# What changed in the English language in the 17th century?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 2, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153 "2006-06-02T16:22:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [June 4, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153/21 "2006-06-04T15:28:01Z")

</div>

> [@Wendell Wagner](#):
>
> I’m now guessing that “For” introduces the sentence and just means “Well, as we all know”. So this sentence says, “Well, as we all know, tobacco (a common herb), was first found out by some of the barbarous Indians to be a preservative or antidote against the pox, a filthy disease, where unto these barbarous people are (as all men know) very much subject . . .”

Right…Look at what the king is saying here. In the first sentence he says that there are customs we practice that are invented by noble people from advanced civilizations for good reasons, and those are therefore good customs, and there are other customs that are barbarous, invented by base people for bad reasons, and those are bad customs.

And so he starts the second sentence with “For” because that’s what you do (did) when making an argument/giving an example like that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\
**Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153/22 "2006-06-04T16:15:24Z")

</div>

In this sentence, “for” is a conjunction, juxtaposing, linking, or contrasting the thought before it with the thought after it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\
**Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153/23 "2006-06-04T16:22:45Z")

</div>

> [@633squadron](#):
>
> Moreover, formal Latin and Greek writing uses rhetorical forms that, when translated into modern English, seem excessively flowery and overdone.
> 
> Remember, though, that in the 17th Century one’s ability to use these forms was a mark of sophistication, intelligence, and erudition. Using “simple” English marked you as a dimwit! Thus writers deliberately piled on the words.

What did they think of Shakespeare then? From what I have read and the few plays I’ve actually seen (all in the form of movies), I don’t think he wasted a word in his life.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153/24 "2006-06-04T17:06:11Z")

</div>

John Dryden has always been regarded as the bridge between 17th century English and the English of today. Reading the prefaces to his plays (written between c.1660-1700) one suddenly hears the voice of modern English.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-changed-in-the-english-language-in-the-17th-century/359153.md?page=1)