8 ms·
Semi-off-topic: I've noticed that Coke's writings are a bit more similar to "modern English" than other things I've read written in the 1600s. This surprised me
by owenversteeg 9y ago
Semi-off-topic: I've noticed that Coke's writings are a bit more similar to "modern English" than other things I've read written in the 1600s. This surprised me, because he was a judge and probably wrote in formal language for the time. Formal language, to me, seems perpetually set back to the way people talked about 60-100 years previously. Thus you'd expect Coke to sound like he's writing in the 1500s, but instead he sounds like an 1800s writer.
Perhaps I've caught a time-traveler? If so, to Coke: I'm having some friends over for dinner tonight, and you're welcome... email's in my profile if you need directions ;)
- mayoff 9y agoI don't know anything about Coke, but my impression of SCOTUS opinions is that they often use language I wouldn't consider formal. Consider the first sentence of section II-A of this decision: > First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. I often find the decision to be more readable (if much longer) than the syllabus.
- dragonwriter 9y agoFormal writing probably was influenced by the move to standardization of grammar and spelling (which was, after all, elite-driven) sooner than informal writing, so that may be part of the reason for the results you describe in that particular time frame.
- mikekchar 9y agoI don't know a lot about this topic, but my understanding is that (unlike many languages), English evolved where more formal language became popular, and casual/familiar language died away. For example, "you" is the formal version of "thee" (similar to "vous" vs "tu" in French).