BAJR said

quote:

I have no idea what is being said.. only fragments

and

quote:

If it supports MJH it is absolutly right (though I have not actually seen solid evidence)
If it blows big holes in the theory (and I have seen vast ammounts of that) it must be wrong..

Why don't you just read what it says? That's all the scholars have done: but they have read it in the beliefe that it is somewhere between Anglo-Saxon and English. If they didn't "know better" they would just read it out:

When that April with his showers suit
The drought of March hath pierced to the root,
And bathed every vein in such licour
Of which virtue engendered is the flower;

and so on.

quote:

what would Chaucer have made of the label "Applied Epistemologist" or "Revisionist historian"?

He'd take them in stride: he's quite good with big words, foreign phrases, Classical references... But he might say, in English "do you mean something specific by these terms?"

quote:

I am not sure 'although' is correct. Any suggestions?

No, you're right: þ is the th and the 3 is the g.

Seven consecutive one-line posts from the same person...following six consecutive posts from another member of the same revisionist group.

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
He'd take them in stride: he's quite good with big words, foreign phrases, Classical references... But he might say, in English "do you mean something specific by these terms?"

No he'd probably say "pist what?". I take it then that you disagree with the proposal that in measuring "closeness" we should look at it from both ends?

quote:

I take it then that you disagree with the proposal that in measuring "closeness" we should look at it from both ends?

Sounds eminently reasonable (scientific even).

I just wish I understood what it meant. I can't imagine any kind of measurement of distance that doesn't account for "both ends". If you mean we must get a native Middle English speaker in: good luck.

Chaucer may well say "Crikey! Your OED is much bigger than mine. And you have mountains of literacy to my molehill", but, being an intelligent chap, I dare say it wouldn't be hard for him to get on with it.

If you want to be more specific than "look at what is in front of your face", then please elucidate.

If middle english is 99%, or even 90% the same as modern english, it should be readily understood by a classroom of school kids and it wouldn't need 'classroom of Applied Epistemologists to do it.'

I agree a word for word translation doesn't work for poetry and a translator uses his own poetic licence.

Some notes I made are:

For þay of mote couþe neuer mynge

mote: trifling fault (compared to one's own), minor [OE. mot]

couþe: can mean kith but more usually could or knew or to make known
couþe has an ME alternative, kunnan, to know how, to be able [OE. cunnan]

mynge: to draw attention to or to recall (verbally) [OE. myndgian.]

My direct translation would be:
for they of [with] minor faults (as in personality) could never recall (because it is convenient not to)

A modern translation of the poetry gives the line as:

[i]For they on mischief ne'er could think

quote:

<<And 3e remen for rauþe wythouten reste>>

Most of the sentence is obvious English
And there remain for [duh?] without rest[/i]

remen is ME to make room (as in space). We get modern english ream from it. It comes from OE ryman, to make up, to make room.

rauþe, rewðe, rewen are all to do with rue, grief, pity. from OE hreów sorrow.

[i]<<We þur3outly hauen cnawyng>>

Another tircky one because of the change in the past participle. It seems to say something like "we used to have knowing" but what that makes 'þur3outly' is frankly one for you, Harry.

Þoru is through so it means throughout. It comes from OE Þurh or thurh.

best

harry A

quote:

Harry wrote:
To prove your assertion that middle english is 99% the same as modern english, you'd have to be able to take a piece of text like that into say your local comprehensive and ask the year 11 GCSE class to read it. If they all understand 99% of it, then you're correct….

Unfortunately, it's MJ who keeps saying middle english is 99% the same as modern english so it would be nice to see his attempts.

If Middle English really is so far removed from modern English that special training is required to learn how to “translate” it, I should not have been able to make such good sense out of the piece you selected (specifically for its difficulty no doubt).

Now I didn’t get it 100% right. I didn’t even get it 99% right. But I got it damn closer to “correct” than by rights I should have. In fact, I’ll venture to say, I did better than scholars typically do – because, unlike them, I am armed with the correct paradigm. For me, it’s just a problem of sorting out the spelling and familiarizing myself with an archaic vocabulary. A bit like reading Moby Dick through a stain glass window.

Is it my imagination or have a whole lot of posts disappeared?

quote:

There is no doubt that things change and, in particular, new things are added, but can we still understand each other?

Sometimes yes but sometimes no. Just think of just think of the bonnet, bumper, boot of a car, hood, fender and trunk in american english.

