I was listening to a hundred-year-old recording of Houdini and it occurred to me, with all the forensic tools and electronic analysis we are capable of, would it be possible to use written text to get an idea what people sounded like long before recording? I mean, could analyzing what is written give us a realistic idea of the cadences, melodies, accents and speaking habits of our ancestors, such that we could actually make movies that would fairly faithfully reproduce their dialog? And how hard would they be to understand?
This probably belongs in IMHO, but I thought I would start it here
I’m no expert, but I understand that there’s at least some information what people sounded like already. One example I recall (IIRC from a Cecil column) is the Great Vowel Shift during 1350 - 1700.
There’s supposedly actually some evidence about the Great Vowel Shift from writings of the time. There are some informal writings (personal journals and such) in which people try to change their spelling to keep up with the changes in pronunciations. There are even a few cases where older people remark on those changes in younger people.
I remember that some years ago a Moliere play was presented as it would have been at the time (for instance with danced parts that aren’t included anymore nowadays, light coming only from candles, etc…). This included accent and diction. Apparently there are enough 17th century books about these topics (intended I assume to teach people how to speak correctly and also in this case about specific language patterns expected from actors) to figure out quite precisely what the spoken language sounded like ( “proper language”, actor’s peculiarities but also imroper and popular diction or accent)
How accurate such a reconstitution can be, I obviously woudln’t know.