How Far Back in History Can You Start to Understand English?

It’s easy to imag­ine the myr­i­ad dif­fi­cul­ties with which you’d be faced if you were sud­den­ly trans­port­ed a mil­len­ni­um back in time. But if you’re a native (or even pro­fi­cient) Eng­lish speak­er in an Eng­lish-speak­ing part of the world, the lan­guage, at least, sure­ly would­n’t be a prob­lem. Or so you’d think, until your first encounter with utter­ances like “þat troe is daed on gaerde” or “þa rokes for­leten urne tun.” Both of those sen­tences appear in the new video above from Simon Rop­er, in which he deliv­ers a mono­logue begin­ning in the Eng­lish of the fifth cen­tu­ry and end­ing in the Eng­lish of the end of the last mil­len­ni­um.

An Eng­lish­man spe­cial­iz­ing in videos about lin­guis­tics and anthro­pol­o­gy, Rop­er has pulled off this sort of feat before: we pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured him here on Open Cul­ture for his per­for­mance of a Lon­don accent as it evolved through 660 years.

But writ­ing and deliv­er­ing a mono­logue that works its way through a mil­len­ni­um and a half of change in the Eng­lish lan­guage is obvi­ous­ly a thornier endeav­or, not least because it involves lit­er­al thorns — the þ char­ac­ters, that is, used in the Old Eng­lish Latin alpha­bet. They’re pro­nounced like th, which you can hear when Rop­er speaks the sen­tences quot­ed ear­li­er, which trans­late to “The tree is dead in the yard” and “The rooks aban­doned our town.”

The word trans­late should give us pause, since we’re only talk­ing about Eng­lish. But then, Eng­lish has under­gone such a dra­mat­ic evo­lu­tion that, at far enough of a remove, we might as well be talk­ing about dif­fer­ent lan­guages. What Rop­er empha­sizes is that the changes did­n’t hap­pen sud­den­ly. Non-Scan­di­na­vian lis­ten­ers may lack even an inkling that his farmer of the year 450 is talk­ing about sheep and pigs with the words skēpu and swīnu, but his final lines, in which he speaks of pos­sess­ing “all the hot cof­fee I need” and “friends I did­n’t have in New York” in the year 2000, will pose no dif­fi­cul­ty to Anglo­phones any­where in the world. Even his list of agri­cul­tur­al wealth around the ear­ly thir­teenth cen­tu­ry — “We habben an god hus, we habben mani felds” — could make you believe that a trip 600 years in the past would be, as they said in Mid­dle Eng­lish, no trou­ble.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Trac­ing Eng­lish Back to Its Old­est Known Ances­tor: An Intro­duc­tion to Pro­to-Indo-Euro­pean

Hear the Evo­lu­tion of the Lon­don Accent Over 660 Years: From 1346 to 2006

What Shakespeare’s Eng­lish Sound­ed Like, and How We Know It

Where Did the Eng­lish Lan­guage Come From?: An Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion

A Brief Tour of British & Irish Accents: 14 Ways to Speak Eng­lish in 84 Sec­onds

The Entire His­to­ry of Eng­lish in 22 Min­utes

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.


by | Permalink | Comments (23) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (23)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Jack snakes says:

    Old Eng­lish “to mod­ern Amer­i­can”??
    As if that child­ish dumb­ed-down dialect is sup­posed to be some kind of evo­lu­tion of Eng­lish? As they would say in “Mod­ern Amer­i­can”, (there is NO such lan­guage) GTFOH.

  • Louise Knowles says:

    I start­ed under­stand­ing Around 1000.

  • Dave Gillam says:

    I start­ed under­stand­ing around 900 CE. I believe this is because I also speak Ger­man and have some expo­sure to Swedish, Dutch, and Gael­ic. There was con­sid­er­able trad­ing and min­gling across the chan­nel between Britain and the con­ti­nent at the time, and lan­guages influ­enced each oth­er. There was a tele­vi­sion show some years ago about Vikings in north­east­ern Britain, and all the dia­logue was in the appro­pri­ate old ver­sions of the lan­guages. I could most­ly under­stand and fol­low the dia­logue of the Britons, and occa­sion­al­ly under­stand the Scan­di­na­vian Vikings.

  • Scott Moberg says:

    If you can’t say some­thing nice, shut up.

  • Rod Stasick says:

    I enjoyed this very much. The trans­mo­gri­fi­ca­tion is fas­ci­nat­ing. I could prob­a­bly *just* get by almost exact­ly a mil­len­ni­um in the past, but not ear­li­er. I’m glad that you have this inter­est and have tak­en the time to present this his­to­ry. Near the end, I want­ed to read your notes, but YouTube adds annoy­ing graph­ics on the bot­tom of every­one’s videos. I hope that you con­sid­er Vimeo as well for your work. Thanks again!

