82 ms·
Language is constantly changing. No one alive 2000 years ago would be able to readily communicate in a modern vernacular, so I don't think that's a good standar
by jgwil2 7y ago
Language is constantly changing. No one alive 2000 years ago would be able to readily communicate in a modern vernacular, so I don't think that's a good standard on which to judge.
- sterlind 7y agoiirc modern Icelandic is somewhat mutually intelligible with old Norse, to the point where students can read 1200+ year old Viking writings with only a gloss, like we might read Shakespeare. Icelandic is unusual among languages for this though.
- namenotrequired 7y agoPersian (Farsi) is another example.
- umanwizard 7y agoPart of that is due to the writing system - Icelandic has an unusually wide gap between spelling and actual pronunciation (as does English). The spellings often reflect older pronunciations, so it'd be easier for a modern Icelander to read the Eddas than to understand casual speech of their era. (Again, similar things are true of English to a less extreme degree: The Canterbury Tales are a struggle to understand, but I can plod my way through them with the aid of heavy glossing. But I doubt if I could have a conversation with a time-traveling Geoffrey Chaucer.)
- owenversteeg 7y agoThat's one reason why I chose Yerevan, actually! Old Armenian (1600 years old) and modern Armenian are fairly similar! Same writing system with only small changes, and modern Armenians (or at least the handful of random Armenians I've asked) can understand old Armenian. It takes a good bit of extra effort, but it's definitely possible. Fascinating language (and alphabet) by the way.