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

I'd like to point out that I am questioning an assertion made by MJ, ie that 99% of middle english is the same as modern english.>>

Look, Harry, I'm an Applied Epistemologist. I encounter cognitive dissonance on a daily basis. But rarely do I find anyone with quite your ability to refute your own arguments and still carry on believing them.

"Several words" -- Harry, given that the piece you gave us was approximately a hundred words long, that means you're already conceding that my success rate was in the high nineties. And what does it matter what "I" had difficulty with? A handful of people, with no qualifications whatseover in "Middle English", came up with 100 %. ONO

And we're still waiting for you to fulfil your side of the bargain by making good your claim that fity per cent is Anglo-Saxon.

quote:

I doubt the validity of this assertion.

What is the basis for your doubt, Harry? Surely not the examples dissected here.

Don't let your mathematical mind obscure the point, which is that "Middle English" belongs within the gamut of perfectly ordinary (though, in places, difficult) styles of English; all of which are closer to each other than to any foreign language, including Anglo-Saxon.

That is, we can see that the changes in English since the 14th century are trivial compared to the continuity.

---

Don't forget, the transition from Old English through Middle English to Modern English was not deduced from an analysis of English texts: it is induced by the premise that Anglo-Saxon is Old English.

So again: what is the basis for your doubt, Harry? Something you've been given to understand?

I think it was a tactical error to allow a colloquialism to morph into the crux of the debate. “It’s 99% English”, would probably best be interpreted as, “It’s no more than 1% Anglo-Saxon.”

“99% English” involves us in too much debate about how allowable specific archaic terms may count as “English.” Our case is that what is not Anglo-Saxon (or some other identifiable tongue) is English-by-default, even in those instances where words have fallen out of fashion. Our principle complaint is that Middle-English lacks significant Anglo-Saxon content and is better classed as a dialect of English (albeit one defined temporally rather than geographically). It most certainly cannot form a bridge between any standard modern English and Anglo-Saxon, principally because it lacks Anglo-Saxon content.

The existing confusion arises principally due to two factors:

1) When English was first written down, it was written using an alphabet borrowed from the existing scribal languages: Latin and Anglo-Saxon.
2) Anglo-Saxon and English (like German and English) are related languages, having some words and word roots in common (PMB claims he can read German. Let him try his hand at Anglo-Saxon then!).

In some rare cases, actual Anglo-Saxon terms get used because the scribes in question were as fluent (or more) in Anglo-Saxon as in English. This explains the few cases where we have poems that really do seem a bit of a mix of both tongues.

So Mick’s challenge stands. Evaluate, as you will, our success in transcribing a random selection of “Middle English” to modern English, but count also the Anglo-Saxon words present in the selection provided.

Can it be transcribed as easily into Anglo-Saxon? Or does it require true translation? If Middle English is “half way” between the Saxons and us, neither English nor Anglo-Saxon should dominate.

But of course, the Anglo-Saxon count will fail. At which point it will be said (as it must) that Middle-English isn’t the true “half way point.” It’s closer to what it became than it is to what it once was. But how relatively close must it be the language we speak today, if the Saxon count is so low as it must prove?

At what point is the evidence more consistent with a model that makes of Anglo-Saxon and English but two descendents of a common ancestor, rather than one the ancestor to the other?

quote:

I invite you to inspect any passage of Anglo-Saxon and come up with...let's say ten per cent.

For ð read 'th'

Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."

[he, for, him, of, on] are the same as modern english

nama: name; comon: to come; wære: were; wæs: was; heofonum: heaven; engla: angel; hu: how; Rihtlice: rightly; beon: be; habbað: have; þæt: that.

are as close to their modern equivalents as the middle english texts cited so far.

From the 45 words in the text:

Exactly the same = 13%

Nearly the same = 24%

So, with the force behind you MJ, applied epistemologists should see 37% modern english in that passage.

best

Harry A

quote:

So again: what is the basis for your doubt, Harry? Something you've been given to understand?

I see a lot of anglo saxon in Chaucer.

HA

quote:

"Several words" -- Harry, given that the piece you gave us was approximately a hundred words long, that means you're already conceding that my success rate was in the high nineties. And what does it matter what "I" had difficulty with? A handful of people, with no qualifications whatseover in "Middle English", came up with 100 %.

You didn't come up with 100% and the word I objected to in the your quote was 'EVERY'. It's plainly not true.

Moreover I didn't even go though it all and was only referring to the words you had trouble with. Many of the other words are anglo saxon anyway. They are not unique to middle or modern english.

quote:

And we're still waiting for you to fulfil your side of the bargain by making good your claim that fity per cent is Anglo-Saxon.

You said 10% from an AS text, not 50%. If you want me to pull out 50% OE words out of the Pearl example, ask for that.

Not that I ever struck a bargain with you in the first place. You simply wanted me to do so. You never did comment on the Eoh worohhtae graffiti. Parhaps you will now?

best

harry A

Not bad, Harry, not bad at all. However, two points to be made:

<<nama: name; comon: to come; wære: were; wæs: was; heofonum: heaven; engla: angel; hu: how; Rihtlice: rightly; beon: be; habbað: have; þæt: that.>>.