  • Alzbeta says:

    I start­ed to under­stand at about 890 CE, Eng­lish isn’t my first lan­guage so I’m pret­ty used to disipher­ing words and that’s pret­ty much how I under­stood it.

  • Jody Ritter says:

    I thor­ough­ly enjoyed this. I con­sis­tent­ly start­ed under­stand­ing at 1500, but I heard some famil­iar words at 900. Excel­lent por­tray­al of Eng­lish evo­lu­tion. Fas­ci­nat­ing!

  • David says:

    900 AD, but know­ing words and under­stand­ing expres­sions are two dif­fer­ent things

  • Jii Heikkinen says:

    900. I stud­ied Eng­lish Lit­er­aturw and I have an MFA in poet­ry. I read Beowolfe and Chaucer
    Fun project.
    Goode

  • Jennifer Clark says:

    I had a moment at 1200CE where words made sense. Then I under­stood noth­ing until 1500CE.

    Fas­ci­nat­ing stuff. Thanks!

  • Ken says:

    Hel­lo Simom,

    This is very inter­est­ing. I think that I was able to under­stand from about 600 AD. It’s of par­tic­u­lar inter­est to me because I’ve speak­ing read­ing and writ­ing star­dard Japan­ese about 50 years. And have recent­ly start­ed stuying/speaking [Sakat-shi Yam­a­ga­ta] “dialect
    (方言)(ほうげん] [hougen] e.g. ありがとうございます in stan­dard Japan­ese becomes [ もっけだの。] [mokkedano ] in
    one of the Yam­a­ga­ta dialects. Clas­si­cal Japan­ese spo­ken by the aris­toc­ra­cy is much more dif­fi­cult and gen­er­al­ly divid­ed into East and West Japan
    .

    Hope to seem more of your posts.

    Ken

  • Andy says:

    A few famil­iar sound­ing words around 900, but only after 1500 could I make con­tin­u­ous sense of it.
    The accents seemed to move around geo­graph­i­cal­ly, from Scan­di­na­vian to Ger­man­ic to what seemed to me like east­ern Euro­pean and then to Eng­lish with a touch of Scots and final­ly Eng­lish.

  • Joe says:

    We should be ask­ing, which Eng­lish among many could we nav­i­gate today. Chaucer’s late 1300 Eng­lish is rough, but nav­i­ga­ble. At the time as Chaucer, how­ev­er, was Mid­land Eng­lish, of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, which is opaque to us.

  • Susan Helf says:

    This is fas­ci­nat­ing. In col­lege, I stud­ied Old Eng­lish and Mid­dle Eng­lish. I could read the Can­ter­bury Tales in the orig­i­nal When your time­line hit the 14th Cen­tu­ry, I start­ed to under­stand some words and by the end of the 15th and the start of the 16th cen­tu­ry, I could under­stand whole sen­tences.

    Thanks for post­ing this video!

  • Elizabeth Conway says:

    Fas­ci­nat­ing. I first start­ed to under­stand at about 1200 and could under­stand well by 1600.The 1600 shift seemed quite sud­den.

  • Elizabeth Conway says:

    Fas­ci­nat­ing. I first start­ed to under­stand at about 1200 and could under­stand well by 1600.The 1600 shift seemed quite sudden.The word chick­en appeared very ear­ly.
    This is not a dupli­cate com­ment.

  • Karl Rodgers says:

    Wow, you def­i­nite­ly seem to have a bug up your back­side about Amer­i­can Eng­lish. You must be British! Hmm, how about Indi­an Eng­lish? With 128 mil­lion speak­ers in India, their ver­sion of the lan­guage deserves to be tak­en seri­ous­ly. Or Niger­ian Eng­lish? Our lan­guage has a great fea­ture – adapt­abil­i­ty – and the fact that it is tak­en up by cul­tures around the world, and flavoured with the local style, is some­thing to be cel­e­brat­ed, not sneered at!

  • James says:

    A glimpse at 900 and pret­ty hod at 1300

  • pulse says:

    Lan­guage will nev­er care about your opin­ions. It’ll just keep on becom­ing what it will be next, gate­keep­ers be damned.

  • Julie says:

    I start­ed to recog­nise some words around 900, but did­n’t under­stand whole sen­tences until about 1500.

  • Melmoth Wanderer says:

    All fine and sound. But- in 1967 I was dri­ving through a vil­lage in York­shire. A cop pulled up next to me and start­ed yelling
    I could­n’t under­stand a word of what he was say­ing, and said so. He just gri­maced and drove off.
    Rea­son­able I guess. But I am a schol­ar of Medieval Eng­lish spe­cial­iz­ing in the North­ern Dialect. Hear­ing mod­ern Eng­lish with such a deep region­al accent was some­thing much hard­er.
    So even if you could make sense of it on a page would­n’t help under­stand­ing a Medieval per­son.
    Any­way, the smell would be tough enough.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast