# How far back in time could we go with modern English and still be understood? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 27, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272 "2003-07-27T16:36:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/1 "2003-07-27T16:36:32Z")
Just wondering how far languages diverge over time. How far back can we go before a modern English speaker would have real trouble making themselves understood? Could a modern English speaker be understood by a speaker of Old or Middle English or are Old English and Middle English so different from modern english as to be virtually unintelligible if an Old or Middle English speaker was magically transported to the current era? How about Colonial English? Could I have a coherent conversation with Chaucer? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/2 "2003-07-27T16:37:37Z")
How far back in time could we go with modern English _and_ still be understood? Would a kindly mod please fix the title? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/3 "2003-07-27T16:42:54Z")
IIRC, it would depend on _where_ you went as well. there were parts of England that were seperated by as little as 30 miles that had mutually unintelligible dialects of English. It also would depend on what you’re defining as modern English- the written version, or one of the spoken Englishes-Ozzie Englishes, American Englishes, one of the many British Englishes. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/4 "2003-07-27T16:49:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*IIRC, it would depend on _where_ you went as well. there were parts of England that were seperated by as little as 30 miles that had mutually unintelligible dialects of English. > > It also would depend on what you’re defining as modern English- the written version, or one of the spoken Englishes-Ozzie Englishes, American Englishes, one of the many British Englishes. \*\* Well let’s say the American English spoken by TV anchor Tom Brokaw or the “English” English spoken by BBC announcer Peter Jefferson. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/5 "2003-07-27T16:51:41Z")
The [writings of Sir Thomas More](http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/more/utopia-I.html) (who died in 1535) are a breeze to read; there may be a word here and there you have trouble with, but you’ll at least get the jist of everything he says. The writings of [Chaucer](http://www.librarius.com/cantales.htm) , who died in 1400, while still understandable in most parts, are significantly harder and much more of the nuance is lost and in some places require translation into modern English if you really want to grasp them. Based on this, I’d say you could safely go back to the Early Tudor era but before then you’re getting murky and by the time you reach the Plantaganets you’ll need an interpreter. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/6 "2003-07-27T17:06:06Z")
Um, **Sampiro** , of _course_ that first link is a breeze to read – _Utopia_ was originally written in Latin, and the translation you’ve linked to is dated 1901. For a sample of More’s _English_ writings, look [here](http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/r3.html). It’s still easier going than Chaucer (although, of course, prose usually is easier than poetry), but definitely archaic-sounding. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/7 "2003-07-27T17:17:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine \* > **Um, Sampiro, of _course_ that first link is a breeze to read – _Utopia_ was originally written in Latin, and the translation you’ve linked to is dated 1901.** Ok, so we have a partial answer. We know we can go back to at least 1901 and be understood. ---
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/8 "2003-07-27T17:25:41Z")
These court reports from the Old Bailey in London date from as far back as 1674: [http://www.oldbaileyonline.org.uk/](http://www.oldbaileyonline.org.uk/) The text appears to have been scanned from original documents, keeping exactly the same words and spellings. So we’ve pushed it back to 1674 so far. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/9 "2003-07-27T17:28:33Z")
Keep in mind that pronunciation has changed a great deal. I have no training in how to read Middle English but I managed to read “Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight” in ME and translate it to modern English fairly accurately. Reading, however, is much easier than listening to it and understanding it. The word “knight” originally had no silent letters in it. As it was spelled the same, you would still read it as “knight,” but hearing it spoken aloud with every letter pronounced, would you still understand? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/10 "2003-07-27T17:29:11Z")
We would have to presume an educated time-travler and an educated listener. I would guess with those stipulations, the answer is pretty far back. Olde Time Englishe would have a honkin’ gruesome accent to our ears, but you can get used to that. Many of the basic nouns are unchanged. (You would have a hard time explaining a laser to Edward I, but he could catch your drift about bread pretty well.) Our time-traveller would be up and communicating in Old English by then of the week I should guess. More if we gave him some Latin and French to help him out before sending him off. ---
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/11 "2003-07-27T17:31:17Z")
It seems the earliest published records only go back to the 1710s. I can’t seem to find any records from 1674. Here is a published page of proceedings from 1714: [http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/gifs/1710s/171412090001.gif](http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/gifs/1710s/171412090001.gif) Seems quite readable to me, and I’m sure a speaker of that time would understand a modern English speaker. ---
