quote:

Wurth myld agayn

quote:

Listen here: http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary/english-m-verse2.php

Thanks for my afternoon chortle. These scholarly "reconstructions" are a hoot. Get's me everytime.

What you're looking at here is obviously just English mis-spelled. Now, I'm not an expert on archaic written forms but here's my very quick go at standardizing the spelling. I've italicised the words that I was not able to decipher. Perhaps one of you can have a go at these words?

When Winter's mighty foth on dwindle
And oueral fowls need kindle
Wurth myld against God's Nature,
Awakened ilk creature.

In lent-time two wrens had
Their nest home in a carres shed
And were a-flight on uhten-tyde
The land to scower far and wide.

(Being from Newfoundland, the word "scower" is one I grew up with but, surprisingly, it's not a word I've found in any dictionary)

As we can see, here and in Chaucer, rendition using standard spelling produces recognizable English words that preserve both rhythm and rhyme -- which is more than I can say for the "scholarly" reconstruction. This suggests that standard modern pronunciation is closer akin to the original form than is the work of academia.

Harry, you're confusing two different things. Nobody doubts that there are a vast array of Englishes in the world today. In your own case, who can forget Billy Liar talking Tyke to his boss. And yet a London muppet like me could still understand it. But that's not the point. We don't know what Tyke was like in the fourteenth century -- maybe it changes more swiftly than the written form, though knowing how moribund all things Yorkshire are and how mercurial us London intellegientsia are, my money would be on the written form changing most. But as I say, it doesn't matter.

We only have one form of English for which we have actual, real, gold dust evidence. And that's the written form. And that ain't changed. Except round the edges. In six hundred years. But that's enough! We know from all the dialects and accents round the country that none of them have moved more than yea much away from the written/standard form. Blimey, even my Sarf London Estuary gets me understood most places. Though not liked. We never get offered jobs in call centres.

So, come on, Harry, have a heart. Roll over on this one.

PS I do not subscribe to Mr Scutt's thesis. It may be true so far as it goes but in my opinion his conclusions are much too vast to be placed on such flimsy foundations. Heart's in the right place though, I suppose.

PPS The Modern English version of Chaucer posted here is not quite what I was looking for, it takes too many liberties with the syntax. However Ishmael is correct in his denigration of Orthodox Chaucerians. They were all trained in English Lit departments and so fondly believe Chaucer is 'Middle" English and therefore it is incumbent upon everyone to make it as different as possible. You should hear them reciting it! Only Applied Epistemologists (it would seem) can see the King is wearing no Anglo-Saxon clothes whatsoever.

Ishmael

Scower-- Scour--Search

"Call me Tommy"

What about "feral fowls need kindle".

wild birds need sticks
As in to make a nest?

Tommy

quote:

Scower-- Scour--Search

Yes. That's precisely how we use the word in Newfoundland. "I scowered the house for my lost ring."

quote:

What about "feral fowls need kindle".

Looks about right. And I think "agayn" is "again", not "against" as I originally had it. But that third line still escapes me.

I have a friend who is deaf who learned English as a second language. We must communicate through writing and her spelling is absolutely awful.

Deciphering these poems reminds me of nothing so much as reading her hand-writing. I have to get her to write things out several times, often, before I can decode what she's saying.

Nevertheless, it's still English she's writing.

Wurth myld agayn

World mild again?

As in spring?

That would be God's nature.

Tommy

quote:

World mild again?

Hey! Good one! Definitely it's "mild again." Not sure about "World" though. Could be but not sure.

quote:

Awakened ilk creature

Oh and "ilk" is just "all". "Awakened all creature."

quote:

So, come on, Harry, have a heart. Roll over on this one.

He he, bussed in the goons?

best

Harry A

"Wurth myld agayn"

I'm not sure about wurth - world either.
Maybe the "w" is silent as in write or wrong.
Hence wurth - urth - earth ?

Tommy

First post - found Stephen Oppernheimer's book fascinating showing the uncertainty of stories that I had always assumed to be based on solid fact. Looking further into this area I came across the work of the linguist Mario Alinei in “The first Germanic origin of the English Language” by X Ballester.

http://www.continuitas.com/ballester_first_germanic.pdf

Does anyone know if “Origin delle lingue d’Europa” volumes I&II have been published in English translation? Has anyone any comments on Alinei’s Continuity Theories?

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:
He he, bussed in the goons?

Harry, this is most disconcerting. Would you be implying that Mick Harper has persuaded those of 'ye kindred spirit' to articulate his thesis? The boys are simply playing with words to establish that most pervasive of facts, that the most terse Middle English is simply modern English spelt differently and, in this case, with a poetically rendered form. Remember, the Chaucerian style calls for rhyme.

Phillisve, I'm on this now...

quote:

Would you be implying that Mick Harper has persuaded those of 'ye kindred spirit' to articulate his thesis?

Whether it's a case of 'all for one' or 'one for all', I wouldn't know, but Santa's little helpers have failed to deliver the pressies and should be fed to the reindeer.

The above examples shows that the statement:

"IT HASN'T CHANGED. IT HASN'T CHANGED." is not accurate and some of those attempts are woefully simplistic.

To illustrate:

And oueral foweles nede kindle

'and everywhere birds need to raise young'

'ond oeverall fugel (Vagel)' is modern low saxon.

The last bit is more interesting

Chaucer's 'kindle' may be from either old norse 'kynda' to make, or related to modern german 'kinder', children. Modern low saxon 'kinner' has a silent 'd', as has 'Kinnle', the 'le' being the diminutive, 'little children'.

