shakespeare, but that’s not what you’ve done. Are there any other examples of writers who have used 30,000, let alone 60,000, words in their writings? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/by-what-time-period-did-english-become-intelligible-to-21st-century-americans/225841.md?page=3)