3 ms·

Im a bit suprised that the language reads like modern American English. When reading something old in my native language its very foreign.

by z3t4 7y ago

Aeolun 7y ago
This is 1890. It’s not that crazy, and the wording and expressions used are clearly a bit different. If you go back to 1500s english it also becomes pretty much incomprehensible. Is your native language impossible to read if you go back to only 1900? I find it difficult to believe that it could change that much, but it would be interesting.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Urdu/Hindi for example has a lot of idioms and nouns that have gone out of fashion/been superseded by English
- vidarh 7y ago
  I think few languages changed enough to be incomprehensible, on that period, but e.g the Norwegian of 1890 was basically Danish (over simplifying as we have a second language composed from dialects) and the Danish of the era was sufficiently closer to German that when I studied German I read a ca. 1900 Danish edition of Faust in parallel with the German because it was sufficient a 'midpoint' to help understand everything from sentence structure to vocabulary. It would definitively be readable to a modern reader, but the differences can in some texts be sufficient to require a lot more conscious effort where English from that era seems to 'just' seem a bit odd and overly formal. I do think it also depends a great deal if you know any related languages. E.g if you understand German and Danish, older Norwegian makes sense - I remember when it clicked for me that the best way of improving my German grammar was to when in doubt think about how older more formal Norwegian forms would be. I read a lot of adventure novels from the early 1900's, so I was familiar with that. But I know class mates who were totally unfamiliar with Norwegian literature from that era who while they'd certainly understand it would found it more of an effort.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    Some Swedes told me they struggled to understand old texts because there were significant changes to the orthography. I think the text we were looking at was the Oath of Allegiance [1], but I might be mistaken. (I'm learning Danish: if in doubt about grammar, I think "how would Shakespeare say it?"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Sweden)
    - vidarh 7y ago
      I think short texts are often worse, actually, because just a few words with insufficient context can throw you off, and in the case of this like oaths the sentence structure is often atrocious with interjections that people often have problems with. E.g. in that text, I understood everything except "städse" and "huld" without having to look it up. You could do a Norwegian translation pretty much word for word with the same sentence structure. But a lot of people used to modern Scandinavian languages at least, and I get the impression the same is true for modern English readers, do have problems dealing sentences with lots of interjections and/or where you need to metaphorically push lots of context onto the stack before it all ties up at the end. I recall coming across that already at school - since I read a lot of older books I was used to it, but most of my class mates were not. And it's reflected in my writing even today, 30+ years later, to the point where I need to consciously avoid just nesting clauses all over the place.
ghaff 7y ago
When you read the English from that period, it typically comes across as overly formal, for one thing, and therefore sounds a bit off to a native speaker. But it's perfectly comprehensible. Generally speaking, you can go back to the 1600s or so--Shakespeare, Elizabeth I, etc. Much before that you're starting to get back into Middle English (e.g. Chaucer), which is distinctly different from modern English. (Around 1500 is considered the transition point but it took a while for the transition to be substantially complete.)

Im a bit suprised that the language reads like modern American English. When reading something old in my native language its very foreign.

by z3t4 7y ago

Im a bit suprised that the language reads like modern American English. When reading something old in my native language its very foreign.

Aeolun 7y ago

This is 1890. It’s not that crazy, and the wording and expressions used are clearly a bit different. If you go back to 1500s english it also becomes pretty much incomprehensible. Is your native language impossible to read if you go back to only 1900? I find it difficult to believe that it could change that much, but it would be interesting.

selimthegrim 7y ago
Urdu/Hindi for example has a lot of idioms and nouns that have gone out of fashion/been superseded by English
vidarh 7y ago
I think few languages changed enough to be incomprehensible, on that period, but e.g the Norwegian of 1890 was basically Danish (over simplifying as we have a second language composed from dialects) and the Danish of the era was sufficiently closer to German that when I studied German I read a ca. 1900 Danish edition of Faust in parallel with the German because it was sufficient a 'midpoint' to help understand everything from sentence structure to vocabulary. It would definitively be readable to a modern reader, but the differences can in some texts be sufficient to require a lot more conscious effort where English from that era seems to 'just' seem a bit odd and overly formal. I do think it also depends a great deal if you know any related languages. E.g if you understand German and Danish, older Norwegian makes sense - I remember when it clicked for me that the best way of improving my German grammar was to when in doubt think about how older more formal Norwegian forms would be. I read a lot of adventure novels from the early 1900's, so I was familiar with that. But I know class mates who were totally unfamiliar with Norwegian literature from that era who while they'd certainly understand it would found it more of an effort.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  Some Swedes told me they struggled to understand old texts because there were significant changes to the orthography. I think the text we were looking at was the Oath of Allegiance [1], but I might be mistaken. (I'm learning Danish: if in doubt about grammar, I think "how would Shakespeare say it?"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Sweden)
  - vidarh 7y ago
    I think short texts are often worse, actually, because just a few words with insufficient context can throw you off, and in the case of this like oaths the sentence structure is often atrocious with interjections that people often have problems with. E.g. in that text, I understood everything except "städse" and "huld" without having to look it up. You could do a Norwegian translation pretty much word for word with the same sentence structure. But a lot of people used to modern Scandinavian languages at least, and I get the impression the same is true for modern English readers, do have problems dealing sentences with lots of interjections and/or where you need to metaphorically push lots of context onto the stack before it all ties up at the end. I recall coming across that already at school - since I read a lot of older books I was used to it, but most of my class mates were not. And it's reflected in my writing even today, 30+ years later, to the point where I need to consciously avoid just nesting clauses all over the place.

ghaff 7y ago

When you read the English from that period, it typically comes across as overly formal, for one thing, and therefore sounds a bit off to a native speaker. But it's perfectly comprehensible. Generally speaking, you can go back to the 1600s or so--Shakespeare, Elizabeth I, etc. Much before that you're starting to get back into Middle English (e.g. Chaucer), which is distinctly different from modern English. (Around 1500 is considered the transition point but it took a while for the transition to be substantially complete.)