**Author:** ![aaslatten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@aaslatten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaslatten)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/12 "2003-07-27T17:39:32Z")
Being able to read something and being able to understand it spoken are not exactly the same thing. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) is generally taught as a foreign language, because it is difficult to parse and read, but you’d probably be amazed how much you’d pick up if you heard it spoken in an authentic voice. ---
**Author:** ![lilbtagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4491bb/32.png) [@lilbtagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilbtagna)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/13 "2003-07-27T17:48:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racinchikki \* > **The word “knight” originally had no silent letters in it. As it was spelled the same, you would still read it as “knight,” but hearing it spoken aloud with every letter pronounced, would you still understand?** [Monty Python] You dirty English ka-nig-it! [/MP] I’ve taken a class on Medieval English Literature, and from what my professor told our class and what we read, it really isn’t that hard to get used to. Double vowels in writing meant that when the word was pronounced, the vowel sound would just last longer. There was also the great vowel shift that lead to English vowels sounding different from romance language vowels. By the end of the semester, we were all reading Chaucer out loud with ease. Reading it silently is still hard for me though, because his spellings were all phonetic. We also looked at the untranslated _Beowulf_ text that came in one of our books, and I found that to be extremely difficult to hear or read and be able to understand it. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/14 "2003-07-27T18:15:16Z")
Well the Modern English period starts at 1500 (though of course early Modern English didn’t just come into being at this time) most things written after this time are pretty easy to understand as long as you adjust for the arcane language and variable spelling. Chaucer is written in the East Midlands dialect of Middle English, the dialect which informed standard English and therefore Modern English the most, which makes him alot easier to understand than other contempary writers writing in different dialects: > [@](#): > > Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote > The Droghte of Marche hath pereced the rote, > And bathed every veyne in swich licour, > Of which vertu engendred is the flour; > Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth > Inspired hath in every holt and heeth > The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne > Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, > And smale fowles maken melodye, > That slepen al the night with open yë, > (So priketh hem nature in hir corages): > … London dialect Canterbury Tales c.1387 Compared to Kentish: > [@](#): > > Nou ich wille þet ye ywyete hou hit is y-went: > þet þis boc is y-write mid engliss of kent. > þis boc is y-mad vor lewede men, > Vor vader and vor moder, and vor oþer ken, > ham vor to berþ3e vram alle manyere zen, > þet ine hare inwytte ne bleve no voul wen. > … Dan Micheal, Ayenbite of Inwyt, 1340. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/15 "2003-07-27T18:17:14Z")
oops, that should be “ber3e” in the second quote. Btw the 3 here is used as ‘a yogh’ as I don’t have one on my character set. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/16 "2003-07-27T18:22:25Z")
I should add that both can be understood easier if you realize that the spelling is roughly phonetic. Also the second one can be better understood when you know that the ‘þ’ or ‘thorn’ can simply be viewed as a ‘th’. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/17 "2003-07-27T18:44:29Z")
Oops again, ‘þ’ is the ‘eth’ not the ‘thorn’. ---
**Author:** ![Sattua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sattua/32/11906_2.png) [@Sattua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sattua)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/18 "2003-07-27T18:47:45Z")
Yes, ditto on the observation above: one can go as far as Modern English goes and still understand it; it’s somewhere in Middle English that it becomes difficult and, in Early Middle or Old, impossible to understand without help. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/19 "2003-07-27T18:54:51Z")
Yes, but you can still understand SOME middle English, dependent on the dialect and how far back in time it is. Old English is very difficult to understand due to the fact that the vocabulary is very different. ps please ignore my previous post, it is most defintely the ‘thorn’, the eth is another old English character, from runic, which also approximates to ‘th’. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272/20 "2003-07-27T19:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine \* > \*\*Um, **Sampiro** , of _course_ that first link is a breeze to read – _Utopia_ was originally written in Latin, and the translation you’ve linked to is dated 1901. > > \*\* Yes, but the 1901 translation only changed two words from the original, which is a manuscript in my personal possession that’s been handed down in my family since 1535 when he gave it for safekeeping to my ggggggg-grandfather, Euthanasius Sampyrro of Ghyrle-on-Ghurl, with the specific request that it never be put onto the Internet. Now, because of your comments, I’m not going to show it to you. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-back-in-time-could-we-go-with-modern-english-and-still-be-understood/191272.md?page=2)