# Would we understand spoken Elizabethan English? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 16, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731 "2018-01-16T03:12:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jennshark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/1 "2018-01-16T03:12:01Z")
Just finished a great book about the era, it had a lot of snippets from comtemporaneous letters, books, speeches. I could plow through the text pretty well ( one writer, bless him, spelled “fight” five different ways in just three paragraphs). Would a modern American transported to an English village in 1575 be able to converse with Edward and Anne Ploughman? ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/2 "2018-01-16T03:21:25Z")
I can’t see how. Some English (as in British, Scottish or Irish) dialects are hard to catch now. If the writings of the time and the odd usage of some phrases and words tell you anything, It would probably be very incomprehensible to us. Imo. ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/3 "2018-01-16T03:39:43Z")
I suspect it wouldn’t take long to pick it up. You’d have to make an attempt, but with a decent understanding of the language, I suspect you’d catch on. Now, at first, you would be rather confused, but you would learn how to ask for clarification soon enough. Several years ago, I was part of an international group that met quarterly, generally for a week at a time. The facilitator was French, but the group conversed in English. At my first meeting, I was lucky to pick up on half of what the facilitator said. After a few meetings, I understood him quite well, even his Britishisms (being French, he spoke British English; I’m American (raised in The South). ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/4 "2018-01-16T03:49:35Z")
> [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](#): > > I suspect it wouldn’t take long to pick it up. I agree. I mean, it depends on your ear for accents (I’m pretty good with those Northern English and various Scottish accents, having lived up there, I suppose.) [Here’s an example](https://youtu.be/gPlpphT7n9s?t=170) of actors reproducing the original pronunciation of Shakespearean lines, which would qualify as Elizabethan English. I have no problem following along (granted, the RP English example is presented first, so my mind is primed with the words to expect, but I think even without that, it’s a lot easier to follow than some varieties of English I have encountered.) ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/5 "2018-01-16T03:52:13Z")
Elizabethan English is considered early Modern English, by people who study this sort of thing. The grammar would be largely familiar, although the sentence construction was much more arcane and ornate. People of the time favored a slower, more elaborate, style, rather than our current speed and conciseness. Understanding the vocabulary would be more of a mixed bag. They have words for items and concepts we don’t use any more, and vice versa, but the fundamental Latin & French loan words were already in the language. The Anglo-Saxon that makes up the frame of our language - all the little helper words like prepositions - would have been as obscure to them as it is to us. But they would have understood all the words in this sentence, here, for example. OTOH, every local idiom would have confounded people from the next town over, just as it would for us. But on the whole, we’d do ok here. The pronunciation … now there might trip modern people up. I mean, modern English accents still cause problems for modern English speakers, right? Watch a show like Time Team and it’s a whole zoo of people you wouldn’t believe were all from the same small island. There probably were even more accents in the Elizabethan error, because there was nothing like Received Pronunciation. Still, we could probably get by if we’re patient. Undoubtedly, one’s ear would pick it up before long. In short - if we found ourselves dropped in 1570 England, we could undoubtedly communicate well enough, provided we were patient and listened closely. You know - we have a huge body of literature from that time period, including court document, personal accounts, poetry, songs, various bureaucratic matters, religious works. It’s not hard to read today. Here, chosen at random is a passage from the forward to a poem, translated into four languages by George Gascoine as a gift to Queen Elizabeth (reproduced in the modern work,[_The Rhetoric of Courtship in Elizabethan Language and Literature_. by Catherine Bates](https://books.google.com/books?id=lJgTmQB__3AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=literature+elizabethan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKiYzlxtvYAhUjwYMKHdVDCKcQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=literature%20elizabethan&f=false)) fyndyng my youth myspent, my substaüce ympayred, my credytt accrased, my tallent hydden, my follyes laughed att, my rewyne unpytted, and my trewth unemployed/ all wch extremyties as they have of long tyme astonyed myne understanding, So have they of late openly called me to gods gates and yor matye being of God, godly, and (on earth) owr god (by god) appoynted, I presume lykewyse to knock att the gates of yor gracyous goodnes/ hopyng that yor highnes will sett me on worke though yt were noone and past before I soughte service.’ Which, if I normalize the spelling for our own time periods, becomes, Finding my youth misspent, my substance impaired, my credit accursed, my talent hidden, my follies laughed at, my revenue unpitted, and my truth unemployed/ all which extremities as they hav of long time astonished my understanding, So have they of late openly called me to God’s gates, your master being of God, godly, and (on earth) our god, (by God) appointed, I presume likewise to knock at the gates of your gracious goodness/ hoping that your highness will set me on work though it were noon and past before I sought service. Which, frankly, you undoubtedly already recognized from the Elizabethan English version. You might wonder at some of the constructions - unpitted for unpaid, “substance” he’s refering to his state of being - or you might get lost in his cutenesses about masters and God, but no one needs me to translate what he’s saying, right? Don’t try to match his ornateness, just be concise and plain spoken, and your next trip with The Doctor will go just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/6 "2018-01-16T04:03:08Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > fyndyng my youth myspent, my substaüce ympayred, my credytt accrased, my tallent hydden, my follyes laughed att, my rewyne unpytted, and my trewth unemployed/ all wch extremyties as they have of long tyme astonyed myne understanding, So have they of late openly called me to gods gates and yor matye being of God, godly, and (on earth) owr god (by god) appoynted, I presume lykewyse to knock att the gates of yor gracyous > goodnes/ hopyng that yor highnes will sett me on worke though yt were > noone and past before I soughte service. Boy, those people couldn’t spell for shit. A dyslectic, barefooted Appalachian 10 year old child could do better than that. It is no wonder they died out. In all seriousness, I do think it is interesting how they were so inconsistent even within the same block of text from the same person. It is like they were just freeforming it with whatever letters popped into their mind with no care for consistency. ---
**Author:** ![Jennshark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/7 "2018-01-16T04:03:43Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I agree. I mean, it depends on your ear for accents (I’m pretty good with those Northern English and various Scottish accents, having lived up there, I suppose.) [Here’s an example](https://youtu.be/gPlpphT7n9s?t=170) of actors reproducing the original pronunciation of Shakespearean lines, which would qualify as Elizabethan English. I have no problem following along (granted, the RP English example is presented first, so my mind is primed with the words to expect, but I think even without that, it’s a lot easier to follow than some varieties of English I have encountered.) I love Shakespeare done in authentic accents and don’t have trouble understanding these productions. Something I was quite struck by was how many words/terms/sayings from the era are used by my family (ex: the evening meal is called supper, not dinner; we eat dishes the yeoman and peasants ate. There are many more examples, but my thinker is tired). My people hitched a ride on the Mayflower, it’s cool we’ve preserved a bit of our Elizabethan roots. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/8 "2018-01-16T04:13:22Z")
> [@Jennshark](#): > > I love Shakespeare done in authentic accents and don’t have trouble understanding these productions. I have a tough time understanding Shakespeare done in modern accents. I’ve oddly gotten used to Mancunian, a form of English gibberish, but I have a tough time with many English accents. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/9 "2018-01-16T04:38:45Z")
> [@Jennshark](#): > > I love Shakespeare done in authentic accents and don’t have trouble understanding these productions. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/gPlpphT7n9s/maxresdefault.jpg "Shakespeare: Original pronunciation (The Open University)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/10 "2018-01-16T05:35:58Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Elizabethan English is considered early Modern English, by people who study this sort of thing. The grammar would be largely familiar, although the sentence construction was much more arcane and ornate. People of the time favored a slower, more elaborate, style, rather than our current speed and conciseness. Is that true, or a biased sample based on those who could write? I’ve always assumed the previous ornateness of English had more to do with only the highly educated writing things, and that there was a huge divide between than and how a normal person spoke. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/11 "2018-01-16T22:13:10Z")
Well, in as much as we don’t have any recordings of Elizabethans speaking, we can only extrapolate. Generalizing here, though, the ornate sentence structure of Elizabethan English is evident in personal letters as well as in official documents. It’s not just for showing off. Here, for example is the letter that was sent on November 5, 1605 to Lord Monteagle, warning him about the Gunpowder plot (they have a photo of the actual letter here, along with the text and some discussion) - [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29777/29777-h/29777-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29777/29777-h/29777-h.htm) > [@Letter to Lord Monteagle](#): > > “My Lord out of the loue i beare[6]; to some of youere frends i haue a caer of youer preseruacion therfor i would aduyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to deuyse some excuse to shift of youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme and thinke not slightlye of this aduertisement but retyre youre self into youre contri wheare yowe maye expect the euent in safti for thowghe theare be no apparance of anni stir yet i saye they shall receyue a terrible blowe this parleament and yet they shall not sei who hurts them this cowncel is not to be contemned because it maye [Pg 6]do yowe good and can do yowe no harme for the dangere[7] is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god will give yowe the grace to make good use of it to whose holy proteccion I commend yowe.” So that’s the kind of everyday language one would use in a secret note when warning a person not to attend a government bombing. Clearly, whoever wrote it (no one knows), did his best to convey his sincere feeling about the danger that Lord Monteagle was in. Also clearly, he was comfortable with elaborate sentence structure. The elaborate sentences are also in evident in private journals. Here is an example from the journal of the Chaplain who accompanied Francis Drake around the world - > **[drake.pdf](https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/amerbegin/contact/text5/drake.pdf)** > > 1156.22 KB > [@The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake (Voyage of 1577-1580) compiled by Drake’s nephew](#): > > The next day, after our coming to anchor in the aforesaid harbor, the people of the country showed themselves, sending off a man with great expedition to us in a canoe. Who being yet but a little from the shore, and a great way from our ship, spoke to us continually as he came rowing on. And at last at a reasonable distance staying himself, he began more solemnly a long and tedious oration, after his manner: using in the delivery thereof many gestures and signs, moving his hands, turning his head and body many ways; and after his oration ended, with great show of reverence and submission returned back to shore again. I’ve hesitated to refer to Shakespeare, because I don’t want to draw too much on theatrical speeches. But it’s useful to remember that he includes many examples of both highborn and lowborn characters in his plays. His audience found both to be well executed. Here, from Act 4, Henry is walking, incognito, amongst his troops before the battle of Agincourt - A brief scene between King Henry and on his erstwhile drinking buddies, back when he was living it up as Prince Hal. First he runs into a villain, Pistol - > [@Henry V](#): > > Enter PISTOL > > PISTOL - > Qui va la? > KING HENRY V > > A friend. > PISTOL > > Discuss unto me; art thou officer? > Or art thou base, common and popular? > > KING HENRY V > I am a gentleman of a company. > > PISTOL > Trail’st thou the puissant pike? > > KING HENRY V > Even so. What are you? > > PISTOL > As good a gentleman as the emperor. > > KING HENRY V > Then you are a better than the king. > > PISTOL > The king’s a bawcock, and a heart of gold, > A lad of life, an imp of fame; > Of parents good, of fist most valiant. > I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heart-string > I love the lovely bully. What is thy name? > > KING HENRY V > Harry le Roy. > > PISTOL > Le Roy! a Cornish name: art thou of Cornish crew? > > KING HENRY V > No, I am a Welshman. > > PISTOL > Know’st thou Fluellen? > > KING HENRY V > Yes. > > PISTOL > Tell him, I’ll knock his leek about his pate > Upon Saint Davy’s day. > > KING HENRY V > Do not you wear your dagger in your cap that day, > lest he knock that about yours. > > PISTOL > Art thou his friend? > > KING HENRY V > And his kinsman too. > > PISTOL > The figo for thee, then! > > KING HENRY V > I thank you: God be with you! > PISTOL > > My name is Pistol call’d. > Exit > > KING HENRY V > It sorts well with your fierceness. Pistol and the King have a pretty simple exchange. While it’s true that Pistol doesn’t routinely use courtly language, it’s also true that he had a saucy vocabulary and wasn’t afraid to let if off the chain. The King wanders on, meeting several others of his acquaintances, including Fluellen, who is much better born than Pistol (although not of King Henry’s class) > [@Still Henry V](#): > > _Enter FLUELLEN and GOWER_ > > GOWER > Captain Fluellen! > > FLUELLEN > So! in the name of Jesu Christ, speak lower. It is > the greatest admiration of the universal world, when > the true and aunchient prerogatifes and laws of the > wars is not kept: if you would take the pains but to > examine the wars of Pompey the Great, you shall > find, I warrant you, that there is no tiddle toddle > nor pibble pabble in Pompey’s camp; I warrant you, > you shall find the ceremonies of the wars, and the > cares of it, and the forms of it, and the sobriety > of it, and the modesty of it, to be otherwise. > > GOWER > Why, the enemy is loud; you hear him all night. > > FLUELLEN > If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating > coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, > look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating > coxcomb? in your own conscience, now? > > GOWER > I will speak lower. > > FLUELLEN > I pray you and beseech you that you will. > > _Exeunt GOWER and FLUELLEN_ > > KING HENRY V > Though it appear a little out of fashion, > There is much care and valour in this Welshman. This scene portrays two middle class men, one of whom employs decidedly ornate periods and one who is more tongue tied. Finally, the King runs into some common soldiers: > [@Henry V again](#): > > _Enter three soldiers, JOHN BATES, ALEXANDER COURT, and MICHAEL WILLIAMS_ > > COURT > Brother John Bates, is not that the morning which > breaks yonder? > > BATES > I think it be: but we have no great cause to desire > the approach of day. > > WILLIAMS > We see yonder the beginning of the day, but I think > we shall never see the end of it. Who goes there? > > KING HENRY V > A friend. > > WILLIAMS > Under what captain serve you? > > KING HENRY V > Under Sir Thomas Erpingham. > > WILLIAMS > A good old commander and a most kind gentleman: I > pray you, what thinks he of our estate? > > KING HENRY V > Even as men wrecked upon a sand, that look to be > washed off the next tide. > > BATES > He hath not told his thought to the king? > > KING HENRY V > No; nor it is not meet he should. For, though I > speak it to you, I think the king is but a man, as I > am: the violet smells to him as it doth to me: the > element shows to him as it doth to me; all his > senses have but human conditions: his ceremonies > laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man; and > though his affections are higher mounted than ours, > yet, when they stoop, they stoop with the like > wing. Therefore when he sees reason of fears, as we > do, his fears, out of doubt, be of the same relish > as ours are: yet, in reason, no man should possess > him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by showing > it, should dishearten his army. > > BATES > He may show what outward courage he will; but I > believe, as cold a night as 'tis, he could wish > himself in Thames up to the neck; and so I would he > were, and I by him, at all adventures, so we were quit here. > > KING HENRY V > By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: > I think he would not wish himself any where but > where he is. > > BATES > Then I would he were here alone; so should he be > sure to be ransomed, and a many poor men’s lives saved. > > KING HENRY V > I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here > alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men’s > minds: methinks I could not die any where so > contented as in the king’s company; his cause being > just and his quarrel honourable. > > WILLIAMS > That’s more than we know. > > BATES > Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know > enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if > his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes > the crime of it out of us. > > WILLIAMS > But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath > a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and > arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join > together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at > such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a > surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind > them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their > children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die > well that die in a battle; for how can they > charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their > argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it > will be a black matter for the king that led them to > it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of > subjection. William, like Pistol, goes on to pick a fight with Henry. Unlike Pistol, William and Henry exchange gloves and promise to look each other up in the battle. They leave and Henry, picking up William’s argument, goes into his great soliloqy about how everything in battle, even the sins of his common soldiers, rests on his head. William is a common soldier but he’s portrayed as being as eloquent as the King, himself. The important thing about all this is that Shakespeare shows the common soldiers as possessing the varied eloquence that one would expect from a variety of men. Some are wordy, some are practical, some are philosophical. The other important point is - Shakespeare’s audience understood what his players were saying. And they loved it! Shakespeare’s work was hugely popular and not just with his royal audience. If that wasn’t true, people wouldn’t have shown up at the Globe. If Shakespeare had been writing unnatural or unbelievable characters, nobody would have sat through a whole afternoon’s performance. Shakespeare’s work was beloved by his audiences because of the strength of his characterizations. Even allowing for the demands of theatrical artifice and poetic license, his characters wouldn’t have been as believable if their dialogue sounded weird and unnatural to his intended audience. I need a nap. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/12 "2018-01-16T22:51:57Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [https://youtu.be/gPlpphT7n9s](https://youtu.be/gPlpphT7n9s) _cough_ Look at the link in the post she responded to. _cough_ ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/13 "2018-01-16T23:26:48Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Boy, those people couldn’t spell for shit. A dyslectic, barefooted Appalachian 10 year old child could do better than that. It is no wonder they died out. > > In all seriousness, I do think it is interesting how they were so inconsistent even within the same block of text from the same person. It is like they were just freeforming it with whatever letters popped into their mind with no care for consistency. Meant to answer this earlier. That’s exactly what they were doing. Spelling wasn’t standardized until the dictionary boys got working two hundred years after the period we’re discussing. It just wasn’t important to the writers, compared to word play, elaborate sentence construction and elegant metaphors. Printing had an effect on regularizing the spelling, however. Composing the plates for the printing press required the printers to be able to read in mirror writing. This (don’t ask for cites) lead to people thinking more specifically about how to spell a word and do it so that it fit the line length. As printed material became more common, and more people were reading printed to material, the words gradually coalesced into agreed upon spelling rules. One of the side benefits of the Protestant Reformation (which was ongoing in the Elizabethan era) was that it increased literacy among the general population. Previously, your salvation depended on talking to a learned priest who would sort things out for you. When salvation depends on understanding God and reading the bible for oneself, then literacy becomes a must have life skill. The Elizabethan era was a riot of printed material and an increasingly literate populace enjoyed a vibrant array of language arts - which, to get back to the OP, are readily understandable to a modern reader, with a little patience. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/14 "2018-01-17T00:02:43Z")
Also incidentally - the first book printed in England, in English, was\* The Canterbury Tales\*, originally written around 1385. This was printed by William Caxton in 1476. Caxton was also the original publisher for _Le Morte d’Arthur_, which he published in 1485. - The Canterbury Tales\* is written Middle English, of the London variety. Here’s a sample: [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22120/22120-h/22120-h.htm#prologue](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22120/22120-h/22120-h.htm#prologue) > [@Canturbury Tales](#): > > In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay > > Redy to wenden on my pilgrimage > > To Caunterbury with ful devout corage, > > At night was come in-to that hostelrye > > Wel nyne and twenty in a companye, > Of sondry folk, by aventure y-falle > > In felawshipe, and pilgrims were they alle, > > That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde; > > The chambres and the stables weren wyde, > > And wel we weren esed atte beste. > > And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste, > > So hadde I spoken with hem everichon, > > That I was of hir felawshipe anon, > > And made forward erly for to ryse, > > To take our wey, ther as I yow devyse. Not too bad, for a modern reader, but much harder to slip into than Modern English. Incidentally, there were many dialects of Middle English. That’s one of the things that separates Middle & Modern English. Modern is more standardized. As I said, Chaucer is writing in a London dialect. Compare that to the contemporary Gawain Poet (whose name we don’t know), writing in a North-Midlands dialect: [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14568/14568-h/14568-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14568/14568-h/14568-h.htm) > [@Gawayne and the Green Knight](#): > > Bifel that, in that seson on a day, > > Þis kyng lay at Camylot vpon kryst-masse, > > With mony luflych lorde, lede3 of þe best, > > Rekenly of þe rounde table alle þo rich breþer, > > With rych reuel ory3t, & rechles merþes; > > Þer tournayed tulkes bi-tyme3 ful mony, > > Iusted ful Iolilé þise gentyle kni3tes, > > Syþen kayred to þe court, caroles to make. > > full fifteen days. > > For þer þe fest wat3 ilyche ful fiften dayes, > > With alle þe mete & þe mirþe þat men couþe a-vyse; > > Such glaumande gle glorious to here, > > Dere dyn vp-on day, daunsyng on ny3tes, > > Al wat3 hap vpon he3e in halle3 & chambre3, > > With lorde3 & ladies, as leuest him þo3t; > > With all þe wele of þe worlde þay woned þer samen, > > Þe most kyd kny3te3 vnder kryste seluen, > > & þe louelokkest ladies þat euer lif haden, > > & he þe comlokest kyng þat þe court haldes; > > For al wat3 þis fayre folk in her first age, > > on sille; > Þe hapnest vnder heuen, > > Kyng hy3est mon of wylle, > > Hit were1 now gret nye to neuen > > So hardy a here on hille. _Le Morte d’Arthur_, from 1485, on the other hand is one of the earliest examples of Modern English, a full year before the OP’s target date of 1575. Here’s a shot of Thomas Mallory: [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1251/1251-h/1251-h.htm#link2HCH0006](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1251/1251-h/1251-h.htm#link2HCH0006) > [@Le Morte](#): > > Now assay, said Sir Ector unto Sir Kay. And anon he pulled at the sword with all his might; but it would not be. Now shall ye assay, said Sir Ector to Arthur. I will well, said Arthur, and pulled it out easily. And therewithal Sir Ector knelt down to the earth, and Sir Kay. Alas, said Arthur, my own dear father and brother, why kneel ye to me? Nay, nay, my lord Arthur, it is not so; I was never your father nor of your blood, but I wot well ye are of an higher blood than I weened ye were. And then Sir Ector told him all, how he was betaken him for to nourish him, and by whose commandment, and by Merlin’s deliverance. As you can see, even at an earlier date than the OP’s target, Modern English would be quite familiar to a person of the 21 millenium. Bonus: A short clip of the opening of Sir Gawain, read in Middle English - And here's some Canturbury Tales, also in Middle English [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/GihrWuysnrc/hqdefault.jpg "Chaucer's Canterbury Tales Prologue in Middle English (Not Complete)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GihrWuysnrc) ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/15 "2018-01-17T02:22:38Z")
Is it for certain that “my rewyne unpytted,” translates to “my revenue unpitted,”? Because I read it as “my ruin unpitied,” and darned if it doesn’t sound better following “my follies laughed at”. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/16 "2018-01-17T02:24:17Z")
Many Americans, possibly most, would have trouble understanding some Americans speaking English today. Many African Americans in the rural South, and even some whites, speak a dialect that is difficult for northern whites to understand. Same goes for many urban blacks, who speak English incomprehensible to outsiders not familiar with it. When I lived in South Texas, I literally could not underestimated anything my next door neighbor said, nor could some of my other friends. When my mother in law moved to Florida and lived in a predominantly black housing community, she could not understand anybody. ---
**Author:** ![Jennshark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/17 "2018-01-17T03:11:46Z")
Z’wounds, Merneith, thou hast mad skillz. I had a class in grad school with a prominent Shakespearean scholar, you’d give him a run for his money! I really, really suck at memorization, but for some reason this cheerful passage by Marlowe is embedded in my brain from this class taken 18-years ago: All beasts are happy, For, when they die, Their souls are soon dissolv’d in elements; But mine must live still to be plagu’d in hell. Curs’d be the parents that engender’d me! No, Faustus, curse thyself, curse Lucifer That hath depriv’d thee of the joys of heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/18 "2018-01-17T03:27:45Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Many Americans, possibly most, would have trouble understanding some Americans speaking English today. Many African Americans in the rural South, and even some whites, speak a dialect that is difficult for northern whites to understand. Same goes for many urban blacks, who speak English incomprehensible to outsiders not familiar with it. When I first took my Boston area girlfriend to my tiny Louisiana hometown, I wanted to show her what a real BBQ shack run by old black men are like so I took her to one on the edges of an exclusively black area. They could understand her mostly but she couldn’t understand a damned thing they said and she is good with languages. I ended up having to translate because I grew up around it and understood it just fine. The BBQ was excellent BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/19 "2018-01-17T03:28:42Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > [Here’s an example](https://youtu.be/gPlpphT7n9s?t=170) of actors reproducing the original pronunciation of Shakespearean lines, which would qualify as Elizabethan English. > [@Merneith](#): > > Elizabethan English is considered early Modern English, by people who study this sort of thing. The grammar would be largely familiar, although the sentence construction was much more arcane and ornate. People of the time favored a slower, more elaborate, style, rather than our current speed and conciseness. **pulykamell** ’s link seems to disagree with that - the actor in it says that when they performed Romeo and Juliet using Elizabethan pronunciations, it shortened the run time by ten minutes. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2018, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731/20 "2018-01-17T04:10:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **pulykamell** ’s link seems to disagree with that - the actor in it says that when they performed Romeo and Juliet using Elizabethan pronunciations, it shortened the run time by ten minutes. They’re talking about the speed at which Elizabethan English was _spoken_, i.e., how many words you can say in a minute when you’ve already got a script. **Merneith** is talking about writing: how many words a writer might use to express a given idea. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-we-understand-spoken-elizabethan-english/806731.md?page=2)