1. All these are present in German too. None of us is denying that English, German and Anglo-Saxon are all quite closely related. As I said, you could do this exercise with any major Western European language, including all the Romance languages, and come up with a similar figure. I don't think you are claiming that English is a modern version of any other language than Anglo-Saxon.

2. The actual passage you have chosen, from a zillion possibilities, happens to be one that many standard, orthodox textbooks choose to show how 'similar' Anglo-Saxon is to English.

But as I say, not bad at all.

quote:

2) Anglo-Saxon and English (like German and English) are related languages, having some words and word roots in common (PMB claims he can read German. Let him try his hand at Anglo-Saxon then!).

That's a bit unfair Ishmael because german isn't anglo saxon and a modern german speaker does not even understand modern low saxon.

quote:

At what point is the evidence more consistent with a model that makes of Anglo-Saxon and English but two descendents of a common ancestor, rather than one the ancestor to the other?

This is what Fõrster claims to address. He claims that english split from the common ancestor much earlier. However, he can provide no evidence for this. It's just a model based on molecular biology. Linguists however can provide evidence to support their theories for continuity. It's purely a question of whose arguments you find more persuasive.

best

Harry A

quote:

That's a bit unfair Ishmael because german isn't anglo saxon and a modern german speaker does not even understand modern low saxon.

So you are saying that German is more closely related to English than is Anglo-Saxon? What else am I to make of the fact (once granted) that PMB can understand written German but not written Anglo-Saxon?

quote:

2. The actual passage you have chosen, from a zillion possibilities, happens to be one that many standard, orthodox textbooks choose to show how 'similar' Anglo-Saxon is to English.

But as I say, not bad at all.

I hope you're not accusing me of chosing the simplest MJ. You did say ANY and I was rather tempted to post the tribal hidage:

Myrcna landes is þrittig þusend hyda þær
mon ærest Mrycna hæt. 30,000
Wocen sætna is syfan þusend hida. 7,000
.
.
.

Noxgaga fif þusend hyda. 5,000
Ohtgaga twa þusend hyda. 2,000

þæt is six ond syxtig þusend hyda ond an hund hyda. 66,100

.
.
.

East engle þrittig þusend hida. 30,000
Eastsexena syofon þusend hyda. 7,000
Cantwarena fiftene þusend hyda. 15,000
Suþsexena syufan þusend hyda. 7,000
Westsexena hund þusend hyda. 100,000

Ðis ealles twa hund þusend ond twa ond feowertig
þusend hyda ond syuan hund hyda. 242,700

which requires almost no translation.

best

Harry A

quote:

So you are saying that German is more closely related to English than is Anglo-Saxon? What else am I to make of the fact (once granted) that PMB can understand written German but not written Anglo-Saxon?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that as PMB understood german, he should understand anglo saxon better. It doesn't follow though.

The development of modern german has followed a route which is quite different from that of english even though they have a common ancestor.

best

Harry A

quote:

So, with the force behind you MJ, applied epistemologists should see 37% modern english in that passage.

There are only 37 different words there, but OK, let's say 37% English words. But i) this is what they mean when they say two languages are related, as English and Anglo-Saxon undoubtedly are; and ii) that is clearly a different ball park from the 90+% area we were in before.

Add to that some confusion over even the simple words (ðære, ðan, ðe, he, hi, Þa, þæt, þe, wære, wæron), some completely impenetrable words ("vanished from our lexicon, mostly without a trace, including several that were quite common words in Old English," according www.m-w.com and an unfamiliar word order, this is most definitely not English as we know it. I agree with Merriam-Webster:

"only those who have made a special study of Old English will be able to read the passage with understanding."

Even if you have to scratch your head when it comes to the meaning, "Of one death full our hope is dressed" is surely the complete reverse. As is the Middle English passage quoted on the Merriam-Webster page. It is spelled like this:

In þat lond ben trees þat beren wolle, as þogh it were of scheep; whereof men maken clothes, and all þing þat may ben made of wolle. In þat contree ben many ipotaynes, þat dwellen som tyme in the water, and somtyme on the lond: and þei ben half man and half hors, as I haue seyd before; and þei eten men, whan þei may take hem. And þere ben ryueres and watres þat ben fulle byttere, þree sithes more þan is the water of the see. In þat contré ben many griffounes, more plentee þan in ony other contree. Sum men seyn þat þei han the body vpward as an egle, and benethe as a lyoun: and treuly þei seyn soth þat þei ben of þat schapp. But o griffoun hath the body more gret, and is more strong, þanne eight lyouns, of suche lyouns as ben o this half; and more gret and strongere þan an hundred egles, suche as we han amonges vs. For o griffoun þere wil bere fleynge to his nest a gret hors, 3if he may fynde him at the poynt, or two oxen 3oked togidere, as þei gon at the plowgh.

and can be pronounced like this:

In that land bin trees that bearin' wool, as though it were of sheep; whereof men makin' clothes, and all thing that may bin made of wool. In that country bin many ippotains (hippopotamuses), that dwellin' some time in the water, and sometime on the land: and they bin half man and half horse, as I have said before; and they eatin' men, when they may take 'em. And there bin rivers and waters that bin full bitter, three sithes more than is the water of the sea. In that country bin many griffons, more plenty than in any other country. Some men sayin' that they han the body upward as an eagle, and beneath as a lion: and truly they sayin' sooth that they bin of that shape. But a griffon hath the body more great, and is more strong, than eight lions, of such lions as bin o' this half; and more great and stronger than an hundred eagles, such as we han amongst us. For a griffon there will bear flying to his nest a great horse, if he may find him at the point, or two oxen yoked together, as they goin' at the plough.

Apart from the old-fashioned, perhaps country yokel feel, this is nothing but English as we know it. How many curiosities? Ippotains, sithes, han.

This is not a translation, but a transcription. I'm not saying the second is equivalent to the first; the second repeats the first verbatim.

It is surely a basic principle that if you can just read it out, then it is written in your language.

Chaucer and every example of Middle English I've ever seen can just be read out. It's just English. Anglo-Saxon is not.

---

Middle English scholars (such as on the link that disappeared from a few pages back) read it out in a special way. They pronounce every letter, pretty much as a German would.

Isn't it curious that we must have had a perfect and standardised system of spelling... and then forgotten how to spell properly, leaving us with the much-maligned modern scheme? And isn't it curious how the perfect system existed BEFORE spelling was standardised...?

No, wait. It's not curious: it's blatantly self-contradictory.

quote:

this is most definitely not English as we know it. I agree with Merriam-Webster:

We already know that. I don't see why you bother to reiterate it.

best

HA

So, Harry, let's return to the initial question of the rate of language change.

We know what "Modern" English is. We are agreed as to the amount Modern English changed in six hundred years. Which is not a lot. (We think "virtually not at all", you think rather more.)

Here's what orthodoxy believes happened to English going back a further six hundred years (ie before there's been any chance of an unwritten version growing up in the background)

Nu scylun hergan hefaenricaes uard,
metudæs maecti end his modgidanc,
uerc uuldurfadur, sue he uundra gihuaes,
eci dryctin, or astelidæ.
(Caedmon)

Which is a lot. So, Harry, you have to explain why "a lot" changed into "not a lot". If you can, you win. If you can't, we win. Within the parameters of this debate of course.

Simple enough Mr Harper. Standardisation severely hinders (though does not entirely prevent) the process of language change.

quote:

Which is a lot. So, Harry, you have to explain why "a lot" changed into "not a lot". If you can, you win. If you can't, we win. Within the parameters of this debate of course.

You know all the academic arguments for that already MJ and you don't accept them. There's no point in reiterating them here. I too do not accept that written old english is representative of the spoken language and there are linguists too who also hold this view:

"This paper suggests that diglossia in caste-like Anglo-Saxon societies consisted of O[E.sub.H] used by a very, small elite of largely Continental Germanic ancestry and O[E.sub.L] spoken by the bulk of the population. "
(Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or what was spoken Old English like?; Hildegard Tristram, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: international review of English Studies

Where the spoken variety came from and when it arrived are, as far as I am concerned, unknowns. You have your views on the age.

As for using terms like winning and losing, you'd best see a shrink.

best

Harry A

quote:

Simple enough Mr Harper. Standardisation severely hinders (though does not entirely prevent) the process of language change.

MJ isn't going to be persuaded by a bunch of academics Jean. He simply likes to poke them with a stick. It's not a bad pastime and some rather do deserve it too.

He has a theory but admits to having no evidence. So where do you go from there? Telling people they are wrong to think in the way that they do think is one path.

best

Harry A

The full abstract of Hildegard Tristram's paper is

quote:

This paper suggests that diglossia in caste-like Anglo-Saxon societies consisted of O[E.sub.H] used by a very small elite of largely Continental Germanic ancestry and O[E.sub.L] spoken by the bulk of the population. These shifted from British (Low) Latin and Late British to Old English (OE) after the Anglo-Saxon Conquest, in some areas over a period of about 300 years. It is hard to guess what the spoken language of the users of O[E.sub.H] was like and how great the gap between the spoken and written language was. The latter, through intensive networking, was kept ...

Since I haven't read the paper, I can only guess that she is suggesting that written OE became somewhat fossilised i.e. lagged behind the changes in spoken language. I have seen that suggested elsewhere.

quote:

MJ isn't going to be persuaded by a bunch of academics Jean. He simply likes to poke them with a stick.

That much is apparent Harry. But we have readers here who may be interested in the simple answer to what has been proclaimed by Mr Harper as a great mystery.

I don't say that anyone is wrong to think the way they do. People comfort themselves with all sorts of beliefs that I would regard as nonsense. It works for them. What I object to is misleading labels, the misrepresentation of mumbo-jumbo as science.

quote:

Simple enough Mr Harper. Standardisation severely hinders (though does not entirely prevent) the process of language change.

So Anglo-Saxon was standardised and showed scarcely any change over several centuries... English was standardised and showed scarely any change over several centuries... But for a little while there it was all up for grabs?

quote:

We already know that. I don't see why you bother to reiterate it.

How about the corollary: that "Middle English" is nothing more or less than English as we know it?