If a woman in the carolinas asks you if you'd like to shag(a dance), you'd better avoid any misunderstanding first.

best

Harry A

quote:

If Middle English really is so far removed from modern English that special training is required to learn how to “translate” it, I should not have been able to make such good sense out of the piece you selected (specifically for its difficulty no doubt).

Yes you did Ishmael though it was chosen at random.

You are looking at it and thinking about it though. I doubt it is as straight forward to many who speak english every day. The Year 11 classroom test would be a good study!

To me it's just a question of interpretation. I see a lot that comes from old english, you see a lot that is similar to modern english.

best

Harry A

quote:

If middle english is 99%, or even 90% the same as modern english, it should be readily understood by a classroom of school kids and it wouldn't need 'classroom of Applied Epistemologists to do it.'

So who am I?

Well…I’m not an undergrad anymore. Actually, I didn’t even graduate from University. So I’m even more stupid than would be your ideal test subject. I’m just an ignorant Newfie in fact. I guess the sort of fellow who’s notions most present here would find easy to dismiss.

So I’m a perfect test subject.

And yet, I was able to do what only Mick told me I could.

When I was in school, my professors said I’d not be able to read Chaucer without the aid of a translation. And I couldn’t. It was all Greek to me. Then I read THOBR and read the claim made therein, by Mick, that Chaucer is just “English spelled wrong.” I couldn’t believe it. So I went and grabbed an old copy of Chaucer I had ’round the house and, damned if I wasn’t able to read it!

Change the paradigm and what was impossible becomes possible.

Did my professors lie to me? Of course not. They were just too well educated to see.

quote:

I agree a word for word translation doesn't work for poetry and a translator uses his own poetic licence.

Some notes I made are:

For þay of mote couþe neuer mynge

mote: trifling fault (compared to one's own), minor [OE. mot]

This is exactly where you go wrong. You think you are tranlating instead of transliterating, so you investigate meanings. Everything is all about the meaning of words, as determined by endless observation of context. Try just concentrating on transliteration. Fix the spelling. The meaning becomes clear then from the context and the conotation.

Yes. Some of that conotation has been lost and that's where experts on the old literature (such as yourself) inform our understanding.

Most of the errors I made were still errors of transliteration, however. That is, I matched the phonetic symbols to the wrong word. A better match (sinse offered by others) produces a perfectly understandable poem that needs no "translation."

<<To me it's just a question of interpretation. I see a lot that comes from old english, you see a lot that is similar to modern english.>>

Fair's fair, Harry. We passed your test with flying colours. Now I formally challenge you to produce ANY per cent of Old English in the passage you selected. Remember Old English is Anglo-Saxon.

quote:

You are looking at it and thinking about it though. I doubt it is as straight forward to many who speak english every day.

Once again, I wish to stress how appreciated is your tone. I hope also you sense respect toward your point of view in my arguments.

None of us are saying that the process of transliteration is 'straightforward." It does take some getting used to because we are reading non-standard and even non-systematic spelling of an archaic vocabulary (most students have trouble with shakespeare, we can't forget).

Nevertheless, the first time I tried reading Chaucer under the new paradigm, I could do it. And the more I read, the easier it got.

I mentioned before my experience with a deaf friend with whom I communicate by writing only. She also learned English as a second language (being Phillipino) so, not only is her spelling terrible, her English syntax is heavily influenced by the grammar of ASL and Phillipino (much as the first English scribes must have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon and Latin). Many of our mutual aquaintances can't understand her at all.

I find though that, once my brain aclamates to the odd word order, I can pick out enough of the words to put the sentences together in context.

The task is not straightforward. But the language is still English.

quote:

If middle english is 99%, or even 90% the same as modern english, it should be readily understood by a classroom of school kids

Leave it out, Harry. The Campaign for Plain English exists because modern English can be difficult. Then there are dialects, slang, high- and low-brow literature, Russell Brand, newsreel, poetry of any age... you name it. There is plenty that is difficult and would fail your classroom test.

But the question is whether Middle English is any more difficult than the normal varieties of English. The examples brought out here have demonstrated the answer: no.

No amount of slowing down or using a posh voice (or any of the other things we do when we have trouble conversing) works with foreigners. Doesn't take much work understanding Chaucer: Anglo-Saxon requires a degree.

quote:

Yes. Some of that conotation has been lost and that's where experts on the old literature (such as yourself) inform our understanding.