ON 'kynda' as in making bright related to kyndill, or candle. But ON Kyn also means kin as in descendants, related to modern german Kinder.

'ilk' is 'each' by the way, modern low saxon 'elk'

Best

harry A

quote:

just started a thread called Flying Chaucers

Just started MJ?

Thought you'd visited other planets for ages

best

HA

You're right, Harry, a lot of the material is several years old but we've only now put it on our public site.

On all matters of 'what comes from where' it is well to remember that the OED is operating from woefully out-of-date assumptions. We simply do not know the sequence in time for the various West European languages. Old High German for instance is as likely to be an offshoot of English as vice versa.

quote:

... remember that the OED is operating from woefully out-of-date assumptions. Old High German for instance is as likely to be an offshoot of English as vice versa.

But the examples I gave are Modern Low Saxon, not Old High German, and they come from several good pubs in Germany, not the OED.

Or do you suggest that, as children, their mothers read Chaucer to them, rather than Grimm, at bedtime?

best

Harry A

Then that would surely support my contention that nothing much changes over the millennia. It's you that believes that ALL these 'English' words come from Anglo-Saxon which, since we know Anglo-Saxon as far back as the eighth century, would mean that twenty-first century German wassailers are still using close cognates that haven't changed in all that time.

Yet you persist in believing that Anglo-Saxon can metamorphose into English in a matter of a century or two.

quote:

matter of a century or two.

It is quotes like this and previous ones about 'millions of people in England' that devalue discussion with imprecise promouncements

Anglo Saxon did not take a century or two to arrive at modern english.. in some cases, it is still quite close.. (like Lowland Scots) with words I have no problem understanding (just like Newfie Tommy (I think) ) ilk or scour etc... If we have Anglo Saxons coming in from 5th century onwards .. and we have the Chaucer example from the 14th then we could say it developed over 900 years OR if we look at the main preiod of AS expansion being 7-9th C then that still gives 7-500 years of development, and we do have to remember that Modern English is a construct allowing people of many dialects to communicate and exchange ideas in a way where now confusion possible, so a Yrkshireman and a Londer can both write the same , even if they talk different. Just like Latin..

THe case for English before Romans becomes shooglier and shooglier. In a way it has no real evidence, no solid evidence other than possibilities such as the 'water' names - which don't extend across the whole country, and can be easily dismissed with equally convincing arguement.

Point being there is not one jot of evidence that screams out... there is no other way I can be interpreted ... it is all based on belief.

Sorry

BAJR, you're talking out of your hat. I don't mind youse guys inventing imaginary languages if you really have to but I do object to you just ignoring what languages we do have. We have piles of evidence of exactly what Anglo-Saxon was as late as 1120. It's no use prattling on about what did or did not happen in the eighth century or who spoke what in Eastern Scotland. WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE. It's written down for us. in the twelfth century. It's called Anglo-Saxon. That's what YOU say the people of England were speaking.

Unless of course you are now saying that this WASN'T the language people were speaking. If you're right it would finally explain why the Anglo-Saxons lost the Battle of Hastings.
"Take a message to Leofric, I want him to form a shield-wall and retire to that grassy knoll."
"Yes, Sire, but I will have to get your words translated into an antique form used mostly in Northumbria two hundred years ago."

Thanks to Duncan for explaining the "bus, goon" post.I had no idea it was directed at myself and Ishmael. I merely thought it was another cryptic reference to exclude the majority of us from the discussion.
I can not speak for Ishmael but I'm nobody's goon or reindeer botherer. My attempt to make sense of the poem was merely to show that you do not need a doctorate in English lit. or linguitics to understand middle english, just common sense,an ability to see beyond the spelling and a mother tongue (Northumbrian) which didn't undergo "the great vowel shift" and so makes sense of the rhymes.
And while I'm on the subject of Northumbria I would like to take exception with Mr Harper's statement( other thread) that all the English roll over in the face of any invader.I live "north" of Hadrians wall, outside of the Danelaw and north of the Tyne (where William the conquerer pulled up short). Add to that 600 years of fighting our cousins in Scotland at the behest of our supposed masters down south , we are still here . Which is why I don not speak Latin or French, or shop in IKEA or have a taste for deep fried Mars bars.
So endeth the latest press release from the Peoples Liberation Front of Northumbria.( and what did the Romans do for us?)

P.S If I am a goon ,which one is it, Neddy or Eccles (thats Tueton or Celt)

Tommy

Meanwhile back to the poem.
The modern meaning of kindle - set on fire ,inspire,excite - catch fire.
Hence the noun kindling- small wood to kindle fires. Thats the same material the birds in my locality still use to build nests.
Speaking phonetically ,I still use the word ouraal (english - over all) which means " in general"

Tommy

Fair's fair, Tommy, Ishmael is one of my goons. And we mustn't gang up on Harry -- he's only got the whole of academia on his side, which is an intolerable burden to have to lug around. As you have noticed, a doctorate in Eng Lit just means you have to rid your mind of years of brainwashing before you can see what's in front of your face.

However I must take exception to your Borderline personality disorder. You may live north of Hadrian's Wall but you live south of the Antonine Wall so your resistance to the Romans was a bit feeble. Plus the Anglo-Saxons rolled straight over you (twice, once by Northumbria and again by Bernicia), then the Picts (and maybe the Irish and the Welsh) occupied you, you were the very first English folk to bottle it when the Vikings turned up at Lindisfarne. We (southern English) and they (Scottish English) have used you as our battleground umpteen times right up to the Bishop's War and Cromwell.

I've just worked it out....you come just after Rutland in the Soft As S*** league.