Firstly, I have no expertise or training in linguistics or history whatsoever. I'm a lapsed mathematician.

Secondly, we should expect middle english to be intelligible to some degree by modern english speakers. That's why it is a sort of half way house between old and modern english. It isn't a different language. I simply disagree to the level of intelligibility. I don't think it is 99% or even 90%.

If MJ wants to provide some evidence to support his theory, I merely suggest that he could quantify the degree of intelligibility by asking year 11 school kids to translate the text. You did it rather well. How would they get on? If they all do it as well as you then, hey presto, you have a strong case supported by a repeatable experiment. Any other researcher can do the same and verify your results.

best

Harry A

quote:

If a woman in the carolinas asks you if you'd like to shag(a dance), you'd better avoid any misunderstanding first.

Very true. But the fact that I understood I was being offered anything at all... and the possibility of clearing up the misunderstanding... show that on the whole we understand each other; and that all that stuff about bonnets, bumpers and boots is just a smoke screen (and not even one anyone has produced deliberately to deceive. Nevertheless, you have been deceived.)

It's not a one-shot process, with various odds on you "catching" the word fired at you.

quote:

Leave it out, Harry. The Campaign for Plain English exists because modern English can be difficult. Then there are dialects, slang, high- and low-brow literature, Russell Brand, newsreel, poetry of any age... you name it. There is plenty that is difficult and would fail your classroom test.

Leaving the dialects and styles you mention above aside, are you saying that the middle english texts would or would not be readily understood by a year 11 classroom?

best

HA

quote:

... show that on the whole we understand each other ...

Just attempting to quantify what is meant by on the whole. That's all.

best

HA

I find it difficult to believe you're a lapsed mathematician, Harry, if you can say things like

<<That's why it is a sort of half way house between old and modern english. It isn't a different language. I simply disagree to the level of intelligibility. I don't think it is 99% or even 90%.>>

You must have observed that we demonstrated...well, I think it was EVERY word...is either straightforward Modern English or English that is somewhat lapsed. That equates to 100%, and we are only being charitable in accepting any lower figure. I invite you to inspect any passage of Anglo-Saxon and come up with...let's say ten per cent. Actually, you'll do rather better if you selct a passage in French. Or German, or Dutch or Swedish.

quote:

I simply disagree to the level of intelligibility. I don't think it is 99% or even 90%.

Be serious, Harry: there has been the odd word. You haven't had to give up on anything like half of it, have you?

And you are no more versed in this than the next guy.

quote:

I merely suggest that he could quantify the degree of intelligibility by asking year 11 school kids to translate the text.

That's fine, but don't imagine they'd get 100% in a broad spectrum of types of English. I put it to you that the question is whether ME is in a class of it's own, as it would be if it were half foreign.

quote:

are you saying that the middle english texts would or would not be readily understood by a year 11 classroom?

With a little encouragement, they could transcribe Middle English into modern spelling and recognise it as not-particularly-exotic English. And they would find no more difficulty in understanding it than many other sorts of English we can throw at them.

A couple of things might queer the pitch though: how narrow is the spectrum of English they are expected to learn these days? And what kind of 'encouragement' do they receive? Have they already been primed to see it through dark glasses? My son's teacher mentioned that Chaucer is hard; he said "my dad says it's easy really"; and that was the end of that.

Some people never pick up an instruction manual because they literally can't read them; but not because of the language they're written in.

quote:

Just attempting to quantify what is meant by on the whole. That's all.

There are no tricks to this, Harry -- though since the linguistics industry is in the business of amplifying minutiae, you can be forgiven for thinking its arcane.

Can you pass a whole afternoon talking about mint juleps -- without knowing what they are or how they're spelled -- discussing the amusing differences between American and British English and learning about life on the edge of an American swamp? Or do you each look blank and have to walk away?

You do know what "on the whole" means.

quote:

You do know what "on the whole" means.

I'd like you to quantify it. A little more than half? Nearly all? More than half but not still well short of everything?

How much do you mean when you say on the whole?



best

HA

quote:

I find it difficult to believe you're a lapsed mathematician, Harry, if you can say things like

<<That's why it is a sort of half way house between old and modern english. It isn't a different language. I simply disagree to the level of intelligibility. I don't think it is 99% or even 90%.>>

You must have observed that we demonstrated...well, I think it was EVERY word.

I disagree MJ, you had difficulty with several words yourself.

best

HA